From the Texas Tribune: The Top GOP Donors and Bundlers in Texas

A look at at the deep pockets in Texas who determine which GOP candidates are and are not viable.

- Click here for it. 

While Iowa and New Hampshire have the first presidential nominating contests, there’s also a key Republican primary fight going on right now in Texas: the money chase.

The ring-kissing is occurring in every metropolitan area in the state and in oil-rich Midland.

. . . Here’s a look at 10 Texas GOP donors and 10 bundlers — super fundraisers — who are in high demand during the money chase. This list is based on interviews with two dozen state and national operatives, Federal Election Commission records and data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. While dozens of influential Texas Republican donors and bundlers are not on this list, their impact could expand as the 2016 presidential race further takes shape.

. . . Few developments changed politics more radically than the introduction of super PACs in 2010.

These outside groups, which are often aligned with but not allowed to coordinate with candidates, mean that Texas billionaires are no longer restricted in how much money they can spend to support a presidential contender.

What Keeps the Democratic Party Together?

Both 2305 and 2306 students should be working through the material on political parties.

The material in 2305 covers abstract issues about parties while more specifics are offered in 2306 - since states have the power to pass laws related to parties, that seems to me to be the best way to divide up the subject.

A major point made in 2305 about parties is that certain electoral rules - winner take all elections and single member districts chief among them - lead to the creation of two large political parties that are each composed of a variety of factions. Each faction has its own set of issues it prioritizes and chooses to ally with other factions they are ore or less in agreement with. So our major parties are best understood as being coalitions - you'll note that I make that point repeatedly in the class notes.

A party is only strong if it contains within it more factions than the other one, and if those factions are in fact cohesive - they are willing to work together to achieve party goals, the primary goal being winning elections.

Prior to each election, commentators tend to speculate about whether the factions that identify with either party are cohesive enough to win.

A brief flurry of opinions were offered about whether Democrats might be able to pull it off (I'll have a few stories about Republicans soon enough). I should note that these stories are about each parties performance nationally. In Texas its a different story.

Here are a few items you might wan to run through:

- There Is No Alternative.

This author is doubtful that the coalition that elected President Obama has enough to keep itself together - apart from the personality of Hillary Clinton. But if she does not run, the coalition will fragment. No single issue binds the party together, so without the force of Hillary's personality matters for the party's electoral success.

- Clinton and the Ramshackle Democrats.

This author offers a counterpoint. The lack of a single issue that binds all factions within the Democratic Party together is a strength, not a weakness. Democrats have outperformed Republicans in most recent elections (in number of votes cast anyway): by being “sprawling” and “heterogeneous,” and doesn't depend on a particular nominee to do this.

- 7 reasons the Democratic coalition is more united than ever.

The author argues that key issues - banking reform and inequality - unify the party and that those that divide it - K-12 education - aren't topical national issues. They resonate more at the state and local level. The major divisive issue in 2008 was the Iraq War, and that has faded into the distance. The fact that each party dislikes the other so much is bad for the nation but good for party cohesion. The author states that Clinton leads the pack because of Democratic unity, not the other way around. 

Intra-party divisions are important to comprehend if one is to come to grips with the nature of American politics. And these occur because of the coalition nature of American parties, which are the result of our unique way of electing people to office.

Links to media coverage of the Texas Republican Convention

Here's a small handful of things to look through, I'll add more as needed

Texas Tribune: GOP Approves Hardline Immigration Stance in Party Platform.

In the 2012 Convention, the party adopted a moderate immigration policy in its platform, including what was called the Texas Solution, which included a proposal for a guest worker program. This was removed following efforts by Tea Party delegates.

Huffington Post: Texas GOP Platform Draft Endorses Gay Conversion Therapy.

The party platform continues to contain language critical of homosexuality, and promotes the use of psychological techniques that other states have banned. Gay Republican groups were prevented from putting up booths at the convention. There are reports that the state Democratic Party will invite them to do so at their convention. 

Texas Tribune: Cruz Runs Away With Straw Poll at GOP Convention.

A straw poll was conducted to see who the convention delegates supported for the presidency in 2016 and Senator Cruz was the overwhelming winner with 43% of the vote. Far behind him was Ben Carson, Rand Paul and Governor Perry (11%).

 Dallas Morning News: Texas GOP splits between social conservatives, libertarians.

