Anonymous
12/12/2016 18:09
Subject: Are the Democrats essentially a regional party today?
2020 is the new census, and hoping Trump is still President, it should be good year for the Democrats to sweep in an gerrymander their own way.
Anonymous
12/12/2016 18:08
Subject: Re:Are the Democrats essentially a regional party today?
Anonymous wrote:So is gerrymandering going to rig things in favor of Republicans for the foreseeable future ........... or is this just a cyclical peak for the Republicans?
The pat excuse for Republican dominance is always gerrymandering!
Only till 2020.
Anonymous
12/12/2016 17:45
Subject: Re:Are the Democrats essentially a regional party today?
So is gerrymandering going to rig things in favor of Republicans for the foreseeable future ........... or is this just a cyclical peak for the Republicans?
The pat excuse for Republican dominance is always gerrymandering!
The pat excuse for Republican dominance is always gerrymandering!
Anonymous
12/12/2016 16:46
Subject: Are the Democrats essentially a regional party today?
Anonymous wrote:There is no hope for the Democrats. A new guy tried to replace that witch Pelosi as the house democratic leader but got slapped down. The democratic party is run by loons and post-menopausal overprivileged lazy old crones.
The Democrats have no bench. No young bloods, at least none who aren't far left loons.
Trump is going to cement Republican control with his trillion dollar infrastructure project. It will be a master stroke. He will put conservatives on the Supreme Court.
Who will be the next DNC chair? Screamin' Howard Dean again? Contrast with Reince Priebus. Young and energetic.
A younger generation has to take over the Democratic Party for anything to change. 70 year old retread feminists aren't the answer.
Find a candidate who is actually appealing, and you might have a shot.
Yup thats what everyone thought about the republicans in 2008. The republicans were left for dead after a deep recession and democrats won a filibuster proof majority in the senate and big majority in the house.
In a two party system, things go in circle. Governance is not easy and it is impossible to keep everyone happy no matter what you do. Afterall Gore lost during a booming economy and Hillary lost in an economy with less than 5% unemployment.
The point being there are so many variables, most of which is not under the control of a party or a presidential candidate. Anyone thinking otherwise is just delusional especially when the guy coming in is trump. You are making this bet on a man who can't even control even hold himself for longer than few minutes to hold the party, government, country and the world together for 3 years. You do realize he actually is starting with 2% and 3 million vote deficit? So he has to earn those 3 million votes to break even. Then he has to keep his voters in 4 states which he won by less than 1% avg happy by bringing back manufacturing jobs in less than 3 years. Then he should not be chased by scandals, foreign policy mistakes, random event, a recession or other untoward incidents. And btw YOU guys are the owners of the swamp now and can no longer point fingers at the other party.
Anonymous
12/12/2016 16:28
Subject: Are the Democrats essentially a regional party today?
Anonymous wrote:There is no hope for the Democrats. A new guy tried to replace that witch Pelosi as the house democratic leader but got slapped down. The democratic party is run by loons and post-menopausal overprivileged lazy old crones.
The Democrats have no bench. No young bloods, at least none who aren't far left loons.
Trump is going to cement Republican control with his trillion dollar infrastructure project. It will be a master stroke. He will put conservatives on the Supreme Court.
Who will be the next DNC chair? Screamin' Howard Dean again? Contrast with Reince Priebus. Young and energetic.
A younger generation has to take over the Democratic Party for anything to change. 70 year old retread feminists aren't the answer.
Find a candidate who is actually appealing, and you might have a shot.
His infrastructure project is a huge scam. He's going to try and sell off all of our public assets to private interests, the highways will turn into toll roads, cost of goods will soar, inflation will increase, and so too will poverty.
Anonymous
12/12/2016 16:00
Subject: Are the Democrats essentially a regional party today?
There is no hope for the Democrats. A new guy tried to replace that witch Pelosi as the house democratic leader but got slapped down. The democratic party is run by loons and post-menopausal overprivileged lazy old crones.
The Democrats have no bench. No young bloods, at least none who aren't far left loons.
