While the specific dynamics of November’s election are not yet known, University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato is wasting no time in making bold assertions. To say nothing of the fact the first African-American was elected President of the United States, he maintains 2008 was no ordinary election. 2008 was just the tip of the iceberg – a dramatic shift of political coalitions, likely ushering in an extended period of Democratic control, according to his new political anthology, “The Year of Obama: How Barack Obama won the White House.”
To be sure, when the most-quoted political scientist in the land speaks up, people listen, but has the good doctor misdiagnosed ailing Republicans’ present predicament?
Before arriving at the intricacies of Sabato’s argument, it’s worth explaining the rather amorphic notion of political “realignment,” particularly given the state of reporting on the matter. A political realignment is a dramatic and enduring shift in voters’ loyalties and fundamental perceptions of the parties in government. We have witnessed three such instances: the 1896 election with the emergence of a national campaign, the 1932 election following the nation’s greatest financial disaster to date, and the 1980 election marking the meteoric rise of social conservativism.
The political landscape for 2010 and beyond, as Sabato sees it, will create a lasting Democratic majority, due in part to three giant demographic shifts: The intense preference among younger voters for the Democratic Party is unlikely to fade, with more than 2-1 voting for Obama; accelerated minority voter participation largely benefits Democrats; and professionals – those with post-graduate degrees – have begun to self-identify as Democrats in large numbers.
But not everyone is convinced. Joshua Putnam, a political scientist from the University of Georgia, warns that many, if not most, political scientists will take issue with Sabato’s brash conclusion. He notes that while 2008, in many ways, looks like a realigning election, it’s far too premature to make such conclusions.
“The three groups he discusses were certainly a large part of the Obama coalition. But that doesn’t necessarily entail a long-term realignment. Here’s the key distinction: Was this an Obama coalition or a Democratic coalition and to what degree do they overlap? An Obama coalition implies that once the president is off the ballot — in midterm elections or in 2016 — that some of this movement could be reversed to some extent depending on GOP candidates and their messaging.”
We can neither see the future, nor is it inevitable. Realignments depend principally on the performance of the party in government. A permanent realignment of the sorts Sabato describes is wholly contingent upon Obama’s ability to accomplish the agenda he outlined in the campaign.
The Obama campaign was the greatest candidate-centered campaign for president in American history. It wasn’t “powered by Hope,” it was powered by his enormous ego and drive for success. Had Obama’s peculiar cult of personality established a Democratic coalition, Congressional Democrats would have earned greater majorities in both Houses, yet they didn’t. Moreover, we’re still at relative parity in terms of partisanship and see essentially a party stalemate in Congress.
It is unfortunate that esteemed political scientists join commenters and journalists in their natural tendency to portray singular elections as an indication of a monumental shift in the electorate. Obama’s campaign did not create a permanent coalition of liberals, moderates, and conservatives – it manufactured a melodramatic reaction to an unpopular president. 2008 was more a referendum on George Bush than a repudiation of Republicans in general.
President Obama, like one-term President Jimmy Carter, will soon learn the power of sharp disapproval of incumbent government in 2012, at which point I expect Sabato will be revisiting this comically premature argument.

Maybe it's just me
DerKrieger Tuesday, April 28th at 1:52PM EDT (link)…but I don’t think Sabato understands the full measure of Conservative anger and fear about our dramatic shift towards socialism. We will not go quietly into the good night.
“In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” - Thomas Jefferson
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence (OBAMACARE – mine), the money of their constituents.” – James Madison
And once the kids realize the liabilities that Obama & the Dems
6eorge Jetson Tuesday, April 28th at 2:04PM EDT (link)have stuck them with, I think they’ll have a V8 moment.
Pay Attention
I cannot keep my story straight on my political affiliation. Tuesday, April 28th at 2:13PM EDT (link)The right’s inability to listen to news like this and adjust your message will spell the doom of your party.
I long for a split government, and given the Republican Party’s current state of total disarray, I fear I will be feeling this way for a long time to come.
Wise up. Run moderates. You’ll win for a change, and people will like you again.
http://www.redstate.com/jrichardson/2009/04/28/2008-the-year-of-obama/#comment-718
“The right’s inability to listen to news like this and adjust your message will spell the doom of your party.”
Sure, we should run more people like Arlen Specter.
Brian Hibbert Tuesday, April 28th at 2:20PM EDT (link)Then we’ll win for sure and be able to bring this country back to a more sane place…. right…..
Thanks for your advise.
Socialism doesn’t work. It looks nice on paper, but it’s been tried and it’s failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Join the RedState Strike Force
I smell sarcasm, but yes.
I cannot keep my story straight on my political affiliation. Tuesday, April 28th at 2:41PM EDT (link)So, libertarians are no longer welcome in your party? Log Cabin Republicans should get out? Pro-choice republicans aren’t welcome? Nicely done.
Enjoy a filibuster-proof minority status.
http://www.redstate.com/jrichardson/2009/04/28/2008-the-year-of-obama/#comment-718
“The right’s inability to listen to news like this and adjust your message will spell the doom of your party.”
Hi troll....ahhh..your not worth it...nt
Aaron Gardner Tuesday, April 28th at 2:44PM EDT (link)Aaron’s Archive
conform and celebrate diversity….or else!!!
I'm not a troll, I'm a libertarian
I cannot keep my story straight on my political affiliation. Tuesday, April 28th at 2:47PM EDT (link)and you’re proving my point.
http://www.redstate.com/jrichardson/2009/04/28/2008-the-year-of-obama/#comment-718
“The right’s inability to listen to news like this and adjust your message will spell the doom of your party.”
But are you a Republican?
Neil Stevens Tuesday, April 28th at 2:51PM EDT (link)Fess up, you didn’t vote for McCain, did you?
