How 2014 Could Give the GOP False Hope

Republicans could win the midterms without fixing the party’s problems.

The American Flag flies over the Senate side of the U.S. Capitol, as Senate Democrats speak nonstop on the chamber floor about climate change on March 11, 2014 in Washington, DC.
National Journal
Charlie Cook
March 27, 2014, 5 p.m.

It’s ag­grav­at­ing to read something really smart, something that I wish I had writ­ten my­self. Amy Wal­ter, my col­league at The Cook Polit­ic­al Re­port, re­cently wrote just such a piece — one about Re­pub­lic­ans who worry privately that suc­cess in 2014 will leave their party with false hope for 2016: “Even though their party is poised to hold the House and has a good chance of win­ning con­trol of the Sen­ate, these Re­pub­lic­an um­brella car­ri­ers aren’t smil­ing. They worry that suc­cess in 2014 will mask the real, struc­tur­al prob­lems that Re­pub­lic­ans need to fix be­fore 2016. Namely, that the party doesn’t stand for much more than stand­ing against Pres­id­ent Obama. As im­port­ant, the GOP heads in­to 2016 with a brand that has been deeply tar­nished and not eas­ily re­paired.”

This is so true. If Re­pub­lic­ans do gain a Sen­ate ma­jor­ity, which they may very well do in Novem­ber, and man­age to pick up eight or more House seats, it will be be­cause of who they are not, not be­cause of who they are. They aren’t in Obama’s party, and they aren’t in the party that uni­lat­er­ally passed the Af­ford­able Care Act, which, like the pres­id­ent, is un­pop­u­lar. Re­pub­lic­ans may win a bunch of races without meas­ur­ably im­prov­ing their party’s “brand” and without mak­ing any clear pro­gress among minor­ity, young, mod­er­ate, and fe­male voters. The fact that midterm elect­or­ates are gen­er­ally older, whiter, and more con­ser­vat­ive than their coun­ter­parts in pres­id­en­tial elec­tions ex­acer­bates the dif­fer­ence between the world of 2014 and the one that will ex­ist in 2016. The Re­pub­lic­ans can win in 2014 without hav­ing fixed their prob­lems.

For that mat­ter, has the GOP learned the folly of nom­in­at­ing exot­ic and po­ten­tially prob­lem­at­ic can­did­ates, ones who tickle the ero­gen­ous zones of the party’s con­ser­vat­ive base but of­fend many swing voters? Will they con­tin­ue to nom­in­ate can­did­ates who have the un­healthy habit of pulling the pins on polit­ic­al hand gren­ades be­fore swal­low­ing said gren­ades? See Akin, Todd (U.S. Sen­ate race, Mis­souri, 2012); Mour­dock, Richard (U.S. Sen­ate race, In­di­ana, 2012); or O’Don­nell, Christine (U.S. Sen­ate race, Delaware, 2010).

Or, will ex­ceed­ingly con­ser­vat­ive primary voters con­tin­ue to force main­stream Re­pub­lic­an can­did­ates in­to tak­ing po­s­i­tions that can kill them in gen­er­al elec­tions? Rep. Cory Gard­ner, the new GOP can­did­ate in Col­or­ado’s Sen­ate race, who is tak­ing on in­cum­bent Demo­crat Mark Ud­all, has re­cently walked back his pre­vi­ous sup­port for “per­son­hood” le­gis­la­tion — bills that aim to grant fer­til­ized eggs the same pro­tec­tions af­forded to hu­man be­ings. Ini­ti­at­ive 62 on the 2010 bal­lot in Col­or­ado read: “Shall there be an amend­ment to the Col­or­ado con­sti­tu­tion ap­ply­ing the term ‘per­son,’ as used in those pro­vi­sions of the Col­or­ado con­sti­tu­tion re­lat­ing to in­ali­en­able rights, equal­ity of justice, and due pro­cess of law, to every hu­man be­ing from the be­gin­ning of the bio­lo­gic­al de­vel­op­ment of that hu­man be­ing?” The ini­ti­at­ive crashed and burned, fail­ing 71 per­cent to 29 per­cent. It had also been on the bal­lot in 2008, los­ing that year as well, 73 per­cent to 27 per­cent.

Po­s­i­tions that can be right at home with­in a Right to Life rally, in a safely con­ser­vat­ive con­gres­sion­al dis­trict, or even in a solidly con­ser­vat­ive GOP primary, can be a huge mill­stone around the necks of Re­pub­lic­an can­did­ates in com­pet­it­ive gen­er­al elec­tions in many dis­tricts and states.

Giv­en that white voters have gone from com­pos­ing 89 per­cent of the elect­or­ate in 1992 to 72 per­cent in 2012 — a 17-point drop in just five elec­tions — Mitt Rom­ney’s 59 per­cent share of the white vote was not enough to win the gen­er­al elec­tion. In the old days, it would have been plenty. You can’t lose the Afric­an-Amer­ic­an vote by 87 points (93 per­cent to 6 per­cent), the Latino vote by 44 points (71 per­cent to 27 per­cent), the Asi­an vote by 47 points (73 per­cent to 26 per­cent) and ex­pect to win pres­id­en­tial elec­tions.

