The GOP Brand and the 2010 Elections
Brendan Nyhan checks to see and it turns out that, yes, the GOP is hugely unpopular in historical terms:
But what does it mean for the midterms:
In short, there’s no question that the GOP party brand is in worse shape than any opposition party in recent memory. The question, however, is whether this difference in party valence will (a) persist through next November and (b) translate into fewer GOP House seats at the polls, especially once we account for the generic Congressional ballot, which should (in principle) take much of this difference into account (see Alan Abramowitz’s model, for instance). Those questions remain to be addressed.
I would say the problem for Democrats is that the voters can’t coordinate their actions. A person who would like to see the congressional Democrats brought down a notch or two may vote Republicans even if he doesn’t really want to see John Boehner take over as Speaker—especially if he thinks a GOP takeover scenario is unlikely. But if a whole bunch of people do that, then the GOP does take over, whether or not that’s what people intended to have happen. Conversely, it’s possible that Democrats will be able to improve on their current generic ballot position by focusing voters’ attention on the possibility of a Republican takeover.
25 Responses to “The GOP Brand and the 2010 Elections”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 2nd, 2009 at 9:28 am
This is horse-shit horse-race reporting. Only someone completely devoid of a soul could spin the fact that the elected officials governing our nation have a combined -10% favorable rating into a story about how that benefits one or the other.
October 2nd, 2009 at 9:29 am
The voters hate them all, and for a good reason.
Both Reps and Dems are whores of the big business; the only difference is that the Rep constituency likes it that way, and the Dem constituency doesn’t. That’s why the Dems are destined to lose.
October 2nd, 2009 at 9:31 am
No. Negative campaigning of that kind will simply depress overall turnout, which is never a net win for the democrats. If they want to win, they are going to have to acomplish something positive – ANYTHING – positive before november, to brighten their image and give people a reason to not be justifiably cynical and sick of politics.
October 2nd, 2009 at 9:47 am
Democrats need to pass health care reform and then accuse Republicans of wanting to cut health care and dismantle Medicare.
October 2nd, 2009 at 9:48 am
The story isn’t that Republicans are more unpopular now. The story is that the Democrats are also historically unpopular, and if the trend continues also will be negative within the next decade. It’s easy to dismiss this as just a populist “pox on both their houses” attitude, but the chart clearly illustrates the growing failure of our political system. It’s almost impossible to believe that none of the media or political organs of our society can grasp what every other American understands viscerally, but there you go.
October 2nd, 2009 at 9:52 am
If I look at your chart, I see two things happening. (1) The overall approval rating of congress has been in major decline for decades, and shows no sign of stopping. (2) The Delta between the Dems and the Repubs hasn’t changes since 2001. (1) Is understandable as a result of the fact that our government is increasingly controlled by the monied interests, and the publics increasing perception that that is true. (2) Might have some predictive power, i.e. a slight trend towards the D’s. But (1) might indicate an anti-incumbent mood, which could work against the current majority party.
October 2nd, 2009 at 10:00 am
Well, if the few people left who don’t hate the GOP are the ones most fired up about politics… and the normal people and Democrats aren’t enthused about the Dems b/c they haven’t accomplished enough… then we could get a big GOP win.
That’s how Kansas’s GOP got taken over by crazy people– they were the only ones who cared enough to turn out for every election. There’s a backlash now, of course, but there was some damage done in the interim.
Christopher has the larger point– the political system is failing. I’m reminded of a book I read in college about the collapse of Chile’s politics in the early 1970s. Not that we’re moments away from a coup, or anything, but the total breakdown in political discourse, and the hardening of views, are somewhat similar.
October 2nd, 2009 at 10:01 am
Wait until health deform is completed. Watching dirty Max Baucus block and tackle for the For-Profiteers is disturbing. The Blue (Democrats) team will join the Reds (Republicans) in the public opinion basement.
2013 should see record health insurance company profits and billions in fines for individuals not complying with individual mandate. Don’t forget safety net hospitals imploding as the plan only addresses half of the uninsured, leaving 25 million without coverage by 2018 (according to CBO).
That anger should land squarely in the Democratic camp.
October 2nd, 2009 at 10:16 am
I think that you have to be pretty dense to look at these numbers and not say that the GOP is really in the dog house with the American people.
The generic ballot question, like the bi-partisan type-questions, allow people to imagine a better GOP party than what exists, and then indicate a preference for that party, or for the Democrats to work with that memory of a responsible Republican party.
I think that these polls show that IF the GOP were to become more moderate, THEN there is room for it to grow. But I think that is a particularly likely scenario before 2010, and probably 2012. The voters are not done punishing the GOP for its walk on the wild side of wingnuttia.
