U.S. Politics: A Democracy In Decay

[Paxter]

2 minutes ago, Crazydog7 said:

 

I have lived in South Carolina 21 years this August.  Unfortunately Jesus Christ himself could not win if he ran as a Democrat down here. 

I guess that's why a <3000 vote margin might seem like a (moral) Democrat victory.

Overall, I think these results are a nice boost for the GOP ahead of the health care vote, but they probably don't change much in terms of predicting mid-terms.  

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, ding-fries-are-done said:

I guess out spending your opposition doesn't always work.  

Handel outspent Ossoff. So...it does?

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Isn't the timing regarding that kind of stupid? I thought the whole point of doing that would be to do it as late in the process as possible. The idea being that a 24 hours delay at that point might actually be significant.

I think the whole thing is stupid, and timing doesn't really matter that much. But it is 'everything they can do'. To me, all it shows is the powerlessness of the Democrats at this point.

[Kalbear]

48 minutes ago, commiedore said:

ah, my apologies. please accept this retroactive "yaaasss, slay dems!" for the healthcare efforts. will be sure to update in a more timely manner when we manage to inflict harsher punishments on the poor, regular people of russia and iran 

Sorry; are you saying that your ideal point of view would be to allow Trump to lighten sanctions against Russia after they invaded and still hold part of the Ukraine, and also have the Democrats do nothing of substance?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

I think the whole thing is stupid, and timing doesn't really matter that much. But it is 'everything they can do'. To me, all it shows is the powerlessness of the Democrats at this point.

Yeah, I doubt it would be terribly effectual in any case, but in theory at least it might have provided a respite at the last minute if this thing got hungup close to the deadline. Two weeks out though?

[Altherion]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Handel outspent Ossoff. So...it does?

Do you have the final spending breakdown? From the early ones, it looks like Handel herself spent relatively little, but various Republican groups spent on the same order as Ossoff.

[Kalbear]

And finally, on the dreaded quadruple post:

I agree with @Inigima - this is not a 'well, they did okay but lost' moment. The Democrats lost, the leadership is not doing well, and the message is lame. This is a major blow in that it indicates that all the messaging that they've done to tell people that they can 'do something' is, well, bullshit, because simply throwing money at it doesn't solve the issue. This is, IMO, a lesson they should have learned earlier with Clinton, but they didn't. 

The Democrats need to figure out a plan of attack and actually go with it. Ossoff's being inoffensive and mostly going after Handel for local issues does not appear to be useful. And as unpopular nationally as Trump is, it doesn't appear to be particularly mattering as far as election results, at least so far. But otherwise I'm pretty pessimistic that this will happen, and they'll get their shit together. They seemed to be counting on the mere existence of Trump to power Ossoff to the win, and it turns out what would have worked best is probably simply ignoring him and letting him run quietly and hoping for lower turnout. 

Bah.

Just now, Altherion said:

Do you have the final spending breakdown? From the early ones, it looks like Handel herself spent relatively little, but various Republican groups spent on the same order as Ossoff.

I don't have it on me, but I read earlier that it was $25m for Ossoff + PACs, and $28m for Handel + PACs. 

[Kalbear]

Here's some spending info, which has $23m for Ossoff and Handel matching it basically. Ossoff definitely raised more for himself- but the PACs were basically negating that for Handel. That said, PACs also spent $7m for Ossoff, so he did appear to spend more than she did. 

[Kalbear]

Also, probably the single worst thing for Democrats is this: Ossoff did worse vs Handel than Clinton did against Trump.

Quote

 

Donald Trump won Georgia’s 6th district by 1.5 points. And though the votes aren’t all counted yet, the Upshot’s projections as of Tuesday evening suggest Karen Handel will outperform Trump, winning the district by about 4 points.

That’s a big problem for the Democratic Party. This race was indisputably the highest-profile contest, and therefore perhaps the most like what we’d expect the 2018 midterms to be — Republicans weren’t caught sleeping, like they were in a few of these other races.

Furthermore — and crucially — Donald Trump won the median House district by about 3.5 points.

 

 

[Sivin]

38 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And finally, on the dreaded quadruple post:

I agree with @Inigima - this is not a 'well, they did okay but lost' moment. The Democrats lost, the leadership is not doing well, and the message is lame. This is a major blow in that it indicates that all the messaging that they've done to tell people that they can 'do something' is, well, bullshit, because simply throwing money at it doesn't solve the issue. This is, IMO, a lesson they should have learned earlier with Clinton, but they didn't. 

