U.S. Politics-Getting a Handel On Why the DNC Is Pissing Ossof

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Bit of a reach, but hey, it's topical right?

 

/Title edited for like 16% MORE FUNNY

[Kalbear]

Clearly a sign that our democracy is dying; the puns are failing.

Here's a cool interactive tool from WaPo on shifts and how many seats would actually move. While it's not perfectly accurate, it illustrates brutally how far Dems actually have to move the needle in order to gain a majority - in this scenario, +13. 

Now, the good news is that Dems are tracking towards that so far. The bad news is that this is a MASSIVE swing. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, dmc515 said:

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.

I know, I just wanted to restate the data to drive home that the losses aren't that big of a deal. The only difference I can potentially see is that Democrats might be more likely to be overconfident with winning the special elections and that could cost them during the following cycle. 

2 hours 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.

1-4. 

1 hour ago, denstorebog said:

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? 

Exactly.

"Nancy, please exit stage left. Chuck, that's your cue. You're the new big city liberal boogeyman who's coming to take away their guns."

[Sivin]

From this Democrat's point of view, it almost seems like the best possible outcome is to lose no more than 2 senate seats and  close the HOR gap by at least 50% in 2018.

I have no idea how feasible that is, but I shall dream until that privilege too becomes privatized.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Here's a cool interactive tool from WaPo on shifts and how many seats would actually move. While it's not perfectly accurate, it illustrates brutally how far Dems actually have to move the needle in order to gain a majority - in this scenario, +13. 

Now, the good news is that Dems are tracking towards that so far. The bad news is that this is a MASSIVE swing. 

That does sound like a cool tool from WaPo, but that link does not work for me.  Please re-link!  

Anyway, I'm sorry I still don't understand where you're getting your numbers from.  Are you talking about a swing compared to 2014 - or even 2010?  In terms of the overall vote, +13 from those contests is I suppose a "massive" swing, but also one the generic congressional ballot would currently predict.  23 Republican incumbents occupy districts Hillary won.  The fact is the Republicans have many vulnerable seats in 2018, in part because of the 2010 gerrymandering.  Hell, even the oft-cited Nate Silver agrees with me:

Quote

The results simultaneously suggest that an impressively wide array of Republican-held seats might be competitive next year — perhaps as many as 60 to 80 — and that Democrats are outright favorites in only a fraction of these, perhaps no more than a dozen. To some extent, this configuration is a result of Republican-led gerrymandering in 2010. Republicans drew a lot of districts where their members are safe under normal conditions, but not in the event of a massive midterm wave...

The 2018 midterms will be strange in that a “pretty good” year for Democrats might yield a gain of only 15 seats for the party, whereas a “very good” year — if the political climate is just a few points more Democratic-leaning — could produce a 50-seat swing instead.

 

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

That does sound like a cool tool from WaPo, but that link does not work for me.  Please re-link!  

Sorry, let's try that again. 

5 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Anyway, I'm sorry I still don't understand where you're getting your numbers from.  Are you talking about a swing compared to 2014 - or even 2010?  In terms of the overall vote, +13 from those contests is I suppose a "massive" swing, but also one the generic congressional ballot would currently predict.  23 Republican incumbents occupy districts Hillary won.  The fact is the Republicans have many vulnerable seats in 2018, in part because of the 2010 gerrymandering.  Hell, even the oft-cited Nate Silver agrees with me:

 

I'm talking about a swing based on the numbers from 2010, I guess. Or a general national swing. The WaPo tool makes this pretty clear, where it takes a jarring +13 to give Democrats the majority, which would represent a 56.5-43.5 voting pattern in the US (or so). In that context, 'pretty good' is like +9 for Dems which would give them more seats but not a majority, and 'very good' would be +13 or more. Note that once you get over +13 you start getting into major wins; a +15, for instance, flips something like 45 seats. 

As to the generic congressional ballot, my understanding was that it's basically D+7 at this point. 

[Kalbear]

And @dmc515, you're correct - gerrymandering made it more likely for Republicans to win more seats, but also made more seats vulnerable overall. The question remains whether or not the US can reasonably capitalize on that vulnerability - and also, whether or not it's reasonably sustainable past one election. It doesn't take that much for dems to do a massive change once they get enough votes - but it's also the case that it doesn't take much for Republicans to reverse that with only a small amount of reversal of that trend. IE, if Dems got +13 and won the House, it would only take a 4 point swing to bring it back to the Republicans with a solid majority. 