October 2nd, 2009 at 10:31 am
The question, however, is whether this difference in party valence will (a) persist through next November and (b) translate into fewer GOP House seats at the polls
Since the GOP is seemingly hell-bent on not doing anything to change the dynamics that led to this situation, I’m going with “yes” on (a), barring an unforeseen external event.
As just about everyone who has studied midterms has noted, the answer to (b) is basically going to be a function of enthusiasm and turnout. I personally think the GOP is in a lot more jeopardy for 2010 than the CW currently suggests, because I think the enthusiasm for a blanket opposition strategy among any but their (now tiny) core base could fade as it proves ineffectual, and conversely I think the enthusiasm among the Democrats will pick up once they get a few more legislative wins and then shift back into campaign mode. And of course if the economy is seen as getting better by that time, it will help the incumbents in general.
Of course even if all that is right, that doesn’t mean the GOP will necessarily lose seats in 2010. But I sincerely believe the worst thing that could happen to them is a moderate gain which falls well short of taking either house, which I think would likely cause them to double-down on their current strategy for 2012 and could potentially lead them to an epic loss not seen since the FDR era.
A person who would like to see the congressional Democrats brought down a notch or two may vote Republicans even if he doesn’t really want to see John Boehner take over as Speaker
I can’t remember where, but I recall reading the evidence shows this doesn’t really happen. People may have specific reasons for voting out incumbents (say a scandal, or flubbing a major local issue, or even a change in the electorate placing them out of step in some notable way). They may also have a partisan reason for voting out incumbents, but I believe the evidence showed that such people tend to want a takeover of the Congress by the relevant party, not just a takeover of their seat. So I believe the portion of voters just wanting to vote out their particular representative to send a warning message to their otherwise favored party is quite small.
Which makes sense when you think about it–that is an awfully trivial use of your slots for representation in Congress. Indeed, it doesn’t make much sense to want yourself to be unrepresented in Congress by a member of the party you otherwise want to see control Congress–that is no way to maximize the value of your representation in Congress.
Which brings us back to the key question, which is not so much whether many voters would like to see their Democratic officeholders lose but the Democrats still stay in charge of Congress, but rather whether the people who want to see their Democratic officeholders win and the Democrats stay in charge of Congress are going to end up voting as much as their opposite peers.
October 2nd, 2009 at 10:43 am
About 4 in 10 voters are independents. The graph shows why. The whole “2 party” charade is despised by millions because it’s just a good cop bad cop routine. Both parties are whores for the plutocracy. The average people don’t have a party.
October 2nd, 2009 at 11:16 am
I would even go so far as to say that there are certain parts of the country, namely New England, that are as single-party as during the Civil War era, the most polarized period in our history.
However, *unlike* the 1850s and 60s, black people are no longer voiceless, faceless chattel.
That means that while the re-branded Dixiecrats (I refuse to call them the party of Lincoln) are simply never going to be 40% of the Northeast’s congressional delegation ever again, the Democrats actually can hold seats in the reddest of states because of minorities.
Now, will that necessarily ensure a Democratic House? Probably not, but it does make it extremely hard for them to lose.
October 2nd, 2009 at 11:34 am
Dude you can’t make the D’s red and the R’s blue. There’s a convention for that sort of thing.
October 2nd, 2009 at 11:38 am
I’d be curious to see a regional breakout on that. It seems like GOP popularity in the South has increased in that period, and vanished in much of the rest of the country.
Also, in real terms, the first-term Dems that are running for reelection are largely going to be facing the long-time Republicans that they defeated in 2008. That’s going to make 2010 a “change back” year, not a “change” year, and nobody in their right mind is going to want to go back to 2007-08.
Then again, 30% of the country is insane. Turnout will be the key, then. If there’s no public option, there’ll be no turnout.
October 2nd, 2009 at 11:46 am
My take on the graph, that except for 2001, American voters have entered the “hate” side of the love-hate relationship with ALL political parties. Now is the time to win the hearts and minds of the unaffiliated and send a message to the Dems and GOP to field CANDIDATES the represent their particular constituencies. One-size-fits all party platforms became buggy whips in the age in instant internet communications.
October 2nd, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Most voters don’t vote in such a fashion to “bring down a notch or two” one party or the other, or have any thought about who the Speaker is going to be, they follow their feelings at the time roughly as far as who is the better choice, which of course may result in bringing down a party a notch or two, but this shouldn’t be mistaken as the actual motivation.
For the record, the Republican party is near death, and it’s great they don’t realize it. The grand bargain between the South, the religious Right, the libertarians, and Big Business is unraveling, as it naturally should, since no such alliance should rightfully exist.
