I do love to see headlines like these.

It could be both. The Bush presidency is widely viewed as a train wreck but it is clear that voters heavily favor Democratic positions on major isssues. The extremely anemic economy surely has something to do with the leftward shift on economic issues.

Like I said, The Perfect Storm for the Republican party, to the point where even Hillary could have won this election.  Obama surely will.  There is even the possibility of a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.  If Scalia, Thomas, and Alito would agree to have simultaneous heart attacks, we might even be able to rescue the Supreme Court.

This is entirely consistent with polling data over the past decade. No surprise, except perhaps to the Republicans, the same boneheads that just spent the past session attacking and stonewalling popular legislation. Now they can't figure out why the voters are going to give them another drubbing in November. They're dumb. Really dumb. Need convincing? Got to NRO or listen to Limbaugh as they sketch out a brave new path to obliteration.

Taxes, that's the true test.  The Democrats are awful at communicating the effect on the average American of their tax policy vs. the Republicans' tax policy.  I'm always amazed that most Americans actually believe their taxes were reduced under President Reagan.  Reagan presided over th largest middle class tax increase ever.  I am referring to the payroll tax "reform" adopted during his term.  True, it wasn't Reagan's proposal, but he approved it.   That most (70% to 80%) pay more in payroll tax than income tax is lost on most Americans; it's all taxes, right.  And that payroll taxes have far exceeded and continue to exceed the program (i.e., social security) they nominally are intended to fund is also lost on most Americans.  If the roles were reversed, does anyone  believe that the Republicans would let the Democrats get away with this subterfuge.  Of course not.  The Republicans would be promoting reductions in the payroll tax, and most Americans be happy to support them because, well, it would benefit most Americans since it's the middle class that pays the payroll tax.  The Democrats believe they are in a box, for to support any reduction in the payroll tax would be tantamount to not supporting social security.  Only a fool  (the leadership of the Democratic party) would believe that.

I'd say the GOP's problem *is* brand. People just don't know which party stands for which policy. They only find out about the pastors, the mistresses, etc.  

In 2004, a majority of Bush voters thought he was for the Kyoto protocol.

A "sic" after "we loose" would be nice, so as not to perpetuate a locution seen even in these parts, on occasion.

Great piece. Finally, some intelligent distinctions between product attributes and brand image. They are not at all the same. The latter is a much more subjective, non-rational estimation of the product purveyor's  ability to deliver on the implied promise that underlies every brand message. The former is cut-and-dried, more a rational calculation of benefits.

"Independents actually agree with our messages more when they know the messages came from Republicans."

In other words, the GOP brand, ie the _image_, not the substance, of their party actually HELPS them. It's  OUR party's branding that sucks, that drags down the inherent superiority, in the public's eyes, of our policy platforms.

The GOP has an ideological and policy problem. We have a branding problem.

Fer chrissake, could we get some intelligent ad people front and center and start pounding the simpe, tried-and-true message that worked in 1992 and will work again today:

SECURITY FIRST. NATIONAL SECURITY = SECURITY AT HOME + ECONOMIC SECURITY FOR WORKING FAMILIES.

DECENT HEALTH INSURANCE FOR ALL, THAT NO ONE WILL EVER TAKE AWAY.

And maybe even, god forbid, HELP THE PUPPIES, NOT THE YUPPIES.

When our party ceases to be viewed as an identity-group pinata with real misgivings about pursuuing US interests ruthlessly and realistically abroad, our brand will increase our popularity, not drag it down.

Here, here, tep.

Better yet, time to adopt some ideas that would broaden the appeal of the party: end affirmative action, pass term limtis (yeah, right), move to limit pork barrel spending - specifically ear marks - and get specific about how the country can get it's books in order. It will take some tough measures to to accomplish the later task, we're going to need to co-opt some "conservative" ideas to help mitigate the backlash.

It's called leadership. Nancy and Harry ain't got it.

John Spratt needs to be majority leader. Boring, competent, and brilliant on economic issues. Bulletproof. He's our guy.

Shouldn't that be "hear, hear?"

re Spratt, do you mean Speaker of the House?  Spratt's in the House, not the Senate.

For what it's worth--not much--I've eaten a meal prepared by Rep. John Spratt.  I don't know how broad his kitchen repertoire is, but he bakes a mean whitefish in cream sauce.

Ending affirmative action should play well with women and Hispanics.  I'm sure the Democrats will be able to put together a governing coalition without them.  And term limits are both unconstitutional and a dumb idea.

Bush stole an election. Then told the world how Democracy would change the world. Lets face it the guys not amoral he is a idiot.

If you think ending affirmative action will cost the democrats all black voters - especially if it's advocated by a black president (Nixon and China and all that), then you need to get out more often. Affirmative action is idea that has come and gone. Time to move on. It's called leadership.

As for term limits: Yes, unconstitutional according to the 1995 ruling. However, we have a process where the constitution can be changed - for instance, the 22nd amendment.

As to the merits of term limits, well, they should speak for themselves. Our Republic doesn't benefit from having our representatives move from office to lobbyist positions, and use the public's money to stay in office for decades. Corruption has become so common place in our democracy that we hardly even notice. Term limits, not campaign financing (which is clearly a violation of the 1st amendment) is the only real alternative. The tree of liberty needs refreshing.

Pounding on affirmative action may be good politics but it promotes bad policy.

When I started in law practice more than 40 years ago, there were virtually no black lawyers in the business oriented firms.  Today, while underrepresented on a percentage basis, there are noneless many.  The essential reason:  affirmative action brought in bright aspiring students whose families and overall situation were limited in large part because they reflected 300 years of hostility, rejection and exclusion and gave them a chance to overcome the limits set by the past.  The same has happened in other professions and the workplace in general.

With more blacks in positions of prestige and even power in some cases, they have the potential to aid directly and indirectly the others who have been left behind, and essentially change the race situation in our country.

Affirmative action doesn't change the world, but it does offer a bit of help.

Yes, it is time to change how it works -- more emphasis on class and economics and less on race.

But reaching out to the excluded (even though that's not the rationale the Supreme Court has given us) is still necessary and the moral thing to do.

Any liberal/progressive who wants to end affirmative action is talking through her/his/its hat.

I'd be interested in knowing how the polling questions were phrased before stating that the Dem position beats the GOP one.

Why has The New Republic the second Democratic national headquarters?  You are running off moderates like me.  How about what the The New Republic was like in the old days when it wasn't afraid to criticize and praise both Democrats and Republicans.

Things change