Trump is going to cement Republican control with his trillion dollar infrastructure project. It will be a master stroke. He will put conservatives on the Supreme Court.
Who will be the next DNC chair? Screamin' Howard Dean again? Contrast with Reince Priebus. Young and energetic.
A younger generation has to take over the Democratic Party for anything to change. 70 year old retread feminists aren't the answer.
Find a candidate who is actually appealing, and you might have a shot.
The Democrats have no bench. No young bloods, at least none who aren't far left loons.
Trump is going to cement Republican control with his trillion dollar infrastructure project. It will be a master stroke. He will put conservatives on the Supreme Court.
Who will be the next DNC chair? Screamin' Howard Dean again? Contrast with Reince Priebus. Young and energetic.
A younger generation has to take over the Democratic Party for anything to change. 70 year old retread feminists aren't the answer.
Find a candidate who is actually appealing, and you might have a shot.
Anonymous
12/12/2016 15:53
Subject: Are the Democrats essentially a regional party today?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If the Clinton campaign wasn't run by people with their heads up their asses, she would have won and we wouldn't be having this conversation until 2020 when I believe she would have lost to any empty suit Republican due to the obstructionism the Republicans in congress would have certainly put in place like they did with Obama, except times 10.
She lost by about 11,000 votes in MI, about 30,000 in WI, and about 70,000 in PA. So there was NO WAY the Democratic campaign could have campaigned harder, done more rallies, and more GOTV events, amongst their base? I don't buy that for one second. Clinton got 2.2 million votes, Obama got 2.5 million votes in 2012. Romney got 2.1 million votes in 2012, and Trump also got about 2.2 million votes. Trump did slightly improve on Romney's numbers, but Clinton plummeted from Obama's 2012 results.
It was pure (lack of) voter turnout that cost the Democrats. I'm sure there were a few normally Democrats who voted Trump, just as I'm sure there were a few normally Republicans who voted Clinton, as well as people from both parties who voted for a 3rd party candidate. It seems like it all cancels out in the end. But because the Clinton campaign thought they had these states in the bag, they didn't bother to campaign as much there, and then they lost because they couldn't turn out their own voters.
I agree with much of what you say but that is why I deliberately avoided focusing on the presidential election in my OP.
My focus was on the state picture in terms of governors and state legislatures.
State legislatures skew Republican because of rampant Gerrymandering. But a federal district court struck down political gerrymandering in WI, and the subject is even being heard at the SC right now, in terms of gerrymandering in VA and NC, seeing if it is racial based (not ok) or political based (historically has been ok). So who knows how long that will last.
I do agree Democrats are in trouble in terms of governorships, and both houses of congress ... don't know if that qualifies as "regional party," though, more just that Republicans seem better organized and better funded with more safe R states. But, that's just right now. Think about the Republicans who seem to be actually committed to a small federal government, reduced government spending, not engaging with Russia ... are they going to be onboard with Trump's nonsense? Rubio, Paul, McCain? I know the traditional wisdom is Republicans always fall in line, but if the Trump presidency starts to go south (scandals, low approval ratings, losses in the midterm elections, a strong D challenger for 2020), they will be off that shit like rats off a sinking ship.
Anonymous
12/12/2016 15:51
Subject: Re:Are the Democrats essentially a regional party today?
Anonymous wrote:I think a few things are going on with the graphs. State level parties can be more reflective of their populations. In national politics there has been extreme polarization with Republicans moving to the far right and democrat owning the center and center left. In states, you will see religious far right republicans in the deep south or rural west but more liberal republicans in other states. This is no different than seeing conservative NRA supporting democrats in the rural west.
Traditional republican views (non-Trump shit) are not necessarily that education or health and human services are bad but that they should be handled by the state. Its not a contradiction for a mainstream Republican governor to support education or HHS at the state level and still oppose it at the federal level.
When the a federal Republican administration starts cutting federal spending - those cuts end up in the red states. These states rely heavily on those funds and the decline in services creates crosses that open the door for a democrat to campaign on that issue and adopt conservative positions.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Based on your analysis, wouldn't you then expect a coming wave of State political positions going to Democrats?