October 2nd, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Greg gets at a very important point: these national figures conceal what’s really going on, which is that the GOP is enormously unpopular (net -20% or more) in most of the country, and the Democrats are solidly populat (net almost 20%) in most of the country.
It is entirely possible that there will be a wipeout of the Democrats in the South in 2010, but even a wipeout in the South combined with holding steady in the rest of the country won’t amount to a very large swing in seats.
October 2nd, 2009 at 1:13 pm
People should wake up to the fact that it’s the Democratic primary elections that matter now. Anyone claiming that they want a functioning government must vote for a Democrat in the general election.
October 2nd, 2009 at 1:21 pm
A sign of their unpopularity we saw in the 2008 elections — people running with GOP next to their name, instead of R (as was usual until now), apparently assuming that voters have no idea what the Grand Old Party is…
October 2nd, 2009 at 3:08 pm
I’m going to assume that “Brian in Chicago” is, in fact, in Chicago, where his statement is most likely true. But in urban areas of the South, for example, the general election remains competitive (remember, there’s a lot of demographic variables and region is only one of them).
As far as DTM’s post goes, I think the internal governance of the Republican Party may be such that they will be compelled to double down on their current strategy no matter what results it gets. In which case they are irreversibly locked in the death spiral and John Dean… uh, I mean Jeffords… uh, I mean Specter… uh, I mean Snowe and Collins had better jump off the crazy train before it reaches the end of the line.
Anyone who believes that the Democrats aren’t liberal enough, and on the basis of that belief, votes Republican, is so crazy it’s a wonder they can find their polling place. Dissatisfaction with the Democrats because they are too liberal is very different, electorally, from dissatisfaction because they aren’t liberal enough, which is not really reflected in that kind of graph. (It would be interesting to see the results of an open-ended question to people with a negative opinion, “What don’t you like about [party]?”)
As long as we have an electoral system that guarantees only two major parties, and as long as the Republican Party hasn’t completely self-destructed and allowed the political landscape to become redefined by left and center-right parties (this might happen in the next few decades, but no guarantee), the left-of-the-Democrats group *really doesn’t* have anywhere to go (other than Democratic primaries and intraparty organization) without shooting off not only their foot, but both legs and their lower torso too. Which doesn’t necessarily mean they won’t do it anyway — ask Al Gore — but I think public awareness of the backfire potential for that sort of thing will probably keep it out of competitive districts/states.
October 2nd, 2009 at 4:17 pm
The real question is why the hell someone assigned red to the Dems and blue to the Republicans. Even Fox, CNN, et al have this one figured out.
October 2nd, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Re: The voters hate them all, and for a good reason.
Has Congress ever been popular with the American people?
October 3rd, 2009 at 12:31 am
Is anybody paying attention out there?
It all comes down to the Supreme Court. If the court decides over next couple of weeks that Corporations have right to donate directly to candidates, any amount they want, the jig is up. If you think that Democrats and Republicans are indistinguishable from each other now, just wait.
Roberts is fast-tracking the “legislation.” In no way could you call this a “case” with “ruling.” Roberts and his band of conservative merry men, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas, are pushing this “case” forward with the intent of winning future elections, and the sooner the better. If they can’t pick off 2010, they are going to goddamn guarantee a victory in 2012.
Do you think those four fuckwads want to see Obama in the White House for next 8 years, with the opportunity to change the make-up of the court, and thereby reduce their growing and potentially unlimited power? One of them could die. All four are relatively young, but they all know it could it happen, reducing the three that are left to a weak minority. They will do anything to avoid this. I would be shocked if the four of them don’t have a pinky pact, sealed in blood. They are without question insane, but they are not stupid. They know time is of the essence.
Imagine Baucus, instead of getting bought for $3.8 million, or what piddling ass sum it took to buy his intrasigence on health care and all his future votes, receiving $1.4 billion in contributions that he can take with him when retires. The system will break down completely within a matter of two years. We are talking life changing money flooding the system not just for rich senators but for every small-time broke-ass elected official in the country. Matt will spend his future days blogging over whether it is proper to have school prayer 5 times a day, or 4.
The most important Supreme Court “case” in the history of the United States. Unbelievable.
October 3rd, 2009 at 6:19 am
«It all comes down to the Supreme Court. If the court decides over next couple of weeks that Corporations have right to donate directly to candidates, any amount they want, the jig is up.»
Perhaps I am a fatalist, but the jig was up long ago. This “case” has been planned long ago.
And the jig has been up ever since the democrats decided they liked better to support their campaigns with corporate money than with union money, and the vast majority of USA voters decided that unions were helping minorities.
October 6th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
[...] does not appear to be working for the Republicans because their approval ratings are still pretty dismal. Sure, Glenn Beck can get a select few of the party (which he is quick to point out does not [...]