It Isn’t the Republican “Brand” that Is in Trouble in 2008 – It’s Who they Are and What they Do

[Time for change]

All signs are that the Republican Party is not looking good for the November 2008 elections, to put it mildly.

As Democrats decide on their campaign strategies this year it is important not only that they have an accurate picture of where the two parties stand, but that they understand the reasons for the extremely poor standing of the Republican Party at this time. Understanding those reasons could help some of them decide whether it is wise to move towards the center on various issues, as some appear already to be doing, or whether it might be wiser to move to the left.

But first, just for fun, let’s first take a look at the current status:


Current status of the Republican vs. Democratic Party

U.S. House of Representatives
The generic Congressional poll asks whether the voter intends to vote for a Republican or Democrat in the voter’s Congressional district in 2008. Since the 2006 election, there doesn’t seem to have been a single poll that favors the Congressional Republicans. In 2008, out of 17 polls, Democrats are favored by anywhere from 4 to 18 points, with an average of 10 or 11. How does that translate into likely outcomes this November?

After the 2006 elections, Democrats held a 31 seat lead in the House, 233-202. Since then there have been three special elections that resulted in Democrats taking additional seats from Republicans, resulting in a net pickup of 6 seats, to make the current total 236-199. But despite the fact that Democrats have far more seats to defend than Republicans in 2008, most predictions are that the Democrats will pick up even more seats on Election Day. Here is an analysis that says there are 42 vulnerable Republican seats (29 “clearly” vulnerable), compared to only 26 vulnerable Democratic seats (15 “clearly” vulnerable).

U.S. Senate
All predictions are that the Democrats are likely to pick up Senate seats this fall. Here is a summary of six comprehensive predictions. On average, of the 23 seats being defended by Republicans, one (Virginia) appears to be solidly going Democratic, 3 (NM, CO, NH) appear to be leaning Democratic (fairly solidly according to some sources), 3 (AK, MN, MS) appear to be tossups, and 3 appear to be only leaning Republican (NC, OR, ME). And there are several others that aren’t considered exactly safe either (especially Kentucky and Texas). In summary, we are likely to see a pickup of about 6 Democratic seats – maybe more (Though I suspect we might lose Lieberman).

Among the 12 seats being defended by Democrats, only one seems to be in any significant trouble. Mary Landrieu’s seat in Louisiana is said to be only leaning Democratic. A major reason for that is that a large portion of her base was displaced following Hurricane Katrina.

President – What happened to all the 2004 “swing states”?
Obama’s lead over McCain in the polls continues to gradually widen, currently averaging about 6 points. Those polls don’t include Bob Barr, which I suspect would widen Obama’s lead further if Barr’s campaign gathers traction.

Looking at last year’s swing states is more interesting. I’m talking about the 12 states that were pretty much mentioned as “swing states” throughout the 2004 election year, all of which were decided by 5 or less percent (6 went for Kerry and 6 went for Bush).

Of the 6 that went for Kerry, repeated polling shows* that all are at least leaning towards Obama, and that many or most probably should not be considered swing states this year. Those include:
Minnesota: Obama + 11 (6 polls)
Oregon: Obama + 9 (4 polls)
Wisconsin: Obama + 7 (6 polls)
Pennsylvania: Obama + 7 (6 polls)
New Hampshire: Obama + 8 (2 polls)
Michigan: Obama + 2 (6 polls)

Of the 6 swing states that Bush won in 2004, McCain is not doing well at all, with most trending towards Obama:
Iowa: Obama + 5 (4 polls)
Colorado: Obama + 4 (3 polls)
New Mexico: Obama + 5 (4 polls)
Ohio: Obama + 3 (7 polls)
Nevada: McCain + 4 (3 polls)
Florida: McCain + 3 (8 polls)

The upshot of all that is that of 2004’s 12 swing states, half won by Kerry and half won by Bush, there now are perhaps 7 remaining (the other 5 leaning heavily towards Obama), only 2 of which appear likely to go to McCain. That represents a likely gain of 4 states containing 41 electoral votes (IA, CO, NM, OH) for the Democrats. And Kenneth Blackwell won’t be involved in the Ohio election this year.

