Some Republicans have been defensive that the party has a strong anti-democratic bent. But the state GOP convention embraced it, putting it right in the party platform.
“We encourage Republicans to substitute the words ‘republic’ and ‘republicanism’ where previously they have used the word ‘democracy,’ ” the resolution says. “Every time the word ‘democracy’ is used favorably it serves to promote the principles of the Democratic Party, the principles of which we ardently oppose.”
The resolution sums up: “We … oppose legislation which makes our nation more democratic in nature.”
To keep in pedantry/technical terms, technically no, all republics do not necessarily have democratic elements. One of the defining characteristics is a relatively small body of individuals making decisions on law and the direction of the state (not the populace directly deciding, as seen in democracy).
This can run the gamut from an authoritarian republic (ex. rule by aristocracy or appointed by a dictator) to democratic republic (ie. representatives elected by public vote) to theocratic republic, etc. Often, comparison is between republic and monarchy/autocracy; more than one person gets to make the decisions. How these individuals (senators) get their positions is highly variable.
My new working theory is democrats see themselves as an equal part of the established government. They think the two parties are taking turns and they will always have a seat at the table. They know if the Republicans were to disappear they will soon follow.