Can conservatives compete in the Big Leagues?
For twenty years or so, conservatives have been losing ground in America’s cities and inner-ring suburbs.
But until recently, Republicans still managed to win some big-state political fights through a combination of pragmatism, flexibility, and clever opportunism.
Moderates like George Pataki in New York, Charlie Crist in Florida and Arnold Schwarzenegger hoisted the GOP flag over some of the bluest state capitals in the nation.
But even in this supposedly Republican year, there are signs that the GOP’s fortunes may be fading once again in America’s most populous states.
First a little background. Roughly a third of the nation’s population — about 112 million people — is clumped in just five mega-states: California, Texas, New York, Florida and Illinois.
Currently, there are Republican governors in two of those states: Schwarzenegger in California and Rick Perry in Texas. (Crist, elected as a Republican, recently quit the GOP and declared himself an Independent.)
Those states boast 158 members of the House of Represesentatives. But only 63 of the big-state congress-members– just under 40% — are Republicans.
In the US Senate, the GOP has only three Big 5 lawmakers, two from Texas and one from Florida.
A lot of that underperformance reflects the simple reality that Republicans don’t compete well among minorities, young people, or urban voters.
Those groups make up a big chunk of the population in our super states, and a growing slice of the American population overall.
But it’s important to remember that a quarter century ago, the GOP did just fine in those places. California launched the career of Ronald Reagan. And New York state was the home base for Alphonse D’Amato.
Yet these days, the Empire state’s GOP can barely muster credible statewide candidates, let along big powerhouses like Rudy Giuliani and Pataki.
And there are signs that things could get a lot worse for Republicans, in part because the party continues to swing to the right.
In Florida, Governor Charlie Crist was pushed aside in his bid to win a US Senate seat that had been held by a Republican.
Marco Rubio, a staunch conservative and a tea party favorite, pummeled Crist so badly in the GOP primary that Crist jumped ship, breaking with Republicans.
As an Independent, Crist has been courting Democrats and now he’s running 11 points ahead of Rubio. (Rubio is attracting only 31% of the vote, according to the latest poll.)
Meanwhile, in Texas, staunch conservative Governor Rick Perry — who last year raised the idea of secession — suddenly finds himself locked in a dead-tie race with Houston Mayor Bill White, a Democrat.
White is winning independents by a 6% margin in that contest.
“Republicans have held the Texas governorship since George W. Bush ousted the late Ann Richards 16 years ago,” notes Public Policy Polling. “But it looks like Bush’s successor, Rick Perry, is facing by far the closest contest with a Democratic challenger during that time.”
The GOP hopes to reverse this big-state slide with key victories in California and Illinois.
In California — where Democrats were once viewed as untouchable — Republicans are running neck and neck in both the Senate and Governor’s races.
Same goes for Illinois, where the Democratic Senate candidate holds a razor-thin margin in the battle for Barack Obama’s old seat.
Why do these big state battles matter?
America’s most populous states hold the most political sway — the most electoral votes and the most seats in the House — but they are also are most innovative, productive, and entrepreneurial.
Conservatives have already proved that they can dominate the conversation in much of the South and in rural parts of the West.
But to reclaim bragging rights — to argue convincingly that their movement reflects the general mood of the nation writ large — they need to make gains in the states where most Americans choose to live and work.
Tags: election10
Brian, nice to have you back.
Why do you continue to identify Republicans as conservatives? I suppose our current crop is conservative compared to Hugo Chavez, but they aren’t the traditional conservatives we once had.
With that in mind, is it any wonder Democrats do well? I mean, if you’re going to vote for a guy that’s going to tax and spend and lie to you, you might as well vote for the one that’s at least acknowledging he’s from the party of tax and spend and lie. The Republican will tax and spend and lie and tell you he’s against all that.
Bret – With a handful of exceptions all the conservatives running for office this year are running as Republicans.
So until conservatives come up with their own platform, it’s the lay of the land.
