Massachusetts and New Jersey have shared a similar political makeup in recent years.  Both are solidly blue states—in 2008, Barack Obama won Massachusetts by 26 points and New Jersey by 15 points.  Yet Republicans have seen some success in recent statewide elections in both states.  Massachusetts had a Republican governor from 1991 through 2007.  But Brown has become the first Republican senator from Massachusetts since 1979, and the first Republican to take the Kennedy seat since 1947.

Brown’s meteoric rise in the polls was due partly to his opponent, who proved to be weak and gaffe-prone, and partly to the fact that he himself was a likable candidate with strong fundraising ability in the waning days of the campaign.  But this race was clearly a referendum on Obama policies, not least of which healthcare and cap-and-trade.  How should Democrats respond in order to reduce losses in a year where national issues will dominate, and how can Republicans continue the momentum they have enjoyed since November?

Lesson Number One for Democrats going into this fall’s midterm elections should be to minimize the attention paid to national issues.  Candidates should not invite Barack Obama to campaign for them unless they want to nationalize their election. Barack Obama made the same mistake in Massachusetts that he did in New Jersey — his decision to campaign personally for Jon Corzine and Martha Coakley enabled his critics to tie the losses to the declining popularity of the President and his policies.  (New Jersey, in particular, was an election based on state and local issues before Obama’s decision to appear on Corzine’s behalf.)  Obama’s job approval in Massachusetts has fallen below 50 percent in a handful of polls.  If Obama cannot keep the support of a majority in one of the country’s bluest states, his popularity in any state could be in jeopardy.  In many states now, an Obama appearance could do more harm than good to a Democratic candidate in a gubernatorial or congressional race, when it could have been an unmitigated benefit just one year ago.

The second lesson for Democrats is to embrace bipartisanship.  As Michael Barone wrote in the Washington Examiner this past weekend, the 60-seat Democratic supermajority enabled Democrats to push healthcare reform without Republican support.  But now one vote short of cloture, Democrats will need to reexamine their strategy in order to capture the support of some Republicans.  The outcome of this November’s election will likely depend on whether Democrats choose to adopt a more bipartisan strategy in the next few months.

As for Republicans, the lessons are more complicated.  Though Chris Christie and Scott Brown were victorious, their elections were more referendums on the party in power rather than a public embrace of the GOP.  Democratic support among voters is declining, but this decline is not being matched by an uptick in Republican support; anti-incumbency and disillusionment with politics as usual currently reign supreme.  With the Republican brand not resonating with voters, Republicans need to offer candidates such as Christie and Brown: fiscally responsible, with a diminished emphasis on social issues.

Though Brown’s detractors tried to tie him to the far right, his policy stances are moderate in many cases.  He opposes partial-birth abortion, but is otherwise pro-choice.  He also opposes a federal marriage amendment.  Tea Party groups endorsed Brown, smartly recognizing their shared views on tax issues and forgiving any differences on social issues, which have been on the backburner for this election.  This is the correct approach for Tea Party groups, which have been subject to whispers of internal division of late.  Conciliation while maintaining core principles is not only possible, but it also provides the most likely path to victory.

Republican candidates would also be smart to distinguish themselves from national-level Republicans.  Christie did not ask Sarah Palin to appear on his behalf in New Jersey.  Palin also kept a low profile during the Massachusetts campaign.  On an Election Night appearance on Fox News, she said of Brown’s campaign: “I so respected that he didn’t call in a whole lot of outsiders asking them to come do the bidding for him. He did this himself.”  Exactly right — with the Republican brand still weak in voters’ minds, it will be better for Republican candidates this fall to decline the involvement of well-known GOP politicos and instead show an independent streak.

Though Republicans have found success in recent elections, they are still a long way from restoring the Republican name among American voters.  The events of January 19 — the inauguration of Governor Chris Christie in blue New Jersey, and the election of Senator Scott Brown in even-bluer Massachusetts—are a good place to start looking for lessons.

Of the four races to be decided tomorrow, the one whose outcome is probably the hardest to predict is the gubernatorial election in New Jersey.  The state has a natural Democratic tilt, and the last time that New Jersey elected a Republican governor was 1997, when moderate Christie Todd Whitman won the office by one point.  This year, Democratic incumbent Jon Corzine has not been able to surpass 43 percent support in any poll taken this year, but he has the dual advantages of the state’s leftward lean and a huge personal fortune to fund his campaign.  He is facing a tough challenge from Republican Chris Christie, a former U.S. attorney, whose history as a corruption fighter may strengthen his chances in a state where corruption is a perennially important issue to the state’s voters.

