What's next for the GOP?

Learn more history

From 1960 to 1980, the Dems controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency for 12 years and both houses for the whole 20. It gave us the Vietnam War, the worst period of civil unrest since the Civil War, the riots at the '68 convention in Chicago, assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK Jr., a weak and defeated military, and by the time it was done the worst economy since the Depression.

By 1994 when the Republicans took over both houses of Congress (after Clinton and the Democrats again controlled all 3), the Democrats had controlled the House for near 50 years and the Senate for all but 6 of those 50 years.

 

LOL at that.

In 1992, the Democratic Party was in terrible shape - so much so that I wondered if they were going to survive at all. They had no leadership or even interesting presidential candidates. They ran guys like Dukakis and Mondale the previous two elections for goodness' sake (two utter morons). IF, somehow, a Democrat were to be elected president, his choices of experienced people for administration posts consisted of Carter Administration incompetents and LBJ era geezers who were also incompetent.

In contrast, the Republicans had a slew of inspiring potential candidates, including sitting president GHW Bush (awesome resume, weak president tho), Colin Powell, Jim Baker, Bob Dole, Liz Dole, Dick Cheney, Steve Forbes, McCain, and a deep bench. Their choices for administration positions included dozens who'd served in the most successful administration since FDR.

What's gone wrong for the Republicans is that their people with electability (my list above) have all grown too old and the generation of Republicans that followed strayed from Conservatism to something else I think scholars will have a tough time figuring out decades from now.

Bill Clinton rose to power by taking the mess that was the Democratic Party and giving it new direction. Instead of being radical incompetents, he rebuilt the brand as pragmatic and much further to the right than it had been previously. See the hsitory of the DLC. He was still a relatively unknown figure when he ran for president, and was basically a cannon-fodder pick to run against GHW Bush whose approval rating was at 92% - striking fear into all the other big name Democrats so they wouldn't run (where was Ted?).

He won the nomination amidst a perfect storm for the Democrats. GHW Bush's approval rating went into the tank in a hurry with the help of the liberal biased media and the S&L banking mess that sapped his ability to spend govt. money on anything but fixing that situation (Obama pay attention!). He turned out to be a pretty good president in spite of his weak resume and the lack of qualified people to serve in the administration. Why? He did a lot of things that were Conservatives' principles/ideas (he called it triangulation).

The republicans had their chance at all three (House, Senate, Presidency) but WTF? They're not Conservatives - they spent money like drunken sailors and bloated the govt. and completely strayed from Conservative ideas.

So now the parties' positions have switched to a degree - the Republicans still have quality administration level people still (Condi for example). The rise (return) of the Republicans will somewhat mirror Clinton's rise. They need a charismatic figure to provide direction and rebuild the brand. The Democrats are not likely to help themselves over the next two years or four years, but the Republicans may only be able to make modest gains until the brand is more solid.

It's going to take a real shift in philosophy to capture the peoples' imaginations. The Conservative talk/no-Conservative action along with over pandering to the Religious Right isn't a winning formula. The Republicans were stronger when they were the only choice for the Religious Right to support and those people could be motivated to be the feet on the street (campaign organization), but not in dictating policy.

The other obvious mistake the Republicans have made is their assinine fixation on demonizing illegal immigrants. The Hispanic voting bloc was a huge force for the Republicans in the Reagan era and are a considerable counter to the Democrats' black voting bloc (and growing faster/bigger). For the purpose of appearing to stand on principle (which I don't get), they continuously chased away the Hispanic voters starting in California (and California used to vote Republican) and moving on to the rest of the nation.

I am obviously biased, I agree with Shape's post as a good starting point but would go further and suggest the Republicans relearn what actual Conservatism is about and stress its Libertarian principles again. They're so appealing (and correct) that Reagan won every state but one after his first term.

 

Which data?

1960 JFK = 4 years
1964 LBJ = 4 years
1968 Nixon
1972 Nixon
1976 Carter = 4 years
(total 12)

The Republicans won the Senate for 6 years in 1980 on Reagan's coattails, but lost it again to the Democrats in 1986.

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/54_53/politics/29730-1.html?type=printer_friendly

[FONT=verdana,arial, helvetica, geneva]Prior to 1954, when Democrats took over the House for what turned out to be 40 years and the Senate for 26 years, Congress exhibited a penchant for volatile swings in partisan control. But even during those and other extended periods of a political party’s dominance over either chamber, there have been large gains for the minority, with even generally popular presidents finding themselves rebuffed by the voters in midterm years. [/FONT]