Posted on 11/13/2004 5:51:34 PM PST by RWR8189
KARL ROVE SAID LAST YEAR that the question of realignment--whether Republicans have at last become the majority party--would be decided by the election of 2004. And it has. Even by the cautious reckoning of Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser, Republicans now have both an operational majority in Washington (control of the White House, Senate, and the House of Representatives) and an ideological majority in the country (51 percent popular vote for a center-right president). They also control a majority of governorships, a plurality of state legislatures, and are at rough parity with Democrats in the number of state legislators. Rove says that under Bush a "rolling realignment" favoring Republicans continues, and he's right. So Republican hegemony in America is now expected to last for years, maybe decades.
Listen to Walter Dean Burnham, professor emeritus at University of Texas at Austin, who is the nation's leading theorist of realignment, the shift of political power from one party to another. The 2004 election, he says, "consolidates it all"--that is, it solidifies the trend that has favored Republicans over the past decade. To Burnham, it means there's "a stable pattern" of Republican rule. "If Republicans keep playing the religious card along with the terrorism card, this could last a long time," he says. Burnham, by the way, is neither a Republican nor a conservative.
His definition of realignment is "a sudden transformation that turns out to be permanent." The breakthrough occurred in 1994 when Republicans shattered the 40-year Democratic grip on Congress and the statehouses. Since then, the GOP has held its gains, and even added to them in the 2002 and 2004 elections with George W. Bush as president and Rove as strategist. Burnham says the 2004 election "may be the most important of my lifetime." (He's 75.) The reelection of Bush plus pickups in the Senate and House was "a very, very impressive showing, given the past." Democrats will have enormous difficulty overcoming "the huge weight of Republican strength," he says.
Republicans gained four Senate seats, giving them 55, bringing their numbers back to the historic high they'd reached in the late '90s. (The last time Republicans had more than 55 seats in the Senate was 1931.) They won three more House seats and are expected to capture at least one of the two seats at stake in runoff elections in Louisiana in December. That will give them 232 or 233 seats, the most they've held since 1949. In 1992, the year before realignment began, they held 44 seats in the Senate and 167 in the House. Republican governorships have jumped from 18 in 1992 to 28 or 29 today, depending on the outcome of the governor's race in Washington state, and control of legislatures has risen from 8 to 20.
What hasn't emerged is the much-touted "emerging Democratic majority." It remains a theory of liberal analysts John Judis and Ruy Teixeira, based on their take on voting patterns of women, urban professionals, and Hispanics. The theory faltered in 2002 and even more this year. The gender gap in the presidential race dropped from an 11-point Democratic advantage among female voters in 2000 to a 3-point edge in 2004. And Ken Mehlman, the president's campaign manager, said the Bush vote in urban centers of more than 500,000 people grew by 26 percent in 2004 over 2000.
But Latinos are the big realignment story of 2004. They comprised only 8 percent of the electorate this year, but are growing rapidly as a voting bloc and are already an important factor in California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, and several other states. The Republican share grew from 21 percent in 1996 to 35 percent in 2000 and to 42 percent this year. The flip side is that Democrats lost Latino voters, falling from 72 percent in 1996 to 62 percent in 2000, then to 54 percent in 2004. Burnham speculates that Hispanics are attracted to the entrepreneurial bent and traditional values of Republicans.
Meanwhile, the South continued to be reliable turf for Republican gains. Republicans overcame a 102-75 Democratic majority to take control of the Georgia House, after having won the state senate in 2002. In Florida, they picked up a statehouse seat in Broward County (Ft. Lauderdale), one of the most Democratic counties in the country. Democrats haven't added any seats in the Florida legislature since 1982. Of course, the most striking gains were the five U.S. Senate seats in the South won by Republicans. "The southern seats are probably never going back," says Burnham.