While attention is focused primarily on the battle between the Tea Party and the business sector, this article points out that a larger battle is brewing between Christian conservatives - who see a role for religion on state affairs - and libertarian who are more secular and focus primarily on shrinking government, including leaving moral decisions - including drug use and gay marriage - to individuals. 2306 students should note that this sounds a lot like the conflict described in the slides on political culture between the traditionalist and individualist political cultures argued to be dominant in the state.

This article contains a great quote describing the Texas Republican Party, but applies to all parties. You should memorize it. It comes from the Texas Republican Party chair:

Texas GOP Chairman Steve Munisteri said the Republican Party is a confederacy of several factions that often overlap and, over time, have traded places in influence. The party establishment, now in eclipse as the tea party asserts control, shares the libertarian opposition to government regulation. Many social conservatives agree with military hawks on a robust foreign policy.

“A smart candidate recognizes that our party is not monolithic and [that] there’s wide disagreement and tries to focus on where we agree rather than where we disagree,” said Munisteri.

The Texas Observer: Backs to the Future
.

The article details the difficulty party leadership is having in adopting policy positions that reach out to groups - primarily Hispanics - that do not identify with the party. Activists often push back and prevent these positions from adoption. Though those might continue to be successful strategies in the shirt run, they might not be so in the long run.

From th Washington Post: Today is the first Republican primary of the 2016 presidential election

Something called the "Adelson Primary" is underway. Its an internal competition among potential Republican presidential candidates to see who will get Sheldon Adelson's support. The wrote about such efforts previously here.  And here.

- Click here for the article.
- Click here for Wikipedia's page on Adelson.

The 2016 presidential primaries are still years away, but an unofficial one held this weekend in Las Vegas could prove incredibly lucky for at least one GOP contender's coffers. It's the spring meeting of the Republican Jewish Coalition, which is held at the Venetian casino, owned by Sheldon Adelson. Yes, the same Sheldon Adelson who donated $15 million to Newt Gingrich's super PAC and $30 million to Mitt Romney's super PAC.

Four potential presidential candidates are hoping they can cajole Adelson, who is also on the Republican Jewish Coalition's board, into giving them a leg-up in the already crowded Republican field after four days of scotching and cigaring. Welcome to the "Adelson Primary."

The Adelson Primary presumably replaces the money primary, once the kick-off event for each presidential race.

Catching up with the 2016 election

Here are links to some recent stories related to the race to be the next president. Click here for past stories on the 2016 election.

Some of these focus on what potential Republican Party candidates positioning themselves so they can do well in the Iowa Caucus, specifically the Iowa straw poll - the first official electoral event for the 2016 cycle.

The money primary has been well underway for some time, as has jockeying for top consultants and operatives.

- The Iowa Caucuses Have started.
- Ryan to Iowa as he keeps 2016 'options open'.
- Rand Paul, gearing up for 2016, poaches Iowa’s GOP chairman.
- Republicans question Iowa's key role in presidential balloting.
- GROVER NORQUIST: Here Are The Only 6 Republicans Who Can Win In 2016.
- Texas candidates could be top contenders in GOP straw poll for 2016 Presidential nomination.

On Ted Cruz and the recent debt ceiling vote

Out junior Senator is not making many friends in the Senate among his fellow Republicans. A few stories related to the recent debt limit vote:
- After GOP filibuster bid, Senate votes to suspend Treasury’s borrowing limit.

. . . Wednesday turned into a wild ride in the Senate. All the political unrest that has roiled the Republican Party in recent years — the establishment vs. conservative outsiders who threaten incumbent Republicans with primary challenges from the right — was on full display.

As he has for the past year, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) placed himself at the center of the day’s action. McConnell and Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) had sought to allow a simple majority – all Democrats – to approve the suspension of the debt limit until March 2015. But Cruz refused to go along, forcing more complicated procedural moves. That infuriated his Republican colleagues, because it meant that at least five GOP senators would have to vote with the Democrats to end the filibuster.

- The Minority Maker: Ted Cruz hurts his party by forcing a meaningless debt-ceiling vote.

The Senate passed the House debt-limit increase on Wednesday, but not before some needless drama that helps to explain why Republicans remain a minority.

Democrats had enough votes to pass the increase with a simple majority, which means they would have owned the debt increase. But then Senator Ted Cruz —the same fellow who planned the GOP's shutdown fiasco in October—objected on the floor and insisted on a 60-vote majority. This is exactly what Democratic leader Harry Reid wanted because if the bill failed he would have sent the Senate home on recess and returned later this month to join President Obama in flogging the GOP as the debt-ceiling deadline neared.

