The Republicans Are Going to Lose in 2008

[A recurring feature pointing to evidence and analyses of the GOP’s pending defeat in 2008.]

Daily Kos has a pice from DemFromCT summing up some major problems for the GOP in 2008.

The point being the GOP will lose, big.

From DemFromCT:
****
As First Read notes today, "'Future of the GOP stories' are starting to hit critical mass". And why not? We have the WSJ reporting on disaffected business types and the Bush borrow and spend policies have alienated fiscal conservatives like Alan Greenspan.

The Republican Party, known since the late 19th century as the party of business, is losing its lock on that title. New evidence suggests a potentially historic shift in the Republican Party's identity -- what strategists call its "brand." The votes of many disgruntled fiscal conservatives and other lapsed Republicans are now up for grabs, which could alter U.S. politics in the 2008 elections and beyond.

Miss Laura covered the NY Times writing about the religious right and their issues (we are all values voters; they are the religious right).

After the 2004 elections, religious conservatives were riding high. Newly anointed by pundits as "values voters" — a more flattering label than "religious right" — they claimed credit for propelling George W. Bush to two terms in the White House. Even in wartime, they had managed to fixate the nation on their pet issues: opposition to abortion, gay marriage and stem cell research ...What unites them right now is their dismay — even panic — at the idea of Rudolph W. Giuliani as the Republican nominee, because of his support for abortion rights and gay rights, as well as what they regard as a troubling history of marital infidelity. But what to do about it is where they again diverge, with some religious conservatives last week threatening to bolt to a third party if Mr. Giuliani gets the nomination, and others arguing that this is the sure road to defeat.

The SCHIP veto doesn't play well with anyone, but especially moms and Latinos.

Of children who would have been newly eligible for SCHIP under the bill, at least one-third likely would have been Hispanic, Edwin Park, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said. About 40% of Hispanic children already receive health coverage through SCHIP or Medicaid, though many eligible Hispanic children are not enrolled, according to Park. He added, "Every day, there's going to be more uninsured kids in this country, and because Latino children in particular are much more likely to be uninsured, they will be disproportionately affected."

Add the no-shows at a recent debate focused on minority issues:

"I think the best that comes out of stupid decisions like this," said former Oklahoma Rep. J.C. Watts, is "that African-Americans might say, ‘Was it because of my skin color?’ Now, maybe it wasn’t, but African-Americans do say, ‘It crossed my mind.’"

Add in the well-known and well-demonstrated homophobia of the modern GOP and actually, it looks like we are seeing the creation of a biphasic GOP core: rich old [outwardly] straight white guys and young childless Ayn Rand-style Objectivists.

"No one else is left," concludes DemFromCT.
****
And one could add decreased turnout for Republicans from three other demographics: Arab-Americans, rural Americans and western-state libertarians.
###

Republicans Block Withdrawal

If Republicans are blocking the withdrawal of Iraq, one would expect headlines to state succinctly some version of "Republicans Block Withdrawal from Iraq."

From Yahoo, the headline reads: "Democrats failing to pass anti-war bill."

From Fox, the headline reads: "Senate Blocks Legislation to Cut Money for Troops in Iraq."

The indisputable truth is that the Republicans are self-consciously blocking any attempt at withdrawal from Iraq (or restore Habeas Corpus at home as well).

But if that message reflecting reality reaches far into the American consciousness, Republicans will face a huge electoral defeat in 2008.

So, reflecting much of the mass media's commitment to obscuring what Republicans are doing, we see headlines obfuscating the reality of Republican obstruction.

This morning's NYT headline was about the best that can be read in the corporate mass media: "Partisan Lines Solidify as Republicans Thwart Democrats Again on an Iraq Vote."

But that headline obscures by presenting the Republican action as a mere politcal debate, squabbling between parties.

The Republicans are defying the will of the American people and blocking withdrawal.

Republican obstruction is the fact and considerations of what will happen to the Republicans in 2008 ought not enter into what is reported to the American people.

###

The Republicans Are Going to Lose, Right

[A recurring feature pointing to evidence and analyses of the Republicans’ pending defeat in 2008.]

Yes.

Ohio Trending Blue

The ultimate Swing state is looking good for Democrats. Clinton holds solid leads over all Republicans in a state marred Republican corruption and scandal.

In head-to-head matchups, Ohio voters said they favored Clinton, a New York senator and former first lady, over former New York mayor Giuliani, 47 percent to 40 percent.

The same candidates were tied in an Aug. 8 poll by Quinnipiac University.

In other matchups, the latest poll found that Clinton topped Arizona Sen. McCain, 46 percent to 41 percent; and she also beat former Tennessee Sen. Thompson, 49 percent to 37 percent.

