U.S. Politics: A Democracy In Decay

[denstorebog]

Wow. This is nuts.

Okay, so to all the Dem-bashers in here: If the first 4 special elections had all been in districts that normally went +99 R, and Dems lost them all, but by a point or two, you'd also be saying that the Dems need to win something, or else. It's the exact same logic.

Because otherwise explain to me what the magical margin is where a party *should* win in spite of overwhelmingly negative odds. Is it 50? 20? 10? I'm genuinely curious about the 'logic' being applied here.

[Kalbear]

4 hours ago, ants said:

Hope not too much has passed in the thread, but still catching up and wanted to reply to these.

For the above, this seems to ignore the power of protest, or the possibility that extreme video recording that is starting to occur won't have an effect  

Castile's shooting and arrest were recorded and live-broadcast. Did that change things?

Another police shooting where the police officer shot the person in the back as they ran away was also acquitted, despite video and photo evidence showing that he lied. Did that change things? 

Did the BLM protest change things? 

Sure, it's possible that these things will make a difference, but so far it has not done a particularly good job. 

4 hours ago, ants said:

Oh, I don't know. Apart from India, Chile, and a good chunk of Eastern Europe post the Soviet Unions collapse. Iran has a partial democracy, Korea, Taiwan and Japan have democracies. 

India didn't go from an autocracy under their own rule; by that token, the US counts as going from autocracy to democracy. And if you want to go that route, it took an outside power followed by armed revolt in both cases. 

Eastern Europe was largely due to the collapse of the patron government elsewhere, no? If the USSR doesn't collapse, chances are pretty strong Eastern Europe doesn't go to democracy either. So yeah, in the case of outside governments opposing their will you're right - there's a good record of them going from puppet autocracy to democracy. Which implies that the best single outcome is likely that the US becomes a puppet of someone and then has an overthrow. 

Iran had a violent revolution. Taiwan fought a civil war for 15 years and then lost. Japan had a democracy imposed on them as part of losing a war. Korea was part of the Japanese conquest and was similarly imposed on them. 

Chile, however, is interesting. It went from a military coup that also had specified a vote in the constitution and that resulted in the actual democratic rule. It does appear to have gone from an autocratic, repressive regime to one that was pretty democratic, including a lot of self-reflection and recrimination, Part of it also appears that the autocracy gradually started making things more permissive and less autocratic, allowing for more voting rights, more assembly, more speech, etc. So yeah, Chile is a good example.

From what I can gather, this means that autocracies go to democracies in one of two ways. The autocracy defines itself as a transitional government and willfully cedes power over time (I suspect Turkey is something of an example of this as well), or the autocracy is overthrown by either an active rebellion or an outside power. There are a lot more cases of the latter than the former.

[DMC]

16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Not really. Look at the margins in 2016 and then compare them to now. They all shrunk, some by rather large numbers. Now obviously a lack of an incumbent will play into that, but it's still a positive sign so see the margins shrink. 

This is literally the same thing I posted two pages back, but it seems I should reiterate the larger point.  

2017 Special Elections:  KA4th - D +24, MTAL - D +10, SC5th - D +17, GA6th - D +20.  Democratic overall record:  0-4.

2009 Special Elections:  NY20th - R +24, IL5th - R +5, CA10th - R +24, NY23rd - D +23.  Republican overall record:  0-4.

[denstorebog]

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If they win... it shows that Democrats can win in difficult districts. 

No. No. No. There's nothing magical about the number 50 except for the particular district in play.

If the margins shrink, it tells you what districts the Dems can be expected to win in the future. Currently they're doing well enough to contest the House.

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, Red Tiger said:

Im starting to wonder if House of Cards is set in an alternate reality where the Civil war never happened. It's not just that Frank is a Dem from SC, but who would VOTE to make a dem from SC president? I know it went to congress, but he should not have even been able to do that.

The War of Southern Aggression happened in HoC.  In fact, the FU ancestor who fought in the war plays a role in one of the plot lines of the last season.  Which created a whole buncha other questions re plotting and so on from viewers like moi.  

[Zorral]

But really, the Dems are quite feckless in this time.  They refuse to see what's in front of their eyes and keep doing the same bs over and over, at least the national leadership does.  They only manage to pull stuff together as in CA when going their own way.