Want to run for conservatives? Give.
There Is No Crisis
nope
I cannot keep my story straight on my political affiliation. Tuesday, April 28th at 2:59PM EDT (link)I voted Obama for President and Republicans for the house and senate, as well as a host of other “purse-string” positions.
I’m not a Republican, but neither am I a Democrat. I have voted for both parties in every election since I was 18.
The point I’m trying to make here is I have never felt less welcome in the Republican Party in my life, and I think until you figure out how to talk to voters like me, minority status will be your reality.
The big shift to the right that happened under Bush alienated millions of voters like me. Please, invite us back.
http://www.redstate.com/jrichardson/2009/04/28/2008-the-year-of-obama/#comment-718
“The right’s inability to listen to news like this and adjust your message will spell the doom of your party.”
OK an Obama shill tells us to nominate pro-Obama people
Neil Stevens Tuesday, April 28th at 3:00PM EDT (link)You shouldp robably mention ino your signtature that youv oted for a pro-abortion, pro-mandatory service, pro-tax, pro-Porkulus, pro-leaving-babies-to-die-in-a-closet, pro-EFCA, far-left socialist for President.
So that nobody will mistake you for a moby or something.
Want to run for conservatives? Give.
There Is No Crisis
You left out anti-SSM, War on Some Drugs supporter, pro-FISA, pro-rendition...
Moe Lane Wednesday, April 29th at 12:51AM EDT (link)..lied on transparency, lied on Armenian genocide, lied on troop withdrawal, lied on campaign finance reform, and lied on DMCA*.
How is that “Libertarian for Obama” working out, anyway?
Moe Lane
*Some of these I don’t personally mind, but then I don’t take my libertarianism straight.
Check out my new blog at http://moelane.com/.
http://twitter.com/moelane
My (blogging-related) wish list.
So, you don't really have any well-founded beliefs. nt
Achance Tuesday, April 28th at 3:01PM EDT (link)In Vino Veritas
You can't if you're going to be a political shill (nt)
Neil Stevens Tuesday, April 28th at 3:02PM EDT (link)Want to run for conservatives? Give.
There Is No Crisis
You voted for Obama YOU ARE NOT WELCOME...piss off!...nt
JadedByPolitics Tuesday, April 28th at 3:13PM EDT (link)…
Whoever has his enemy at his mercy &
does not destroy him is his own enemy
If you are a libertarian, why would you vote for a socialist?
Brian Hibbert Tuesday, April 28th at 3:25PM EDT (link)Libertarians are about freedom. Obama is about statism.
Socialism doesn’t work. It looks nice on paper, but it’s been tried and it’s failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Join the RedState Strike Force
What exactly are Obama's
TxCon Tuesday, April 28th at 3:27PM EDT (link)libertarian positions? Or a you just a social liberal hiding behind the libertarian banner?
Obama's libertarian positions??...
Aaron Gardner Tuesday, April 28th at 3:38PM EDT (link)easy…he said he would legalize pot…poor fool probably never looked any further than that.
Aaron’s Archive
conform and celebrate diversity….or else!!!
You are probably right
TxCon Tuesday, April 28th at 4:48PM EDT (link)Unfortunately that is why the Liberatarian party will never get off the ground.
We don't need or want you
Vegas_Rick Tuesday, April 28th at 3:34PM EDT (link)Enjoy your ptitful life as a sheep.
“Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful people with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan ‘press on’ has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.” Calvin Coolidge.
A libertarian who voted for Obama?
Doc Holliday Wednesday, April 29th at 12:41AM EDT (link)well, that makes a lot of sense. Of course I saw a car the other day with a Paul sticker and a sticker supporting some country joining NATO, so anything is possible. BTW, I doubt you are a libertarian.
Molon Labe!
ok tbeauchamp...let's just say I agree with Reagan..
Aaron Gardner Tuesday, April 28th at 2:52PM EDT (link)you know they guy who won in a landslide
Aaron’s Archive
conform and celebrate diversity….or else!!!
Aaron, that is a great speech.
Flagstaff Tuesday, April 28th at 3:31PM EDT (link)It should have a permanent link on the front page.
Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!
Flagstaff...one of the greatest speeches of all time, if you ask me...
Aaron Gardner Tuesday, April 28th at 3:41PM EDT (link)and his summary paragraph should be read and re-read every time moderates claim to be Reagan supporters.
Aaron’s Archive
conform and celebrate diversity….or else!!!
That same speech could be read today
Brian Hibbert Tuesday, April 28th at 4:33PM EDT (link)with a couple of names and dates changed and it would fit our times perfectly.
“Now, it is possible we have been persuasive to a greater degree than we had ever realized. Few, if any, Democratic party candidates in the last election ran as liberals. Listening to them I had the eerie feeling we were hearing reruns of Goldwater speeches. I even thought I heard a few of my own.
Bureaucracy was assailed and fiscal responsibility hailed. Even George McGovern donned sackcloth and ashes and did penance for the good people of South Dakota.”
Nothing has changed in 34 years! The Democrats were once again claiming to be fiscal conservatives. Of course now we see the big lie.
Socialism doesn’t work. It looks nice on paper, but it’s been tried and it’s failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Join the RedState Strike Force
Nothing in this thread remotely suggests a purge of libertarians
civil_truth Tuesday, April 28th at 2:52PM EDT (link)Please write a diary elaborating on your concerns rather than hijack this thread. This is a serious suggestion.
And Rightly So!
Nah, you're a troll
Vegas_Rick Tuesday, April 28th at 3:37PM EDT (link)Unless, of course, you can explain in 500 words or less, how Republicans acting like Democrats makes this country better.
“Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful people with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan ‘press on’ has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.” Calvin Coolidge.
my concerns
I cannot keep my story straight on my political affiliation. Tuesday, April 28th at 5:21PM EDT (link)I think we get into trouble whenever any one party runs every branch of my government. I split my ticket every election.
I agree with Obama on most social issues, fiscally he is far on my left. I wish he had to answer to a Newt Gingrich in order to get his ideas funded.
My specific concern is that the Democratic Party, unchecked, will cause as much trouble as the Republicans did. And the Republicans seem to have their heads up their asses about how to get elected. I agree with the original article. I think the republicans are in danger of helping create a permanent democratic majority, and that scares the crap out of me.
Run moderates or don’t run moderates, I don’t care. But alienating people who want to vote for you (even half of the time) isn’t a winning strategy.
http://www.redstate.com/jrichardson/2009/04/28/2008-the-year-of-obama/#comment-718
“The right’s inability to listen to news like this and adjust your message will spell the doom of your party.”
tbeauchamp...so you like playing russian roulette..
Aaron Gardner Tuesday, April 28th at 5:26PM EDT (link)Maybe next time you should point the *gun only at yourself instead of the rest of the country
* This is a metaphor…go hit the bong and relax.
Aaron’s Archive
conform and celebrate diversity….or else!!!
Libertarian has lost his/her way
getrealistic Tuesday, April 28th at 11:53PM EDT (link)If you are a libertarian then you have seriously fallen off the wagon. Go back and read Atlas Shrugged again.
You cannot possibly be a libertarian and agree with most of Obama’s social positions (if indeed any of them). “You need to stop living in that big house and stop driving that big car”. “We ARE our brother’s keeper” - these are quotes from BO. For a libertarian, the only possible answer to that is that our brother needs to keep his own dam self, and if he cannot get up the gumption to do so, then he can stay lying in the gutter. Libertarians are not about quotas, mandates, or social engineering. You cannot separate social liberalism from fiscal liberalism; they are opposite sides of the same coin. It’s about the inane social philosophy that requires an insane fiscal policy to support it.
he is not libertarian
Doc Holliday Wednesday, April 29th at 12:44AM EDT (link)he is just implying we are all theocrats and trying to stir things up.
Molon Labe!
Wise Up?
RJD Tuesday, April 28th at 2:26PM EDT (link)I can only hope the GOP wises up and realizes the winning strategy is to return to its Conservative roots.
Conservatives win elections. History has borne this out.
I don’t think the GOP can run any more moderate than it has in the last couple of elections. Any more moderate, and we’ll have the Leftist Party and the New Democrat Party.
No thanks on either.
In all honesty
RJD Tuesday, April 28th at 2:30PM EDT (link)the GOP leadership is most likely a lost cause. We, at the grassroots, will have to put up with most of them until we get our tails in gear and find, campaign for and elect actual Conservative leaders.
No Republicans need to act like the grown-ups again
civil_truth Tuesday, April 28th at 2:27PM EDT (link)It’s these Democrats who pander to the children because they want to be liked - and destroy their family in the process.
Parenting is no about being liked - its about standing up for what’s right and taking the long-term view.
If we run conservative Republicans who are willing to act like adults, voters will come back when they realize who really has their best interests at heart. Unless they do themselves in first from partying or the other consequences of being out of control.
And if the too many voters want to continue to live irresponsibly, then we’re all doomed.
And Rightly So!
Missing comma: I meant "No, Republicans... -nt-
civil_truth Tuesday, April 28th at 2:29PM EDT (link)And Rightly So!
Like "you" again?
Neil Stevens Tuesday, April 28th at 2:49PM EDT (link)So fess up: You’re a Democrat, right?
Want to run for conservatives? Give.
There Is No Crisis
This could be a very informative election.
Flagstaff Tuesday, April 28th at 2:50PM EDT (link)If Specter is nominated by the Dems (suppose he isn’t, heh!) and wins it will prove you are right, in certain states, anyway.
If he loses it will prove that the conservatives are right, almost everywhere.
If you want moderates, just what areas are they supposed to be moderate in?
Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!
He's just a shill for Obama
Neil Stevens Tuesday, April 28th at 3:01PM EDT (link)Facts won’t prove him right or wrong. He just has an agenda in posting here. He’s not even a Republican.
Want to run for conservatives? Give.
There Is No Crisis
But he loves us so.
Flagstaff Tuesday, April 28th at 3:26PM EDT (link)However, I do think it will mean a lot to us if Toomey wins, and it’ll be less meaningful if he doesn’t. Either way, we should learn something. We seem to always forget our lessons, however, or get them muddled.
Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!
But if someone wants to vote for a liberal
WarEagle01 Tuesday, April 28th at 3:04PM EDT (link)Aren’t they going to go Democrat? Why would they choose Democrat-light when they can have the real thing? We need to offer people a real choice. That’s how we won 6 out of the last 10 elections. Going wobbly on our core values won’t help us pick up any Democrats and will only turn off Republicans.
“A wise, doughy leg with rich tingly experiences will always reach better conclusions than will a more tanned, muscular leg that hasn’t felt those thrills.” –Chris Matthews’ Leg
You're talking to a guy who voted for the Democrat
Neil Stevens Tuesday, April 28th at 3:15PM EDT (link)He’s just a soulless political shill here. He has no legitimate points to make; he’s just here to push what The Leader wants: more people who favor The Leader’s Five Year Plan.
Want to run for conservatives? Give.