Though Christie led by double digits throughout much of the summer, the race has tightened up of late.  Perhaps the biggest reason for this has been the insurgence of Independent candidate Chris Daggett.  Daggett, who previously served in the administration of N.J. Governor Tom Kean, emerged in the late summer as an alternative for those voters not happy about either of the major party choices.  During the early fall, Daggett saw his numbers climb into the mid-to-high teens, certainly high enough to impact the outcome of the election.  One of the biggest questions going into Election Day in New Jersey is how many will actually cast their vote for Daggett, given that his chances of becoming governor are slim to none.   According to the latest Quinnipiac poll, only 61 percent of Daggett supporters say that they definitely will not change their mind come Election Day, compared to 86 percent of Corzine supporters and 90 percent of Christie supporters.

As voters go to the polls, the race remains too close to call.  Of the four polls released on Monday, three put Christie up, while one shows Corzine in the lead:

The results of each of these polls fall within their respective margins of error, so any prediction of how the race will turn is really no more than an educated guess.  Though Daggett’s support appears to be slipping in the final days of this campaign, he still has the potential to be a game-changer.  Another potential complication has nothing to do with politics: in the event that the Yankees win Game 5 of the World Series tonight, there will be a less of a focus on the governor’s race from the NYC and Philadelphia media, which may result in depressed turnout. Will it be Christie or Corzine who hits a grand slam tomorrow?  Right now, it seems that these teams are too evenly matched to make a definitive prediction.

As bad as the current gap looks for Republicans, it starts to look even worse as part of a trend over time. In 2002, Pew reported that the gap in party self-identification was just one pointÑ34 percent of registered voters were self-identified Democrats, and 33 percent were self-identified Republicans. In just seven years, then, the self-identification gap had grown by ten points. It seems unlikely that this shift is entirely attributable to the growing unpopularity of a Republican president over this time period.  

The growing party identification gap in certain states should definitely be cause for Republican concern. North Carolina provides a good example. George W. Bush beat Al Gore in North Carolina by seven points in the 2000 presidential elections, but in 2008, Obama won the state by three-tenths of a percent over McCain. In 2000, the party identification gap in North Carolina among registered voters was five points (40 percent self-identified Democrats vs. 35 percent self-identified Republicans).  By 2008, that gap had expanded to 13 points (39 percent self-identified Democrats vs. 26 percent self-identified Republicans). Once a Republican stronghold, North Carolina is now firmly in the swing state category, and Republicans must pay attention to boosting voters’ self-identification with the Republican Party in states like this if they are to stay competitive nationally. 

Some pundits have suggested that the Republicans embrace a version of the 50-state strategy to stop the bleeding, and perhaps even turn around some of these negative trends. However, there are two reasons why Republicans should not overreact in an attempt to reinvent themselves. 

First, the party self-identification gap is not a new phenomenonÑRepublicans have consistently lagged behind Democrats in this area even in times of great Republican electoral success. A case in point: Ronald Reagan in 1984. Reagan won 49 states on his way to reelection, but in that year, only 39 percent of Americans called themselves Republicans, compared to 48 percent who identified themselves as Democrats. Clearly, party identification is not a perfect reflection of how the electorate feels about specific candidates.

Second, while party self-identification favors Democrats, ideological self-identification actually has consistently favored the political right. In fact, less than half of self-identified Democrats have also called themselves liberals over the past 40 years. According to the ANES survey, in 2004, 49 percent of the national electorate called themselves Democrats, but only 23 percent referred to themselves as liberal (including the categories of “extremely liberal,” “liberal,” and “slightly liberal”). Meanwhile, 36 percent placed themselves in one of the corresponding conservative categories. Given all the talk that American conservatism is at death’s door, it is surprising that voters seem less reluctant to identify themselves as conservatives than as liberals. 

In the current environment, the conservative “brand” may be more popular than the Republican label for several reasons. The unpopularity of the most recent administration and the GOP’s failure to articulate a cohesive set of values are clearly key.  Boosting the national and statewide percentages of self-identified Republicans depends upon the party’s promotion of principles that appeal to those who view themselves as conservatives. 

But the great challenge for Republicans may be determining how self-identified conservatives actually view conservatism, and how to associate these views with Republicanism so that the party will have the same positive overtones as the ideology. Based on the statistics presented here, some might argue that the answer is to move the Republican Party further to the right. Those who take this position might point to McCain’s unsuccessful candidacy as evidence that when the Party chooses to abandon ideological purity in favor of a more moderate perspective, the results are disastrous. However, this interpretation of the statistics assumes that voters take a very narrow view of conservatism. If, on the other hand, voters tend to see conservatism as espousing the universal values of limited government and fiscal responsibility, then a move towards greater strictness on policy positions could alienate more voters than it would attract.  