This piece has some interesting observations that the Dems should take care to pay attention to:

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/small-towns-resent-cities

Again, it's the economy stupid.  Nothing can be handled unless the nation as a whole pulls together to work on a new economic model -- it's poverty that is increasing everywhere. But as the Kochs etc with all the money already are determined to get the last few cents in others' pockets into their own, and they are in charge, I don't have much if any hope for this.

 

[denstorebog]

I just looked at a compiled list of districts that are currently R-controlled and lean less Republican than what Ossoff managed to move the needle towards blue. It's a whopping 70.

"Oh, but Ossoff spent a shitload of money that the Democrats can't pour into seventy races."

Yes, but Handel spent about as much. And the intense media focus on GA got every Republican out to vote. The reason the SC result was such a surprise was exactly because that race never became a funding and media magnet that got every Republican in the district motivated.

This is looking pretty fucking good in the long run. But for some reason, some people derive a sense of here-and-now comfort from being the biggest naysayer in the room. Which, ironically, is exactly what could cost Team Blue the whole thing.

[Kalbear]

27 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

Wow. This is nuts.

Okay, so to all the Dem-bashers in here: If the first 4 special elections had all been in districts that normally went +99 R, and Dems lost them all, but by a point or two, you'd also be saying that the Dems need to win something, or else. It's the exact same logic.

Because otherwise explain to me what the magical margin is where a party *should* win in spite of overwhelmingly negative odds. Is it 50? 20? 10? I'm genuinely curious about the 'logic' being applied here.

 Here's my logic.

Democrats have to show that they can win R+10 or more districts, or they have zero chance of taking the house. Getting close is nice and all, but the districts that they have even a vague shot in are gerrymandered (by design!) to survive a +10 surge. 

Therefore, Democrats have to win in places that have +10. 

GA6 was special and odd, in that it has been about R+25, but Trump only won it by +2. It appeared that a very strong anti-Trump backlash was possible there, especially with someone perhaps more popular than Clinton. But that apparently doesn't work as a message. That's good data - it means that Democrats cannot rely solely on Trump hate to get anything through, either in the presidential or congressional races - but it's disappointing in that the Democrats don't appear to have anything else.

And as we saw in 2004, voting 'anyone but X' doesn't work, especially as a message for liberals who need to feel inspired and all that other bullshit in order for them to get off their asses and do anything. (It does appear to work well for conservatives, sadly, as ensuring their group wins is pretty heavily motivating). 

[LongRider]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

The Republican Party's message:
1. White (mostly male) nationalism.
2. Supply side economics.
3. 19th Century or neocon foreign policy.
It sure is a good one!!!!

4.  Drill baby drill!

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, denstorebog said:

I just looked at a compiled list of districts that are currently R-controlled and lean less Republican than what Ossoff managed to move the needle towards blue. It's a whopping 70.

"Oh, but Ossoff spent a shitload of money that the Democrats can't pour into seventy races."

Yes, but Handel spent about as much. And the reason the SC result was such a surprise was exactly because it didn't become a funding and media magnet that got every Republican in the district motivated.

This is looking pretty fucking good. But for some reason, some people derive a sense of here-and-now comfort from being the biggest naysayer in the room. Which, ironically, is exactly what could cost Team Blue the whole thing.

I think that part of it is that Democrats and liberals continue to get their ass kicked, and are thus depressed a bit - plus they're (justifiably) gunshy about trusting data that isn't results. They were told for a year that Clinton had it in the bag, and she didn't, and then they were told that Trump would fail, and he hasn't, and basically every time they've had even a glimmer of hope it hasn't worked out yet. And this is in spite of  Trump's absurd incompetence and congress' absurd cruelty. 

Ultimately being a naysayer or not is doubtful in being 'the factor' that decides things. We still have...sigh...18 months until 2018 elections, and a lot can happen in that time. But structurally, right now, things aren't particularly positive for Democratic hopes. You can look at the stats and be a bit more hopeful, but honestly every election and every group is so very different in the US that making a prediction based on one state and applying it to another is a fool's game. The main things that you appear to reliably be able to count on in the US is partisanship and the economy affecting elections. Everything else, so far, is hopes and dreams. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 I hope you  guys are right, but moral victories ring a bit hollow in the face of the sort of incompetence we're faced with. 0-5 is tough to get excited about.

