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:
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
AddThis
Always sniffing for the truth
Contributors
Links
- Love and Lunchmeat
- Long Island Prepper
- Fredo's Mets Blog
- Continental Sausage
- Human Events
- Maker's Mark
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Newt Gingrich
- NRO
- Pro Ecclesia
- Ralfy's Whisky Reviews
- Red Albany
- Res Publica et Cetera
- Sour Mash Manifesto
- Straight Bourbon
- Taki Mag
- The American Conservative
- The American Spectator
- The Anchoress Online
- The Politico
- The Weekly Standard
- Wild Turkey Bourbon
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(731)
-
▼
January
(93)
- A Small Comfort
- McCain sweep on the horizon
- Are we there yet?
- Well, this cinches it
- Super Tuesday
- More McMentum
- Good news of the day
- Mitt's wheels spin. No traction.
- Mad Money Update #3
- Fait Accompli
- Q: which party wants a tax increase in 2011?
- Grading the polls
- NOW - What a Farce
- FL thoughts
- GOP Veepstakes
- That's Funny...
- This two-man race is getting entertaining
- Shotguns
- Might it be Obama?
- Repub National Poll
- What will Giuliani do?
- The Obama smackdown
- Crist endorses McCain
- McCain and Hillary: BFF?
- Heard by Fredo while in Vegas:
- Name dropping
- What's next?
- FL
- Sobering ...
- Jeb for Mitt?
- Sen. McCain's letter to the March for Life
- Duncan Hunter endorses Huck
- McCain wins the LA Caucus
- Insider Advantage FL poll
- Huckabee needs some Huck-a-bills
- Mad Money Update #2!
- Fred Drops Out
- Watch the Mitt futures soar
- Please fasten your seatbelts
- Early Florida thoughts
- Mitt leading in FL?
- Just because
- McCain wins SC!
- Romney wins NV
- While Fredo v. Worm
- Rush pulling for Mitt?
- GOP Scoreboard
- Romney lowering the bar in SC
- Fredo's Mad Money Update
- It's Mitt!
- Rush on Republicans
- If this is what they do to themselves...
- Is it McCain?
- McCain or bust?
- Time for a Break from Elections
- Fred Eviscerates Huck
- About as unexpected as Caribou Express sipping on ...
- Fredo's Mad Money Challenge
- Current intrade ask prices
- Mitt Pulls Ads in FL, SC...
- Should their votes count?
- Candidate Quiz
- The Fredo's Crystal Ball Primary Challenge
- Scenario: What happens in a GOP Brokered Convention?
- Gotta Love the KosKidz
- More Speculation for the Sake of Speculation
- Enjoy the drama
- Huck's good ear
- Mitt found his mojo
- Why Rudy is still viable
- Caribou Express and Worm were in New Hampshire today
- One more poll in the hopper,
- Two new S-USA polls
- Just as an aside
- Is it already over?
- Mitt Wins WY
- Making Sausage is Aesthetically Appealing by Compa...
- Be afraid. Be very afraid.
- A Republican "Reformation"
- Byron York: How Huck Beat the Romney Machine
- Live Blogging the Cawkeye
- Buying a solid bolt action deer rifle
- Another good one:
- Novak with one of the great headlines:
- Real-time Caucus results & bloggers conference call
- Bar Stool Economics
- Hideous thought of the day
- Paging Linderman, Protium, DC!
- Prediction Summary
- One Day More
- Topic du jour
- David Brooks sees the forest
- Iowa is a means to an end
-
▼
January
(93)
2 comments:
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.
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.