The Democrats need to figure out a plan of attack and actually go with it. Ossoff's being inoffensive and mostly going after Handel for local issues does not appear to be useful. And as unpopular nationally as Trump is, it doesn't appear to be particularly mattering as far as election results, at least so far. But otherwise I'm pretty pessimistic that this will happen, and they'll get their shit together. They seemed to be counting on the mere existence of Trump to power Ossoff to the win, and it turns out what would have worked best is probably simply ignoring him and letting him run quietly and hoping for lower turnout. 

Bah.

I gotta say I was a bit eager to get home tonight to see the attempted Dunkirkinization of this calamity. A little disappointed to be honest, the mood is appropriately muted.

The party needs a bit of populism at this point. Not too much, I don't want to hear about celebrities, but maybe a handsome young mildly hispanic man from Arizona or something. A bit of energy, a bit of vitriol. Really a bit of anything... 

[The Fallen]

3 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Wait, the video says he's bad at his job. I wonder if it is humanely possible for anyone to do this job for DJT any better?

I present to you Altherion.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, The Fallen said:

I present to you Altherion.

You sir, deserve a finders fee. Nice call.

[Altherion]

48 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Here's some spending info, which has $23m for Ossoff and Handel matching it basically. Ossoff definitely raised more for himself- but the PACs were basically negating that for Handel. That said, PACs also spent $7m for Ossoff, so he did appear to spend more than she did. 

Yes, these are the same numbers that i saw. Ossoff got $23.6M campaign + $7.6M outside for a total of $31.2M whereas Handel got $4.5M campaign + $18.2M outside for a total of $22.7M. So the Democrats spent just a little bit less than one and a half times as much as the Republicans did, but it was not enough. I suspect that because higher turnout in this district favors Republicans, it would have served the Democrats better to make the race lower profile -- Ossoff actually got a smaller percentage of votes in the second round than he did in the first.

[Red Tiger]

5 hours ago, Kalbear said:

And finally, on the dreaded quadruple post:

I agree with @Inigima - this is not a 'well, they did okay but lost' moment. The Democrats lost, the leadership is not doing well, and the message is lame. This is a major blow in that it indicates that all the messaging that they've done to tell people that they can 'do something' is, well, bullshit, because simply throwing money at it doesn't solve the issue. This is, IMO, a lesson they should have learned earlier with Clinton, but they didn't. 

The Democrats need to figure out a plan of attack and actually go with it. Ossoff's being inoffensive and mostly going after Handel for local issues does not appear to be useful. And as unpopular nationally as Trump is, it doesn't appear to be particularly mattering as far as election results, at least so far. But otherwise I'm pretty pessimistic that this will happen, and they'll get their shit together. They seemed to be counting on the mere existence of Trump to power Ossoff to the win, and it turns out what would have worked best is probably simply ignoring him and letting him run quietly and hoping for lower turnout.

I have to ask, are the democratic voter base even aware of how important the midterm elections are? It seems to me that they don't take them nearly as seriously as the Republicans do (though the "states rights" thing might play a role). Bernie Sanders said after his concession that the Democrats need a new strategy that doesn't just involve federal and central government, but one that ecompasses every state, even the deep south. He is correct, but the democrats need to get the governorships back, the state legislation, the senators and the representatives in congress. They need to make it clear that no matter how good a democratic president they pick, if you send him in without political muscle from the states, you won't get the results you want.

[butterbumps!]

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

The Democrats need to figure out a plan of attack and actually go with it. Ossoff's being inoffensive and mostly going after Handel for local issues does not appear to be useful. And as unpopular nationally as Trump is, it doesn't appear to be particularly mattering as far as election results, at least so far. But otherwise I'm pretty pessimistic that this will happen, and they'll get their shit together. They seemed to be counting on the mere existence of Trump to power Ossoff to the win, and it turns out what would have worked best is probably simply ignoring him and letting him run quietly and hoping for lower turnout. 

Is the problem so much messaging or with any particular campaign, or are progressives just really shitty at actually voting?   Poll after poll seems to emerge that shows a significantly larger percentage of Americans hold progressive values, but for some reason it doesn't translate to votes (and it some cases, they vote inappropriately, like for third party candidates during presidential elections).

I don't fully get it.  Progressives seem to outnumber conservatives/ repubs significantly.  To compensate, repubs are cheating a bit, with voter suppression, gerrymandering and the like.   But beyond that, they seem to be much better at voting than we are, they seem to get the rules of the game in terms of not splitting votes for "moral purity" reasons, and they vote damn consistently.   I don't want to understate how problematic things like gerrymandering and voter suppression are (and they need to be fought), but progressives are already starting with a numbers advantage, if these scores of polls can be believed.   I know other aspects of voting tend to benefit republican leaning voters too (such as no mandated time off to vote and so forth), but it seems that our lack of voting goes way beyond these systemic challenges.  It seems like getting progressives to feel the kind of civic duty that leads all these republicans to vote disproportionately (and do so appropriately for the candidates with an actual shot of winning) would be a worthwhile pursuit.  I'm really curious why there's such a disparity in attitude, and whether it can be fixed.

