538: "Maybe Republicans Really Are In Disarray"

[Attorney in Texas]

Link. Excerpt:

Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein ... have written extensively about ... the theory is that Republicans are a broken, dysfunctional political party — that the GOP is in disarray, ... for instance:

* The Republican speaker of the House, John Boehner, recently resigned under pressure from a dissident group of Republicans, the House Freedom Caucus.
* Under Republican leadership, the House entered into an unpopular government shutdown and only narrowly avoided a crisis over raising the debt ceiling.
* The 112th and 113th congresses were among the least productive ever as measured by the amount of legislation passed, with filibusters and other parliamentary tactics used frequently.
* Statistical measurements of voting in Congress like DW-Nominate find that Republicans are, on average, more conservative than at any point in the modern era. Democrats in Congress have also become more liberal, especially in the past few years, but the polarization is asymmetric (Republicans have moved to the right more than Democrats have moved to the left).
* Nonetheless, there are also high levels of disagreement among Republicans in Congress. Because Congress is highly partisan, Republicans may be largely united when voting against Democrats, but this conceals profound differences among Republicans about tactics, strategy and policy objectives.
* In 2010, 2012 and 2014, Republican incumbents such as House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Sen. Dick Lugar of Indiana were ousted in primary challenges. Meanwhile, “outsider” candidates such as Christine O’Donnell in Delaware and Ken Buck in Colorado won the Republican nomination in key open-seat Senate races, possibly costing the GOP several Senate seats.
* Although establishment-backed candidates eventually won, Republicans were relatively slow to settle on presidential nominees in 2008 and 2012 as compared with previous years. The 2012 campaign featured several surges for candidates like Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich who were openly opposed by the party establishment.
* Republicans are apparently having trouble choosing their 2016 nominee as well, not just as measured by the polls, but also according to other measures of support like fundraising and endorsements.

...
There is one dynamic of the 2016 GOP presidential primary that lends credence to the “Republicans in Disarray!” case. Under the “Party Decides” theory, which presumes reasonably arrayed parties, the most important proxy for party support is endorsements. And so far, Republicans lawmakers aren’t endorsing much of anyone.
...
Among the most moderate Republicans in Congress, ... Jeb Bush is the clear front-runner with this group, with 16 percent of the endorsements from moderate Republicans in Congress; Chris Christie is in second place, with 5 percent.

... the 101 Republicans near the median of the party have had much more trouble reaching consensus. About 80 percent of them have yet to issue any endorsement. And no candidate (Bush and Rubio are nominally tied for first place) has received more than 5 percent of their support.

Look toward the most conservative 100 Republicans, and there are even more signs of disarray. ... among those who have endorsed, the leading choices are Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, two candidates who spend a lot of their time poking a finger in the eye of the Republican establishment.

[Attorney in Texas]

3. Agreed!

[Agnosticsherbet]

2. This is the best possible news we can get in light of historical trends.

Only twice in the parties history have we elected a Democrats to a third term with Vice President Martin Van Buren succeeding Andrew Jackson and President Franklin D. Roosevelt succeeding himself. I considered this election the Republicans to loose. They are trying so hard to do that, that we may beat that curse no matter who we nominate.

[yardwork]

4. Technically, Gore won in 2000. That would have been 3 Dems in a row.

[Agnosticsherbet]

15. Since Bush became President, Bush won.

The fact that what happened in Florida was cheating does not transfer the victory, sadly.

[yardwork]

17. My point is that the people elected a Democrat three times in a row.

There's no reason to think it can't happen again.

[Attorney in Texas]

9. The "old rules" about the strength or weakness of an incumbent party no longer apply because the

Republican party has gerrymandered the nation to reflect a false parity between the parties.

In years past, there was some balance between the two major parties of the day because a party too far outside of the public mainstream would either evolve to better reflect the public's views or die for lack of support.

The modern Republican party has cheated this natural evolutionary process by gerrymandering congressional districts so extremely and so anti-democratically that they have been able to depart from the mainstream without being checked back toward more widely accepted views because they rigged the congressional election process.

As a result of the Republicans maintaining a majority of congressional seats with less than a majority of votes due to gerrymandering, they have evolved into a party with governmental power beyond what its minority level of actual support should warrant. This power grab has the negative consequence, however, that the Republican party is no longer geared toward winning a majority of votes -- just a majority of congressional seats.

The electoral college is not a direct vote for president, but it is not generally susceptible to gerrymandering, and so the Republican party faces a different handicap in presidential races than the obstacles any other political party has historically faced.