–Brian, NCPR
bret, when you write
but they aren’t the traditional conservatives we once had
whom are you referring to? from where i sit, the gop has clearly gotten more conservative since 1980. and now the tea party rump wants to take it even further to the right.
“America’s most populous states hold the most political sway — the most electoral votes and the most seats in the House — but they are also are most innovative, productive, and entrepreneurial.”
I would really disagree that these states are the most innovative, productive and entrepreneurial, what basis do you have to make such a claim?
California is running a 12% unemployment rate, has high crime rates and a state government that is a mess, New York although not as problematic has higher rates of poverty than most other states and a slow growth economy combined with dysfunctional state government. Florida is a mess today with the housing collapse. I don’t see much innovation or productivity in any of these states when compared to other states.
What these states are is large.
The question remains, why are the democrats doing so well in states like NY where the bottom is falling out of the tub? In NY they are obviously not getting any results yet they are swimming along wonderfully. Very strange?
HT, there was a time when they really meant it when they claimed to be for fiscal discipline and balanced budgets, when borrowing was something you did as a last resort, when a deficit was something to be avoided. I haven’t seen any of those guys in a long time. And I don’t see the TP wanting to go further right, but rather to return to fiscal sanity, despite the people saying the TP is just rich white males attempting to bring back slavery. Garbage like that is patently untrue and belongs in the tin foil hat bucket.
Paul, could it be the huge numbers of union membership? Could it be the huge liberal base bred by decades of gov’t spending, entitlements and grants? Could it be the right just campaigns even more pathetic candidates than the left?
Makes sense to me.
Brian, are we talking Conservatives or conservatives? I see very little in the way of conservative platforms coming from the Republican candidates. I hear platitudes and see the same tired slogans, but I don’t see much conservatism.
Bret4207 it could be the things you list. But I think there is something else. What the government is doing is hurting everyone, including this “liberal base” you mention. The problem is that no one seems to be able to see the forest for the trees. What we are doing in NY is NOT working, and the folks that are doing it (or that are going to be doing it) are wildly popular. I just don’t get it? Same probably goes for some of these other states. It seems like people are afraid to try a new course. Folks know that Andrew Cuomo is not going to do what he claims in his platform, yet folks believe otherwise. I just don’t get it? One thing we definitely need are shorter term limits. I think the country would be run much differently if our politicians weren’t always running for election. Patterson is governing much differently (albeit maybe not very effectively) because he knows he is done in December.
In my opinion they can’t win in the big states because of the social issues. People in places like NY or California are just never going to like someone like Sarah Palin or any social conservative. But remember Reagan was not considered a social conservative in the beginning of his career in California; he was a hawk and a fiscal conservative. Also I think there are deep cultural issues that divide this country.
If the Republicans free themselves from those social issues and focus mainly on fiscal conservatism, pro-growth programs, deficit reduction efforts, pro-business efforts, strong national defense they may have a chance again.
The social strategy works in some places, but it will probably not work in a big way in larger states and I say that as a social conservative myself.
bret,
there was a time when they really meant it
when was it? who were they? we live in a complicated world and maybe i’m just having a brain freeze but i don’t know of any self- (or otherwise!) identified “conservatives” who have governed that way. real conservatives right on down to reagan cut taxes on the rich and blow up the deficit.
mervel,
i think you’re quite right to identify social issues as a major problem for conservatives in the big states, but i also think that only points to how poor the long-term prospects for conservatives are. social conservatives form a major, major part of the republican base. and to turn away from them really might spell the collapse of the gop.
I would agree hermit except that the conservative social issue strategy is a recent trend. The social conservatives have no place to go, they can sit home or they can go with fiscal conservatives. The tact to take with social conservatives is a states rights libertarian view most would be happy with that, they know they are totally outnumbered nationally and from the people I know at least they are growing weary of these struggles.
I love Brian’s title.
The implication is that conservatives are currently minor league players.
“Are they ready for the big leagues?”, he asks.
The conservatives and the liberal/progressives are currently playing ball. The liberal/progressives are currently up to bat.