[DMC]

In 2009 there were five House special elections:

NY20th - Scott Murphy (D) replaced Gillibrand, but won by only half a point to Gillibrand's 24.  R +24.

IL5th - Michael Quigley (D) replaced Emanuel.  R +7.

CA32nd - Judy Chu (D) replaced Solis, who ran unopposed.  Chu won by 29 points.

CA10th - John Garamendi (D) replaced Tauscher.  R +24.

NY23rd - Bill Owens (D) replaced McHugh (R), winning by two points.  D +23 (Obama won the district 50-49).

Those last two elections, btw, were in November.  Compare those to this year's results:  KA4th - D +24, MTAL - D +10, SC5th - D +17, GA6th - D +20 (also, Jimmy Gomez won the CA 34th by 20 points, replacing Beccera who won by 54 points, but only Democrats were on the final ballot in both contests).

Upon being elected RNC chair in January 2009, Michael Steele emphasized he was focused on three critical races for the year - the New York 20th replacing Gillibrand plus the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races.  In November, Bob McDonnell and Chris Christie were elected.  Those are the off cycle elections that build momentum.

Conclusion:  If you're pissed off about the results, stay pissed off, but don't disengage!  The electoral environment of eight months ago is not going to be immediately upended, even by Trump.  But that's no reason to be discouraged for the upcoming midterms.

[DMC]

33 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

It seems like getting progressives to feel the kind of civic duty that leads all these republicans to vote disproportionately (and do so appropriately for the candidates with an actual shot of winning) would be a worthwhile pursuit.  I'm really curious why there's such a disparity in attitude, and whether it can be fixed.

The common explanation is demographics.  Conservatives tend to be older, richer, and white; progressives tend to be younger, poorer, and minority.  Guess who votes more.  This is also the reason the GOP has an advantage in midterm (and any non-presidential) electorates.  

However, since you mentioned civic duty, Russell Dalton (2008) proposes it's more generational.  The older generation tends to be "duty based" citizens focused on voting while the younger generation are "engaged citizens" that participate in more non-electoral ways.  I don't necessarily buy this (if you're an engaged citizen why can't you get off your ass to vote?), and am a huge critic of Dalton's work in general, but I think it does speak to the personality traits of conservatives vis-a-vis progressives.

[drawkcabi]

1 hour ago, butterbumps! said:

Is the problem so much messaging or with any particular campaign, or are progressives just really shitty at actually voting?   Poll after poll seems to emerge that shows a significantly larger percentage of Americans hold progressive values, but for some reason it doesn't translate to votes (and it some cases, they vote inappropriately, like for third party candidates during presidential elections).

It's been my impression that liberal/progressives have had a "too cool for school" attitude overall. The liberal/progressive viewpoint may be the majority, but there is also a split or several splits when it comes to those who see the GOP as the ultimate crazy that must be stopped, the GOP must be voted against because they're the far worse evil, and the more cynical "pox on both houses" attitude or a "nothing I do could help anyway" belief. While the GOP voters are not short of cynics but they also focus their righteousness on the vote, they come out in strength and unity, "nothing worse than a libtard" collective view. Liberals can be righteous but still unfocused and probably overthink/out think ourselves too much in regard to voting. Again, that's just how I see it though.

[mcbigski]

Can we update the thread title to "Democrats in Decay"?

 

[OldGimletEye]

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

The Democrats need to figure out a plan of attack and actually go with it. Ossoff's being inoffensive and mostly going after Handel for local issues does not appear to be useful. And as unpopular nationally as Trump is, it doesn't appear to be particularly mattering as far as election results, at least so far. But otherwise I'm pretty pessimistic that this will happen, and they'll get their shit together. They seemed to be counting on the mere existence of Trump to power Ossoff to the win, and it turns out what would have worked best is probably simply ignoring him and letting him run quietly and hoping for lower turnout. . 

I agree with this. Democrats need to be willing to go after the ideology of conservatism itself, even if it means taking a beating once awhile.

Trump just didn’t happen out of the blue. He was the result of conservative ideology that went crazy and has been crazy for years. And that should get pointed out.

Now, when Trump ends up being a disaster, Republicans I’m pretty sure will try to do what they did with Dubya by saying “he wasn’t a true conservative” and all that crap, but this time they should not be allowed to escape so easily.