The Political Landscape After 2012

Real Clear Politics ^ | November 16, 2012 | Sean Trende

[neverdem]

Like death, taxes, and the sun rising in the east, there is nothing more certain after a presidential election than a swift and usually overwrought round of analysis and advice for the losers. So it is this year for Republicans. If you Google “Republicans Whigs,” and confine your search to the past week, you will find multiple pages dedicated to the proposition that demographic trends are waiting to overwhelm the Republican Party, which is now a regional rump party awaiting extinction.

I’ve written some 75,000 words on the broad topic of demographic trends and realignments, and this election hasn’t done much to alter my thinking. There will be plenty more to say on this after the final votes are counted, exit polls are further refined, and other data sources, such as the CPS, are made available. For now, I think it is useful to take a look at the overall standing of the parties, and not just in the presidential race. Just looking at the numbers the Republican Party, overall, is actually in pretty good shape. Of course, that doesn’t mean it isn’t set for a major decline; this could be a high point. But it does mean the Party would be starting its decline from a pretty high peak.

The following two charts show the percentage of House and Senate seats held by Republicans since World War II:

As you can see, Republicans are still almost at a postwar high in the House of Representatives, with only 1946 and 2010 resulting in a larger share of the chamber going Republican. This is somewhat due to redistricting (more on that in a subsequent article). But even if you assume that redistricting saved the party 20 seats -- a very generous assumption...

[Jumper]

If you go back to FDR and then look at the 1994 Republican Revolution, it was the first time since the '30s that the Democrats did not literally control the Congress in nearly 60 years, and the Senate has nearly always been in their control. From my observation, the Republican party has only been competitive in the last 20-years so this election is not about decline or demise. The Democrats are not used to sharing any power and the demographic shift for them is the loss of manufacturing jobs and possibly their Unionization of K-12 Education.

Obama used his Executive Pen to create 12,000,000 Hispanic voters this past summer, which should not go without mention in what would have otherwise been a different outcome in numerous races (about 13 in the Congress and Senate).

The problem for those in the GOP that the MSM calls the Religious Right is that many in the Religious Left (Catholic & Black) put those very values into question to the nonbelievers and within the religious community.

The real challenge to attend first for the GOP is use every one of the 30 governors to enact Voter ID laws and seek bipartisanship measures with Democrat Governors/Independents to also enact Voter ID laws.

[Brad from Tennessee]

In my state Barack Obama won 39 percent of the vote. In 2008 he won 41 percent. Tennesseans also voted for Republican super majorities in both houses of the state legislature. So while it may seem America is getting bluer, some red parts are getting redder.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”The simple truth is that this election turned out pretty much the way that the econometric models suggested it should. The GOP had deluded itself into believing that 2012 was a “gimme” — and to be sure, it was winnable. Team Romney made some mistakes and failed to capitalize on opportunities. But overall, the result wasn’t out of line with what we’d expect from a tepid economy (this also cuts against the “demographics” argument; if demographics were becoming the GOP’s main problem, the GOP would increasingly run behind what the economy suggested it “should”).
Of course, this tells us nothing about where we go from here. It may well be that 2012 heralds a new coalition (which has been predicted since 2001) that pushes the party inexorably downward from what will eventually be remembered as a peak. Or it could be that we are seeing the emergence of a “presidential,” pro-Democrat electorate and a “midterm,” pro-GOP electorate.
Or it could be, as political scientist John Sides reminds us, that we are just seeing an “Obama coalition” that is specific to him. Put differently, 2008 happened, as did 2012. But so did 2009 and 2010. As Sides succinctly put it, “a realignment doesn’t take midterm elections off.”

Republicans did great in the states but crappy at the national level. They do good in midterms but bad in POTUS elections.

[Redmen4ever]

Just a few comments:

First, the econometric models argued for Obama to lose by 2 points. He won by 2 points. This was outside the margin of error.

Second, race and gender trumped the economy for many voters. My guess is that the Democrats will have to have a minority on the ticket in 2016 to replicate this year’s winning formula. But, who would that be?

Third, we had a problem with white ethnics when they were arriving here in big numbers. But, we started to get their votes as they rose up the economic ladder. I think this pattern will exhibit itself with Asians and Hispanics. Blacks, on the other hand, are very race conscious. We just have to keep plugging away at the identity thing.

Fourth, I can think of a dynamic candidate on our side, who was supposed to be our VP candidate this year. Photogenic. Great Speaker. A Horatio Alger story. A gorgeous wife. From a must-win Purple state. And, a Tea Party favorite. He could be the next Ronald Reagan.