The question at hand is, “are they in the correct league”?
We’ll see in November 2010 and 2012.
i’m not sure what you mean by “recent,” mervel. i think the social conservative movement really rose to prominence in the 80’s, and that was after getting started in the 60’s and 70’s (and maybe earlier?). but that aside, i certainly agree that social conservatives aren’t going anywhere near the dems, but staying home is a very real possibility for them. as is starting some kind of splinter third party. either could be really devastating for the gop.
By recent I meant the 1980’s. If the Republicans can show that they can create more private sector jobs and that they will secure the future of Social Security and Medicare for future generations through cutting back now, I think they could capture much of the demographic in the urban areas who are turned of now because of social issues. You could hold the social conservatives by saying these are states rights issues we support your right to handle your own affairs. If we have an unemployment rate of 9-10% in 2012 Republicans could easily take the White House and Congress back. Reagan didn’t win because of being marginally pro-life, he won because of the 18% inflation rate, 8% unemployment, the Oil cartel and the Iran hostage crisis and the US being in a “malaise “.
There are parallels to today.
Right on Mervel. And I’ll say it again, doesn’t Carter look better in retrospect?
If only we had listened to him in so many ways.
Instead we got the new GOP who followed the path of Reagan who couldn’t tell reality from the movies.
If only the liberals weren’t such knuckleheads we’d rule the world!
I liked Jimmy Carter.
But I think the Reagan-Bush-Clinton period was a good run and would gladly do that again.
Well, Reagan-Bush-Clinton era was especially good for making the wealthy wealthier but in terms of limiting our dependence on foreign oil, increasing our energy efficiency, providing health-care for everyone, providing a solution to world problems that led to 9/11 things didn’t go so well.
Here’s an observation.
When the rich get richer, the poor get richer.
No, Carter just looks worse and worse from where I sit. And there are no major league politicians that aren’t in bed with one group or another, so how do we ever know we’ll be getting what we voted for. Obama is a perfect example of not getting what you voted for.
HT- there have been conservative Republicans that really did mean it. Do any come to mind in the past 20 years? No, and there is the problem. The most conservative guy that comes to mind recently is Patterson, and he’s not really a Republican, now is he? That’s the problem, no one is willing to stand up and take the hard line and make the tough choices. Various state Governors and County officials have done it, but you just don’t hear about them.
This is a new day with new challenges. The staus quo tax and borrow and spend Republican has to go. I don’t care nearly as much about social issues as many others do. We need to separate the fiscal from the social.
You know what knucklehead, those are fine lofty goals, but most people just want a decent job that is halfway secured and a good future for their children. The proof is in the outcomes and we will see if with the Democrats in control of the entire government we get the outcomes or not. Also I don’t think there is a national consensus that the goals you mentioned are a priority for the US government. What is the point of energy independence and free health care if that means we are in a depression and there is not any health care available free or not? For example it looks like my employer is going to have to raise my insurance contribution again this year to the point that I am on the edge of not being able to afford it. How is this health care reform helping me?
I still think we had great outcomes during the 1980-2000 eras. I mean 20 years of pretty good times is pretty good.
HT- there have been conservative Republicans that really did mean it. Do any come to mind in the past 20 years? No, and there is the problem.
well again, which conservative republicans are you talking about? please name names. i certainly don’t mind if you go back more than 20 years.
again, from where i sit the national gop has gotten more and more conservative since 1980. barry goldwater in some sense launched the conservative movement in 1964, reagan was part of a conservative insurgency against the establishmentarian ford in 1976, the conservative movement gained power with reagan in 1980, and ever since the movement has steadily consolidated its grip over the party. are you talking about something else besides the national party?
Paul,
Actually polling shows that public approval of the NY legislature is at it’s lowest level ever.
Brian,
What’s the evidence for Rudy Giuliani being a political “powerhouse”? He owned NYC, true, for a time. But he doesn’t travel well. And hasn’t ever come close to winning a race since he quit Gracie Mansion.