There Is No Crisis
Larry Sabato Jumps to Conclusions
reaganlover Tuesday, April 28th at 2:16PM EDT (link)Excellent post, Mr. Richardson. I agree that it is far too early to jump to any conclusions, one way or the other. As you correctly note, if Pres. Obama is a proven failure (like Jimmy Carter), he will be a one term president, and the purported “permanent” shift to the Democrats will not occur. The other political shifts (1932 and 1980) only were recognized as such after-the-fact, and therefore only time will tell if Dr. Sabato’s hasty prediction is accurate.
Left-leaning pundits usually do. . .
theBlur Tuesday, April 28th at 2:33PM EDT (link)I remember when they said the election of Jimmy Carter signified a more-or-less permanent shift back to the Democrats in 1976, when actually, it was a response to the Watergate scandal of Nixon (OK, and Ford was not that great a national candidate, kinda like McCain this time around). In 1980 they were proved wrong.
Sabato isn't a "left-leaning pundit."
James Richardson Tuesday, April 28th at 2:36PM EDT (link)He’s one of the leading minds in the field of political science. And as such, he’s taken quite serious by journalists and other political scientists. This is the beginning of a yet another meme we’ll have to combat.
http://www.skepticians.com
Sorry, but Sabato does lean left.
Flagstaff Tuesday, April 28th at 2:43PM EDT (link)It doesn’t mean he fudges his numbers, but it does affect the way he honestly interprets the data.
Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!
Sabato
Hera Tuesday, April 28th at 3:30PM EDT (link)I stopped taking Sabato “seriously” when he predicted Kerry’s victory in Aug 2004. This was right around the time the story of the Swiftboat veterans broke and after Kerry managed to come out of the Dem convention with not only no bounce but a drop in the polls.You didn’t have to be a “leading mind” in political science to see that a Kerry victory was far from certain.
Sabato is a lefty, when he was a commentator
Doc Holliday Wednesday, April 29th at 12:46AM EDT (link)and not a “scientist” it was quite obvious.
Molon Labe!
Carter *barely* beat Ford.
naraht Tuesday, April 28th at 2:50PM EDT (link)1976 was a fairly close election. While 2000 was of course closer, if Ford does better in Ohio and Hawaii he wins re-election.
Reagan was able to run as the anti-Washington candidate and win.
As best as I can tell, the only election in about the last 30 years where the Candidate who had spent *more* time in Washington in their life was the winner was GHWB over Dukakis.
Time Will Tell
reaganlover Tuesday, April 28th at 3:16PM EDT (link)We need to see a few more elections before determining if Dr. Sabato is correct. I must concur with Mr. Richardson that I was unaware of any strong ideological leanings on Dr. Sabato’s part. In any event if the analysis is sound, we shouldn’t shoot the messenger, but learn the lessons. For example, there are three political polling cites I like. Real Clear Politics, Pollster.com, and 538.com. One leans right (Real Clear Politics), one seems to have no point of view (Pollster.com), and one is liberal (538.com). Nevertheless, all three sites provide excellent analysis and information.
Once Obama Gets His Agenda Passed
Joe_Cor Tuesday, April 28th at 2:21PM EDT (link)and that seems very likely, it seems that it will be very hard to dislodge the Dems for years to come. They are creating whole new classes of wards of the state. They are making industries wards of the state. Where are people going to turn but to the State party for the well-being?
Plus, there needs to be a fundamental cultural shift among Republicans that doesn’t seem anywhere near even beginning. Republcans seem dominated by their sense of second-rate status in Washington, and even comfortable with it. There need to be game-changers, and a lot of them, in Congress, and they don’t seem to be there. GWB taught them to be timid, and diminutive, and they have learned that lesson disturbingly well. If they continue to sit passively by, it will be a very, very long time before Democratic control of government is changed.
Plus, they have 4 or 8 years to stack the bench with their kind of judges. Whatever they can’t do in Congress, the judges will take care of.
It just doesn’t look like a rosey picture to me.
Whenever I read of Sabato making a bold statement...
milhous Tuesday, April 28th at 2:37PM EDT (link)…I think that someone needs to ask him how the John Kerry Administration worked out. (He predicted Kerry would win in ‘04.)
Ahhh, you forget!
leftylurker Tuesday, April 28th at 3:03PM EDT (link)Kerry did win, but the government agents who killed Kennedy and faked Obama’s birth certificate stole up all the votes in Ohio.
And then hid them in that Arizona fake moon shot studio?
Moe Lane Tuesday, April 28th at 3:06PM EDT (link)Hmm. Still missing something, but I don’t want to use a 9/11 conspiracy theory. That stuff’s still too close to the bone.
Check out my new blog at http://moelane.com/.
http://twitter.com/moelane
My (blogging-related) wish list.
chupacabra Moe....nt
Aaron Gardner Tuesday, April 28th at 3:10PM EDT (link)Aaron’s Archive
conform and celebrate diversity….or else!!!
It Definitely Worries Me
DavidSage Tuesday, April 28th at 3:06PM EDT (link)I do think Sabato has some merit to his argument, the country has unfortunately shifted to the Left. Whether it stays there is a different matter. In the same way the country made a hard shift to the Right and the Republicans after 9/11, things can quickly change.
If the current economic situation only gets as bad as it is right now, I think the Democrats will continue to trounce Republicans over the next several elections.
However, if the economy starts to look like it did in the late seventies, with double digit inflation, higher unemployment, high energy prices, high interest rates, etc, than I think the country will move away from the Democrats. A foreign policy catastrophe or two would also seal the deal.
I personally think things are going to get much worse, but unfortunately the Republican Party doesn’t have very effective leaders to capitalize on it, and the MSM is absolutely committed to propping up the Democrats.
a few off the top of my head
Doc Holliday Wednesday, April 29th at 12:50AM EDT (link)1 who expects black to vote in those numbers when Obama is not on the ballot?
2) when were the young not liberal? Churchill said if you are not liberal at 20 you have no heart, if you are not conservative at 40 you have no brain.
