I’m talking about the 2008, 2010 and 2012 elections, compared to those before. Do you not see any major shifts in policy and demographics there?! What has happened since 2006 is that a new “sun party/moon party” alignment appears to have formed and gelled, with the Dems in the sun role. The Pub resurgence in 2010 merely defines the outer limits of what they can hope to do in this new environment.
Lets make this simple.
How are Democrats different than they were in 2000?
How are Republicans different thatn they were in 2000?
Besides some minor tinkering, there has been a major change neither in platforms, nor where each party gets their votes.
As I said, I’m kind of sceptical that the GOP is as screwed as the OP seems to think. But to summarize the argument that they are screwed:
Dems increased their share of the under 29, Hispanic, Black and Asian-American votes between 2000 and 2012 by ten points or more in each category. At the same time, the share of the electorate made up of the latter three categories is increasing at the expense of other, more GOP leaning categories, and that trend looks to continue or possibly accelerate for at least the next several electoral cycles.
The Under-29 vote turn-out hasn’t increased in the last twelve years, but there’s a decent amount of literature suggesting that voting behaviour remains relatively constant as people age, so that the Dem trend amongst young people will move up into higher age cohorts as “millennials” enter middle age. So there to, that demographic may make up a larger chunk of the vote share as time goes on.
I don’t think these problems are unsurmountable for the GOP, but they’re pretty undeniable, and the current GOP doesn’t exactly seem to be rushing to figure out how to address them.
Stronger and weaker respectively. Also, the Pubs are now more visibly dominated by their far-right wing now than in 2000; except for Romney, all the major GOP primary candidates for president this year were winguts.
So party systems change with slight swings in electoral power? This must be the 20th party system then. There is no strong ideological shift going on in either party right now.
Yeah, I think the most recent shift was in the 90s. The Democrats became center/center-right and the Republicans succumbed to the Religious Right.
Throughout Reagan and Bush 41, the Religious Right was the tail wagged by the Republican Dog. Since the mid-90s it’s been the tail wagging the dog.
Compare Bush 43 to Bush 41, then compare Bush 43 to Romney.
Even though no Republicans wanted to mention W’s name, the Romney campaign was very much in step with the ideologies that put and kept W in the White House. The differences between Bush 43 and Bush 41 were by far more vast.
On the other side, I’d say that Obama is very similar to Clinton (and Gore and Kerry). In contrast, I’d say Clinton was a significant shift to the center from Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis.
So, although there may have been a change in the successes of the two major Parties, in response to WillFarnaby I’d say there has been no major change in the platforms nor in the sources of support.
But there is, in the GOP. And party systems change with enduring realignments in electoral power, which is what we’ve had since 2008.
It can’t be all that enduring if its only been four years, now can it?
The GOP hasn’t changed ideologically in 4, 10, damn near 15 years. The only difference is they’re not winning as many elections. If they held power like during Bush 43 they’d be adopting very similar policies. The Tea Party made a small impact but its just a symptom of being in the opposition that the party isn’t as united. The party is still of the Christian Right, not fiscal conservativism or Libertarianism.