The Republican Party faces two potential pathsÑit could move rightward and advocate more conservative policy positions, or it could champion a more open philosophy based on the principle of limited government. The latter approach would be a better course of action. Images from the just-concluded Conservative Political Action ConferenceÑsuch as the electric response to Rush Limbaugh’s conference-closing addressÑsuggest that the conservative movement is primarily populated by those who identify with the right wing on a range of specific policy issues. While this is certainly true of some conservatives, it would be incorrect to describe all self-identified Republicans and conservatives in that way. 

Although most self-identified Republicans say they think the party should move in a more conservative direction, many Republicans hold positions on specific issues that are more moderate than right-wing. So do many conservatives. Take the issue of abortion. Perhaps surprisingly, self-identified conservatives are not a monolith. In May 2008, nearly three in ten self-identified conservatives called themselves “pro-choice.” The numbers among self-identified moderates are more illuminatingÑ55 percent called themselves “pro-choice,” while 38 percent said they were “pro-life.” Therefore, if the Republican Party were to take a more conservative position on the abortion issue, this could lead to diminished support for the party. Even though John McCain was a strongly pro-life candidate, the current limited political influence of abortion relative to other policy issues combined with the public perception of McCain as a moderate Republican strongly suggest that the abortion issue had little impact on the 2008 presidential race. However, that is not to say that abortion does not have the potential to impact elections if the Republican Party were to move further to the right on the issue.  

Though the words and positions of Rush Limbaugh may resonate with many conservatives and Republicans, they are likely to turn off the significant number of Republicans (and potential Republicans) who see conservatism as something broader than the views espoused by talk radio.

The GOP’s big problem right now is selling itself nationally to an electorate that increasingly views it as a homogenous, regional party – read, a party of southern white men. Having Michael Steele as the RNC chair will aid in changing this perception and perhaps help in diminishing the influence of the demographic trends threatening to turn the GOP into a fringe party.

Going into 2010, Republicans have some work to do in order to reemerge as a viable national party. In 2008, Democrats made successful use of the so-called “50 state strategy” — hiring organizers from every state in order to gain a more local feel for each district. Similarly, Republicans must recognize the need to have a presence across the country. True, there will be some districts in which Republicans will never be able to win elections. But to simply write them off — without even a minimal attempt to understand the views of voters in these areas — adds fuel to the argument that the Republican Party is out of touch with some regions of the country.

Steele seems to understand the need for a Republican version of the 50 state strategy. In his victory speech just after being chosen as RNC chair last Friday, Steele proclaimed, “We’re gonna bring this party to every corner, every boardroom, every neighborhood, every community.” This attitude underscores his understanding that the party needs to reach beyond its hard-core base in order to achieve electoral success.

In order for the Republican Party to attract more supporters, it must also pick out those constituencies whose political identifications are malleable. One group that has the potential to be swayed by a rejuvenated party is young voters. In 2004, 18 to 29 year olds went with John Kerry over George W. Bush by a margin of 54 percent to 44 percent. But in 2008, they chose Barack Obama over John McCain by a margin of 66 percent to 32 percent. In one election cycle, then, a 10-point spread became a 32-point spread. Though some analysts might try to attribute this great difference to the strength of Obama’s appeal to young people, the gain of 22 points in four years is hard to explain without another reason. Another explanation is that Republicans have done little to compete with Democrats in communicating with young people using technology they rely on (Does anyone believe John McCain would have announced his VP pick via text message?).

But the GOP can become more modern while staying true to its core principles, and Steele is just the leader to accomplish this. Ironically, one of the things that held Steele back during the race for the RNC chairmanship will likely strengthen the Republican Party’s hand going forward. Some RNC members were miffed by Steele’s service on the board of the moderate Republican Leadership Council. But it is precisely Steele’s embrace of a broader big tent philosophy, while staying true to conservative principles, that will swell the party’s ranks.

In a December 2008 interview with CBN’s “The Brody File,” Steele defended his time with the RLC by arguing that it was a way to gain greater attention for the conservative point of view: “My being on this board had nothing to do with lessening my conservative values or somehow appeasing them or compromising them. It had everything to do with reasserting them.” Those who opposed Steele’s candidacy for RNC chair would do well to remember that. With his willingness to reach out geographically and ideologically to make his party more modern, Steele has just the qualities to rejuvenate the GOP.