Posted on 11/09/2006 4:58:44 AM PST by Leroy S. Mort
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Republican Party ceded the center of American politics and its many groups of swing voters to the Democratic Party in the 2006 midterm elections - with predictable results.
The GOP lost the House and the Senate.
Republicans lost badly among independent voters, suburbanites, white Catholics, the middle class and Hispanics - groups it had been courting successfully in recent years, exit polls found.
``The one thing that is so frustrating is when you hear the Karl Roves and Ken Mehlmans talking about focusing on the base because there are no swing voters,'' said GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio, who says there are still plenty of swing voters.
A fourth of voters this year were independents, according to exit polls, and they voted heavily for Democratic candidates.
Fabrizio was referring to Rove, top White House political strategist, and Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee.
Mehlman's spokeswoman, Tracey Schmitt, countered that the RNC chairman has been working hard for the last couple of years to expand the party ``to expand the number of swing voters who call themselves Republicans.''
Using a playbook that has served them well over the past few elections, the administration and GOP strategists turned out Republicans and conservatives at the usual levels.
``The Republican base turned out and held,'' said Whit Ayres, a GOP strategist. ``To generate a Republican turnout in this climate was remarkable. ... But for the first time in a decade, independents preferred Democratic over Republican House candidates, this time by 18 points.''
Anger at the Bush administration and its war in Iraq drove part of this shift toward Democrats, exit polls found.
The evaporation of the political center had Republican strategists searching for answers. Many acknowledged that the party is not likely to regain ground with swing voters as long as the war in Iraq drags on. The exit polls found heavy opposition to the war from voters who cast their ballots for Democrats.
``Republicans are going to have to look at how to rebuild this coalition,'' said GOP strategist David Winston.
Some Republicans didn't want to acknowledge publicly that the midterm losses and loss of the political center to the Democrats are very large political problems.
``It comes from mistakenly believing you can own an issue forever - terrorism,'' Fabrizio said. ``It's mistaking voters going along with you on a single issue with a political realignment.''
More than two-thirds of voters said terrorism was very important in their vote on Tuesday, and they divided their support between Democrats and Republicans.
Among the swing groups that tilted heavily toward Democrats:
Independents backed Democrats by 57-39 - after voting for the GOP by 48-45 in 2002.
Moderates backed Democrats by 60-38 - after voting Democratic 53-45 in 2002.
Suburbanites backed Democrats by 50-48 - after voting for the GOP 57-40 in 2002.
Those in the middle class - those who make more than $30,000 a year but less than $75,000 a year - backed Democrats 52-45 after more than half supported the GOP in 2002.
Hispanics backed Democrats 69-30 - after backing Democrats 61-37 in 2002.
The 2006 results come from a national exit poll of 13,208 voters conducted for The Associated Press and television networks by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International.
Results for the full sample were subject to sampling error of plus or minus 1 percentage point, higher for subgroups.
The loss of the swing voters and the political center may be only a temporary setback for the GOP.
``It wouldn't surprise me to see them come back and vote for a Republican for president in 2008,'' said Ayres. ``That depends on who's nominated and whether things change in Iraq.''
AP polling director Mike Mokrzycki, AP manager of news surveys Trevor Tompson and AP news survey specialist Dennis Junius contributed to this story.
You are so right. I run into those people everyday. Would you believe there is a large segment of our population, mostly under 30, who vote democrat just because hating Bush is trendy? When asked why they hate Bush, they say because its "cool" to hate Bush. And Bush means Republican. Then you have the Sr. citizens, the Roosevelt democrats. I used to get so mad at my MIL. She was a staunch Clinton supporter and she would not be shaken. "Those women who said that about Clinton were just lying on him." Her words exactly.
Rhombus,
You are a genious. I didn't even consider that I and other young educated over achievers can simply immigrate to a nation that has not yet destroyed itself.
I hear Belize is lovely this time of year, now all I have to do is make some major bucks for the next decade and then I can leave the suicidal bully voters I call my countrymen.
The thought had not yet occured to me, but it's a brilliant plan.
Interesting thoughts on the military. A few questions: What kind of high tech should we invest in? Satellites and space tech? Radar? Anti-missile defenses? Information systems? Ships to patrol the seas? Newer and faster fighter planes? What do you think of the money going to support the national guard? More or less? Do we support a military for "boots on the ground" type operations or "stomp 'em and get out" types of wars? Which do you think are more in line with "conservative principles"?
Maybe you can rent Alex Baldwin's house. He won't need it once Dubya's out of office. :-)
The only possibility for you to get anything out of politics is to work together with others who want a smaller and more limited government.
When you state your issues your way, you lose. You are not now and never will be in the majority in this country.
The GOP is NOT "the party of family values", and it's idiotic to keep referring to them in this way.
When you do, you raise strong majorities against you who then do stupid things like elect Democrats.
That's so important, isn't it. Policians tend be be a sleazy lot and they need to be held to the fire. We have an opportunity for the GOP to once again be a party of character and integrity - especially if the base demands it. It is also important to keep a constant watch on the dems - they are much more likely to turn to corruption and the voters will boot them out for that, if caught.
But the discouraging thing is the reluctance by the base to try and pick up the independents and moderates who can make the difference in winning and losing.
Such plans routinely get the Ultras in an uproar and screeches of "RINO" resound.
Once socialism starts, there is no stopping it. Government shouldn't even be in the healthcare or college tuition business. There's the key. But since some politian at some point chose to make it a government issue, now its thought of as a government problem. Its not! We need to somehow figure out a way to start moving these issues back to the people. First you have to educate the people that getting out of these issues means smaller government and that the prices would drop drastically if you go back to paying for your own healthcare and college tuition. Its the only way but it would be very hard.
