Over at RealClearPolitics, Frank Donatelli is advising Republicans how to win the White House in 2016. Donatelli is Republican activist and conservative pundit who frequently publishes in The Washington Times. He's also a former member of the Reagan White House and former deputy chairman of the Republican National Committee, so he carries some credibility. He begins his RCP piece this way:
Two highly intelligent political analysts, Bill Kristol and Peter Wehner, have written columns predicting Republican success in 2014 but defeat in 2016. Wow. We're not even in that cycle yet and already the GOP's chances are being written off.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/...
Let's set aside the "highly intelligent political analysts" rub, as that's not central to this diary. Below are the links to the pieces written by Kristol (The Weekly Standard) and Wehner (Commentary) that Donatelli references. Feel free to read them on your own. Both make sensible and well supported arguments that the prospect of Republicans winning the White House in 2016 are dim and getting dimmer.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/...
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/...
Donatelli disagrees. Instead, Donatelli says that the Republicans can win in 2016 if they just go back are re-learn the lessons of 1980. Strap on the holsters, saddle up, and gallop off to win the Reagan Way.
Start with the fact that it is hard for a party to win three national elections in a row with a non-incumbent heading the ticket. The only examples where the incumbent party has won such a race since the beginning of the 20th century have been 1908 (Taft succeeding Roosevelt), 1928 (Hoover succeeding Coolidge) and 1988 (Bush succeeding Reagan). In all three cases, the incumbent was enormously popular, public attitudes were positive, and the party in power’s candidate vowed to carry on the policies of his predecessor.
What Donatelli says is true. Historically it's rare for one party to win three consecutive terms when the third term is an open seat, and even rarer when it's not the incumbent VP who is running for the third term. Indeed, the Democrats haven't managed that feat since Martin Van Buren succeeded Andrew Jackson after his two terms way back in 1837. And it's not for lack of opportunity: VP Gore (2000), VP Humphrey (1968), Adlai Stevenson (1952), James Cox (1920), and Stephen Douglas (1860) have all tried and failed to win a third consecutive term for the Democrats. (In truth, in Stevenson's case it would've been the sixth consecutive Democratic term, but the four previous ones were all won by incumbents.)
If one would consider only this one historical trend then it would be difficult to disagree with Donatelli that the deck is stacked against the Democrats winning in 2016. While historical trends are not sure things, I would hesitate to bet against them.
But what Donatelli doesn't say is that in the long view of history it's perfectly normal for one party to dominate the White House for an extended period of time. Let's go back to Abraham Lincoln and the mid-19th century and work our way up to Obama.
1860-1884
Republicans win 6 consecutive presidential elections
1984-1896
Democrats win 2 of 3 presidential elections (3 of 3 of the popular vote)
1896-1932
Republicans win 7 of 9 presidential elections
1932-1968
Democrats win 7 of 9 presidential elections
1968-1992
Republicans win 5 of 6 presidential elections
1992-present
Democrats win 4 of 6 presidential elections (5 of 6 of the popular vote)
You can see the trend. Long periods of one party's dominance followed by a long period of dominance by the other party. So one can easily make the case that we're in the middle of a new era of Democratic White House dominance. Even if Hillary wins in 2016, and then wins re-election in 2020 (therefore bumping it up to 6 of 8 for the Democrats) it would still just be on par with most of the extended periods of one-party dominance we've had since Abraham Lincoln was first elected.
I imagine that most of us here have had Republican presidents during most of our adult lives, I know I have -- my first vote was cast for Carter in 1976. But it's difficult to recognize and appreciate historical trends when you're in the middle of one. So it's important to step back to get some perspective and then it's easier to recognize that the long-view pendulum may very well have reversed itself way back in 1992, and that pendulum may still have a ways to go in the direction it's currently going. Indeed, another 8 to 12 years of Democratic presidents could be viewed as absolutely normal.
What triggers a shift in party dominance? Well, many things. In 1932 it was the economic crisis of the Great Depression, and in 1968 it was the middle class backlash against the social upheaval and cultural revolution that were triggered by a maturing and activist baby-boom population which brought, in part, the Civil Rights and Women's movements during the 1960s. Sometimes it's just an emergent charismatic candidate such as FDR (1932) or Bill Clinton (1992) who redefines and reshapes and rebrands his party and in the process expands it. But sometimes changes in party philosophy triggers a migration of the electorate away from that party and into the other (1968).
In two cases the dominance sustained itself despite the emergence and election of a strong and popular president from the other party. That is, sometimes even an effective and popular president won't trigger a permanent shift in dominance, a reversal of the pendulum. During the 36-year Republican rule from 1896 to 1932, Democratic Woodrow Wilson came and went. Likewise during the ensuing 36-year Democratic rule from 1932 to 1968, Republican Eisenhower came and went.
One can certainly argue that sustaining that bubble of dominance through two to three decades is generational. A "Once a Republican, always a Republican" kind of thing. But eventually that generation dies out and will be replaced by a liberal, or the "Once a Democrat, always a Democrat" generation.
Donatelli's larger argument is that today's Republican Party can reclaim that past mojo by campaigning like Reagan did. That is:
...he campaigned everywhere including New England, Harlem, working-class wards in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, and throughout the South, with a message that won support from young people, working-class voters and conservative Christians, groups that were outside the Republican coalition at the time.
Of course, Reagan was helped immensely by deploying the Southern Strategy, a not-so-veiled racist strategy that would not work today, but that's a separate diary.
But Donatelli's argument lacks structural support and falls flat, and truly fails to take into account the current political situation -- the disarray and extreme conservatism of the Republican Party, as opposed to a remarkably unified Democratic Party and the juggernaut that is Hillary Clinton. Indeed, Donatelli steers clear of Hillary altogether, mentioning her by name only once, and that is to parenthetically point out her age relative to Reagan's:
In 1979, [Reagan] was mostly unknown and thought to be too old (Hillary Clinton would be one year younger than Reagan if she were elected next time), unsophisticated in the ways of governing, and far to the right of the political mainstream.
In other words, 2016 will be nothing like 1980. Strapping on holsters, saddling up, and galloping off to win the Reagan Way isn't going to help one bit, even if you had someone like Reagan to do it. Which they don't.