Given these trends, it is not surprising that many Republican leaders and activists are feeling a newfound sense of optimism about their party’s future. Recent election results, improved polling numbers and the energy coming from the conservative Tea Party movement have reinforced the view of some Republican strategists that the surest way for the GOP to regain its majority status is to stand up strongly for smaller government, lower taxes, and less government regulation of business and to vigorously opposing policies such as health care reform and cap-and-trade that would expand the role of the federal government in the economy.

The Tea Party movement, with its emphasis on strict adherence to conservative principles and its strong backing from Fox News and prominent right wing talk show hosts, has put additional pressure on Republican leaders to avoid any appearance of cooperation with President Obama or Democratic congressional leaders. GOP office-holders or candidates who take moderate positions or hint at any willingness to cooperate with Democrats now risk being challenged in Republican primaries by conservative Tea Party backed candidates.

The question all of this raises is whether strict adherence to conservative principles and refusal to cooperate with Democrats represent a viable long-term strategy for the Republican Party in a nation that is facing severe domestic and foreign policy challenges and undergoing profound shifts in the make-up of its population. While Republican prospects appear bright in the near term, there are storm clouds looming on the horizon: electoral and Census data show that Hispanics, African-Americans, and other nonwhites will make up an increasing share of the American electorate in the future while the GOP’s traditional base of conservative whites will continue to shrink.

The effects of demographic change were readily apparent in the results of the 2008 presidential election. Barack Obama’s decisive victory over John McCain was due in large measure to the gradual transformation of the American electorate over the previous two decades. The data displayed in Table 1 show that Obama’s overwhelming support by nonwhites, who comprised over a fourth of the electorate, was crucial to his success. Despite losing to John McCain among non-Hispanic whites by a margin of more than 11 million votes, Obama won the election rather handily by carrying nonwhites by a margin of more than 21 million votes. In this regard, Obama’s path to victory was very different from that of the previous Democratic President, Bill Clinton. Clinton owed his victory largely to his strong showing among white voters—Clinton lost the white vote only narrowly in both 1992 and 1996 which was a dramatic improvement on the performance of previous Democratic nominees. In contrast, Obama lost the white vote by a wide margin in 2008 but easily won the election by piling up huge leads among African-Americans, Hispanics, and other nonwhite voters. If the racial composition of the electorate had been the same in 2008 as in 1992, John McCain would have won by a fairly comfortable margin.

Table 1. Democratic Margin in Millions of Votes by Race, 1992-2008

Obama’s overwhelming margin among nonwhite voters was based to some extent on his unique appeal as the first African-American presidential nominee of a major party and an effective GOTV effort in minority communities. However, his victory would not have been possible if it hadn’t been for the dramatic changes in the racial composition of the U.S. population over the previous two decades. According to data from national exit polls, the nonwhite share of the electorate doubled between 1992 and 2008, going from 13 percent to 26 percent. The increase between 2004 and 2008 was in line with the overall rate of increase during this period.

Evidence from both the 2008 exit poll and the Census Bureau’s 2007 Current Population Survey indicate that the nonwhite share of the electorate is likely to continue growing for the foreseeable future due to generational replacement. According to the exit poll data, nonwhites made up 39 percent of voters under the age of 30 and 34 percent of voters under the age of 45 in 2008 compared with only 19 percent of voters over the age of 64. Moreover, the Census Bureau data displayed in Table 2 show that the generational differences are even more dramatic when we examine the racial composition of the age cohorts that will be entering the electorate in the next decade. These data show that the younger the age group, the larger the proportion of nonwhites: nonwhites made up only 19 percent of those over the age of 64 in 2007 but 40 percent of those between the ages of 14 and 17, 43 percent of those between the ages of 5 and 13, and 46 percent of those under the age of 5.

Table 2. The Past and Future U.S. Electorate

According to the data from the 2007 Current Population Survey, Hispanics are by far the fastest growing segment of the U.S. population. While Hispanics comprised less than 7 percent of Americans over the age of 64, they were almost 24 percent of Americans under the age of 5. And it is very likely that the vast majority of Hispanics under the age of 5 were born in the United States. So while the percentage of Hispanics in the electorate will probably continue to lag behind the percentage in the overall population, this gap is likely to decrease over time. According to the Census Bureau, Hispanics are already the largest minority group in the U.S. population. Within a few years, possibly as soon as 2012, Hispanics will pass African-Americans and become the largest minority group in the U.S. electorate.