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

As to the generic congressional ballot, my understanding was that it's basically D+7 at this point. 

Yep, that's what I was going of off too - in 2014 the GOP won by ~ 6 points.  Hence Dem +7 would be a 13 point swing.

16 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The WaPo tool makes this pretty clear, where it takes a jarring +13 to give Democrats the majority, which would represent a 56.5-43.5 voting pattern in the US (or so). In that context, 'pretty good' is like +9 for Dems which would give them more seats but not a majority, and 'very good' would be +13 or more. Note that once you get over +13 you start getting into major wins; a +15, for instance, flips something like 45 seats.

Ok - first thank you much for the re-link.  It appears what they're basing this off of is the overall House vote from 2016, which was about 49-48 in the GOP's favor.  This is different than where Cook gets his numbers from - the presidential vote - which was around 48-46 in the Dems' favor.  That's a 3 point difference right there and where some of this discrepancy arises (much of the rest is Cook PVI weights the previous presidential vote - 2012 - equally with most recent).

So, what the WaPo means by a 13 point shift is to their 49 (R) to 48 (D).  Most simply, yeah, this would be about 55 (D+7) to 43 (R-6).  I'm not going to criticize their methodology because I don't know what it is, but this is clearly a conservative estimate.  Such caution is usually a good thing, but I don't like how they're only using the 2016 results (although they certainly should be weighted higher like Silver does and Cook PVI doesn't).  

In 2014, the GOP won the overall House vote 51.2-45.4, and gained 13 seats.  In 2010, the GOP won the overall House vote 51.7-44.9, and gained 63 seats.  Clearly, the amount of "poachable" seats is more important to gains than solely using the above type of indicators.  And again, in the respect, the Dems have a strong advantage - 26 GOP seats are at Cook PVI (still using this cuz it's easily accessible and I'm lazy) R +2 or less.

27 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The question remains whether or not the US can reasonably capitalize on that vulnerability - and also, whether or not it's reasonably sustainable past one election. It doesn't take that much for dems to do a massive change once they get enough votes - but it's also the case that it doesn't take much for Republicans to reverse that with only a small amount of reversal of that trend. IE, if Dems got +13 and won the House, it would only take a 4 point swing to bring it back to the Republicans with a solid majority. 

Yes, the heightened gerrymandering makes seat changes more volatile in any "swing" election - and leaves the Dems at a decided disadvantage.  GOTV for state legislature contests - 2020 baby!

[Altherion]

11 hours 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).

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.

This is an interesting question. Here's a Washington Post article which describes a study of the effect and considers possible reasons for it. Basically, it appears that young people (who tend to be more progressive) are no less politically engaged and do things like try to influence others or contact local officials no less often than their prior counterparts did at the corresponding age... but for some reason they are much less likely to vote in local elections. They protest, they boycott, they discuss politics -- but they don't vote, or at least not when there is a charismatic figure such as Obama or at least Sanders luring them to the polls.

Understanding why this happens is difficult, but in my opinion, at least part of the reason has to be that "progressive" politicians in the US correspond to roughly the center-right in many European countries.

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, Altherion said:

This is an interesting question. Here's a Washington Post article which describes a study of the effect and considers possible reasons for it. Basically, it appears that young people (who tend to be more progressive) are no less politically engaged and do things like try to influence others or contact local officials no less often than their prior counterparts did at the corresponding age... but for some reason they are much less likely to vote in local elections.

This must be reiterate my recent replies day.  Again, Dalton has an interesting thesis that should be taken with a grain of salt.

[kairparavel]

Stupid new thread without locking the old thread. ..I'll re-post here.

Quote

 

Hillary needs to stay out of the public eye and Nancy Pelosi needs to step down/away.

So if I understand correctly, it's the old white ladies that are holding the Democratic Party back and not all the old white men....

Someone better get talking to Elizabeth Warren I reckon.

 

 

[Fez]

38 minutes ago, kairparavel said:

Hillary needs to stay out of the public eye and Nancy Pelosi needs to step down/away.

So if I understand correctly, it's the old white ladies that are holding the Democratic Party back and not all the old white men....

Someone better get talking to Elizabeth Warren I reckon.

30 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Yup. 

I'm so over these discussions talking about the women who need to step down but never the men.

It is also important for the old Democratic male leadership to retire too; new blood is absolutely is needed. But the old Democratic female leadership are more hated, and that's just the breaks. By all means we should combat misogyny, but the facts on the ground need to be accepted if Democrats ever want to win.