[OldGimletEye]

2 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

4.  Drill baby drill!

LOL. How could I forget?

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 I hope you  guys are right, but moral victories ring a bit hollow in the face of the sort of incompetence we're faced with. 0-5 is tough to get excited about.

It would have been a good thing to win GA6. It is probably not a good sign that it was a loss. In particular, I think it's important to take away that while Trump is pretty unpopular, his unpopularity has not (yet) translated into downticket losses. This was the case in 2016 as well, where people were able to separate out the president from the other candidates. 

It also means something that I haven't seen mentioned elsewhere. Running on a referendum of 'we will impeach Trump' is not likely to be successful as an overall strategy. It will fire up the base, and I bet win some major primaries - but I also bet that those races are the ones that are least likely to be successful for Democrats.

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

 Here's my logic.

Democrats have to show that they can win R+10 or more districts, or they have zero chance of taking the house. Getting close is nice and all, but the districts that they have even a vague shot in are gerrymandered (by design!) to survive a +10 surge. 

What metric are you using here?  In terms of Cook PVI I (just quickly) count about 44 seats at R+4 or less held by Republicans.  The R +10 is a gross exaggeration.

3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 I hope you  guys are right, but moral victories ring a bit hollow in the face of the sort of incompetence we're faced with. 0-5 is tough to get excited about.

I certainly wouldn't describe it as a moral victory.  In fact I whined a few days ago about the fact special elections mean very little.  By the same token, there's no reason to be demoralized by last night's results.

[Kalbear]

12 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

What metric are you using here?  In terms of Cook PVI I (just quickly) count about 44 seats at R+4 or less held by Republicans.  The R +10 is a gross exaggeration.

The original one done by the gerrymandering in 2010. Note that districts that are R+4 now started out as R+10 or more. They can be shrinking, but there's already been some shrinkage.

I'll see if I can find the specific article that details the way the districts were planned, but long and short of it is that dems need to do a lot better. 

 

[Maithanet]

I think that the Special Elections are overblown for another reason.  Special elections give a good indication of where the country stands eight months after Trump's election.  We can extrapolate (with some accuracy) where the voting public is now based on these elections. 

But where the country is now doesn't matter.  What matters is where the country will be in 2018 and 2020.  For all of Trump's bluster, the economy has changed very little in 8 months.  That may or may not be the case in Nov 2018, and almost assuredly will not be the case in 2020. 
Likewise, Republicans haven't done much of anything legislatively.  If Health Care actually passes, that is going to be a HUGE deal, on the mind of virtually every voter.  But it hasn't passed yet, and it may not pass at all.  Then there's the unexpected, which happens to every president.  Whether foreign or domestic, outside events always have a huge impact on the Presidency, either positive (fall of Berlin Wall, winning Desert Storm, killing OBL) or negative (Iran Hostages, Hurricane Katrina, Waco siege).  Nothing like that has happened to Trump yet, and it will.  There is no such thing as a "quiet presidency". 

So the result is that what voters felt in May and June of 2017 is probably going to be pretty irrelevant when 2018 rolls around. 

[DMC]

20 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Running on a referendum of 'we will impeach Trump' is not likely to be successful as an overall strategy. It will fire up the base, and I bet win some major primaries - but I also bet that those races are the ones that are least likely to be successful for Democrats.

Agreed.  Unfortunately the best thing for the Dems electorally is for the AHCA to become law.

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The original one done by the gerrymandering in 2010. Note that districts that are R+4 now started out as R+10 or more. They can be shrinking, but there's already been some shrinkage.

K.  Not sure what you're referring to there, but for some context, here's the Cook PVI's of the special elections:  KS4th - R+15, MONAL - R+11, SC5th - R+9, GA6th - R+8.  Obviously these districts are much more Republican than the kind Dems need to win in order to retake the House.

[denstorebog]

37 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 I hope you  guys are right, but moral victories ring a bit hollow in the face of the sort of incompetence we're faced with. 0-5 is tough to get excited about.

If we are right, then the notion of Democrat incompetence is overblown. Sure, there are always things we wish we could do better, but if the wave election really is coming (and I'll believe it is until Democrats stop overperforming in every election), who's to say that the party is doing that bad of a job? I certainly believe they're receiving undeserved criticism in some. For example, they were chastised for not pouring a lot of money into Montana and now South Carolina, but this might be the very reason those elections were as close as they were.

