Wednesday, January 02, 2008

David Brooks sees the forest

His NYT column out today is mostly about how Mitt has made himself the most likely GOP candidate, but has also made himself nearly unelectable in the general. He makes similar points to those I've been making, except Brooks uses both facts and logic.

But the Romney stuff, both pro- and con-, is covered ground for the well read OccObs audience. What is more interesting is Brooks' big picture assessment of where the GOP is headed:

As Walter Mondale was the last gasp of the fading New Deal coalition, Romney has turned himself into the last gasp of the Reagan coalition.

That coalition had its day, but it is shrinking now. The Republican Party is more unpopular than at any point in the past 40 years. Democrats have a 50 to 36 party identification advantage, the widest in a generation. The general public prefers Democratic approaches on health care, corruption, the economy and Iraq by double-digit margins. Republicans’ losses have come across the board, but the G.O.P. has been hemorrhaging support among independent voters. Surveys from the Pew Research Center and The Washington Post, Kaiser Foundation and Harvard University show that independents are moving away from the G.O.P. on social issues, globalization and the roles of religion and government.

If any Republican candidate is going to win this year, he will have to offer a new brand of Republicanism.

In Brooks' comments there are echos of Newt's Sarko critique. The GOP brand must evolve to remain relevant. It's hard for people of a naturally conservative temperment to move on from a successful template, and that's no doubt why Republican candidates hitch themselves to the Reagan wagon at least thrice per speech, and Republican voters lament the existence of a Reagan in the field with equal frequency.

Can a non-traditional Reagan Republican (Rudy, Huckabee) carry enough of the base to win, while simultaneously re-branding the party to appeal to a new voting block? Can a traditional Reagan Republican (Mitt, Fred) win when, in 2008, the public seems to prefer the Democratic issue basket by a wide margin?

2 comments:

SheaHeyKid said...

I'd be interested in seeing a recent analysis (if anyone has done this and published it) illustrating major blocs within the Republican party. That is, what is the best way to characterize the group (is it as simple as SoCons, fiscal conservatives, and national security?), and what %age of the party can be assigned to each group? I think this is the only way to know which Repub candidate stands the best chance in general election.

The top three issues that consistently come up in polls for all Americans (regardless of party affiliation) are: war in Iraq; health care; and jobs/economy. Below that are illegal immigration, terrorism, green energy, etc.

Seeing as how war in Iraq is consistently #1 issue, and Bush and his team have (until recently) completely mishandled the reconstruction (not to mention no WMD ever found), it's not surprising that Repubs are likely to fare poorly in general. I think the best strategy for a republican in general is to be extremely vocal on this issue, and paint a strategy that the public will easily rally around. It may even require nominating a Democrat to a key cabinet position.

Looking at the candidates, here are what I perceive to be their weaknesses in general election.
Rudy: Socially-liberal NYer won't energize SoCon base
McCain: May be best option (most cross-over appeal, steals most votes), but repubs are still leery about him since he continually distances himself from party
Mitt: Unclear if evangelicals will vote for a Mormon; potentially painted as flip-flopper (although I don't see this as big risk since he has always been consistent on terrorism and fiscal policies, main issues that Dems would try to use against him in general election)
Fred: He's Fred, and has run as lazy a campaign as expected. Doesn't really seem to want to be president.
Huck: Has been painted into a corner (of his own doing to a large extent) as a single-issue guy, "the Christian candidate"

The question is whether someone like Huck, who will really energize SoCons, will bring more votes for him than he does against him in general election (same question applies to Hillary, and is what the Dem voters are now struggling with). In '04 the answer was that Huck would win, not sure in '08. Unless Huck can convince people he has enough experience and background to lead effectively on Iraq, health care, jobs, etc., I'm not sure he's electable. I think this is less of a question for the other candidates.

Fredo said...

As for blocs, I'm not sure such data exists. If it did, it would rely upon individuals to self-identify with one bloc or another, and I would question whether the "average" voter would be able to do so (matching the same meaning to the same labels used by pundits). Perhaps a shrewd pollster could get the type of information you're looking for, but I don't think it's been done yet.

AddThis

Bookmark and Share

Always sniffing for the truth

Always sniffing for the truth

Blog Archive