The country is more partisan than it was in the 1980s, but there are also arguably (depending on how you define and count them) more independents now than ever before. By some measures, they now constitute a plurality of the electorate. While a Republican candidate is less likely to pick up Democrat votes than he was in the early 80s, he also has less need of them so long as he can capture a large enough portion of the independent vote.
Also, I would hypothesize that we are in the midst of a realignment on a scale not seen since the 1960s - when blacks went moved to the Democrat party and southern whites began going Republican - and perhaps more similar to what happened in the 1890s. There seems to be a large and growing constituency that is dissatisfied with both major parties. This constituency has swung heavily between the two parties in the last four years, fueling a degree of electoral volatility we haven't seen since the 1940s.
Now, whether we're seeing a realignment depends on whether the dissatisfaction with the two parties is based on perceived corruption and ineffectiveness of the elected officials in those parties or whether it is the result of an emerging constituency that is ideologically incompatible with the two parties. If it's the former, then the result could be the same as the last "realignment" in 1994, where we saw a retrenchment of the coalitions which developed between the mid 60s and the mid 80s. If it's the latter, then we could see a dramatic shakeup of the demographic and ideological makeup of the two parties.
I don't think we really know yet. I don't think anyone in either major party really understands the "Tea Party" phenomenon (
except maybe Rick Santorum). Also, while there are certainly issues which cut across party lines (trade, immigration, and financial regulation come immediately to mind), it remains to be seen whether voters will consider those issues important enough to defect over.
If we are in a realignment, it could be years or even decades before we know it for sure and before we know how the parties are going to shake out. One big sign, though, could be a strong third-party candidate in 2012. A
recent Rasmussen poll shows that 31% of Republican primary voters would consider voting third party if Palin is the nominee, with 17% saying they would be very likely to do so. The numbers aren't much better with Romney or Huckabee as the nominee - 28%/12% and 24%/11%, respectively.
What does all this mean? I think it means that any Republican candidate (and for that matter Republican voters) needs to avoid two things: (1) confusing anti-Obama independents with "moderates" and (2) mistaking the Tea Party phenomenon as a blanket endorsement of the orthodox Republican platform. I think we're seeing the emergence of a large independent constituency that is neither "moderate" nor orthodox conservative. I don't think they'll be won over by a candidate who "runs to the middle" in order to "capture the center", nor by a candidate who serves up "red meat" to "shore up the base". This is going to take intelligence, creativity, and a shrewd political sense - qualities that have been sorely lacking in the senior ranks of the GOP for some time. Unfortunately, I am hard pressed to come up with a potential candidate who both "gets it" and who can put together the support needed to win in the primaries.