Good post. I just wanted to highlight it. The GOP needs new ideas. That's one reason the voters went for the dems - at least it would be a change. "Stay the course" was not working for for most voters.
I don't know why the GOP doesn't do better PR and education media. Most people had government school educations and they simply don't understand why *self government* is in their best interest. They are not stupid and wrong and it does no good to belittle and mock them - they need to be educated. The GOP has their work cut out for them.
LOL. But hey we are a nation of immigrants meaning our ancestors escaped failed states, why wouldn't we keep up the family tradition?
Although I will stay and keep fighting, atleast until I find it beyond hope and until I can afford to leave. Neither of which will happen for atleast 10 years.
Unfortunately, there's not much frontier left or I'd be with you in the wagon train. My state, NH, is rapidly going blue.
How unAmerican of me to consider that at least they would hit a Democrat majority....(/sarc)
Amazing how short the collective memory is, isn't it? If graphic video of burned bodies dragged in the streets, beheadings with dull knives, and the wholesale slaughter of American civillians in America were not enough to bring the point home, what, pray tell, will it take?
I can only hope the media shills who pounded the drum of Bushhate and defeatism are the first to reap what they have sown.
You shouldn't be suprised about Asians. With George Bush's whole Texan anti-intellectual rich jock thing, the typical Asian American voter can't help but despise him, and politicians who'd willingly be led by him. Mitch Romney would get us a lot of Asian supporters, Newt Gingrich might get us more...
I feel for you. I live in the high tax state of Ohio. Where are statewide Republicans who governed like Dems for atleast 12 years all got wiped out.
At least we have all 7 members of the state Supreme Court and a future star in our new auditor the very conservative and drop dead gorgeous Mary Taylor. Other than that we got wiped out.
I don't agree. Yes, had Chafee survived, we would have held onto the Senate, but at what future price? The RNC supported Specter and by doing so, probably lost Santorum, the best of the best in the Senate. The Republican base will get--and did et--disgusted over this type of move. I for one have a hard time with the RNC over supporting Specter and Chafee and allowing Santorum twist in the wind. It doesn't bode well for the future for RNC support from genuine conservatives.
The MSM is hostile to our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, to be sure, especially after the war dragged on. However, the media in FDR's day was far from universally pro-New Deal either. The Hearst, McCormick, and Scripps-Howard newspaper chains were strongly anti-Roosevelt, as were many independent publishers like the Chandlers in Los Angeles and the Pattersons in New York. A stagnant war, or worse, American setbacks in the South Pacific or North Africa and Italy in 1943 and 1944 would have brought out the long knives against Roosevelt and his "Brain Trust."
Furthermore, conservatives in our time have a stronger media than was the case in the recent past. The rise of talk radio, the Internet, and Fox News (though it is now drifting leftward) have ended the liberal lock on the mass media that had been in place between the 1960s and the 1990s. The sort of people who switched to the Democrats this election cycle in places like Indiana, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Ohio are hardly latte-swilling metrosexuals or soccer mom ninnies who readily believe the "line" in the MSM.
The strategy for conducting this war must be reconsidered. Britain's success as a world power for centuries was largely due to that nation choosing to fight battles where they were strongest: on the high seas. Between the Hundred Years War and World War I, Britain did not generally make long term, large scale commitments of ground troops. After the mid-18th Century, the British Army used the peripheral nationalities, Scots and Irish, way out of the proportion of the population of the two Celtic nations to the overall population of the United Kingdom. American policymakers should study what the mother country did right if our nation is to have the staying power Britain had as a world power.
We have been drawn into a war where the terrorists have the home field advantage. Americans are historically good at projecting massive firepower quickly. We defeated the Japanese in the South Pacific largely due to that advantage. There was plenty of hand to hand combat, to be sure, but the enemy had been severely hurt by our air and sea superiority prior to the arrival of the Marines or the Army. Additionally, few if any of our soldiers were imprisoned for being rough on the enemy in World War II. That does not appear to be the case in Iraq, as Lieutenant Pantano and the Pendleton Eight would testify. Some would argue that our restraint is a compliment to our national character. However, the grunt in the field may worry that overly rough action may land him before a court martial. We also have not used our overwhelming firepower to level hostile towns like Fallujah. We did not worry about the cathedrals of Dresden or the temples of Tokyo, why should we protect the mosques of Baghdad?
Sticking to the present warfighting strategy will surely put a Democrat in the White House in 2009, and increase Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress. We may wish for the American people to become chess players, rather than poker players, but it is not going to happen.
Agreed
And these people:
Q: What were some of the surprises about the Latino vote in this election?
A: I think the big surprise when it comes to the Latino vote in yesterday’s election was the large turnout. For the first time in the history of American elections 8% of all voters were Hispanic. That’s the highest percentage that the exit polls have ever recorded. The previous high I believe was 7% in the 2000 presidential election.
The second big news from yesterday’s results was that the Latino vote moved strongly towards the Democratic Party at the national level. According to the exit polls as reported in the Wall Street Journal today, more than 70 % of Hispanics voted for Democratic candidates while only 26% voted for Republicans. That’s a very significant shift when you compare the results of 2004 when only 59% of Hispanics voted for the Democratic candidate and 40% of Hispanics voted for President Bush and the Republicans.
http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=cf26c237842ac9b296c0ff050b7723d7
Agreed. We paid for years and years for that withdrawal from Vietnam. Pulling from Iraq would be a disaster and would prove OBL's point. If we were to cut and run, why would anyone trust America again?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.