Based on the data from the Current Population Survey and the 1992-2008 national exit polls, I have calculated the expected racial composition of the U.S. electorate in the 2012, 2016, and 2020 presidential elections. The results of these projections are displayed in Figure 1. According to these projections, the nonwhite share of the U.S. electorate will grow from 26 percent in 2008 to approximately 34 percent in 2020 with most of this growth occurring in the “other nonwhite” category which includes Hispanics. Of course the percentages for 2012-2020 are only projections. The actual results for any given election will depend on the national political climate as well as the presidential candidates and their campaigns. However, the demographic trends evident in both sets of data make it virtually certain that the nonwhite share of the electorate will continue to grow for the next several election cycles.

Figure 1. Nonwhite Share of U.S. Electorate, 1992-2020

The increase in the nonwhite share of the electorate over the next decade will have major consequences for electoral competition. If the Democratic Party is able to maintain anything close to the overwhelming advantage among nonwhite voters that it enjoyed in 2008, Republican candidates will need to win a considerably larger share of the white vote than their party’s candidates did in 2008 or even 2004 in order to remain competitive in national elections. Under these circumstances, even a 60 percent share of the white vote would not be enough to give a Republican candidate a majority of the popular vote and the last Republican presidential candidate to win more than 60 percent of the white vote was Ronald Reagan in 1984.

An alternative path to victory for Republicans in future national elections would involve seeking to expand their Party’s support among nonwhite voters. By winning a larger share of the nonwhite vote, a Republican candidate could be elected with considerably less than 60 percent of the white vote. But this would require the GOP to move away from its conservative base and closer to the ideological center because nonwhite voters tend to be strong supporters of increased spending on social programs and activist government.

The gap in policy preferences between nonwhite voters and the current Republican base can be seen by comparing the opinions of these two groups on some questions about the role of government that were included in the 2008 American National Election Study (ANES). To represent the opinions of the GOP base I used respondents who reported voting in a Republican presidential primary or caucus during 2008.

The opinion gap between nonwhite voters and Republican primary voters was enormous. On every issue, the large majority of nonwhite voters chose the liberal (pro-government) position while the large majority of GOP primary voters chose the conservative (anti-government) position. For example, when respondents were asked to choose between two statements about the proper role of government, 78 percent of nonwhite voters, including 88 percent of African-American voters and 78 percent of Hispanic voters, chose the statement “there are more things government should be doing” while 78 percent of Republican primary voters chose the statement “the less government the better.”

Along the same lines, 65 percent of nonwhite voters, including 64 percent of African-American voters and 73 percent of Hispanic voters, supported the creation of a single-payer health care system in the United States compared with only 15 percent of Republican primary voters. And given a choice between more government services with higher taxes and fewer government services with lower taxes, 67 percent of nonwhite voters, including 67 percent of African-American voters and 68 percent of Hispanic voters, chose more government services with higher taxes compared with only 25 percent of GOP primary voters.

Immigration is another issue that is likely to prove challenging to Republicans hoping to improve their Party’s performance among the nation’s fasting growing ethnic group—Hispanics. Immigration reform is clearly a major concern for this group and according to the 2008 ANES, Hispanic voters favored an immigration policy that includes a path to citizenship for those now in the country illegally by a margin of 73 percent to 14 percent. In fact, white voters also supported such a policy although by a much closer margin of 49 percent to 36 percent. Even Republican primary voters only opposed providing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants by a narrow 47 percent to 41 percent margin. Yet opposition to any reform plan that includes a path to citizenship has become almost mandatory for Republican candidates and office-holders in recent years due to the influence of right wing talk show hosts and anti-immigration activists. Even Republicans like John McCain who once strongly advocated such a policy have been forced to backtrack due to fear of being challenged from the right in a Republican primary.

Conclusions

The Republican Party today stands on the verge of a major political comeback. Americans are frustrated with the pace of economic recovery. President Obama’s approval rating has fallen from the mid-60s to the upper-40s and despite their large majorities in the House and Senate, congressional Democrats have been unable to deliver on some of their key policy commitments including health care reform. According to the latest projections, Republicans are likely to gain at least 25 seats in the House of Representatives and 5 seats in the Senate in the midterm election. A GOP takeover of one or both chambers is no longer inconceivable.