The 60-vote threshold was reached only after GOP leaders Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn and 10 others voted to let the final debt-ceiling vote proceed. All 12 then opposed the increase on final passage, but thanks to Mr. Cruz they had to walk the plank with Democrats on a procedural vote.

- Ted Cruz isn’t planning to be in the Senate for very long.

By forcing the Senate to round up 60 votes to end debate and force a final vote on a clean increase of the debt ceiling, Cruz knowingly complicated things for the top two Republicans in the chamber -- Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn (Texas). Both men face primary challenges from their ideological right and neither relished the idea of helping break a filibuster for a debt ceiling increase with no Republican proposals attached.

It's not news that Cruz cares little for Senate tradition. He ran in 2012 on his willingness to shake up the institution, and time and again -- most notably during his nearly 24 hour talk-a-thon to protest Obamacare -- he has been willing (and gleefully so) to be a fly in the ointment. But, this latest gambit by Cruz may well be the most telling because it directly impacts two men who, if Cruz had any thought of sticking around the Senate for any extended period of time, not only could, but would make life very uncomfortable for him.

- High cost of an ego trip.

Cruz’s ego trip had come at a high cost. He had forced McConnell, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas and other Republicans to cast votes that could cause them to lose primaries to weaker general-election candidates, and he had risked getting his party blamed for a default.

The Wall Street Journal’s conservative editorial page dubbed Cruz “the Minority Maker” for making his GOP colleagues “walk the plank” on a “meaningless debt ceiling vote.”

But Cruz doesn’t care about all that. Leaving the chamber, he told reporters McConnell’s fate would be “ultimately a decision . . . for the voters in Kentucky.”

His actions suggest Cruz has put himself before his party and even the nation’s solvency. And in this sense his actions are typical of the 2016 GOP presidential field. Cruz, Sen. Marco Rubio and Sen. Rand Paul are mucking up the gears of government in ways that will earn them favorable attention in the primaries.

Can Elizabeth Warren drive a wedge within the Democratic Party?

Most of our attention in class has been focused on the wedge between the business and Tea Party wing of the Republican Party, but the Massachusetts Senator might do something similar to the Democratic Party.

Business interests have been as cozy with centrist Democrats as they have been with Republicans. Bill Clinton - and presumably Hillary - have been supported by them, and have each beaten back attempts by the left wing in the party to impose restrictions on business activities. Warren's repeated attacks on the financial sector - and the support they've enjoyed - have raised the possibility that a left wing populist movement might emerge to challenge Clinton, and perhaps divide the party.

We've used to drive home the idea that each of the two parties are coalitions composed of various factions that more or less see eye to eye - though they come into conflict often about what the party should stand for and how it should achieve its objectives.

Some readings:

- Could Elizabeth Warren beat Hillary Clinton?
- Elizabeth Warren’s populist insurgency enters next phase

A campaign speech, not a filibuster

Our Senator's 21 hour speech was technically not a filibuster since there were already enough votes collected to ensure cloture - meaning that a vote on the continuing resolution was guaranteed to occur.

The National Journal explains here.

Rand Paul's speech which held up the nomination of a CIA director and Wendy Davis' which forced the end of a special session of the Texas Legislature both qualified. But it was similar to a speech given by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders in 2010 - which was also not a filibuster.

A filibuster - according to Wikipedia - is:

a type of parliamentary procedure where debate is extended, allowing one or more members to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a given proposal. It is sometimes referred to as talking out a bill, and characterized as a form of obstruction in a legislature or other decision-making body.

The consensus seems to be that the speech had little to do with defunding Obamacare, and more to do with raising Cruz's viability as a 2016 presidential candidate and gathering campaign contributions.

This might have been the first big speech of the 2016 presidential race.

Scary thought.

The 5 Republican Parties

One of the small handful of points I try to hammer on in class is that the two major parties in the US are best thought of as coalitions of factions that feel enough in common to fit under the same party category. Determining just what those factions are can be a bit of an art.

Here is Norm Ornstein's take on the current factions within the Republican Party and the impact each has on the governing process, as well as the future competitiveness of the party:

. . . I see at least five Republican parties out there, with a lot of overlap, but with enough distinct differences that the task is harder than usual. There is a House party, a Senate party, and a presidential party, of course. But there is also a Southern party and a non-Southern one. The two driving forces dominating today's GOP are the House party and the Southern one -- and they will not be moved or shaped by another presidential loss. If anything, they might double down on their worldviews and strategies.