Democrats open huge lead in generic congressional ballot
by kos

Rasmussen Reports.
Generic congressional ballot
Democrats 50 (47) Republicans 32 (37)

Another interesting datapoint, from the subscription-only internals -- most "moderates" see the Democratic Party as representing their ideology.

Funny how "moderate" voters view Democrats, not Republicans, as the mainstream "moderate" party, no matter how much conservatives may have fooled themselves otherwise.

Republican Forecast: Cloudy
Party's Woes Go Beyond Bush as It Bleeds Support Among Key Groups
By JACKIE CALMES

WASHINGTON -- For Republicans hoping the 2008 campaign will bring a fresh start after the troubled tenure of President Bush, there are sobering signs: Evidence indicates that the party's problems with the American electorate are much bigger than the president and won't go away when he leaves office.

Recent voter surveys, including private polling done by a leading Republican strategist, suggest a broader erosion of Republicans' appeal. In particular, three groups crucial to Mr. Bush's goal of a "permanent Republican majority" are drifting away: younger voters, Hispanics and independents.

The reasons include the Iraq war, conservatives' emphasis on social issues such as gay marriage, abortion and stem-cell research, and a party-led backlash against illegal immigrants that has left many Hispanic and Asian-American citizens feeling unwelcome. The upshot is that Republicans face structural problems that stem from generational, demographic and societal changes and aren't easily overcome without changing fundamental party positions.

Longtime Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio this year conducted an exhaustive survey of his party's voters to update one he did in 1997. He found that the party is significantly older and more conservative than it was a decade ago. That, he says, suggests a Republican Party
increasingly at risk of being seen "as very old-fashioned, very old ...

Bad news just keeps on coming for the Grim Old Party
September 3, 2007
ROBERT NOVAK
During the summer, a female acquaintance of mine in her 70s who had been a faithful Republican was solicited by a GOP cold caller as a previous contributor to the party. Not this time. She informed the fund-raiser that President Bush's position on immigration was the last straw. She would not give the Republicans another dime -- not now, maybe never. So, she told him, "Stop calling me!"

That rebuff, commonplace in today's Republican fund-raising, puts a human face on the Federal Election Commission's cold statistics. They show a commanding Democratic lead over Republicans in raising money for the 2008 elections. Such an unusual disparity is at once a symptom and a contributing cause of the melancholy suffusing the Grand Old Party as Congress reconvenes after the August break.

… But never before have I seen morale within the party so low. While Republican support for an unpopular war has remained remarkably strong, almost all non-war news during the dreary August recess has been bad for the GOP.

The week before Labor Day, when nothing of importance was supposed to happen, brought bad news for the party just as it appeared nothing worse was possible:

• • The disgrace of Sen. Larry Craig, a former member of the party leadership, is all the worse because several Republican senators and Senate staffers were not a bit surprised. That raises two questions. If so many people knew Craig was an accident waiting to happen, why was he not eased out of office? How many other examples of scandalous behavior are known but hidden?
• • The decision by Sen. John Warner, announced Friday, not to seek a sixth term from Virginia at age 80 was no surprise but still a disappointment. Former Gov. Mark Warner, no relation and a Democrat, is an overwhelming favorite to win in Virginia next year. Republicans privately estimate that this will be one of four Senate seats they will lose in 2008, giving Democratic leader Harry Reid a real working majority.
• • Rep. Rick Renzi announced he would not seek a fourth term for the highly competitive Arizona northern district that could go Democratic. That represents a double whammy for Republicans. Renzi, investigated by the FBI for receiving an alleged kickback in a land transaction, is but one of at least half a dozen House Republicans under federal inquiry. In addition, a growing number of scandal-free GOP incumbents representing contested districts are heading for the exits. That depresses meager hopes for restoring a Republican majority in the House.
• • Most of the dwindled contingent of Republican governors have abandoned conservative principles to embrace the Democratic-sponsored extension of the State Children's Health Insurance Program to people who are neither children nor poor. Only three -- Indiana's Mitch Daniels, Mississippi's Haley Barbour and South Carolina's Mark Sanford -- resist the lure of federal dollars.

Given these multiple developments, the melancholic Republicans yearn for a leader. The party's many presidential candidates pretend that George W. Bush does not really exist, not mentioning his name during debates. But none has inspired the party faithful. Front-runner Rudy Giuliani is anathema to social conservatives who were the core of Republican success for more than two decades. This situation explains the interest in Fred Thompson as a savior.

Mitt Romney approached the calamitous atmosphere last week by asserting that Sen. Craig, until last week his Idaho state chairman, is part of the capital's corruption that only a real outsider -- specifically, the former governor of Massachusetts -- can cure. Past candidates have succeeded in pointing to corruption in Washington, but always by the opposite party. The Republican Party's next leader faces a more complicated problem.