Also, what do you say there is a similar pattern visible in power in Congress or less so? Looks to me as less so but still some.
Anonymous
12/12/2016 15:14
Subject: Re:Are the Democrats essentially a regional party today?
I think a few things are going on with the graphs. State level parties can be more reflective of their populations. In national politics there has been extreme polarization with Republicans moving to the far right and democrat owning the center and center left. In states, you will see religious far right republicans in the deep south or rural west but more liberal republicans in other states. This is no different than seeing conservative NRA supporting democrats in the rural west.
Traditional republican views (non-Trump shit) are not necessarily that education or health and human services are bad but that they should be handled by the state. Its not a contradiction for a mainstream Republican governor to support education or HHS at the state level and still oppose it at the federal level.
When the a federal Republican administration starts cutting federal spending - those cuts end up in the red states. These states rely heavily on those funds and the decline in services creates crosses that open the door for a democrat to campaign on that issue and adopt conservative positions.
Traditional republican views (non-Trump shit) are not necessarily that education or health and human services are bad but that they should be handled by the state. Its not a contradiction for a mainstream Republican governor to support education or HHS at the state level and still oppose it at the federal level.
When the a federal Republican administration starts cutting federal spending - those cuts end up in the red states. These states rely heavily on those funds and the decline in services creates crosses that open the door for a democrat to campaign on that issue and adopt conservative positions.
Anonymous
12/12/2016 14:20
Subject: Are the Democrats essentially a regional party today?
Don't confuse weather and climate.
Anonymous
12/12/2016 14:19
Subject: Are the Democrats essentially a regional party today?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This thread just represents yet another attempt by Trump supporters to try and marginalize half of the country.
Shameful.
I am the OP and am a liberal and have been one for decades - and certainly did not vote for Trump. I supported Sanders in the primaries.
More than the presidential election, I am concerned with what has been happening in state legislatures since 2008 when I think we had 30 Democratic governors.
+1 As you should be. Some of these posters are ignoring reality.
Some posters are ignoring reality.
Do you see a pattern in this graph?
What about this graph?
Anonymous
12/12/2016 14:01
Subject: Are the Democrats essentially a regional party today?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This thread just represents yet another attempt by Trump supporters to try and marginalize half of the country.
Shameful.
I am the OP and am a liberal and have been one for decades - and certainly did not vote for Trump. I supported Sanders in the primaries.
More than the presidential election, I am concerned with what has been happening in state legislatures since 2008 when I think we had 30 Democratic governors.
+1 As you should be. Some of these posters are ignoring reality.
Anonymous
12/12/2016 13:59
Subject: Are the Democrats essentially a regional party today?
That happens anytime a party holds the Presidency for 8 years.
Anonymous
12/12/2016 13:56
Subject: Are the Democrats essentially a regional party today?
Anonymous wrote:If the Clinton campaign wasn't run by people with their heads up their asses, she would have won and we wouldn't be having this conversation until 2020 when I believe she would have lost to any empty suit Republican due to the obstructionism the Republicans in congress would have certainly put in place like they did with Obama, except times 10.
She lost by about 11,000 votes in MI, about 30,000 in WI, and about 70,000 in PA. So there was NO WAY the Democratic campaign could have campaigned harder, done more rallies, and more GOTV events, amongst their base? I don't buy that for one second. Clinton got 2.2 million votes, Obama got 2.5 million votes in 2012. Romney got 2.1 million votes in 2012, and Trump also got about 2.2 million votes. Trump did slightly improve on Romney's numbers, but Clinton plummeted from Obama's 2012 results.
It was pure (lack of) voter turnout that cost the Democrats. I'm sure there were a few normally Democrats who voted Trump, just as I'm sure there were a few normally Republicans who voted Clinton, as well as people from both parties who voted for a 3rd party candidate. It seems like it all cancels out in the end. But because the Clinton campaign thought they had these states in the bag, they didn't bother to campaign as much there, and then they lost because they couldn't turn out their own voters.
I agree with much of what you say but that is why I deliberately avoided focusing on the presidential election in my OP.
My focus was on the state picture in terms of governors and state legislatures.