He argues that the increased influence of the South on the party will help it retain power in the House, but make it less competitive in Senate and presidential elections in the near future:

The South has gone from being a trace element of the Republican Party in the 1950s and 1960s to becoming the solid base and largest element of today's GOP -- and its driving force on social and economic issues. And while some Southern Republicans such as Lindsey Graham remain fierce internationalists, the South, and the House, have become the epicenter of anti-defense and anti-diplomacy isolationism typified now by border Senator Rand Paul.

So here's the Republican dilemma: The House and Southern Republican parties are more concerned with ideological purity and tribal politics than they are with building a durable, competitive national party base to win presidential and Senate majorities. In most cases, they are in no danger of losing their House seats or their hegemony in their states. They will be resistant to changes in social policy that reflect broad national opinion; resistant to any policies or rhetoric, including but not limited to immigration, that would appeal to Hispanics, African-Americans, or Asian-Americans; and resistant to policies like Medicaid expansion or Head Start that would ameliorate the plight of the poor. They also will be more inclined to use voter-suppression methods to reduce the share of votes cast by those population groups than to find ways to appeal to them. I see little or nothing, including a potential loss in 2016, that will change this set of dynamics anytime soon.

Is the Republican Party broken?

Next week we will start discussing political parties in both 2305 and 2306. Conventional wisdom has held for a while that the Republican Party needs major adjustments in order to become competitive again. Its important to not that as recently as 2004 the same things were said about the Democratic Party, so things can change quickly.

Here's an article from March suggesting that this story may be inaccurate.

Its contains a little insight about public opinion that'll be worth talking about next week. Public opinion tends to move away from the position of the party in power:

Voters serve as “thermostats” for public policy.  They move in the opposite direction as the party controlling the White House—to the left under Republican administrations and to the right under Democratic administrations.  It is as if when the government does too much, or is “too hot,” the public says “cool it.”  And when the government does too little, or is “too cold,” the public says “turn up the heat in here.”

So after Obama was elected in 2008, thermostatic public opinion soon moved against him.   See the graph below, which uses an omnibus measure of the public’s support for government programs that was created by political scientist James Stimson from hundreds of different survey questions.  In this graph, the absolute numbers are arbitrary; by itself, “50” doesn’t mean anything.  The key is how the numbers shift over time.

Under Reagan, the public became more liberal, in contrast to the prevailing view that Reagan’s skills as a communicator made the public more conservative.  During the Obama administration, as during the Clinton administration, there has been another shift to the right.  Far from ushering in a liberal majority, the Obama administration has presided over a shift among Americans toward preferring less government, not more government.  Obama has helped to increase the overall conservatism of the American public more than Reagan ever did, ironically enough.

Is Ted Cruz burning the bridges that might help him win the presidency?

Our junior senator - Ted Cruz - along with Rand Paul and a few others, have begun their careers in the Senate by violating a number of unpoken rules about how newly elected members are supposed to act. Rather than defer to senior members, build up relationships and spend time learning how the institution runs they have made it a habit of acting out on their own, even against senior members of their own party.

They are up front about not caring about how the institution runs but the conflict he is stirring up might make him a less viable presidential candidate should he choose to run. The Dish flags two stories to that make this argument.

One points out, ironically, that Cruz is violating advice made by one of his predecessors from Texas, Lyndon Johnson.

There was a time when a new senator could not have survived such a controversial start. "The making of a good senator is in some ways similar to the making of a good work of art," William White wrote in 1956 in Citadel: The Story of the U.S. Senate. "There are few shortcuts." Lyndon Johnson gave a copy of the book to freshman senators. It advised that a career rested "upon what is slowly developing and enduring ... rather than what is quick and spectacular. Eminence may be reached by a concentration on frenetic and untypical senatorial activity, but it will never be sustained in that way."

Ted Cruz didn’t read that book, and even if he did, he’s decided to write his own. Though his colleagues have suggested he tone down his hard charging approach, he continues to engage with verve on multiple fronts.

There are at least a couple reasons why. First, the Senate occasionally provides a quick step to the White House, and the quicker the better. Both JFK and Obama made the jump during their first terms, so if Cruz's goal is the White House and not a long Senate career, he better make the jump soon. Older candidates - John McCain, Robert Dole and John Kerry for example - have not been as competitive.