But that’s not all. There also appear to be several additional swing states leaving the safe Republican column this year, including:
Indiana (Obama + 1, 1 poll)
Virginia (Even, 6 polls)
Missouri (McCain + 4, 4 polls)
North Carolina (McCain + 4, 8 polls)
And maybe even North Dakota and Georgia, when Bob Barr is included.

Georgia and North Carolina haven’t voted for a Democratic Presidential nominee since Jimmy Carter. Indiana, Virginia, and North Dakota haven’t voted Democratic since the Lyndon Johnson landslide of 1964.

* Numbers refer to May and June averages


The issues

One of the most important questions raised by all this dismal polling data (from the Republican point of view) is the extent to which this data represents dissatisfaction with the Republican Party per se or whether it represents dissatisfaction with the issues that Republicans advocate. So let’s take a look at some issues that seem likely to play a role in the coming election:

Iraq War
The Iraq War seems to be a losing issue for any candidate who supports it:

June 2008: In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?
Made a mistake: 60%
Did not make a mistake: 37%

June 2008: In your opinion, should the United States withdraw troops from Iraq right away, or should the U.S. begin bringing troops home within the next year, or should troops stay in Iraq for as long as it takes to win the war?
Withdraw right away: 25%
Withdraw within year: 43%
Stay as long as it takes (which is McCain’s position): 26%

Taxes
Opinions of our current tax structure differ according to what income group is being discussed. This is something that our corporate news media NEVER talks about. They always try to simplify the issue to “lower taxes” vs. “raise taxes”. But look at the huge differences on how Americans view the issue when categorized by income group:

April 2008: As I read off some different groups, please tell me if you think they are paying their fair share in federal taxes, paying too much, or paying too little. How about (see below)?

“Lower-income people”?
Too much: 51%
Too little: 13%

“Middle-income people”?
Too much: 43%
Too little: 4%

“Upper-income people”?
Too much: 9%
Too little: 63%

National universal health insurance
This is an issue that Obama should talk about a lot, as his stand on this is much more consistent with the desires of the American people than are McCain’s:

March 2007: Should government guarantee health insurance for all?
Yes: 64%
No: 27%

The “War on Terror”
These are the issues that Democrats seem to be so afraid of. But look at how Americans view these issues.

Here are opinions of citizens of various countries on rules prohibiting torture. Americans are somewhat more in favor of torture than the citizens of most long standing democracies, but still they are generally against it:

Should maintain clear rules against torture: 58%
Should allow some degree of torture: 36%

The opinion of Americans against warrantless wiretapping is even clearer:

January 2008: Should the U.S. government have to get a warrant from a court before wiretapping the conversations U.S. citizens have with people in other countries OR should the U.S. government be able to wiretap such conversations without a warrant from a court?
Government has to get warrant: 63% (55% strongly agree)
Government can wiretap without warrant: 33% (24% strongly agree)

January 2008: Do you think that Congress should give the phone companies immunity from legal action against the companies OR should citizens who believe their rights have been violated be free to take legal action against those phone companies and let the courts decide the outcome?
Let courts decide: 57% (45% strongly agree)
Give immunity: 33% (22% strongly agree)

Note that Americans who would be against George Bush’s FISA bill as currently passed by the U.S. House of Representatives would be a very large majority if they understood the bill. They would include at a minimum the 63% of respondents who say that the government should have a warrant before wiretapping U.S. citizens, since even the much more benign original FISA bill didn’t require that.

Impeachment
You can see from this list of polls, most which were obtained when George Bush was more popular than he is now, that the percent of Americans responding positively to impeachment polls varies usually between over 30% and over 50%, depending upon how the poll is worded. At the high end, polls that say “hold accountable through impeachment” or “consider impeaching” show a clear majority in favor, such as 53% to 42% in this poll, or 52% to 43% in this one. At the other end, polls which actually mention removal from office usually show only around 30% to 45% in favor.

There are two very important things to consider about these polls. First, holding an impeachment hearing is the equivalent of Congress “considering impeachment” – which most Americans favor. Polls which actually mention removal from office are understandably less likely to be met with a favorable response because there are many Americans who feel uncomfortable enough with what Bush and Cheney are doing to our country that they want to see impeachment pursued, but they are not yet convinced enough that they are willing to outright say that they should be removed from office.