Regardless of whether Pelosi is hated because she's a San Francisco liberal or because she's a woman, that hatred is so widespread it is actively hurting the party.

[TheKitttenGuard]

21 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Understanding why this happens is difficult, but in my opinion, at least part of the reason has to be that "progressive" politicians in the US correspond to roughly the center-right in many European countries.

I think there is a lot more of a thought on the Left end that voting is validating the system or voting does not really matter.

 "If voting changed anything it will be illegal"- Emma Goldman

[Altherion]

8 minutes ago, Fez said:

Regardless of whether Pelosi is hated because she's a San Francisco liberal or because she's a woman, that hatred is so widespread it is actively hurting the party.

Nancy Pelosi is the only one of these characters whom I've ever seen in person. Did you know that while she represents a California district, she's actually from Baltimore and that both her father and one of her brothers were mayors there at various points in time?

She was the featured speaker at the college graduation of one of my relatives and she did not do well. The speech felt mostly boring to me, but let's be fair -- few of these speeches are interesting. What was remarkable about this one is that it referred to a different university. The people from the graduating class were not impressed.

[Dr. Pepper]

35 minutes ago, Fez said:

It is also important for the old Democratic male leadership to retire too; new blood is absolutely is needed. But the old Democratic female leadership are more hated, and that's just the breaks. By all means we should combat misogyny, but the facts on the ground need to be accepted if Democrats ever want to win.

Regardless of whether Pelosi is hated because she's a San Francisco liberal or because she's a woman, that hatred is so widespread it is actively hurting the party.

The problem here is determining whether winning is more important than values.  If you stop combating misogyny because you just want to win, then the core values disappear and it's an entirely different party.  The fact is that women tend to be hated and reviled more than men for petty disgusting reasons.  The answer isn't to tell all the women to go away because 'that's just the breaks.' Certainly the Democratic Party needs something, progressive voters need to be different.  But no fucking way do we need to hide our women in the closet just so a bunch of white men will want to vote for the party again.  

[Martell Spy]

McConnell tries to split the difference on protections for sickest Americans
The emerging Senate plan preserves Obamacare’s bar on discriminating against those with preexisting conditions, but gives states flexibility to weaken coverage.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/21/senate-obamacare-repeal-mcconnell-sick-people-239835

Details of the Senate Health Care Bill Just Leaked. Prepare to Be Appalled.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/06/21/details_of_the_senate_health_care_bill_just_leaked_pre

[Rippounet]

45 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Understanding why this happens is difficult, but in my opinion, at least part of the reason has to be that "progressive" politicians in the US correspond to roughly the center-right in many European countries.

There's that, I guess. Many American progressives feel that the Democrats are almost as bad as the Republicans. Chomsky for example essentially describes Obama's campaign as being successful marketing more than any real attempt at change.
Then, there's the fact that progressives tend to be more divided and the Democrats are struggling to find a program and a message likely to unite them. From a cynical perspective, one might suggest that they're not really trying, because any succesful move in that direction would probably entail a lesser focus on identity politics to start addressing socio-economic issues many American liberals are not actually comfortable with. Sanders tried to address such issues, but ultimately failed to gather enough support, so it's unclear whether the US can actually elect a genuinely progressive leadership. Was Sanders's campaign a success or a failure? Can a younger politician pick up the fight where Sanders left it and succeed where he failed? I wonder...
I'm tempted to say that the specter of anticommunism still pervades American politics to this day ; or to put it differently, the apparent failure of communism or "socialism" in the 20th century is something all left-wing movements throughout the world must deal with, and they're not very good at it, because even though Marx is more relevant today than ever, the absence of a credible project as an alternative makes campaigning on such issues difficult to say the least. It's easy to point out that the system is unfair. Offering solutions that are simple enough to translate into political slogans isn't. Sanders was able to present himself as a socialist. Could a successor do the same thing?
On the plus side, one may remark that the Democrats were not as crushed by the disappointment and bitterness generated by Obama's failures as one could have expected. Yes, they have been losing, but not by much. One could have expected far far worse. And Trump's success, ironically, was fueled by economic resentment.

I often find it easy to think about political strategies as an observer. In this case however, I really don't know what I'd do if I were a Democratic politician. Too much focus on identity politics and you run the risk of being defined by that only - and they've clearly been losing popularity. Too much focus on economic issues and you basically end up advocating "socialism." It's not clear presenting oneself as a new Obama would be a winning strategy now, since the "change" he promised didn't exactly come to pass. So what's left to the American left, uh?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Too much focus on economic issues and you basically end up advocating "socialism." It's not clear presenting oneself as a new Obama would be a winning strategy now, since the "change" he promised didn't exactly come to pass. So what's left to the American left, uh?