HT- Off the top of my head the closest thing to a true conservative in play today would probably be New Jerseys Chris Christie. The guy is shooting straight from the hip and actually doing the hard things. Another might be Saint (Ron) Paul. The guy irks me for some reason, but he does represent conservative/libertarian views and does appear to walk the walk, so to speak. Ronald Reagan did save California by being honest and telling them outright he had to raise taxes to pay off the debt and that after that was finished he’d lower taxes. He did it. Cut a lot of spending too IIRC. When he was Pres he did increase the deficit, true, but the Cold War was won, the economy improved and his trickle down economics did work at least as well as Obamas trickle up poverty.
There have been many, many Repubs that talked the talk and then ailed miserably when their feet were held to the fire. Geo HW Bush and his “Read my lips” would be a prime example.
I suppose you’d be accurate asking just where all the conservative Repubs are. They don’t seem to go far or they simply never get very far in their quest. It kind of makes sense, hwy would people elect the honest guy that keeps giving them bad news? No one wants to hear bad news, no one wants to hear about how we can’t have this or that. We’re all spoiled children in that respect, me included. Very, very few people can stomach the awful truth, that we’re on a sinking ship and there are no more life boats or life jackets. We’re already $13 trillion in debt. Doesn’t matter which idiots got us here, what matters is softening the blow that’s coming.
So far no one is working on that.
Man, some of you guys have to stop drinking the Kool-aid.
bret,
i think if you take reagan as some kind of conservative standard bearer then it totally undermines your argument that today’s gop is less, not more, conservative. this is a guy who signed multiple tax increases, “cut and run” from lebanon, and led the u.s. in signing the u.n. convention against torture. he’d be drummed out of today’s gop in no time.
No, Reagan was not a conservative in the traditional sense. And as someone who lost friends in the Barracks in Lebanon…well, I didn’t much care for that. I know a lot of people hold Reagan up as some sort of idol of conservative principal. I can agree to an extent, but mainly for his leadership. He an I disagree on many points, but I respected the man. No he wasn’t perfect, but he was a darn sight better than that cardigan wearing Mr Rogers look alike that preceded him!
You want a real conservative? Take a look at Calvin Coolidge. You don’t hear much about “Silent Cal” these days, but that old Vermont Yankee was a pretty good President and he was both conservative and fair minded when it came to more liberal issues. He managed things very well financially, supported womens suffrage and the role of gov’t in it’s proper place. An interesting man and one of very strong character. I doubt he would make a ripple in todays political waters but he is to be admired. Humility is something I’d really like to see in any elected official, particularly the President.
Read up on Calvin.
so bret, when you say that the gop has gotten less conservative i take it you’re comparing to the 1920’s? maybe so! my knowledge of the history of that era is far too poor for me to able to agree or disagree. i just want to reassert my claim that the gop has gotten steadily more conservative since 1980, and in fact is more conservative now than at any time since wwii.
HT, IMO the Republicans started becoming more “progressive” when they figured out that FDR was a political genius. When they figured out the American people could be coerced and talked into giving up more and more of their wealth and freedoms to gov’t- willingly- if you just convinced them it was for their own good or bought their votes with grants, entitlements, etc. I would agree the plastic haired “Republicans” of today are more socially conservative than in recent years, but I would also point out that many of these social issues didn’t exist years back. Gay marriage, gov’t provided health care, things like that just weren’t on the table 20-30 years ago, much less in the 40’s, 50’s or 60’s.
Maybe that’s where the change came from.
sure, but today’s republicans are also more economically conservative than in recent years. again, reagan himself signed multiple tax increases as president. (they were small, but still.) that kind of thing is unthinkable from today’s gop.
Rick Perry is not a staunch conservative. Rick Perry is a moderate who shifted hard right to beat Libertarian Deb Medina in Texas. The reason Perry is having trouble in Texas is because conservatives are reluctant to support such a snake. Google Perry Gardasil for an inkling of the reason why, and then stick to things you understand. You have no clue when it comes to the Republic of Texas.