Second, his real constituency is the Tea Party, and he prefers to do their bidding. They provide his support, so he doesn't rick much in the short term. from taking the establishment on. This includes picking fights with the older members of the institution. But this strategy might be more successful - electorally - if all he is interested in is being a long serving member of the Senate. If he wishes to make the jump to the White House, he needs to broaden his appeal:

. . . there are still dangers lurking for Cruz and others in the purity caucus. Though Barack Obama moved through the Senate quickly, he used it as a platform for bipartisan platform building. That’s what you need to do to win a national election in a diverse country. Cruz is pursuing the opposite strategy. It may win him cheers at home, but that puts him on track toward becoming this generation's Phil Gramm, the Texas senator whose effort to build a conservative platform from within the Senate made him unappealing as a national candidate.

His refusal to create relationships might limit his future goals:

I spoke to Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma this week about a wide variety of topics. He is as principled a conservative as you can find in the Senate, and he is more eloquent than Cruz about the venality of career politicians. But Coburn can also talk about the power of human relationships in politics in a way that seems antithetical to the brand of politics pursued by Cruz. "Relationships are how deals get done," said Coburn, who in this case was talking about President Obama. He's been friendly with Obama since 2005, the year they both arrived in the Senate. This is a constant source of confusion for Coburn’s constituents. "The No. 1 question I get at home is: Why are you friends with Barack Obama?" Coburn's answer, as Obama wrote in his essay about him for Time, is, “How better to influence somebody than to love them?” It's hard to imagine Ted Cruz talking that way.

John Sides makes the same point, and adds a nuance:

Cruz’s problem is that he may want to be president of the United States, reports the National Review’s Robert Costa.  And to be the Republican nominee, he’ll need the support of his Republican colleagues.  The 2012 election once again showed—and despite some skepticism—that it is very hard to win the nomination unless you’re preferred by a substantial chunk, if not the vast majority of, your party’s leaders (as was Romney).  Which is to say, it pays to be nice to your colleagues. 

Here's the nuance. If he really wants to win his party's nomination, much less the presidency itself, he has to tone down his ideology:

. . . many in the party are wary of nominating a strongly ideological candidate—a “severe” conservative, if you will—because they’re afraid that this candidate will lose in the general. And rightly so! See Table 2 of this article (pdf) by John Zaller.

In 2012, as Lynn Vavreck and I show in The Gamble (pdf), only about half of Romney’s supporters were closest to him ideologically. The other half were closer to Gingrich or Santorum—that is, to one of the more conservative candidates. But this other half also tended to believe that Romney was the only candidate who could beat Obama in November. Their vote was about electability, not experience. Of course, Romney didn’t win, but Zaller’s finding suggests that a more conservative candidate would have done worse, other things equal.

Cruz’s path to the presidency—if he decides to run—must consist precisely of convincing “the middle” of the party that he’s electable despite the fact that he may be the most conservative member of the Senate (pdf). To do that, he’ll need the support of his fellow party leaders to send that signal.

Could Republicans overplay their hands?

The National Journal argues that Republicans face electoral risks if they focus only on the current scandals - IRS, AP, and Benghazi - to the expense of any policy accomplishments which require working with the president. Future presidential bids may require tangible accomplishments, but the party base - which despises the president - may not allow it: 

. . . in our polarized era, oversight often becomes a partisan cudgel. And that process, which is already infecting the Benghazi inquiry, could bruise not only Obama but the Republicans driving the investigations as well.

These confrontations’ most predictable effect will be to enrage the GOP base, which will strengthen the party factions most dubious about any compromises with Obama. In that way, these storms will likely weaken not only the president but also Republicans who believe the party must reboot to restore its competitiveness for the White House. “The base of the party is going to go ballistic on this, particularly the IRS [issue],” says Tom Davis, the former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. “It makes it harder for [GOP legislators] to go along with Obama on things in general.”

Party leaders seem to want at least a degree of restraint, which the base - many affiliated with the Tea Party - may not allow.

One author suggests a stealth campaign against the president - one where Republican fingerprints cannot be detected: 

Republicans would be much wiser to pursue a third option: Dig up as much damaging information as they can about the Obama administration and leak it to reporters they know will write tough stories that won’t be traced back to the source. That way, the public won’t see the GOP as being obsessed with attacking the other side and playing gotcha at the expense of the big issues facing the country—the ones voters really care about.