Therefore, it is difficult to understand why so many Congressional Democrats run away from the impeachment issue.


So which do Americans dislike worse – Republicans or what they stand for?

From the above polling data on issues, it would appear that the American people are far to the left of most American politicians in general, and Congress in particular. More evidence to that effect is demonstrated by polls that consistently show only about 15% of Americans who believe our country is headed in the right direction and less than 20% approval of the job that Congress is doing. Some might blame the absurdly low Congressional approval rating on the fact that Democrats currently control Congress. However, the above noted polling that overwhelmingly favors Congressional Democrats over Republicans should dispose of that idea.

But what about the fact that Americans are with Democrats much more than Republicans on the issues? Are they really that liberal on the issues, or is it just the Republican “brand name” that causes them to disfavor what Republicans favor. The evidence indicates that it is the former – and even more so. In fact, the Republican “brand name” helps bring respondents more to the conservative side, and still Americans poll liberal on the issues when the issues are identified as Democratic or Republican. A recent series of polls by Stan Greenberg and Glen Bolger makes that point :

When they tested Democratic and Republican messages without identifying which party they came from, the Democratic message consistently won out over the GOP message by 11 to 25 points. This was true even among Republican voters, who preferred the Democratic message on every issue but Iraq. It was only when the messages were identified by party that the Republicans won back their voters.

Their conclusion:

The GOP brand isn’t in crisis – it’s the only thing keeping them alive…. Republicans show signs of … “obsessive branding disorder”, a tendency to focus obsessively on the brand and ignore the product.

In other words, it is Republican policies that are the problem, even more so than their name – as much in disfavor as that currently is. The message that Democrats should take away from all this is clear. Running towards the center is generally not likely to help them. They should instead get more in line with the American people and espouse the values that we believe in. Proudly proclaiming those values, not running away from them, is what is likely to get more Democrats elected this fall and get our nation back on the right track.

Democratic candidates for high elective office should announce their intent to put an end to the immoral and disastrous Iraq War, and to have the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, at least to the extent that they were doing prior to George Bush’s Presidency. They should explain how they will use the trillions of dollars saved by those two measures alone to get our citizens back on their feet again, including a plan to ensure that every American has the opportunity for decent health care. And, as Senator Feingold recently said with regard to telecom immunity and warrantless spying (in this video): Let’s celebrate our Constitution this Independence Day weekend, and afterwards let’s try to save it from being destroyed.

[slipslidingaway]

1. Thanks K&R...

needs further reading by me.

[ladjf]

2. Republicanism is an ego-centric philosophy that in now way

suffices as a system of survival values that will succeed.

The "Cult" of Republicanism, as we know it today, had it's roots in the position papers written for the Republicans shortly after WWII by imported former Nazi propagandists. After their identities were discovered, a long series of other
Republican strategists right on up to Rove and Norquist have continued to hone the philosophy of
Republicanism. Their goal was to create a system that would gain and keep power.

However, millions of Americans, indoctrinated by their mind control techniques, adopted the values of the Party as a basis for the life values. The outcome of that has been a disaster for life on Earth.

[Time for change]

8. I hadn't heard of that

I thought it went back further. Harding--Coolidge--Hoover, if not prior to that time.

Do you know what their identities are?

I was just reading something by Bill Moyers today, regarding Harding refusing to shake hands with black children while campaigning.

[ladjf]

9. You are correct that Harding ,Coolidge and Hoover were Republicans

and that their political philosophies were generally similar to the Republicans of today.

The names of the Nazi propagandists who were connected to the Republican Party can be found all over the INTERNET. Google "Nazi propagandist in the Republican Party".
http://archive.democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=Nazis is one site.

[Time for change]

10. I knew that we collaborated with some Nazis after WW II, but

I didn't know that they served as the precursors of much of the current Republican agenda. That sounds worth looking into some more. Thanks for the link.

[WinkyDink]

14. NAZI Prescott Bush 's grandson, not great-great-grandson, is the GD PRESIDENT of the U.S.! From a

COUP d'ETAT, and nothing less!!