Re­pub­lic­ans do great among those 65 years of age and older, and well among those between 45 and 64. However, they are get­ting crushed among those between 18 and 29, as well as los­ing 30-to-44-year-olds. It is worth not­ing that, al­though some voters change their vot­ing be­ha­vi­or as they get older, most shape their par­tis­an af­fil­i­ations when they are in their teens, twen­ties, and early thirties.

Then there is gender. Be­cause wo­men live longer, they are now 53 per­cent of the elect­or­ate, while men are just 47 per­cent. Demo­crats tend to do bet­ter among wo­men than Re­pub­lic­ans do among men. For ex­ample, in 2012, Obama won among wo­men by 11 points, and Rom­ney won among men by just 7 points. Re­pub­lic­ans are win­ning a smal­ler slice of a smal­ler pie.

Taken to­geth­er, these trends sug­gest that if the GOP were a com­mer­cial en­ter­prise, it would be one with an un­sus­tain­able busi­ness mod­el over the long haul. The Re­pub­lic­an con­gres­sion­al lead­er­ship seems to have figured this out, but it is un­clear wheth­er this un­der­stand­ing has ne­ces­sar­ily trickled down, par­tic­u­larly in the House.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
When It Comes to Mining Asteroids, Technology Is Only the First Problem
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Foreign Policy takes a look at the future of mining the estimated "100,000 near-Earth objects—including asteroids and comets—in the neighborhood of our planet. Some of these NEOs, as they’re called, are small. Others are substantial and potentially packed full of water and various important minerals, such as nickel, cobalt, and iron. One day, advocates believe, those objects will be tapped by variations on the equipment used in the coal mines of Kentucky or in the diamond mines of Africa. And for immense gain: According to industry experts, the contents of a single asteroid could be worth trillions of dollars." But the technology to get us there is only the first step. Experts say "a multinational body might emerge" to manage rights to NEOs, as well as a body of law, including an international court.

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Obama Reflects on His Economic Record
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Not to be outdone by Jeffrey Goldberg's recent piece in The Atlantic about President Obama's foreign policy, the New York Times Magazine checks in with a longread on the president's economic legacy. In it, Obama is cognizant that the economic reality--73 straight months of growth--isn't matched by public perceptions. Some of that, he says, is due to a constant drumbeat from the right that "that denies any progress." But he also accepts some blame himself. “I mean, the truth of the matter is that if we had been able to more effectively communicate all the steps we had taken to the swing voter,” he said, “then we might have maintained a majority in the House or the Senate.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Reagan Families, Allies Lash Out at Will Ferrell
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Ronald Reagan's children and political allies took to the media and Twitter this week to chide funnyman Will Ferrell for his plans to play a dementia-addled Reagan in his second term in a new comedy entitled Reagan. In an open letter, Reagan's daughter Patti Davis tells Ferrell, who's also a producer on the movie, “Perhaps for your comedy you would like to visit some dementia facilities. I have—I didn’t find anything comedic there, and my hope would be that if you’re a decent human being, you wouldn’t either.” Michael Reagan, the president's son, tweeted, "What an Outrag....Alzheimers is not joke...It kills..You should be ashamed all of you." And former Rep. Joe Walsh called it an example of "Hollywood taking a shot at conservatives again."

Source:
PEAK CONFIDENCE
Clinton No Longer Running Primary Ads
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

In a sign that she’s ready to put a longer-than-ex­pec­ted primary battle be­hind her, former Sec­ret­ary of State Hil­lary Clin­ton (D) is no longer go­ing on the air in up­com­ing primary states. “Team Clin­ton hasn’t spent a single cent in … Cali­for­nia, In­di­ana, Ken­tucky, Ore­gon and West Vir­gin­ia, while” Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) “cam­paign has spent a little more than $1 mil­lion in those same states.” Meanwhile, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Sanders’ "lone back­er in the Sen­ate, said the can­did­ate should end his pres­id­en­tial cam­paign if he’s los­ing to Hil­lary Clin­ton after the primary sea­son con­cludes in June, break­ing sharply with the can­did­ate who is vow­ing to take his in­sur­gent bid to the party con­ven­tion in Phil­adelphia.”

Source:
CITIZENS UNITED PT. 2?
Movie Based on ‘Clinton Cash’ to Debut at Cannes
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

The team behind the bestselling "Clinton Cash"—author Peter Schweizer and Breitbart's Stephen Bannon—is turning the book into a movie that will have its U.S. premiere just before the Democratic National Convention this summer. The film will get its global debut "next month in Cannes, France, during the Cannes Film Festival. (The movie is not a part of the festival, but will be shown at a screening arranged for distributors)." Bloomberg has a trailer up, pointing out that it's "less Ken Burns than Jerry Bruckheimer, featuring blood-drenched money, radical madrassas, and ominous footage of the Clintons."

Source:
×