###

The Republicans Are Going to Lose, Right

[A recurring feature pointing to evidence and analyses of the Republicans’ pending defeat in 2008.]

An attorney friend (similar to my sister and brother-in-law and actually a lot of Americans) raising two children who is among the busiest human beings whom I know would ask me during the 2004 presidential campaign for reports on whether Bush would get beat by the democratic nominee. [We both hoped so.]

So, I would offer my analysis (too long and often borrowing from Roy Teixeira) that would always end in his “So, Bush is going to lose, right?” Or, something like: Who is voting for this idiot?

The friend, like a lot of Americans, had the idea that Bush might run up trillion dollar debts, drag on a war and an occupation, stack the courts with liberty-hating rightwingers and inflict damage to the environment and education, social security, Medicare (and basically every aspect of government).

He also found it difficult to believe that anybody could vote for such an intellectual dolt as Bush, and yet was fearful that many Americans of the Iraq-caused-911, evolution-is-wrong, the-gays-are-coming, and blacks-and-browns-oughta-stay-in-their-place variety would indeed vote for Bush.

Putting aside the fact that I blew my 2004 prediction (though evidence does point to the election being stolen in Ohio and Florida), this is the first of a recurring feature pointing to evidence and analyses that the Republicans will lose in 2008:

GOP Faces Growing Peril In 2008 Races
Senate Prospects Dimming
By Jonathan Weisman and Chris Cillizza
Washington Post Staff Writer and washingtonpost.com Staff WriterSunday, September 2, 2007
A Senate electoral playing field that was already wide open for 2008 has become considerably more perilous for Republicans with the retirement of Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) and the resignation of scandal-scarred Sen. Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho).

Republicans need a net gain of just one seat to take back control of the Senate, but they have 22 seats to defend, and campaign cash is conspicuously lacking. Warner's retirement raised to two the number of open Republican seats, and both of them -- in Virginia and Colorado -- are prime targets for Democrats.

With former Democratic senator Bob Kerrey possibly waiting in the wings, Republicans are anxiously watching to see whether Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) will retire. And two more Republican seats open for reelection -- in Wyoming and Idaho -- would be occupied by unelected appointees, John Barrasso and Craig's replacement.

"The state of the playing field looks very good, even in places where we didn't expect it to look good, even in deeply red states," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. "Things could change, but if you did a snapshot, we're going to have a good year."

"It's always darkest right before you get clobbered over the head with a pipe wrench. But then it actually does get darker," said a GOP pollster who insisted on anonymity in order to speak candidly.

Sour Americans hungry for change as election '08 approaches
By Steven Thomma McClatchy Newspapers
DES MOINES, Iowa — A year before they choose a new government for the post-Bush era, Americans are desperate to change the country's course.

Most lean left, a U.S. population more liberal than at any time in a generation, hungering to end the Iraq war, turn inward and use the federal government to solve problems at home.

Still, some want to turn farther right, demanding that the country fence off its Southern border, expel illegal immigrants and rein in a federal government grown fat under a Republican government they now dismiss as incompetent.

One thing almost all Americans tend to agree on: They're deeply unhappy with the way things are going in the United States and eager to move on. There's virtually no appetite to extend the Bush era, as there was at the end of Ronald Reagan's presidency in 1988 or Bill Clinton's in 2000.

The yearning to chart a new course is national:

Just 1 in 5 Americans think the country is going in the right direction, the worst outlook since the Reagan-Bush era ended in 1992.

Less than one-third of Americans like the way the current President Bush is handling his job, among the lowest ratings in half a century. The people had similarly dismal opinions just before they ended the Jimmy Carter era in 1980, the Kennedy-Johnson years in 1968 and the Roosevelt-Truman era in 1952.

The ranks of people who want the government to help the poor have risen sharply since the early 1990s — dramatically among independents, but even among Republicans.

The public mood is evident in Iowa, the heartland state that votes first for major-party presidential nominees and a pivotal swing state in the last two presidential elections.

"People are very unhappy, very unsettled,'' said Megan Phillips, a teacher from Centerville, a town of about 6,000 in southern Iowa.

Phillips once considered herself a proud Republican. Small-town. Anti-abortion. Pro-gun.

2008 will be a great election for Democrats in the Senate.
Red Dawn
by John B. Judis
Only at TNR Online Post date 08.31.07
Overall, the Democrats will have an advantage in 2008 in having to defend far fewer seats than the Republicans. Only twelve seats held by Democrats will be up compared to 22 for Republicans. And several of those Republicans were elected during the peculiar post-9/11 circumstances of the 2002 election, when President Bush used his immense popularity and the threat of a terrorist attack to boost the chances of several Republican underdogs.

###