A couple of days ago, I followed a link to a brief article by Niel Newhouse from Public Opinion Strategies (I don’t know much about him except that he has been a well-respected republic pollster for some time).

http://blog.pos.org/2009/05/a-deeper-look-at-party-identification/

In his analysis of a recent party identification poll, Newhouse argues that the results “reinforce[]the need to put aside the outdated targeting recipe for victory (95% of R’s, 55% of I’s, 10% of D’s) and replace it with one that calls for more cross-party partisan support in order to achieve victory (95% of R’s, 60% of I’s, 15%-20% of D’s). The current partisan affiliation data is the clear death knell for the “base-style” campaigns favored by some in the early part of this decade.”

Do you think that the recent party identification numbers really signify that great a shift in the electorate that parties will refocus their efforts to place more emphasis on independents?

The reason I ask is that the changes in party identification (not to mention Arlen Specter’s switch) may be symptoms of a significant shift underway in party politics – a shift that may force the Republican party towards the center on some, but not all issues. Especially because there are significant generational differences on many issues, it seems to me that certain aspects of the Republican platform may become unsustainable or just simply ineffective in the medium to long term. While there is a future for fiscal conservatism and free market economics once the current crisis fades, social conservatism appears to be on the decline. Younger voters tend to be more liberal when it comes to specific issues such as gay marriage and because a lower percentage of Americans say that religion plays a major role in their lives, which has an impact on individuals’ perspective on issues like abortion. Immigration is a tricky subject because it poses problems for both sides, but given the growth in the importance of the Hispanic vote, the Republican Party can no longer afford to alienate this bloc of voters with nativist or anti-immigrant views. Therefore, if there is any realignment currently underway in American politics, I would argue that it is the decline of social conservatism.

The problem for the Republican Party – and I think this is something that many party strategists are concerned about – is that there is a very real divide that appears only to be widening. McCain, as you and others have pointed out, was probably the strongest candidate the Republican party could have nominated in this past election cycle because he had a strong appeal to independent voters. His problem was that he also had to appease the base, which perhaps explains why he had such difficulty in establishing a clear and consistent message. Indeed, the numbers from the fall show that turnout of white conservative voters actually declined in many key states (Ohio, if my memory serves me well, is a perfect example – Obama won about the same number of votes as Kerry, but the Republican vote dropped from 2004 to 2008).

But more worrisome for the Republican party is not the past but the future: there is unlikely to be any unifying candidate or party platform for 2012; the only thing the party will have is opposition to Obama and the Democratic Congress. That may be enough to pick up a few House and Senate seats here and there, but it is not the basis for a competitive Presidential race. I think it may take one more electoral defeat and another four years for the party to move to the center as Newhouse recommends, but I’d be very interest in your thoughts!

As an aside, Professor Dickinson – are you going to do a follow-up with VPR now that the interrogation/torture situation has matured a bit?

Just my guess, but if Specter only has 46-43 on Ridge today, his outlook is not so good. We are at the peak of Democratic support and with the economy deteriorating, by next year I would imagine a moderate Rep. would be positioned pretty well. Of course I don’t know much about Ridge or Specter, but based on this alone.

Also justly or unjustly, I think public perceptions of the two parties are at least as likely to be the opposite of what you described Vijay (except for the secular part of course). Also I’m not totally convinced Americans are approaching issues more soberly, I can’t really think of any evidence for that. I guess the slight increase in voter turnout (+1.5%) might be evidence (but is probably due to the historic nature of Obama’s election), but the real increase was the 4% increase in 2004. And of course Obama’s populist campaign and image (Leno in the middle of a recession and soon to be 10%+ unemployment??) would be evidence to the contrary.

As for the timing of Souter’s resignation: rumor has it that he’s been disillusioned about the Court’s partisan-slant since Bush v. Gore in 2000. As a good friend of mine recently wrote in the New Republic, Souter was a process conservative – a strong believe in stare decisis – and thus not comfortable with court decisions that he believed were driven by partisan concerns. I’ve no doubt he timed his departure so that it took place under a Democratic president and Democratic-controlled Senate. I’m less certain it had anything to do with Specter’s announcement, however – my guess is that Souter’s decision to step down predated Specter’s decision to switch, although perhaps you are correct that Specter’s announcement convinced Souter to go public.

Vijay – your question deserves a more elaborate response, but I will say that I don’t remember Democrats being described as “pragmatists”! And it is Republicans who historically have been associated with the “rule of law’, haven’t they? Democrats are secular, yes, but that’s not the same as pragmatic. It may be that the brand-name will change, as you suggest, because of Obama’s more pragmatic public personae.

If I were a staunch Democrat, however, I might like someone else to run in the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania to at least hold Specter’s feet to the fire. The risk, of course, is that in the struggle to beat his Democratic opponent, Specter may be so weakened that he loses in the general election to the Republican.