Red Mist....

As you can probably deduct from the title of this blog, I totally agree with Mr. Tofias that the Republican party is undergoing a current "hiatus" from the center stage of American Politics. Being tasked with answering the question as to why the GOP has gone up in smoke since the 2006 mid-term elections, while I do not doubt the traditional "political cycle" played some part, I think the root of the problem lies with two major issues. Iraq, and more recently, the economy.

I am not planning on passing political judgment on Iraq, on a personal level anyway. Nonetheless, according to my research for this blog, the Iraq war was one of the key reasons Republicans lost the 2006 mid term elections in such emphatic fashion. As Gary Langer pointed out in his article for ABC news, titled Midterm Election: Referendum on War; In What Comes Down to a Referendum on Iraq, the Center Peels Away , he explained, "An improving economy notwithstanding, opposition to the war remains the prime issue driving congressional voter preference. And the war's critics include not just eight in 10 Democrats but 64 percent of independents, 40 percent of conservatives, 35 percent of evangelical white Protestants and a quarter of Republicans.

It matters: Among the four in 10 registered voters who favor the war in Iraq, 73 percent support the Republicans in their congressional districts. But many more, nearly six in 10, oppose the war, and 78 percent favor Democrats for the House."

Keep that thought about the "improving economy" in mind for later. So, with regards to the data in this article, I personally feel the striking stand out number in that list is the 35% of Republicans in the voting electorate, whom at that time, voiced disapproval of the Iraq war. Sure, the 8/10 democrats is not a great surprise; as we have learned in this class, the opposition party can and usually will campaign on the mistakes of the incumbent party - but the Republican figure is quite telling.

Source for 2006 election data (ABC News)

Further evidence of the GOP's disintegration in 2006 due to the Iraq war is provided with some key, prominent Republican political figures who openly broke with the President with regards to his war strategy. This was exemplified most poignantly by one man in particular, as I can remember. Chuck Hagel, a long serving senator from Nebraska, a Vietnam war veteran, strongly came out against the President's strategy in an op-ed piece for the Washington Post titled, quite meaningfully, Leaving Iraq, Honorably . Within the article, Hagel points out that, "The time for more U.S. troops in Iraq has passed. We do not have more troops to send and, even if we did, they would not bring a resolution to Iraq. Militaries are built to fight and win wars, not bind together failing nations. We are once again learning a very hard lesson in foreign affairs: America cannot impose a democracy on any nation -- regardless of our noble purpose".

Washington Post Article

Harsh words from a self confessed devout GOP member. Hagel further shocked some of his Republican colleagues by stating in 2008 that he would not rule out running on the democratic ticket with then candidate Obama as his Vice President.

Fast forward to 2008, and you could have been forgiven for believing that the GOP could experience a bounce in the polls due to the decreased violence in Iraq after the "surge" was introduced in 2007. As Bill Ardolino points out in his blog The Long War Journal, "The drop began in September, as civilian deaths (884) fell 52 percent from August and 77 percent year-over-year, while military deaths (65) fell 23 percent and 10 percent over the same periods. October’s declines made it a trend: Civilian deaths (758) dropped an additional 12 percent from the previous month and 38 percent year-over-year, while US military deaths (38) dropped 42 percent and 64 percent during the same periods."

Drop in violence source

So in the cold light of day, you might think that this should have provided the GOP with a political "shot in the arm", in particular John McCain who put his entire political career on the line with his continued support of the Iraq strategy while some others on the Republican ticket were, originally, not as vocal in their support for the Iraq war. Well, we all know, if you thought that, you were terribly mistaken. The financial downturn sky rocketed the popularity of the democrats and provided them with an unbeatable platform upon which to campaign on. What many people seem to forget is that, in August 2008, before the September stock market crash on Wall Street, McCain's numbers were very strong. As Michael Barone points out in his article in U.S. News and World Report titled Poll Numbers Are Bad News for the Obama Campaign, " The Battleground poll, conducted by Republican pollster Ed Goeas and Democratic pollster Celinda Lake and sponsored by George Washington University, has McCain ahead by a statistically insignificant 47 percent to 46 percent. They have Democrats ahead on the generic vote-for-Congress question by 47 percent to 40 percent, just a tad less than the 49 percent-to-41 percent Democratic edge in their September 2006 poll. Obama's favorable/unfavorable rating has gone from 59 percent to 28 percent in July 2007 to 57 percent to 39 percent now. That's almost identical to McCain's 57 percent to 36 percent fav/unfavs. Offshore drilling is supported by 72 percent, oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by 58 percent. The other poll, Reuters/Zogby, will be discounted by many because of pollster John Zogby's reputation for tweaking the rules. (Here's a criticism by David Moore on the pollster.com website.) It shows McCain ahead by 46 percent to 41 percent, in contrast to Obama's 47 percent to 40 percent lead in Zogby's July poll. Interestingly, it shows McCain ahead on managing the economy by 49 percent to 40 percent—further evidence that high gas prices and Democrats' opposition to offshore and ANWR drilling have cost them dearly. Voters under 30 went for Obama, but by only a 52 percent to 40 percent mark."

As Barone points out, Obama's popularity was severely waning. His approval rate in July 2007 was 57%, and in August 2008 it dropped to 39%. And most critically, Barone links the sky rocketing gas prices to the economy, with many Americans favoring McCain's stance on offshore drilling and hence linking this to personal economic freedom, because remember, back then, gas prices were through the roof at $4 a gallon.

Link to Poll Numbers from August 2008

Nonetheless, following the stock market crash in September, the game changed dramatically. Remember when I said "hold that thought on the economy"? Well, as Dalia Sussman points out with her poll data for the New York Times in an article titled Times/CBS Poll: Economic Worries Dominate Voters’ Minds, "Over all, nearly 8 in 10 rate the condition of the national economy negatively and 6 in 10 say it is getting worse. And the number who says their financial situation is worse off now than it was four years ago is higher than it was in polls leading up to the last presidential election in 2004. The poll was conducted Friday to Tuesday, during the financial upheaval that started to unfold over the weekend."

Furthermore she stated that, "Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, currently has the edge on the issue: Six in 10 voters say they’re very or somewhat confident in the Illinois senator’s ability to make the right decisions about the economy, while about 4 in 10 are not. Voters are somewhat more divided in their confidence in Senator John McCain’s ability: 53 percent are confident, 46 percent are not."

Link to November Poll Data from New York Times

As you can see, 8/10 were worried about the financial situation - and Obama had the edge in terms of voter's opinion over who was best suited to manage the crisis. Given that neither Obama's or McCain's background is not in economics; this tells me that party identification [i.e. the fact that Obama was running on the Democratic ticket] sold the deal to the American people.

So in conclusion, I decided to analyze the specific, generic reasons as to why the GOP have fallen away in recent years. I think this is more down to the specific policies of the Republicans and how they have impacted the American people, rather than the regular political cycle that see parties "recycled" between the Democrats and the Republicans. I do not doubt that the political cycle played a role in the ousting of the GOP, nonetheless, as someone who has lived through the post 2006 political landscape, I believe that that two key issues, the economy and the Iraq War, contributed severely to the GOP downfall.