Our political system remains polarized and divided between the two major parties, but in our present era of division the Republicans benefit from what I call four interconnected and mutually-reinforcing "structural asymmetries." Allow me to unpack each.
The first is the turnout asymmetry: Republican voters vote more reliably.
Voter turnout in presidential years is higher than in midterm cycles or odd-year state and local elections. Although there is some dispute about whether and how much this pattern matters, the electorate tends to be older, whiter, more married, more affluent and thus more Republican in non-presidential years.
According to the surge-and-decline theory, voter "drop off" during midterms gives Republicans a distinct advantage because of these differing demographics. Referendum theory suggests that midterm voters effectively proxy for non-voters, and that demographic differences matter less than political and economic indicators like presidential approval ratings and the unemployment rate.
During the past quarter-century, the midterm cycles where turnout declined the most relative to the preceding presidential election were 2014, 2010 and 1994 — election years during which the GOP captured back, respectively, the Senate, the House, and both chambers from the Democrats. Surely voters those cycles were displeased about the economy and the performance of Democratic Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. But lower turnout certainly did not help congressional Democrats. If "we voted at 60 percent, 70 percent, it would transform our politics," lamented Mr. Obama, in reference to the 2014 turnout, the lowest for a midterm in 72 years. "Our Congress would be completely different."
The second asymmetry pertains to the timing of elections: A solid majority of state and local officials are elected in non-presidential cycles. However much non-presidential cycle voter drop-off favors the GOP, this second asymmetry compounds and magnifies the first.
Because half of U.S. House and Senate elections are held in presidential cycles and the other half in midterms, neither party is advantaged by the timing of congressional elections. But roughly two-thirds of state legislative and gubernatorial elections are held in either midterm or odd-year cycles, magnifying the Republicans' drop-off advantage.
Following the 2014 elections, Republicans boasted control of similar shares of governors (32 of 50, or 64 percent) and state legislative chambers (68 of the 98 bicameral, partisan chambers, or 69 percent). These majorities cannot be attributed solely to timing, but given what we know about lower turnout in non-presidential years, the GOP enjoys an advantage in state elections because of when these offices are elected.
The third asymmetry stems from the two parties' ideological orientations toward government: The Republican mantra that government is the problem sells better with a skeptical, disaffected citizenry.
Public trust in public and private institutions is at historic lows. Whether declining faith in American elites is bad for civil society is peripheral to the fact that the Republican Party's anti-government rhetoric better resonates with contemporary public sentiments.
As I argue in my latest book, "The Stronghold," Republicans' anti-government posture helps explain why Democratic critiques of the GOP as "the Party of No," or the outrage they express toward repeated Republican attempts to repeal Obamacare, often fall flat. Policy gridlock and the inability of the two parties to fashion bipartisan solutions to major national problems only reinforce the rhetoric of the party that happily admits it doesn't intend to fix national programs because it believes the federal government is inherently dysfunctional, even dangerous.
Finally, there is the campaign finance asymmetry: Republicans outraise Democrats.
Yes, Democrats have rich donors and connections to Wall Street. But the GOP donors on average are wealthier, and the party's ties to corporate America are stronger.
Amazingly, in 2012 Mr. Obama became the first incumbent president seeking re-election to be outraised by his challenger. If Democrats in the post-Citizens United and post-McCutcheon era merely break even when controlling the White House, imagine the fundraising advantage future Republicans might enjoy in either open-seat presidential elections (like 2016) or when the next incumbent Republican president is on the ballot seeking re-election (2020, potentially).
To countervail these four disadvantages, the Democrats rely upon a single advantage: the rise of the so-called "emerging electorate" of millennial, unmarried and non-white voters who voted solidly Democratic and, with each passing day, represent a larger share of the American population. President Obama won the votes of 93 percent of African Americans, 73 percent of Asian Americans, 71 percent of Latinos, 62 percent of unmarried Americans, and 60 percent of voters under age 30. Of course, these results came during a presidential cycle in which the country's first black chief executive ran for re-election with ample campaign funds.
Can favorable demographic changes continue to countervail the Republicans' four key advantages? That's the defining electoral question in American politics in the coming decades.
Thomas F. Schaller teaches political science at UMBC; his most recent book is "The Stronghold: How Republicans Captured Congress but Surrendered the White House." His column appears every other Wednesday. His email is schaller67@gmail.com. Twitter: @schaller67.