3) What happens if we are hit by terrorists again?
4) what happens if Obamanomics does not work?
I admit we have a problem, but it is our own brand we need to fix. We need to get rid of the big government types. Then we need to take on the NEA and drive bye’s, teach history right again and voila!
Molon Labe!
Larry just likes riding on the bandwagon
Hoover Tuesday, April 28th at 3:09PM EDT (link)If you pay attention to Larry, you know he likes to be on bandwagon. Nothing against him personally, he just has a tendency to move with the wind.
Obama won by 5 percent, hardly a landslide, and that was against a great war hero but a flawed candidate who ran a terrible campaign.
I’m in MA, my mother is a union nurse (doesn’t agree with her union at all). She is surround by not only obama friendly people because they are union but also because this is a very liberal state. She’s told me that since February the usually vocal democratic and obama supporter have been very quiet. They are not partisan dem’s but they vote that way. Those people are not happy, just imagine what the rest of the country feels.
I agree
jazzycmk Wednesday, April 29th at 12:52AM EDT (link)Obama and the Dems believe Obama’s election was a sweeping mandate for his entire platform. In reality, he was elected for one reason and one reason only — the economy.
When you consider all the factors Obama had going for him in the election, he should have won by 20 points in a walk. You had a very unpopular incumbent President from the other party. You had a failing economy. He had a fawning media. He had an opponent who was well intentioned, but didn’t make anyone’s pulse race (and who, by most accounts, did not run the sharpest campaign).
Yet he won by a modest 5-6 points. Solid victory to be sure, but not the national mandate he would have us believe. And that vote was solely based on the economy. Dems effectively pinned all the economy’s ills on the Bush administration (despite fact Dems had been in control of Congress since Jan 2007), and people decided to boot the incumbent party and give the other guy a chance. Obama managed not to torpedo his chances by playing it relatively safe and making no huge gaffes. Media helped him out by piling on Sarah Palin and largely ignoring Joe Biden’s foot-in-mouth disease.
Any time a party suffers some losses there is a temporary crisis in leadership. When Gore lost to Bush in 2000, the Dems were somewhat in disarray. You had newly elected Hillary, and you had Tom Daschle in the Senate, but Hillary was too green to be the party leader, and Daschle was only good for complaining about the new President (ironically exactly what the Dems accuse the Republican congressional leadership of doing now).
As a wise man once said, “This too shall pass.”
jcmk
“90% of people don’t care about your problems…..and the other 10% are glad you have them” - former football coach Lou Holtz
It's the economy, stupid
wingnut43 Tuesday, April 28th at 3:26PM EDT (link)If the economy remains as bad as it is right now, or even collapses further into a depressionary deflation spiral with 25% or more unemployment, the Dems will be in power for a very long time. When people stare destitution in the face they turn to Socialists. If on the other hand we get double or triple digit inflation a few years from now, it will be Jimmy Carter redux. That will set up the Dems for major defeats in 2014 or 2016. Bottom line - Deflation helps the Dems. Inflation helps the GOP.
The prospect of permanent voter realignment
DGaines Tuesday, April 28th at 3:53PM EDT (link)is real. Notice I said “prospect”. However it is not a foregone conclusion.
I agree with all of you who posit that we must return to conservative principles etc. However tbeauchamp has a legitimate point even if the solution he proposes is incorrect.
He writes “and I think until you figure out how to talk to voters like me, minority status will be your reality”
This point is relevant. On a site like RedState we all care a great deal about principles and that’s great. We like to preach to the choir – so good for us. Let me be clear – we should not compromise conservative principles — but — we must learn to sell them better.
Now, I recognize that to the enlightened reader having to “sell” the blatantly obvious is painful. But the real situation in this country features an electorate that has been conditioned to a particular type of message delivery; one which Republicans are particular poor at providing.
Let me give several examples drawn from the original diary:
Each of the trends mentioned are true. Minorities, young people, and professionals are all trending pro-democrat. Why? Fundamentally because Democrats have done a better job of convincing these groups that their ideas are kinder, cooler and more enlightened respectively. This isn’t about principles but it is about marketing those principles and the candidates used to front them.
The bottom line: 70% of the electorate is influenced by marketing. Democrats have better marketing (abetted by the constant marketing of news organizations) and at the presidential level had a far better candidate. If Republicans continue to suck at marketing and run mediocre candidates we will continue to fail. Newt Gingrich is one of the few people who understand this concept and tries to work within it. Unfortunately Newt has too much baggage to be the best the Republican party has to offer.
What I’ve been watching and hoping for is someone, anyone, to step up and find the right tone and language to recast Republican ideas in modern language with modern conservative solutions to the issues of today. Instead I see an inept paralysis of ideas and a lot of shouting about principles.
Newt Baggage
Dencal26 Tuesday, April 28th at 7:00PM EDT (link)Why does Newt have too much baggage? America doesn’t care about affairs. Bill Clinton had a very high approval rating when he left office. Obama has a domestic terrorist as a pal. If thats not baggage what is? Newt is perhaps the best hope we have,
If I had a nickel
Common_Cents Tuesday, April 28th at 7:24PM EDT (link)for every Newt baggage comment or unelectable. I seriously don’t get it. After a couple debates he’d make so much sense connecting w/ the public he’d be unstoppable even against Obama and the MSM.
Who the heck even knows who Newt is, or what he was, or what he did? Newt would not take the Bush Newtone and let the media destroy him unchallenged.
Anytime the left says Newt has baggage just tells me they don’t even want to think about the possibility of ever facing him.
“Never interrupt your enemy when he’s making a mistake.” Napoleon - Well, unless he is ruining your country! Common Cents
A cult of personality arises when a country’s leader uses mass media to create a heroic public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise.[1] Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships.
well said, sir
I cannot keep my story straight on my political affiliation. Tuesday, April 28th at 7:24PM EDT (link)Thank you for being respectful and keeping it about ideas. There isn’t much of that on this page today.
I would argue it’s more about “presenting” ideas then “selling” them, but your point is well-made.
http://www.redstate.com/jrichardson/2009/04/28/2008-the-year-of-obama/#comment-718
“The right’s inability to listen to news like this and adjust your message will spell the doom of your party.”
ahhh tbeauchamp...the problem is this site is not for promoting liberal ideas..
Aaron Gardner Tuesday, April 28th at 7:50PM EDT (link)it is for Republican and Conservative Ideas…if you don’t like that leave.
By the way…since you voted for Obama, and are unrepentant for that, I hold you as one of many who sold our nation out.
Aaron’s Archive
conform and celebrate diversity….or else!!!
I don't remember espousing any here.
I cannot keep my story straight on my political affiliation. Tuesday, April 28th at 8:13PM EDT (link)I’m for states rights. I’m for fiscal conservatism. I’m for a smaller federal government. I’m for low taxes. I’m for individual liberties.
Granted, I hold other ideas as well as those, but in what way are those NOT Republican ideas?
(And just for the record, I like scotch, not weed.)
http://www.redstate.com/jrichardson/2009/04/28/2008-the-year-of-obama/#comment-718
“The right’s inability to listen to news like this and adjust your message will spell the doom of your party.”
I'm experiencing cognitive dissonance here
civil_truth Tuesday, April 28th at 8:26PM EDT (link)On the one hand, you are standing on the small government (fiscal conservative) leg of conservatism. I don’t know you’re defense stands, and I assume you have differences with social conservatives.
But again, if your are a fiscal conservative, how can you reconcile that with support for Obama? And even if you did recognize his big government instincts, it should be clear that he and the Congressiona Democrats are taking a direction completely opposite to every position you stated above. So how can you continue to support Obama now - which is what Aaron is accusing you of.
I cannot reconcile the two statements. What’s going on? Are you so fixated on social issues that you prefer a one-party leftist state to a free republic? I can assure you that your lifestyle freedoms are going to be most unsafe when government is all-powerful. Please explain.
And Rightly So!
happy to
I cannot keep my story straight on my political affiliation. Tuesday, April 28th at 9:56PM EDT (link)As a fiscal conservative, I’m very upset with Obama. I was just as upset with Bush (I also disagreed with his social agenda, but I digress). But they both spent crap loads of cash I wish they wouldn’t.
As that is not the only lens I see the world through, it is not hard for me to still think we picked the right person… for the moment.
For instance, I believe we are more powerful with the world on our side then alone. I think Obama will go a long way toward mending relations with our friends, as well as our enemies. I think that makes us more powerful as a nation.
There are other reasons I support him, but this blog is about the changing political landscape and what the means for the Republican Party. A party I, for one, desperately want to see put Obama’s fiscal policy in check.
My original point still stands. There are millions of Americans like me, who agree with Republicans sometimes, and Democrats others. And as long as they are flamed and told to leave your tent, you will continue to have empty seats in it.
http://www.redstate.com/jrichardson/2009/04/28/2008-the-year-of-obama/#comment-718
“The right’s inability to listen to news like this and adjust your message will spell the doom of your party.”
Liberal-Tarian
Dencal26 Tuesday, April 28th at 6:58PM EDT (link)There is nothing conservative about the ” Anything Goes” position of Liberal-tarians.
Don't judge libertarians on the basis of one guy :)
aesthete Tuesday, April 28th at 7:30PM EDT (link)Libertarians are the natural allies of the American conservative, and ignoring the inroads that could be made with young people and midwesterners by promoting the libertarian aspects of conservatism is foolish. I do get where you’re coming from, though, and yes, they can be annoying sometimes
Guilt is a rope that wears thin.
-Ayn Rand
“I am a freeman in a free state!”
-Last words of Dumnorix, chieftan of the Aedui, 54 BC
Libertarians Do Not Swing Towards Either Party
reaganlover Tuesday, April 28th at 9:22PM EDT (link)Aesthete:
I know a lot of Libertarians, and they are not necessarily the friend of either Republicans or Democrats. Libertarians are natural allies with fiscal conservatives. Note I didn’t mention Republicans. Libertarians despise big spending Republicans and big spending Democrats. Moreover, Libertarians typically hate foreign policy hawks; they tend to be isolationists. Finally, Libertarians are, generally spending, liberal (they would describe themselves as laissez faire) on social issues. They oppose banning abortion, don’t really care about gay marriage, and believe in evolution over creationism. In short, Libertarians are a mixed bag and not natural allies of either party. I would be most interested in anyone offering a contrary opinion.
That's a good snap shot
SteveLA Tuesday, April 28th at 9:34PM EDT (link)reaganlover
That’s a good snap shot of those of us who are Libertarian leaning Republicans. If you read history a bit, that would describe Barry Goldwater ’s brand of Republicanism to a T.
The modern definition of “conservative“, occurred post 1980 when the Reverend Jerry Falwell’s moral majority became a political force and is a much newer phenomenon.
______________________________________
Competency over ideological purity
Sort of
aesthete Tuesday, April 28th at 9:51PM EDT (link)Still, it’s not a 50/50 split, but more of a 70/30 in agreement with Republicans, IMO.
Guilt is a rope that wears thin.
-Ayn Rand
“I am a freeman in a free state!”
-Last words of Dumnorix, chieftan of the Aedui, 54 BC
It is also full of holes
Doc Holliday Tuesday, April 28th at 9:57PM EDT (link)Ron Paul is pro-life. Most people who call themselves libertarians are not members of the Libertarian Party. Many self described libertarians think isolationism and open borders are ridiculous, that is why the Libertarian Party gets tiny single digit votes but many more people call themselves libertarian.
Also, and most importantly, Goldwater-Reagan conservatism fits with the libertarian AKA liberty ideas of large swaths of America. From Texas to North Dakota, from Nevada to Missouri. I am not forgetting the South, I am just saying the South is a bit more complicated, and not quite so libertarian-conservative as it is social-conservative.
In the end, if we as a party and a movement follow Goldwater-Reagan ideas, the ideas of our best and brightest such as Steyn, Levin, and Limbaugh, we will win the vast majority of small L libertarians full stop.
Molon Labe!
Who brought him in?
SteveLA Tuesday, April 28th at 10:05PM EDT (link)Doc
Ron Paul annoys the heck out of me for his “blame America first” crud, but he does represent an elephant in the room.
The sad reality is that RP appealed to a lot of people who would have been nominally Republican, why? I saw it out here in my area of CA which is pretty conservative, but starting to trend D. We have a Republican congresscritter that is well respected, we have a second generation R Assembly member, took the seat of his late father, and R State senator. Yet all summer leading up to the election you saw RP fans out waving banner, at the fair, etc etc. I didn’t get the point frankly, but there was something there for a lot of folks.
I’ve given some thought to the whole RP effect and what it means to the R party, not sure I’m smart enough to figure it out, what’s the appeal?
______________________________________
Competency over ideological purity
Steve, I gave Paul as an example that
Doc Holliday Tuesday, April 28th at 10:25PM EDT (link)libertarians are not all as Reagan Lover describes. In fact, libertarians by their very nature are impossible to categorize as agreeing to a long list of issues. they have one issue, liberty, each person applies that prism in his own way. Paul believes abortion takes away liberty, others believe banning it does, so there is no one libertarian position on the issue, regardless of what some minor party says.
To your question about Paul’s popularity, I don’t know if I am any more qualified than you to explain it but I will give it a shot. I think Paul brought in a lot of people who were sick of Big Government Dems and Big Government Repubs. He also brought in pretty much angry with what was going on in the world, from Iraq to the economy. He ran an insurgent internet campaign and brought in a lot of people who never participated in politics before.
Another thing about Paul is that his support was not deep yet it was wide. A Paul supporter in California probably was anti-war and wanted to smoke pot on the street. A Paul supporter in Virginia was more likely to fear the UN and want to get rid of gun control laws. He was the candidate of the disenfranchised. The shame is that he was a bit crazy, if a more rational libertarian ran, he would have gained even more traction.
This discussion goes back to my point that most libertarians fit better with true conservatism, the pre 1980 version mentioned earlier. While Reagan Lover might be describing libertarians in San Francisco, he is not describing libertarians in Montana. Same with Paul supporters, they were not monolithic at all, but they were all mostly angry.
I was as tough on Paul as anyone here, I said he had some good ideas but was basically crazy. I do give him credit for party loyalty though, we see its importance particularly on a day like this one.
Molon Labe!
What is true
SteveLA Tuesday, April 28th at 10:33PM EDT (link)Doc
I’ve avoided any labels of what is “true” conservatism or not, that sort of gasoline on a fire is not something that I tend to think is a good idea, especially today.
Back to RP, most of the RP’s I ran into probably fit into the category of being against the spending and against the war in Iraq. The constant “Blame America First” tone of RP really turned me off on him…full stop.
I do agree with one point you made, the Libertarian party is a joke, a collection of odd folks who want to legalize weed, and bunch of other nonsense.
______________________________________
Competency over ideological purity
well at least I got one right Steve :)
Doc Holliday Tuesday, April 28th at 11:33PM EDT (link)and of course I agree on the blame America first crap, I bleed Red, White, and Blue!
I will tell you why I use words such as “true conservatism”. I want our Republic to go back to the ideals of the Founders. The Founders were not a party, they created this nation. They did not give a final letter of advice, they gave us a Constitution that was the law of the land, it was and is the raison d’etre of this nation.
I believe those ideas, in fact, laws, of personal liberty, responsibility, and free markets have to come back or we as a nation become not a nation, just a place on the map for people to live. The only way I know of that can ensure a rebirth of freedom and liberty is for the Republican Party to regain control of the government, for the purposes of reducing its power to make it right with the Constitution.
I believe our ONLY chance of gaining a majority any time soon is to go back to “true conservatism” or if you don’t like that; how about “Winning Conservatism”? The ideals and philosophies are drawn from history, back to the Greeks, Romans, Brits, French etc. But our recent American example of this idea was and is the conservatism of Goldwater and Reagan. This is the conservatism of limited government and maximum liberty. This is the conservatism of government IS THE PROBLEM!
All these fights about RINOS, moderates, Social Conservatives, purging, etc are examples of a party that has lost its rudder. This is why I cringe when we talk more about Palin than we do about the fact we need to throw off all our bandages and become anew.
What I am not talking about is litmus tests. For example, some here want to make this party a regional party based on the mores and culture of the South East. The problem with that is we will become just that, a regional party and never get in power to change things. Does this mean I don’t like Social Conservatives or any other group? No, it means what I believe we need is not a long string of litmus tests but to go back to the foundational ideas we ALL can agree on and work from there.
We need to simplify our stand, not make it blurry. We need to be clear in our own hearts and heads what we stand for. We can not get in a tiff just because some Northern Republican is pro choice and call them a RINO and purge them. But what we can do is expect all Republicans to believe in limited government and maximum liberty. From there, we can and will have regional differences along with personal differences. Yet from there we can build a majority, a majority of Americans who believe in the Constitution, hence True Conservatism.