[mojowork_n]

17. Pre-dating World War II, this link has some info along the same lines.

http://www.insider-magazine.com/ChristianMafia.htm

I don't want to personally vouch for everything that's in this article, but the writer has done a lot of documented research on the "Prayer Breakfast" movement. Her membership in the group brought Hillary Clinton some negative attention during the primaries, and some posts and links here on D.U.


Excerpt:

The roots of the Fellowship go back to the 1930s and a Norwegian immigrant and Methodist minister named Abraham Vereide. According to Fellowship archives maintained at the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton College in Illinois, Vereide, who immigrated from Norway in 1905, began an outreach ministry in Seattle in April 1935. But his religious outreach involved nothing more than pushing for an anti-Communist, anti-union, anti-Socialist, and pro-Nazi German political agenda. A loose organization and secrecy were paramount for Vereide. Fellowship archives state that Vereide wanted his movement to “carry out its objective through personal, trusting, informal, unpublicized contact between people.” Vereide’s establishment of his Prayer Breakfast Movement for anti-Socialist and anti-International Workers of the World (IWW or “Wobblies”) Seattle businessmen in 1935 coincided with the establishment of another pro-Nazi German organization in the United States, the German-American Bund. Vereide saw his prayer movement replacing labor unions.


A student of the un-Christian German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, Vereide’s thoughts about a unitary religion based on an unyielding subservience to a composite notion of “Jesus” put him into the same category as many of the German nationalist philosophers who were favored by Hitler and the Nazis. Nietzsche wrote the following of Christianity: “When we hear the ancient bells growling on a Sunday morning we ask ourselves: Is it really possible! This, for a Jew, crucified two thousand years ago, who said he was God’s son? The proof of such a claim is lacking.”


One philosophical fellow traveler of Vereide was the German Nazi philosopher Martin Heidegger, a colleague of Leo Strauss, the father of American neo-conservatism and the mentor of such present-day American neo-conservatives as Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. Strauss’s close association with Heidegger and the Nazi idea of telling the big lie in order to justify the end goals – Machiavellianism on steroids -- did not help Strauss in Nazi Germany. Because he was Jewish, he was forced to emigrate to the United States, where he eventually began teaching neo-conservative political science at the University of Chicago. It is this confluence of right-wing philosophies that provides a political bridge between modern-day Christian Rightists (including so-called Christian Zionists) and the secular-oriented neo-conservatives who support a policy that sees a U.S.-Israeli alliance against Islam and European-oriented democratic socialism. For the dominion theologists, the United States is the new Israel, with a God-given mandate to establish dominion over the entire planet. Neither the secular neo-conservatives nor Christian fundamentalists seem to have a problem with the idea of American domination of the planet, as witnessed by the presence of representatives of both camps as supporters of the neo-conservative Project for a New American Century, the neo-conservative blueprint for America’s attack on Iraq and plans to attack, occupy, and dominate other countries that oppose U.S. designs.


What bound all so-called “America First” movements prior to World War II was their common hatred for labor unions, Communists and Socialists, Jews, and most definitely, the administration of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Vereide’s Prayer Breakfast Movement, pro-Nazi German groups like the Bund, and a resurgent Ku Klux Klan had more than propaganda in common – they had an interlocking leadership and a coordinated political agenda.


Not only was Vereide pro-Hitler, he was the only Norwegian of note, who was not officially a Nazi, who never condemned Norwegian Nazi leader Vidkun Quisling, a man whose name has become synonymous with traitor and who was executed in 1945...

[Time for change]

25. Informative article, thank you

[ErinBerin84]

3. that would be a good line for the inept Democratic "strategists" to use on tv

[Time for change]

23. Yes it would

[Jacob Freeze]

4. Popularity

Approval of the Democratic Congress hovers even lower than approval of Bush...

Maybe it's because nobody expects <em>anything</em> from Bush any more, but a few naive souls actually voted for the Democrats in 2004 expecting them to end the war in Iraq.

[Jacob Freeze]

5. Disappointment

Approval of the Democratic Congress hovers even lower than approval of Bush...

Maybe it's because nobody expects anything from Bush any more, but a few naive souls actually voted for the Democrats in 2004 expecting them to end the war in Iraq.

(Look, Ma... italics!)

[Time for change]

6. It is approval of CONGRESS that hovers lower than approval of Bush

Not approval of the Democratic Congress.

