If the Republican Party wants to win in 2010 and beyond, the bottom line is that it will have to its brand. The latest from , reporting on a recent Gallup poll, confirms this (emphasis added):
The Republican Party’s image has gone from bad to worse over the past month, as only 34% of Americans in a Nov. 13-16 Gallup Poll say they have a favorable view of the party, down from 40% in mid-October. The 61% now holding an unfavorable view of the GOP is the highest Gallup has recorded for that party since the measure was established in 1992.
By contrast, the public’s views of the Democratic Party remain as positive after the election as they were just prior to it. More than half of Americans, 55%, currently hold a favorable view of the Democratic Party and only 39% an unfavorable view, highly typical of views toward the Democrats all year.
Here are four ways that the GOP can successfully reposition itself.
- Trash the Republican Party’s existing branding, and rebuild all of it from scratch. A large part of that a brand’s success or failure is the result of its branding. I’ve pointed out before that the logo and online identity of the Republican Party is quite outdated by modern standards. If we really want to reposition the GOP brand, we must what we currently have and start anew. Let’s create a sleek Web 2.0 logo and release a clean Web 2.0 website to replace what currently exists at .
- Find a way to bring new coalitions into the GOP – especially young voters and minorities. Unfortunately, many have come to see the Republican Party as the party of “old white men.” This is, without question, a losing image, and thus it must be changed. I’ve previously stated that we can win over young voters with a new, forward-looking platform that in a nutshell reads something like this:
The Republican Party is the party of individual freedom, limited government, and personal choice. At the federal level, we will fight to reduce the size of government and make it more accountable to the people who fund it. We will fight to protect every human being’s God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And at the statewide level, we will work with the citizens to protect and preserve the traditional values upon which this great nation was built.
Another one of our contributors, Abel Delgado, has raised some critical points about making inroads in another crucial segment: Latinos.
- Differentiate Our Brand from the Other Side’s Brand. For people to want to buy your brand (or in our case, vote for it), they need to understand why it is better. Of course, people don’t typically just come to a natural understanding on this; rather, it must be articulated through the various methods of media. David All has argued that we need a “” that produces rapid-fire responses to the Democrats’ agenda. Indeed, with the proper resources and reach, this sort of mechanism could serve to provide the kind of differentiation we need to reposition our brand.
- Continue with “Joe the Plumber.” I thought that “Joe the Plumber” was one of the highlights of the McCain campaign. The Republican Party can – and indeed must – appeal to the ordinary Joe the Plumbers of this country. And quite frankly, I believe that the GOP’s core principles are shared by most average Americans. However, Democrats love to paint Republicans as out of touch with the everyday voter, and I think that image has stuck. We need to defeat this, and by focusing on the stories of the average Joes of this world, we absolutely can. Indeed, this is one of the reasons I found Sarah Palin to be so unique. Despite her poor interviews and gaffes, in many ways Governor Palin represented the everyday American to whom we must appeal. In any case, I truly think that if we can continue to push this narrative, it will pay significant dividends in repositioning our brand.
Last 5 posts by Aaron Marks
- Onward and Upward: Building a Sustainable Majority - January 22nd, 2010
- Dear Young Voters: This Is What You Get When You Don't Vote - December 1st, 2009
- The Youth Vote and the 2009 Elections - November 6th, 2009
- The Best of the Post-2009 Election Spin - November 5th, 2009
- Introducing NextGenGOP Executive Director James Kane - October 20th, 2009
Please just stop with the logistical approach, its utterly useless right now. Almost every post on this forum deals with logistics instead of principles. The party is in shambles not because it had a hard time portraying its message, even though it did, but because the party’s message was total junk. It does not matter how well you construct a campaign, if your message and platform are worthless you will not sell your product.
Also, just look at the up and coming youth of the GOP in the House, guys like Cantor, and Ryan. Both these Republicans, who are supposedly the future of the party, voted for the biggest scheme I’ve seen in quite a while, the $0.7×10^12 bailout. They might as well be democrats at that point, because there really is no difference. Its funny, looking at the GOP platform from the Republican National Convention reads no bailouts in any shape or form, yet McCain, and the future of the party just compromised the entire party’s platform. No wonder the Repubs got their asses handed to them this election cycle.
If Republicans want to matter in the future then they must stand on principle.