2010 is likely to be a very good year for Republicans. Yet there is a real danger that Republican leaders and strategists will interpret a strong showing in the midterm election as vindication for a strategy based largely on energizing the Party’s conservative white base. That base is indeed energized. But it is also shrinking due to the steady growth in the size of the nonwhite electorate. By 2020 nonwhites will probably make up over a third of the American electorate. Unless Republicans can expand their support among nonwhite voters, they will have to win a much larger share of the white vote than they have in any recent presidential election in order to remain competitive. However, increasing the Republican share of the nonwhite vote would require the GOP to move closer to the ideological center on issues such as government services, health care and immigration—a shift that would be certain to arouse intense opposition from conservative pundits and activists. Regardless of what happens in this year’s midterm elections, Republican leaders will soon face a difficult choice between reaching out to nonwhite voters or continuing to cater to their Party’s shrinking base.

MA-10 (OPEN-D): This week marked the end of the worst kept secret in Massachusetts since Tom Brady and Gisele’s wedding. Seven-term Democrat Bill Delahunt finally announced his retirement, only after Joseph Kennedy III stated he would not seek the seat when Delahunt leaves office. The territory is usually hospitable to Democrats and there are plenty of Democratic officeholders in the area from which to recruit a formidable candidate, but Scott Brown’s impressive showing in the district and a political environment described as “volatile” by local Democrats could threaten their hold on the seat. Pending a final field of candidates on both sides, the Crystal Ball puts this race in the Leans D column.

NY-29 (OPEN-D): Oh boy, where to start? Democrat Eric Massa grabbed headlines by announcing his retirement, citing a recurrence of cancer. Soon after, allegations of sexual harassment emerged. Massa admitted to “salty language” but denied anything further although he resigned, claiming he was being “forced out” by the White House and Rahm Emanuel because of his vote against health care reform (he prefers a single-payer system). Then more concrete details surfaced that the House Ethics Committee was investigating a report that he groped a male staffer. Massa became an unlikely, if fleeting, hero of the right who thought he might be able to shed light on corruption in the White House and their heavy-handed tactics. Massa even appeared on Glenn Beck’s show on Fox News Channel. The result: a car crash in slow motion as Massa’s erratic behavior, over-sharing, and lack of specifics led Beck to apologize to his viewers, “I have wasted an hour of your time.” Massa’s 2008 victory was a squeaker in a Republican-leaning district and an open seat race (and a special election, should Governor David Paterson call one) here remains a Toss-Up.

PA-8 (Patrick Murphy-D): In 2006 Democrat Patrick Murphy bested one-term incumbent Republican Mike Fitzpatrick by just 0.6% of the vote. After a relatively easy reelection in 2008 against an underfunded opponent, Murphy now must fend off a comeback bid from Fitzpatrick seeking to capitalize on a much friendlier political environment. Given the closeness of their last contest and the anti-incumbent and anti-Democratic winds now swirling, the Crystal Ball now rates this race as a Toss-Up.

11:13 AM Mar 4th: March 4 is just another day in 21st century, but from 1793 to 1933, it was THE day in presidential history. Inauguration Day for President.

11:20 AM Mar 4th: From Washington (2nd term) through FDR (1st term), all elected POTUS terms began March 4th. Amendment XX set date as Jan. 20th as of 1936.

11:22 AM Mar 4th: Why the change? The painful, even dangerous, all-too-lengthy transition between Hoover & FDR in 1932-33, during the Great Depression.

11:23 AM Mar 4th: Transition from early November to late January is still too long under some circumstances. The British change govts almost overnight.

11:25 AM Mar 4th: Why not have Prez candidates announce their Cabinets in advance of election? Good way to judge them. Have inauguration in early December.

11:27 AM Mar 4th: Whoops, I’m sorry. We’re not allowed to change the Constitution anymore. At some point, it became like the Bible, the revealed word of God.

11:34 AM Mar 4th: Back to the mundane…GOP just got another GOV pick-up in WY. Gov. Dave Freudenthal (D) not running for 3rd term. R nominee will win in Nov.

9:18 PM Mar 4th: LBJ was crude but effective. Typical–his comment on his VP HHH: “I’ve got Hubert’s pecker in my pocket,” meaning Humphrey had to go along.

9:19 PM Mar 4th: Few on Capitol Hill fear Obama. If he wants health care, he’s going to have to reserve some pockets for congressional private parts.

10:11 PM Mar 5th: Best practice is frequent use of this axiom:Throw the bums out & throw a new set of bums in. Regular rotation in office is effective remedy.

11:08 AM Mar 6th: Crystal Ball watching KY SEN closely. Our sense: Rand Paul (Ron’s son) now well ahead of Trey Grayson (GOP establishment candidate).