Please note the first section of this OP, which clearly shows that public approval of Democrats in Congress are FAR higher than public approval of Republicans in Congress.

And it is also fair to say that, although the public would like to see more action from Democrats, as well as Republicans, towards ending the war, Republicans have been far more resistant to that than Democrats.

[madfloridian]

7. As the Republican brand is failing....our side is adopting it.

That is so not smart.

Nice post. Recommended.

[Time for change]

11. I just don't understand why they do it so much?

Especially on impeachment, that's what upsets me more than anything else.

[kentuck]

12. Excellent point !

Very clever to blame it on a "brand" rather than take personal responsibility.

[Time for change]

15. The GOP view on personal responsibility is that it doesn't apply to them but

they shriek and scream about the need for it to apply to everyone else.

[WinkyDink]

13. The Repub PTB were always about phony P.R. ALWAYS. They learned from Mad Ave.

"Religious". Wage war; hurt the poor; scorn the homeless; mock the hungry ("Ketchup is a vegetable"); etc.
"Patriotic". Reduce Veterans' benefits. Outsource American industry. Pay little to no corporate taxes. Chicken-hawks.
"Best for Security". September 11, 2001. Lebanon Marine barracks.
"Manly, Masculine Men". See: Chicken-hawks.

[Time for change]

16. New Montana poll has Obama up by 5!

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/montana/election_2008_montana_presidential_election2

[Orsino]

18. That would be entirely accurate if Americans voted their interests.

Sadly, though, political loyalties resembles those of sports fans to their teams, lifetime commitments that defy actual performance.

[Time for change]

20. Then why should it be a problem to espouse the left of center views that most Americans hold

Those why are going to vote Republican no matter what won't be affected by whatever we do, so why even include them in the equation.

On the other hand, there are people who are concerned about issues, and most Americans' views on the issues are substantially to the left of what our politicians espouse. So, what can possibly be gained by so many Democrats moving to the center?

[Orsino]

26. Because left-of-center views are not macho enough to be flaunted...

...in the Land of Guns, God 'n' Gay-Hatin'. Ordinary, conservative Democrats have a hard enough time resisting the siren call of jingoism.

[Time for change]

27. That's what our corporate media would like us to believe

But scientific polls say otherwise, as I noted in the OP.

[Orsino]

28. I don't think the OP addresses this point.

The fact remains that it is the macho, might-makes-right views that are flaunted--even today, when years of abuse should have taught us to wave protest signs proudly.

The media have led the way in the dumbing-down of our discourse, sure. And they've done so successfully.

[beltanefauve]

19. For the most part,

people really are fed up with Republicans and what they do, moreso than the "brand" being tainted. I also agree with you that the general public's views are far more Liberal than the MSN portrays. But branding most certainly plays a role as well. (Orsino, in the thread above mine, uses the sports team analogy.) There are Republicans, and then there are "Republicans". The latter are in it not because of that party's platform, or because Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" really resonated with them, or because they fundamentally agreed with Barry Goldwater. These people probably couldn't describe or explain any of these things if asked. No, these people are consumers rather than citizens, and went "R" because they were into being Republicans. They thought it was cool, and they perceived that the Repubs were winners, much like rooting for and identifying with a sports team. Perhaps they were attracted by the fact that being a Republican means that you can be self-absorbed, that it's okay to be "politically incorrect" (read: racist, sexist and/or homophobic), that the one with the most toys wins. Well, now Republican is a damaged brand. These people too are getting reamed at the pump and losing their homes. And they'd still like to be identified with the "winning" team. McSame isn't offering them a winning strategy.

I've seen this in my own family. My yuppie sister, who latched onto the "Reagan Revolution" and has always voted "R", is now backing Obama. And it's her young children who have been egging her on.

[Time for change]

22. The Republican brand IS damaged

But not as much as people are fed up over their policies. War for no reason. Rapidly widening wealth gap, while most Americans struggle to keep their head above water.

That's why many Republicans still support the Republican brand even while favoring Democratic policies. My point is that moving away from Democratic policies, towards Republican policies, is likely to hurt Democrats in their efforts to get elected.

[TheDonkey]

21. That is the MSM talking point. The brand is in the gutter because the product is trash.

[Scurrilous]

24. Kick

:kick: