Decentralization and Heterogeneity

Decentralization has serious affects on party structure and party discipline. Discipline is a particular problem for party structure. Because elections are more about candidates getting elected and re-elected, their views are not party-centered. Like Professor Tofias mentioned in lecture, a Republican from Massachusetts will likely have very different views than one from Arkansas. This example is vividly playing itself out right now as it relates to the economic stimulus package. Base Republicans (see below) are arguing against the package because it contains too much government spending (something very unpopular in their states). But some of the moderate Republicans (particularly Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins from Maine and Arlen Spector from Pennsylvania) are willing (or perhaps need) to work with the Democrats in Congress and the President because they represent more liberal states. Because those three have been bipartisan, it has "hinder[ed] effective partisan action." The Senate Republican leadership, which clearly detests the current bill, cannot filibuster it because of those three.

The 2008 primary and general elections best demonstrated factions within and outside of each party. First the Republican Party had a nominating contest that did not have someone that could really appeal to all factions within the party (like George W. Bush was able to). John McCain was/is part of the moderate faction of the GOP. As a result he struggled to win the support of the party's base of social conservatives during the nominating contest. His two main competitors, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee attempted to woo the social conservatives who were reluctant to support McCain. Eventually McCain secured the nomination largely because of moderate Republican support in New Hampshire, Florida, and several middle-of-the road or large Democratic Super Tuesday states. Mike Huckabee carried most of the highly religious, conservative states of the deep south (except South Carolina). Mitt Romney had Michigan and New England roots, did not wear his Mormonism on his sleeve, and had a more pro-business reputation, so he played better among Republicans in New England and the Mountain West.

On the other hand, the Democratic Party's rift was much clearer. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both had strictly defined bases that resulted in outcomes that, through the lens of hindsight, highlight those bases. Obama's supporters were typically younger, more affluent, African-American, and new to the political process. To many Obama represented where America was headed in the 21st century. As a result he was able to sweep the Deep South, the Pacific Northwest, and the Midwest. Clinton's supporters, on the other hand, were much older, blue collar, white and Hispanic. As a result they were part of the traditional (minus African-Americans) Democratic base. Her supporters were primarily concerned with the economy and longed for a return to 1990s prosperity. This enabled her to win states in the rust belt and places such as the southwest.

During the general election, the Democratic Party was able to unify itself and rally behind Barack Obama's candidacy. With the help of Vice Presidential nominee Joe Biden, he was able to convince most of Clinton's rust belt supporters to support him. John McCain spent much of the campaign trying to energize his conservative base. In addition, McCain had trouble prying some of Clinton supporters away from Obama. For example, he was originally popular among Hispanics, an important group that George W. Bush made progress in courting to the Republican Party in 2004. Unfortunately for McCain he was unable to build a coalition that included not only his conservative base, but also Hispanics and other elements of Obama's supporters. This was largely the result of the hard line adopted by the GOP in 2005 immigration debate.

All of this leads to the current state of the parties. The base of the Democratic Party is largely made up people living in the Northeast and along the West Coast. Significantly, but to a lesser extent it consists of people living in the upper Midwest. However over the last 2 election cycles (2006 & 2008) they have made significant inroads with affluent, educated professionals living in places like Virginia, North Carolina, and the Colorado. Adding to their deeply rooted strength among women, African-Americans, and blue collar laborers (particularly in the Mountain and Southwest regions) is the strong Hispanic influence. This could turn out to be a significant factor because the country is becoming more ethnically diverse and educated. As a result Democrats have become competitive in places that have been traditionally dominated by Republicans.

Contrastingly the Republican Party has become dominated by white males and social conservatives living in the Deep South. As a result they have become more ethnically homogeneous and regionalized. Their recent election of Michael Steele as Republican National Committee Chairmen is a demonstration that they are aware of their current deficiency. If they can somehow regain their strength among the educated and become more diverse, they can break free from some of the current perceptions of their party. But if they choose to maintain the same message, just with a different messenger, they could find themselves in the wilderness for a generation.

Sources:
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/gopmap/index.html
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/demmap/index.html
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/primaries/exit-polls/