8:08 PM Mar 6th: Remarkable: It is now a near-certainty that half or more of the 50 state governors will be NEW after November. 23 no-incumbent races already

7:18 AM Mar 9th: Just back from Texas trip. Couldn’t find any neutrals who thought Rick Perry would lose GOV in Nov. Reaction to Perry POTUS talk? Laughter.

7:14 PM Mar 9th: The unanimous view among Democrats: Eric Massa was a recruiting error. His distinction between sexual and non-sexual groping is priceless.

No sitting senator or governor has lost a primary bid since 2006—when Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Republican Gov. Frank Murkowski of Alaska were both defeated. Meanwhile, just two House members were denied renomination in 2006. In 2008, there were only four.

But this year could be dramatically different. Distaste with government is palpable. In last month’s first-in-the-nation primary in Illinois, Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn came within 10,000 votes of losing his party’s gubernatorial primary. This week in Texas, Republican Gov. Rick Perry won renomination by making the Washington experience of his principal rival, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, more odious to GOP primary voters than his own long run in Austin.

To be sure, no House incumbents were defeated in either Illinois or Texas, or for that matter, were even closely contested. But by modern standards, it would still be quite noteworthy if even six or seven House members, and a senator and governor or two, were beaten over the course of the primary season.

Several basic questions flow from all this: How high, really, will the level of anti-incumbent sentiment be in 2010? Will it be aimed almost exclusively at the Washington-ruling Democrats or will it envelop a significant number of Republican officeholders as well? Or might it play out on a piecemeal basis—in favor of a populist outsider such as Sen. Scott Brown, and against an experienced Washington hand such as Sen. Hutchison?

Primary voters over the course of the next few months will help provide answers, which should better define the true nature of the political landscape heading toward November.

In historical terms, the number of memorable primary seasons has been limited.

First to mind is 1938, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt tried unsuccessfully to purge powerful conservative congressional Democrats from the New Deal coalition.

Then there is 1946, a major transitional year in American politics immediately after World War II. Eighteen House incumbents were beaten in primaries, while a slew of others led by John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon made their first steps onto the political ladder by winning their party’s congressional nomination and ultimately a seat in the House of Representatives.

And finally there is 1992, when the combination of redistricting and the House banking scandal lashed at the Democrats and served as a precursor of the anti-incumbent tide that would rout them from Congress two years later. Altogether, 19 House members were beaten in the primary season of 1992, a post-World War II record. Fourteen of them were Democrats.

In recent decades, only the years that end with “2” routinely see much primary action on the House side. That is when the lines have been redrawn following the decennial census and incumbents are forced to take in new terrain that that they have not been representing. Some even find themselves paired against each other in the same district.

After that, House members tend to settle in for the rest of the decade, at least in terms of the primaries. And by the time the election year rolls around that ends with “0,” the political scene is usually quite placid. In 2000, just three congressional incumbents lost renomination bids. In 1990, it was just one.

Chart 1. Primary Elections: Usually a Low Hurdle for House, Senate and Gubernatorial Incumbents

Note: An asterisk (*) indicates that in spite of Sen. Joe Lieberman’s loss in the 2006 Democratic primary, Connecticut law enabled him to run for reelection that November as an independent, a race that he won.

Sources: Vital Statistics on Congress 2008 (Brookings Institution Press) for House and Senate incumbents defeated in primaries from 1990 through 2006; America Votes (CQ Press) for House incumbents defeated in 2008 and gubernatorial incumbents since 1990.

Unlike a general election, primary seasons are hardly ever affected by large national waves that send a host of incumbents to the political sidelines. Rather, officeholders are usually rejected by their party’s voters for a variety of individual reasons, beginning with personal ethics scandals and controversial voting records.

Lieberman, for instance, got in trouble with many Connecticut Democrats for his support of the Iraq war. Murkowski alienated many Alaska Republicans with displays of high-handedness, including the appointment of his daughter to his vacant Senate seat. He ultimately lost the Republican gubernatorial primary in 2006 to Sarah Palin; Lieberman ran for reelection that year as an independent and won.

But this year could be the rare election year with overarching themes that could spell primary problems for a number of incumbents in both parties.

On the Republican side, an “insider-outsider” dynamic is developing in many states. Conservative activists—many part of the “tea party” movement—are promoting primary candidates against those favored by the GOP establishment.

In Arizona, Sen. John McCain, the party’s 2008 presidential nominee, is facing a primary challenge from former Rep. J.D. Hayworth. In Utah, three-term senator Robert Bennett has drawn an array of intra-party challengers. In Florida, Republican Gov. Charlie Crist has encountered serious resistance in his bid for the GOP Senate nomination from former state House Speaker Marco Rubio, who has emerged as a darling of conservative activists nationwide.

