GOP, A Party in Peril

The drubbing that the GOP received in the last two elections hasn't stopped a slew conservatives from claiming that the United States is still a center-right country. For the sake of argument, let's say it is a center-right country. The GOP, however, seems more focused on the "right" and not so much on the "center" in center-right.

A wholehearted devotion to conservative views on social issues is turning off suburbanites, women, and a generation of young voters.

...Attitudes on social issues have also changed dramatically. The Pew poll from March 2007 found that the percentage of Americans who believe that school boards should have the right to fire gay teachers fell from 51 percent in 1987 to 28 percent. Those who want to make it "more difficult" for women to obtain abortions dropped from 47 to 35 percent. Those who think that "it's all right for blacks and whites to date each other" rose from 48 to 83 percent. The poll also found that 62 percent of the general population--and 83 percent of college graduates-- disagreed with the notion that "science is going too far and hurting society."

Young voters broke for Obama over McCain, two to one. Women voters favored Obama 55% to 43% for McCain. Obama won 50% of the suburban voters, three percentage points higher than John Kerry -- a seemingly insignificant advantage but one that should not be underestimated.

According to the 2004 exit polls, Republican candidates for U.S. House won 51 percent of the suburban vote, while the two parties each won handily in their respective geographical bases--Democrats by 55-43 in urban precincts and Republicans by 54-44 in rural ones. But in 2006, Democrats managed a slight edge (50-48) in the suburbs, which made up nearly half the electorate that year. The significance of suburban voters to winning GOP coalitions is even more pronounced when you look at state races. In 1994, 1998, and 2002, Republican candidates for governor in New York, Ohio, Massachusetts, and other non-southern states typically won their victories by strong showings in the suburbs. In states that went for the Democrats in 2002, such as Pennsylvania and Michigan, the successful Democratic candidates had erased or reversed the suburban-vote margins. And by 2006, Democratic candidates for governor were able to crush Republicans in the suburbs of many of these states--by 57-40 in Ohio, 59-41 in Pennsylvania, and an astounding 61-34 in Arizona. It is no exaggeration to say that the GOP is simply dead in the water in such places unless it regains its ability to attract suburban voters.

The demagoguery from the Tancaredo/nativist wing of the Republican party pushed the nation's fastest growing minority -- the Hispanics -- into the arms of the Democrats. The New York Times reports, "Latino voters shifted in huge numbers away from the Republicans to vote for Senator Barack Obama in the presidential election, exit polls show, providing the votes that gave him unexpectedly large margins of victory in three battleground states: Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada... Hispanic support for the Democratic nominee increased by 14 points over all compared with 2004, the biggest shift toward the Democrats by any voter group."

MSNBC's First Read lists the increase in Hispanic voters as a percentage of the electorate between 2004 and 2008 in the following battlegrounds: AZ (+4), CO (+5), IA (+2), IN (+2), MI (+1), MN (+2), MO (+1), MT (+3), NV (+5), NH (+1), NM (+9), NC (+2), ND (+2), OH (+1), PA (+1), SD (+3), VA (+2), WV (+3), and WI (+1).

Politico reports, "While just 43 percent of whites voted for Obama, white votes now make up just 74 percent of the electorate, down from 89 percent in 1980. And that trend is accelerating. Just since 2003, whites' share of the electorate fell 4 percentage points, while the share of blacks, Latinos and Asians increased by 3 points, to 23 percent, and gave the Democrat 95 percent, 66 percent and 61 percent support respectively."

Geographically, the disparity is even more striking. With Christopher Shay's loss in Connecticut, the Republicans do not represent a single House district from New England. The party faces similar reversals in the rest of the Northeast, the mid-Atlantic states, and the West. According to CQ, "Only two House Republicans — Peter T. King of New York and Frank R. Wolf of Virginia — will represent big-city suburbs along the East Coast."

The Republican party stands a risk of becoming a regional party with an overwhelming and unhealthy reliance on the South and even that hold is tenuous. Demographic changes in North Carolina and Virginia make these two states a lot more competitive. Texas, a must-win state for the Republicans, looks to get more competitive as the state's Latino population grows. The Republicans currently control the Texas House by a slim two-seat margin with two seats too close to call. In 2003, Republicans held a 26 seat majority in the Texas House.

Sure, President Bush’s unpopularity and John McCain’s lackluster campaign have plenty to do with the electoral defeats but the underlying trends have the potential to be catastrophic for the Republicans if the party does not correct course by shifting focus from socially divisive issues and immigration.

Conservatives, who insist that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with their focus on social issues, cite the successful passage of bans against same sex marriage in Arizona, California, and Florida, a view that is shortsighted. Californians passed Proposition 8 but the margin of victory was narrow and the same voters defeated a proposal on parental notification for abortion. Even in a conservative state like South Dakota, an attempt to restrict abortions was defeated for the second time.

Societal mores change over time and exploiting existing divisions may be politically expedient in the short term. But the legacy of the civil rights movement shows that the long term political and electoral impacts of these moves are significant.

Conservative scholar Tod Lindberg says, "True, the percentage of voters describing themselves as "liberal" and "conservative" has held relatively constant over many election cycles, with self-described liberals checking in at 22 percent this time around (up one percentage point over 2004) and self-described conservatives at 34 percent (unchanged from 2004). The numbers may not have changed, but the views behind those labels certainly have. Nowadays, it's a fair bet that most of those calling themselves "liberal" support gay marriage. In 1980, those same liberals were, no doubt, cutting-edge supporters of gay rights, but the notion of same-sex marriage would have occurred only to the most avant-garde. In 1980, having a teenage daughter who was pregnant out of wedlock would have ruled you out for the No. 2 spot on the Democratic ticket. This year, it turned out to be a humanizing addition to the conservative vice presidential nominee's résumé."

The congressional Republicans, smarting from two consecutive electoral bruisings, have already picked a more conservative leadership. The party's choice of a standard bearer in 2012 will either portend a course correction through a more moderate and palatable voice, or it will hasten the ruin of the party as the Democrats' grip on a winning coalition that encompasses young voters, Hispanics and other minorities, women, and suburbanites is cemented further.