In that vein - I know everyone wants Pelosi to step down because she motivates the opposition, but do people really believe that the Republicans won't be able to make the same lightning rod out of her successor in the span of a year? I definitely think Democrats tend to fret too much about appeasing the opposition and finding flaws in their own people as a result. This goes double for their presidential candidates.

11 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I think that the Special Elections are overblown for another reason.  Special elections give a good indication of where the country stands eight months after Trump's election.  We can extrapolate (with some accuracy) where the voting public is now based on these elections. 

But where the country is now doesn't matter.  What matters is where the country will be in 2018 and 2020.  For all of Trump's bluster, the economy has changed very little in 8 months.  That may or may not be the case in Nov 2018, and almost assuredly will not be the case in 2020. 
Likewise, Republicans haven't done much of anything legislatively.  If Health Care actually passes, that is going to be a HUGE deal, on the mind of virtually every voter.  But it hasn't passed yet, and it may not pass at all.  Then there's the unexpected, which happens to every president.  Whether foreign or domestic, outside events always have a huge impact on the Presidency, either positive (fall of Berlin Wall, winning Desert Storm, killing OBL) or negative (Iran Hostages, Hurricane Katrina, Waco siege).  Nothing like that has happened to Trump yet, and it will.  There is no such thing as a "quiet presidency". 

So the result is that what voters felt in May and June of 2017 is probably going to be pretty irrelevant when 2018 rolls around. 

Absolutely. I'm approaching this whole discussion as a pure numbers game based on the present situation, which is pretty much all we can do at this point. Things can go in any direction for any number of reasons, and the wave election could be canceled overnight as a result. Although it seems more probable that time will work against Republicans rather than for them.

[Kalbear]

9 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

So the result is that what voters felt in May and June of 2017 is probably going to be pretty irrelevant when 2018 rolls around. 

Maybe.

To me personally it's a good rebasing technique. I, personally, have a hatred and anger towards this administration and towards this congress that I've never felt about my country's politicians before, and it is natural for me to see that anger in others and assume that because I see it, other people feel it. 

But at least 53% of the people in GA-06 do not feel that way. Chances are good there is very little that is going to make them change, either, if this doesn't. Therefore, my strategies have to change. Anger and outrage and frustration at the unfairness and gross incompetence of Trump has to stop, because for the Brandon Starks of the world that doesn't matter in the least. 

[S John]

46 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I think that the Special Elections are overblown for another reason.  Special elections give a good indication of where the country stands eight months after Trump's election.  We can extrapolate (with some accuracy) where the voting public is now based on these elections. 

But where the country is now doesn't matter.  What matters is where the country will be in 2018 and 2020.  For all of Trump's bluster, the economy has changed very little in 8 months.  That may or may not be the case in Nov 2018, and almost assuredly will not be the case in 2020. 
Likewise, Republicans haven't done much of anything legislatively.  If Health Care actually passes, that is going to be a HUGE deal, on the mind of virtually every voter.  But it hasn't passed yet, and it may not pass at all.  Then there's the unexpected, which happens to every president.  Whether foreign or domestic, outside events always have a huge impact on the Presidency, either positive (fall of Berlin Wall, winning Desert Storm, killing OBL) or negative (Iran Hostages, Hurricane Katrina, Waco siege).  Nothing like that has happened to Trump yet, and it will.  There is no such thing as a "quiet presidency". 

So the result is that what voters felt in May and June of 2017 is probably going to be pretty irrelevant when 2018 rolls around. 

I agree. Its way too soon to read too much into these special elections.  Trump has only been president for 6 months.  Right now Trump is still able to dismiss his detractors as simply being unfair to the outsider because the Republicans haven't gotten much legislating done.  Of course none of us buy that criticism of Trump is simply unjust whining, but folks who voted for him are probably willing to ride that train a little longer.  The AHCA is an interesting thing to keep an eye one because it is very likely going to be shit and the R's will catch a lot of hell for causing people to lose their health insurance.  And if they don't actually get anything passed they'll get hell for that too.  Either way, there will soon be a cudgel available to beat them with, we just don't know what form it will take yet.