[Agnosticsherbet]

16. Gerrymandering only impacts the House.

The President and the Senate are not touched by that.

[yardwork]

18. I think the poster's point is that gerrymandering allowed the GOP to go extreme.

Without gerrymandering, the Republicans wouldn't have been able to get so extreme. Now they're all surprised that the Republicans running for president are bat shit crazy.

[Agnosticsherbet]

19. I don't agree. Starting with Bush Sr.

Republicans moved right. Moderate Rockefeller Republicans (Fiscal conservative socially liberal) dominated much of the Northeast. Starting with Clinton, they were challenged from their right.

Many of those former Republicans became third way and centrist Democrats. In order to hold onto office Republican appealed to the old John Birch Society folk who had been ejected from the Republican party in the 50's. The father of the Koch brothers was one of the founders of the Birchers. The teaparty is a renamed John Birch society.

Gerrymandering is a process that has been with us from the beginning. Democrats have been involved.

[Attorney in Texas]

20. First, the "Rockafeller Republicans" weren't really "fiscally conservative socially liberal"). They

were also fairly fiscally liberal by today's standards.

Second, it is a bit of a stretch to say the shift right started with Clinton. If you compare Nixon's domestic agenda with Carter's, it is difficult to dispute that Carter governed to the right of Nixon.

Finally, it is true that both Democrats and Republicans have participated in gerrymandering in the past, but you may not be appreciating how much more gerrymandered the current Republican congress is. In 2012, for example, Democrats got 54,301,095 congressional votes and Republicans got 53,822,442 congressional votes. Seems like a narrow win for the Democrats, right? Guess again: the majority of votes only won the Democrats 201 seats as compared to 234 seats for the Republicans. That is a historically huge discrepancy between the congressional vote and the congressional balance of power.

Sure, both parties have been guilty of gerrymandering in the past, but the Republicans have punched the process down to new depths.

[IDemo]

5. I take exception to the continued use of the word "conservative" to describe them

This word actually meant something decades ago but nothing remains of the repub party to justify the label.

[Attorney in Texas]

8. Agreed. Students of government once understood the distinction between conservative and reactionary

The current Republican party -- especially the current Republican congress -- is radical and reactionary, anything but conservative.

Historically, conservative meant moderate, with a preference toward preserving the status quo rather than embracing the liberal or progressive reforms offered by both parties. There is nothing moderate or inclined toward conserving our well accepted governmental institutions about the Republican party today.

If the Republican party was not such an avowed enemy of education, they would probably understand the irony when someone like Ted Cruz mislabels himself as "conservative."

[maxsolomon]

6. The have AM Radio, TV news, the WSJ, both houses of Congress, the SCOTUS,

most state governments, gerrymandered House districts, and endless deep-pocket donors. Their voters always turn out (unless they die of old age) and vote filled with Spite and Malice.

They won't lose the House, no matter how incompetent they are, for the next 3 elections cycles, and likely not even then because they will still control most State Legislatures after the 2020 Census.

If that's Disarray, I'd hate to see Array.

[Arugula Latte]

7. Exactly.

These ignorant assholes are driven by a white-hot anger and selfishness and absolute stupidity (usually religious in nature).

[Johonny]

10. It's not so much that liberals have moved to the left as society has moved to the left

medicare, social security, abortion, civil rights -these are generally accept ideas with the majority of society. Most moderate democrats don't lose to "liberal" candidates from their own party. They lose to Republicans. On the other hand many moderate and liberal Republicans have lost to batshit crazy RW Republicans.

or to sum this article up in another way

A) Democrats are following general society trends

B) The middle has been lost in the Democratic party because batshit crazy Republicans have been able to win elections against conservative Democrats in conservative districts by labeling them "liberal" even if they were really moderate or conservative.

C) Liberal and moderate Republicans are losing to batshit crazy Republicans in Republican distracts by labeling them "liberal". This has gotten to the point where Paul D. Ryan is too liberal for many Republicans.

[Attorney in Texas]

11. It is spooky when Boehner and Ryan are considered too liberal by so many elected congressmonsters

[FLPanhandle]

12. Yet this fucked up party controls both the House and Senate

I can't laugh at them until they are a minority in Congress and are not in control of the WH.

I still can't believe Americans vote for these idiots.

[tabasco]

14. And the Supreme Court. n/t

[tabasco]

13. They are good followers and will rally around whatever nutcase

Rush and Fox "News" tell them to.