For Republican rule to endure, Rove makes the obvious point that Bush and the Republican Congress must govern together. Mehlman goes further, insisting Bush's "ownership society" agenda will lock in millions of voters by "changing the incentives of politics." From the 1930s on, a majority of voters were united around the New Deal idea that "federal power would improve their lives," Mehlman says. That insured Democratic majorities. Now, Social Security, tax, and tort reform may do the same for Republicans by giving Americans more control over their income and wealth. "When [those reforms] become law," Mehlman says, "a constituency will develop behind them. That's the New Deal" all over again, this time for the Republican party.
Rove, leery of claiming too much for Republicans, said on Meet the Press on November 7 that "there are no permanent majorities in American politics." This is true, but some last longer than others. Burnham, however, sees little chance of change for years. For Republicans to slip into minority status again, he says, it would take a monumental party split like that in 1912 or "a colossal increase in the pain level" of Americans as happened with the Great Depression. Neither is likely.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.
One of the things that will come into play in 2008 is that the GOP would have had control of everything for 4 years, yet none of the scare stories the left has used to cling to power would have panned out, exposing those stoies as the lies they are, thus ripping the bottom out of the Dem's bag of tricks.
book mark
Unfortunately a grasp of reality is not a DemocRAT voter strong point.
Where do you go to poke a stick into Katrina VanDenheuvel's eye?
It's a safe bet that the democrats will do everything they can to sabotage our economy and national security. A disaster of major proportions is the only way they can get back the only thing they care about, power.
I just hope that we will enact some great laws, reduce government handouts, and do some courageous things that will make people be glad that we were in charge, instead of creating gridlock, huge government, and deception like the Dims did when they were in charge!!
I wouldn't be so complacent about the Republicans holding all the Senate seats they capture--a weak candidate running for re-election can be beaten (Lauch Faircloth was beaten in NC and Tim Hutchinson in Arkansas, and Jim Bunning came very close to losing in Kentucky).
I think that the Republicans have received a mandate from the people to clean up the judicial screw ups of the last 40 years. To protect the borders and the people of the United States.
If they don't -- then we - the American People, must go to a third party. Neither the Democtratic or Republican Party is doing what the American People have placed them into office to do.
West Virginia's most famous ex-Klansmen Bryd is up for relection in '06. He's 87 now. West Virginia looks ripe to join the ranks of full-time red states. He's been there forever, but so had been Fritz Hollings, who retired this year. Remember West Virginia was a "swing state" in July. Bush won it by over 10 points.
I'm not content with his analysis. The republican gains in the Senate are as wonderful as they were lucky. New Orleans by a hair (we would have lost a runoff), foot-in-mouth Bunning winning by a hair, Martinez by a hair... It could have so easily gone the other way.
And how about the Presidency, we could very easily lose that in 2008, don't kid yourself. We got lucky we ran against a stand-for-nothing, flip flopping Massachusettes liberal. How would do again a centrist like Evan Bayh or Dodd? Nothing is assured. We need to be nervous not contented.
One of the greatest results of this election was the movement in the Hispanic vote. That is absolutely historic, and has huge implications for the ongoing future of elections. And yet... how much of that was Bush's particular appeal to the Hispanic community? Will the next Republican candidate get so much of the vote? I'm thrilled we doubled the vote among blacks, which is equally historic. But will it be repeated? I'd like to think so, but can't assume it.
The other thing is that there were quite significant losses in the state legislatures. There were some encouraging stories, in georgia, oklahoma, kentucky, and so on.. But I believe overall there were more losses than gains. I'd like to see a chart to prove me wrong.
"Where do you go to poke a stick into Katrina VanDenheuvel's eye?"
I would say we already did it, figuratively.
Now must come the defunding of the left from at lest government sources.
This will be one of the prime factors in the continuation of Republican power. The main "engine" for driving Dem voter turnout will be disabled significantly.
How could I not vote Republican with every freakin' nut in the world -Springsteen, Garafalo, Frankin, smart Alec Baldwin, Katy al Kouric and you name it -calling me every ist and phobe in the book? I only hope that this pathetic bunch of unhygienic weirdos will do the same next election. How much do you want to bet that the higher ups in the DNC tell these idiots to start pulling for the Republicans?
But the same will be able to be said for republicans and conseravtives as many of the scare tactics they used to get votes away from democrats will still exist.
"I think that the Republicans have received a mandate from the people to clean up the judicial screw ups of the last 40 years. To protect the borders and the people of the United States.
If they don't -- then we - the American People, must go to a third party. Neither the Democtratic or Republican Party is doing what the American People have placed them into office to do."
Byrd will win re-election if he runs, but he has to know that he can't outrun Father Time, and if so, he may decide not to run again. We could then run Shelly Moore-Capito and have a pretty good chance of capturing his seat.
The Democrats might want to rethink their strategy of insulting the intelligence of the electorate with cartoon level stereotypes of Republican leaders. With the partial exception of Newt, it hasn't worked well for them.
Agreed. Barnes' analysis, as usual, is lacking in depth.
We gained four state legislative houses in Tennessee, Oklahoma, Indiana, and most impressively, Georgia. However,
we lost four -- both houses in Colorado, the Montana Senate, and the Washington Senate. We were reduced to a tie in the Iowa Senate, and the Oregon Senate went from a tie to Democratic. We had a substantial loss in the Minnesota House. Despite the popularity of Arnold Schwarzenegger and the unpopularity of the legislature, we made absolutely no gains in California, despite high hopes. We also had a net loss in legislative seats nationwide. There are only 12 states in which we control both houses and the governorship and thus are -- theoretically -- able to legislate.
Also significant is the fact that red-state and red-district voters are still splitting their tickets. If this were a realigning election, we would have defeated Matheson in Utah, Pomeroy in North Dakota, Herseth in South Dakota, and Holden in Pennsylvania, simply on the strength of heavily Republican populations in those districts. In none of those races did we even come close. Our gain in Senate seats was mainly the luck of the draw, which, a quick glance shows, will not be repeated with the seats up in 2006. Our gain in House seats was due entirely to a gerrymander (a justifiable one, but still a gerrymander)
in Texas.
Finally, 51-48, even against admittedly difficult obstacles, is not a "realigning" majority. It is a shaky one any way you look at it.
"Smell Fungus" is a very appropriate name for you, TROLL.
Good. Metrosexuals don't fare well in the military.
Do you like kittens?
I agree, and would add that now is the time to be really bold. Ronald Reagan halved the top tax rate and told the Soviet government to it's face that it was evil and backed it up militarily.
The Democrats will try their best obstruct anything significant, so we might as well think big.
I am. unfortunatly, getting the feeling tha tthe Republicans and Democrats are two side of the same coin -- The Mew WOrld Order.
It's takes some time to develop a strong third party with Senators and Representatives. If the Republicans don't deliver, we, the American People, are being sold out. They want cheap labor, open borders etc.
We need to get back in control, the ELETIST of both parties will be in control. Time will tell!
Hard for me to take your analysis seriously when you refer to Chris Dodd as a "centrist".
I will preface this by saying I would never, ever vote for a Democrat. I would stay home or leave the slot blank first.
But I have to say I saw Bayh on an interview after the election and he didn't completely nauseate me as most Democrats do. I didn't feel like I was being talked down to. He wasn't screeching. And he seemed to make some sense.
He could be dangerous but I doubt the party, in it's current form, could ever accept someone like him.
How come people post pictures of cats everytime there is a troll?
Have at it...
I think one societal change is also contributing: The freer exchange of information and capital via computing and the Internet has enabled people who see that power in their grasp to suddenly realize that waiting for the Democratic party to bring them prosperity is a very remote thing. Accessible technology is making the 'little man' more directly in touch with his long-term goals.
"The Democrats will try their best obstruct anything significant, so we might as well think big."
Roger that. Flat tax is doable. Retake the Supreme Court and overturn Roe v Wade. Immigration is tricky because they can't alienate the Hispanics. Major-league tort reform - waaaaay too many stinkin' lawyers. Soc Sec privatization. Slash corporate welfare.
I think they could balance the budget in four years (ex the War on Terror costs, which may become minimal) if they had the cajones. Overall tax revenues soar more than expected when the economy grows bigtime. That would really stuff a sock in the Libs in 2008.
I agree. 48% of the country voted for a guy like Kerry. Add to that, Kerry had people on his own team -- the Clintonites -- who were deliberately trying to screw up the election against Kerry.
To summarize, we had a leftist candidate whose own team tried to make him lose and he still got 48% of the vote. Done "right" the next time around, it's hard not to imagine Hillary getting her electoral votes in 2008.
So much for seeing R's from here, way into the horizon. I see fat thighs.
Yeah, Bayh would be tough to beat, especially in a year when, other things being equal, voters will probably want a change. But people are fooling themselves if they think Hillary will bow out for the good of the party in 2008 and remain content as a Senate back-bencher for the rest of her life. If she runs, the liberal media and the liberal pressure groups, who are totally out of touch with the rest of the country, will go to the mat for her, and she'll win the nomination going away. If Republicans run a warm body in 2008, he'll beat her.
BUMP FOR BARNES
Isn't that perfect?!
LOL
Not a single word about SHUTTING THE BORDER, KICKING THE ILLEGALS OUT, GETTING THE UNITED STATES OUT OF UNITED NATIONS(a haren of the kith and kins of thirld world thugs who do nothing other than hate US), and on and on and on.....
Al what this spine-less know nothing FRED BARNES is good about is keeping the status quo.
I bet if KERRY had been elected PRESIDENT, he won't talk about co-operation and bringing the country togather, instead F'in KERRY would just have forced his liberal agenda down our throats.
Enough about co-operation. Time to force the CONSERVATIVE agenda down the throads of these junkies called LIBERALS.
Not a single word about SHUTTING THE BORDER, KICKING THE ILLEGALS OUT, GETTING THE UNITED STATES OUT OF UNITED NATIONS(a harem of the kith and kins of thirld world thugs who do nothing other than hate US), and on and on and on.....
Al what this spine-less know nothing FRED BARNES is good about is keeping the status quo.
I bet if KERRY had been elected PRESIDENT, he won't talk about co-operation and bringing the country togather, instead F'in KERRY would just have forced his liberal agenda down our throats.
Enough about co-operation. Time to force the CONSERVATIVE agenda down the throats of these junkies called LIBERALS.
That is an accurate assessment...as far as it goes.
But the Kerry campaign also had the complete and uncritical support of the MSM -- at a level heretofore unmatched. They got out in the streets, attacked Bush and fought for Kerry-Edwards at every conceivable opportunity, foreswearing any pretense of objectivity.
This was supposed to be worth 15 pts to Kerry, according to an unblanching Evan Thomas of Newsweek. And I would not be surprised if he wasn't close to correct.
They will do the same, no doubt, for the next Democrat candidate -- especially if it is Hillary Clinton. But they will never again hold the same kind of sway in voters' minds. They sacrificed their credibility (and their ratings) in this campaign -- and fell short.
The internet, their sagging ratings and their lost credibility mean that they will never again be "worth 15 pts"...
Chris Dodd is a CENTRIST? Who knew?!?!
You assert that there were more losses than gains in the last election, and you want us to prove YOU wrong?
How about I assert that pigs fly out of your ass? I'll need you to produce video to prove me wrong.
One of the great fringe benefits I got when I started watching Brit Hume's "Special Report" on Fox News was my introduction to Fred Barnes. I had never heard of him before but immediately noticed that he is one level-headed newsman....and they are quite rare.
Also since a new Republican individual will be running for office, the Dem's won't be able to blame the man personally for all the supposed ills of the nation....they can blame the Party of course but not the man with any sense of legitimacy!
We lost both houses in Colorado, the Montana Senate, and the Washington Senate. We were reduced to a tie in the Iowa Senate, and the Oregon Senate went from a tie to Democratic. We had a substantial loss in the Minnesota House. Despite the popularity of Arnold Schwarzenegger and the unpopularity of the legislature, we made absolutely no gains in California, despite high hopes. We also had a net loss in legislative seats nationwide....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.