Jobs. Period. Whether that involves a shift in education, an infrastructure retool, tax incentives to cutting edge businesses, or what. A rededication to the Working Class that makes sense in the 21st century. (In other words, not this Trump shell game involving dead industries and saving factory jobs that are already gone)

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Rippounet said:

Then, there's the fact that progressives tend to be more divided and the Democrats are struggling to find a program and a message likely to unite them. From a cynical perspective, one might suggest that they're not really trying, because any succesful move in that direction would probably entail a lesser focus on identity politics to start addressing socio-economic issues many American liberals are not actually comfortable with.

The problem here in the United States is that this identity stuff and the economic stuff are interlocked and interlinked. If you don’t deal with issues of racism, sexisms, etc. you may not get very far on the economic stuff.  A couple threads back, I presented a paper showing that racial issues had an impact on economic policy outcomes. 

And I say this as on old school bread-n-butter type Democrat.

Just now, Rippounet said:

I'm tempted to say that the specter of anticommunism still pervades American politics to this day ; or to put it differently, the apparent failure of communism or "socialism" in the 20th century is something all left-wing movements throughout the world must deal with, and they're not very good at it, because even though Marx is more relevant today than ever, the absence of a credible project as an alternative makes campaigning on such issues difficult to say the least.

For me the answer is quite simple. I’m not fundamentally a Marxist. I believe there advantages to market based economies. And I’m quite willing to allow private markets to exist.

But, I do believe in robust safety nets, like universal healthcare, being a big one, having a good amount of labor protection ie through unions and believe in aggressive full employment polices, through both monetary and fiscal policies. And of course good public investment.

And while conservatives can say, “well but, but the Soviet Union!!!” or whatever, I can just respond with a couple of things:

1. The economy seemed to do pretty damn well under New Deal policies until the so called “conservative revolution” under Reagan or whatever. There is a reason why, Skidelsky, I think calls the period between 1950 to about 1975 the “Golden Age of Capitalism”.

2. The tax cuts for the rich, the Republicans always want to do, never pan out the way they say they will. Even the tax cuts under Reagan. As I’ve repeated many times, in these threads, that whole recovery was about monetary policy. The main effect of Republican tax cutting polices seem to be mainly to increasing wealth inequality.

3. The Republican Party always brags and talks about “growth” and how awesome it is at it, but historically over the 20th Century, Republican presidents have not done better than Democratic Presidents. In fact Democratic presidents have done better.

There is a reason why I continually ridicule the Republican Party as "The Party of Business".

4. I think in the mainstream economics profession there has been a shift to the left. One example: Back not too long ago, there was an assumption that there was equality/inefficiency trade off. In fact, Robert Lucas went so far as to suggest that inequality research wasn’t even an appropriate area of research. Well fortunately a lot of economist are not following Lucas’ suggestion and are researching that topic, and some of them are concluding that there may not be the equality/inefficiency trade off that was suggested. 

5. Republicans love to talk about “economics” to justify their polices, conveniently forgetting lot what is known, like labor market frictions, externalities, informational problems, etc. etc. and just rely on pop Econ 101 to justify their policies.

And I’ll add, over the last few years, there are plenty of examples of conservative fuck ups, bone headed arguments, and stupidity on the economics front. Like the return to the gold standard? Like seriously? Or the Bush or Brownback booms? There are lot of consevative policies or screwups that deserve a good snicker, guffaw, or laugh, because it's so stupid.

Just now, Rippounet said:

Offering solutions that are simple enough to translate into political slogans isn't. Sanders was able to present himself as a socialist. Could a successor do the same thing?

I don’t think you’ll ever sell most Americans on the idea of privatizing all capital. But, I think many can be convinced to be some sort of Social Democrats that backs a fairly robust welfare state.

Just now, Rippounet said:

 And Trump's success, ironically, was fueled by economic resentment.

It's true Trump came in and took some of the left's issues and probably had some success in doing it. And Democrats should hammer any future Republican that would try to do the same. But, there is also the fact that Trump's election had a lot, if not mainly, to do with white resentment and in particular white male resentment.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

How Yertle the Turtle is about to pull off the unprecedented 5,607 Turtle Stack...

https://slate.com/business/2017/06/how-mitch-mcconnell-wins.html