I agree with LibertyNow. The Republican party did not loose because of mere appearances. It lost because they became watered down democrats.
The Republicans pretended to support individual liberty and capitalism (which are essentially synonymous), when in fact they compromised on it every chance they could. Though the compromise is what caused the failure, the American people have associated our present ills, not with that compromise, but with capitalism and individual liberty. It is no wonder they have voted a power lusting socialist into office!
We have given up too much already. We must not compromise on our principles, and any Republican who does ought to be tossed out of the party, lest the destruction he wrought gets associated with it.
Your stated platform would lose a large part of the base including social conservatives. What group would replace them in your opinion?
I do not understand how it would loose the social conservatives. Who else would they vote for?
Lynn,
I’m not entirely sure that the platform would lose a large part of the base, and I’m certainly not looking to replace anyone. The suggested platform would, ideally, appeal to a wider range of folks. It does not state that the Republican Party is no longer the party for social conservatives, but rather that the GOP will fight to protect the traditional values that social conservatives prefer at the statewide level. Indeed, I argue that it would bring more young voters to the party.
And LibertyNow/Ulpianus,
You may be right – I don’t argue that we necessarily lost because of our brand. However, from a marketing perspective, when your brand is failing, it is very difficult to win elections, just like when a company’s brand is failing, it is difficult to generate profit. I am by no means arguing that repositioning the Republican brand is the only solution we need, but it must be part of the puzzle.
It is certainly part of the puzzle, just not a fundamental one. That is not to say unimportant. You have to have something good to brand first — it is in that sense that branding is not fundamental. If you successfully brand something which is corrupt, it will fail as soon as its true nature is revealed. On the other hand, if you poorly brand something which is good, it will never see the light of day. What we need is good content and good branding. Neither should be neglected.
Ulpianus, on your point of, “What we need is good content and good branding. Neither should be neglected.”, I agree fully.
This Gentleman and I are on the same wavelength, and he just happens to be the popular Governor of South Carolina, listen to what he has to say here:
While I agree generally with the Governor that the Republican party will not get elected by trying to be everything to everybody and that it needs to stick to its core principles.
However, he spoke of market based “improvements” to Medicaid. A vat full of poison, though with a dash of fruits and veggies, will still kill you. We do not need “market solutions” to Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. We need a free market! That means the gradual elimination of these programs.
They should say, “We defend individual rights, and will therefore stop the extortion of the welfare state. This is just because of X, Y, and Z, it is good for you for reasons A, B, and C and this is how we will do it…”
We need strong leaders who do what they say they will do which is uphold the GOP platform. Making it vague, as you have done, is not the answer.
We need leaders who have the courage of their convictions and the ability to express them. That’s why Sarah Palin was so popular. It’s why Bobby Jindal will be popular even though he lacks her charm.
Principles, leadership, communication. Technology comes somewhere far down the line. Those pushing web technology as the answer to all our problems are wrong. Those are simply methods of delivery. First we must have something to deliver.
Why would we lose social conservatives? Because their issues must be enumerated and promised. Personal Choice? What do you think that means so a socon? It means abortion and gay marriage. They are not looking for a party of personal choice. The Democrats already have that one sewn up.
Ulpianus asked who else they would vote for which shows lack of understanding of social conservatives. A few might vote Constitution Party but most would simply stay home. You cannot coerce religious voters. They will simply leave you high and dry if you fail to address their issues.
There is nothing wrong with conservative principles. The problem is the failure to live them, lead them and communicate them.
To Lynn2008,
If the options were a power lusting socialist and a principled pro-individual rights candidate who was either pro-choice or indifferent, do you think they would stay home? Would they ignore all the good things about the candidate and allow a socialist (who would also be pro-abortion) to win because of that one issue?
Yes.
Well, then our country is lost. One side wants to drag us into slavery and the other into the dark ages.
It’s something I didn’t fully understand until this election. I don’t claim it’s all evangelicals, or even most, but there is a substantial number who will not compromise under any circumstance.
If the candidate is not strong on social issues they simply will not support him. They see it as a matter of principle and conscience.
While many evangelicals found McCain’s record on abortion acceptable, or certainly preferable to Obama’s, others didn’t. Some came on board because of Sarah Palin, others didn’t. Exit poll data showed that some 4 million voters who attend church at least once a week stayed home from the polls.
That supports my observations taken from working closely with this interest group.