An early look at the 2014 and 2016 elections

According to a recent Quinnipiac Poll, Rubio, Christie, Ryan, Paul and Jeb Bush split support among Republicans for the presidency.And Democrats have an 8 point edge over Republicans for the US House. This is a generic poll, but it suggests Democrats might have an outside chance to take over the House. The key word is "outside."

Can ther Republican Party make necessary adjustments?

Charlie Cook comments on the report the Republican National Committee released this week and discusses how difficult this may prove to be. The title of his article says it all: The GOP Faces 2 Stark Choices: Change or go over the Cliff. While the party leadership wants to moderate its positions to reach out to a broader constituency, activists in the party see not only no reason to change, they want to double down on the party's existing positions.

The past 96 hours should provide thinking Republicans both hope and despair about their party’s future. The hope centers on the Republican National Committee’s “Growth & Opportunity Project” report, an autopsy of sorts that looks at the GOP’s disastrous 2012 election and offers some highly constructive ideas. The party should take them seriously in addressing the problems that turned more than a few winnable Senate seats and a presidential election into bitter defeats. The despair, on the other hand, comes from the Conservative Political Action Conference, an annual congregation of the younger element of the party’s most conservative 5 percent, this year made up chiefly of those who think last year’s problem was that the party wasn’t conservative enough. Driving over to the Gaylord’s National Harbor Hotel and Convention Center to meet with a campaign manager Saturday afternoon, I passed a group on a street corner advocating the impeachment of President Obama. It was a useful reminder of just how far out the extremes—on the right in the GOP and on the left in the Democratic Party—really are.

From the NYT: Republicans Plan Overhaul for 2016 Primary Season

The Republican National Committee has issued a report aimed at improving its electoral prospects nationally.

The NYT describes it:

In a sweeping review of the party’s 2012 election efforts, Republican leaders say too many voters saw their party as out of touch with the country’s needs and call for a new approach to voters.

“The G.O.P. today is a tale of two parties,” the report begins. “One of them, the gubernatorial wing, is growing and successful. The other, the federal wing, is increasingly marginalizing itself, and unless changes are made, it will be increasingly difficult for Republicans to win another presidential election in the near future.”

A good point to keep in mind as 2305's look into the nature of political parties nationally. They are decentralized, meaning that there is no one leader that determines what the party stands for or what its over all strategy is. Notice that the national party is looking at the states for for guidance. Here's more from the NYT:

Republicans, trying to heed the lessons of their 2012 losses in advance of the 2016 election cycle, unveiled proposals for improving the way the party talks about its ideas, turns out potential voters and raises money.

Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, outlined the plans at a news conference in Washington on Monday morning, acknowledging Democrats’ comparative success with digital strategy and outreach to voters in critical demographic groups.

The party will also work to overhaul the way it chooses a presidential candidate, including shortening its primary season and limiting the number of debates, party leaders announced on Monday.

The report notes that the party has lost four of the last six presidential elections, often by wide margins, after winning five of six between 1968 and 1988. “Public perception of the party is at record lows,” the report says, and the party’s image is particularly weak among younger voters.

It remains unclear, though, whether party leaders mostly want to change their tactics and messaging — and whether such an approach can work — or whether they also want to change policies. Although some Republican strategists have called for an overhaul of strategy, most elected officials continue to say that many of the party’s policies, especially on economic matters, are sound.

Has the Republican coalition run its course?

The coalition of social conservatives and business interests that helped the Republican Party may have run its course - and may have actually run it a few years back. But internal factors may make it difficult for the party to quickly shift its course.

Here's an argument that they may have painted themselves in a corner and suffer from the paradox of plenty, and one that suggests that the base may make it difficult for the leadership to make the shifts in policy that will expand its appeal to minorities.

Looming divisions within the Democratic Party

I've posted a few items describing potential divisions with the Republican Party mostly because its unusual for the party to have them. The Democratic Party almost always has internal divisions. These reflect the diverse nature of the party.

But here's an argument that these divisions will increase during Obama's second term, since the leaders of each will begin positioning themselves for 2016. Might this undermine the party's ability to take advantage of the splits within the Republican Party? As always it will depend on whether some external force can be found that enforces party cohesion and convinces these factions to put individual goals aside.

That's always a tough order.