Molon Labe!
Hard to argue with that
SteveLA Tuesday, April 28th at 11:46PM EDT (link)Doc
Hard to argue with the points you make, but I’m sure some will.
______________________________________
Competency over ideological purity
and how boring it would be if they didn't -nt
Doc Holliday Wednesday, April 29th at 12:34AM EDT (link)nt
Molon Labe!
Steve you are giving too much credit or blame to Falwell et al.
AKSteveB Wednesday, April 29th at 12:33AM EDT (link)I see little difference between Goldwater and Reagan, other than, the cultural revolution of the late 60s/early 70s and Roe V. Wade had created a much stronger divide on social issues. Honestly, the SoCons have been used for grassroots support, but little of their agenda ever gotten moved. When you get right down it it has and continues to be about Burkeian Conservatism.
Hell is other people - Sartre
Being sympathetic to libertarian views, I have to disagree
aesthete Tuesday, April 28th at 9:49PM EDT (link)True, they have differences which prevent them from being labelled as “conservatives”, but I’d have to say that they align more with the peculiar brand of conservatism in the US on defense, fiscal, and yes, even on social issues, than they do with progressives.
On defense, they are, indeed, isolationist: they generally believe in maintaining a strong military for defensive measures, or “peace through strength”, but not in preemptive war. When you consider which of the two dominant movements of conservatism are more in line with this brand of isolationism, conservatism, particularly the paleo-con strain, is much more in line with this view than progressive movements, who support incessant meddling in foreign affairs which don’t concern the US (UN, Somalia, Bosnia, etc). IOW, they believe that America should be the world’s candyman, a view that is doubly rejected by libertarians. Also, I see foreign policy issues as a whole different bag, since historically, there are many countries that have been leftist/statist and supported a vigorous military, including this one.
In social issues, libertarians ask the question: why should government be involved? In this, they invoke the harm principle, or the idea that there shouldn’t be government regulation unless it can be established that an individual is having his right to making his own decisions for himself infringed upon by another. Given this, an argument can be made that abortion falls under that category, and there is a minority position within libertarians that opposes abortion. Regardless, the various infringements of the state on an individual are much more numerous and pronounced in leftist governments (hate crime laws, forced busing, etc.) than in rightist ones, so this makes their views more aligned towards a rightist government than a leftist one.
Something to keep in mind is that some people, particularly college students, self-identify as libertarians, and think that the only issue that matters to them is pot
That explains why impressions of libertarian political philosophy end up being so skewed. In any case, an argument that libertarians would be natural conservatives isn’t a good one. However, they do align more with conservatives than liberals, and often make for fantastic allies. Frederich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, and many others self-identify as libertarians and have been enormously influential in the American conservative movement, so there is precedent. I suggest you read some articles on Cato.org and make up your own mind.
Guilt is a rope that wears thin.
-Ayn Rand
“I am a freeman in a free state!”
-Last words of Dumnorix, chieftan of the Aedui, 54 BC
Addendum
aesthete Tuesday, April 28th at 9:59PM EDT (link)Libertarians are, however, very much against the “compassionate conservatism” that Former Pres. Bush and others espoused, as well as with the highly proactive foreign policy that Bush engaged in, plus his Wilsonian ideas concerning the export of democracy to other countries. Civil libertarians, myself included, also disagreed with the enhanced interrogation techniques as a gut instinct, and I have only recently (and rather tenuously) converted to a conservative position regarding that issue.
Generally, libertarians disagree with neo-conservatism greatly, because it takes away all of the positives that they see in the conservative movement (good fiscal policies, less foreign involvement where it doesn’t concern the US, less social engineering), and replaces them with policies that involve the government much more than they would like.
PS: Please don’t take this as a “bash Bush” or “those scary neo-cons” post. I’m simply describing the views of neoconservative doctrine and its most influential recent espouser, Frmr. Pres. Bush. Cheney, IMO, had a different brand of conservatism from Bush’s.
Guilt is a rope that wears thin.
-Ayn Rand
“I am a freeman in a free state!”
-Last words of Dumnorix, chieftan of the Aedui, 54 BC
nailed it.
I cannot keep my story straight on my political affiliation. Tuesday, April 28th at 10:02PM EDT (link)You just described my politics, except for the isolationist part.
http://www.redstate.com/jrichardson/2009/04/28/2008-the-year-of-obama/#comment-718
“The right’s inability to listen to news like this and adjust your message will spell the doom of your party.”
Think for Yourself for a Change
clifwest Tuesday, April 28th at 7:41PM EDT (link)Think for yourself for a change. This may seem like a play on words, but stop relying on others to do your thinking for you. People will always vote for the individual who they think will do the most for them, give them the most advantages and generally take care of them as individuals. Then, they discover it was all a smoke screen and the individual was thinking mainly of what he or she could get out if, usually financially, and could care less about keeping any “promises” made to get himself or herself elected. Al Gore, for instance, was only a modest millionaire before the global warming plum came along and not will undoubtedly wind up a billionaire. I would image that Obama has similar plans. So, while you are having trouble scraping up enough money to feed your family and keep a roof over your head, the fat cats in Congress and getting even fatter. My Party, particularly the Liberal branch, is the worst of the lot and consider their takeover a complete and final success. I love it when wealthy people pretend to care about the huddled masses at their feet when at heart they feel that that is where they belong, at their feet! So keep right on following the pack and see where it leads you. I would love to live long enough to see an honest person elected to something before I die. Having been a registered Democrat for fifty-four years, I am still waiting. I am not alone, however, because I would imagine there are millions of Americans who would like to see just one totally honest individual elected, one who put his or her personal gain on hold long enough to fight a real fight for our nation.