And in Kentucky, Secretary of State Trey Grayson, who has the backing of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, is being challenged for the party’s Senate nomination this year by Rand Paul, the son of Republican Rep. Ron Paul. The latter’s libertarian campaign for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination made him a hero to many conservative activists of his ilk, and that loyalty is being transferred in some measure to his son.

On the Democratic side, most of the high profile primaries on tap thus far feature incumbents that have the White House imprimatur running against active and potential challengers who do not. President Barack Obama has already lined up behind Sens. Michael Bennet in Colorado, Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania, and Kirsten Gillibrand in New York. And at the House level, Obama provided a primary-eve endorsement to Sheila Jackson Lee, who used it to help turn back a pair of challengers in her Texas congressional district on Tuesday.

As for Bennet and Specter, they have significant primary opposition (former state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff and Rep. Joe Sestak, respectively). Gillibrand thus far has escaped serious intra-party competition, with former Rep. Harold Ford of Tennessee the latest Democrat to explore a primary challenge to Gillibrand before pulling back.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas is not so fortunate. Already embattled, she has recently drawn a primary opponent in the form of Democratic Lieut. Gov. Bill Halter. But it is unclear what role, if any, the White House will play in a state where Obama is not inherently that popular.

In terms of both the Democrats and Republicans, this could be just the tip of the iceberg as to the turmoil that could embroil the 2010 primary season. Only two states have held their nominating contests thus far. The remaining 48 will vote from early May to mid-September, with the primary filing deadline still well in the future in many of them.

And if the primaries do turn volatile, it would validate a bit of conventional wisdom that so far has yet to be proven—namely, that both parties have moved so far from the center in recent years that satisfying the party base in a primary can be tougher for a candidate than winning a general election. The actual results in recent years have yet to prove that. But a turbulent primary season in 2010—with a slew of incumbent defeats—just might.

Chart 2. 2010 Primary Calendar

Note: The partisan breakdown of House seats reflects the result of a special election and a party switch since 2008. Current vacancies, however, are credited to the party that last held the seat.

Source: Federal Election Commission.

11:15 AM Feb 25th: Health Care Summit. I’ve asked my students to watch an hour. I want to see whether their estimation of Congress goes up or down.

11:32 AM Feb 25th: At the summit, we just had the first-ever post-presidential-election “candidates debate”. There’s still no love lost between Obama & McCain.

9:33 AM Feb 27th: Dems get a break in IN SEN. Rep. Baron Hill won’t challenge Rep. Brad Ellsworth for D nod to replace Bayh. Tough race for Dems in any event.

9:37 AM Feb 27th: Real Q: What will GOP do? Ex-Sen.Coats is establishment choice but very flawed. Two other Rs, Hostettler & Stutzman, have upset potential.

8:59 PM Mar 1st: Harold Ford has sacrificed NY SEN candidacy so that Dems won’t be divided in fall. Um, no. Real reason: He was going to lose to Gillibrand.

9:03 PM Mar 1st: As I look at all 2010 Senate seats, Sen. K Gillibrand is by far the weakest incumbent who has little or no real primary or Nov opposition.

3:40 PM Mar 2nd: Circle May 18th in red–the day we’ll learn a lot about the mood of D activists. Primaries from the left for Sens.Lincoln(AR) & Specter(PA).

10:31 PM Mar 2nd: A salute to Governor-for-life Rick Perry (R-TX). After a 39% showing in ‘06, opposed by the Bushes, written off as old hat, he wins big.

10:34 Mar 2nd: In a less GOP year it’d be easier to believe Bill White (D) could unhorse Perry in Nov. Could still be a race. But big early advantage: Rick

10:39 Mar 2nd: Fascinating to see whether Kay will actually resign the Senate seat. Will she really let Perry appoint HIS crony to HER seat? Masochism.

10:41 Mar 2nd: It’s also Texas Independence Day (#174). Given Rick Perry’s views on secession and his giant win, there’s a bit of irony on the anniversary.

10:44 Mar 2nd: No fear, the Republic endures. This is also the 133rd anniversary of Rutherford B. Hayes’ ‘theft’ of the Presidency. Sam Tilden really won.

10:46 Mar 2nd: Called “His Fraudulency”, Hayes got the White House in a corrupt deal just 2 days before 1877 inauguration. Tilden declined to march on DC.