The Capitol lose-lose game
Why No One’s Winning in Washington
Republicans needed to move to the center. The Democrats needed to fix the economy. Oh well.
by Ronald Brownstein, National Journal
May 2, 2013 | 5:00 p.m.
Each party emerged from the 2012 presidential election facing one overriding political test. So far, both are flunking.
For Republicans, the key question was whether a congressional caucus rooted in the nation’s most conservative areas could court the broader coalition the party needs to regain the presidency. For President Obama and his fellow Democrats, the issue was whether they could deliver better economic results—or at least formulate an agenda for growth that persuasively contrasted with the GOP’s. Nearly six months after the election, neither side can claim much progress.
The Republican Party, which has lost the popular vote in five of the past six presidential elections, has an unmistakable need to broaden its national reach. In 2012, Mitt Romney captured only 206 Electoral College votes while winning a larger share of white voters than Ronald Reagan did in his 1980 landslide. And each of the key groups in Obama’s “coalition of the ascendant”—minorities, the millennial generation (ages 18-31), and college-educated white women—will likely make up a larger share of voters in 2016 than in 2012. In presidential elections, the possession arrow points toward Democrats: Until Republicans cut into the coalition of the ascendant they are unlikely to win the White House.
The GOP’s conundrum is that because most of its House or Senate members represent reliably conservative, and often preponderantly white, constituencies, few have a direct incentive to court those voters. Focused on their local politics, they are solidifying their party’s identification with policies that alienate the Democrats’ national coalition.
(More here.)
by Ronald Brownstein, National Journal
May 2, 2013 | 5:00 p.m.
Each party emerged from the 2012 presidential election facing one overriding political test. So far, both are flunking.
For Republicans, the key question was whether a congressional caucus rooted in the nation’s most conservative areas could court the broader coalition the party needs to regain the presidency. For President Obama and his fellow Democrats, the issue was whether they could deliver better economic results—or at least formulate an agenda for growth that persuasively contrasted with the GOP’s. Nearly six months after the election, neither side can claim much progress.
The Republican Party, which has lost the popular vote in five of the past six presidential elections, has an unmistakable need to broaden its national reach. In 2012, Mitt Romney captured only 206 Electoral College votes while winning a larger share of white voters than Ronald Reagan did in his 1980 landslide. And each of the key groups in Obama’s “coalition of the ascendant”—minorities, the millennial generation (ages 18-31), and college-educated white women—will likely make up a larger share of voters in 2016 than in 2012. In presidential elections, the possession arrow points toward Democrats: Until Republicans cut into the coalition of the ascendant they are unlikely to win the White House.
The GOP’s conundrum is that because most of its House or Senate members represent reliably conservative, and often preponderantly white, constituencies, few have a direct incentive to court those voters. Focused on their local politics, they are solidifying their party’s identification with policies that alienate the Democrats’ national coalition.
(More here.)
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home