US Politics: The Day After The Political Earthquake

[lokisnow]

Since we've gotten an expression of the bleakest possible view, I'll give the most optimistic view. I still think changing demographics spell doom for the Republican Party as it currently exists. They cannot be electorally viable for much longer if they don't improve among non-white voters. I suspect that their overwhelmingly white base will not allow them to make the changes necessary to improve among non-white voters without a fight; as the country gets less white, these same voters will become more and more angry about America's un-whitening, dragging the Republican Party to even more deranged extremes until it finally changes or goes defunct.

This "let us be inactive and we will passively win!" approach has always struck me as doomed to failure. It's also a little contemptible if you spin this presumption through the outrage machine (since the presumption basically assumes that all non whites non mens non straights will mostly fall in line and vote dem since it is in the best interest of their race, gender or orientation, which may be only one of many conflicting interests they are trying to balance. This is why there isn't that huge of an advantage across the board with women, appealing only to gender issues is inherently self-limiting to those of the particular gender who prioritize gender issues as number one amongst issues).

Republicans have plenty of diversity inroads in their ranks in Texas and Florida, counting on the party to passively die off seems to run against the trend that republicans will recruit and promote Cruz and Rubio types (for example) on local, state and federal levels, seeing republicans like that 'come out of the closet' will make it be okay to be conservative which is a positively reinforcing cycle. It'll be a slow trickle that will gradually add up, but republicans are not doomed by demographics, particularly if we're looking at 60 years or more.

And don't forget, only millenials that came of age in the Bush era and 2008 are solidly democrat. first time voters aged 18-20 in 2010 were 55% republican, and Obama lost the 22 and under vote 52 to 48 I believe, in 2012. that trend of course continued in 2014.

[lokisnow]

behold the power of gerrymandering locked in for decade after decade. Ronald Reagan won a monumental and nearly unprecedented election by more than 18 points.

And in the House of representatives, democrats won 253 seats to republicans 182. Even with an 18 point victory in the popular vote, republicans couldn't win the house--they couldn't even make it close. state legislatures were locked in as democrat ever since the great depression, and the self protecting nature of gerrymandering meant even with the greatest landslide in history republicans could not win the house.

This is the reality democrats are now facing. it's virtually impossible to control how districts are drawn until the next exogenous shock near a census year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99th_United_States_Congress

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1984

***

There's a good article in the upshot today as well that describes the steady progress the republicans are making with demographics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/us/politics/gops-path-to-presidency-tight-but-real.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&abt=0002&abg=1&_r=0

These gains suggest that demographic trends have not doomed Republicans to minority-party status, as some political analysts predicted. Those predictions hinged in part on the assumption that Democrats could fare no worse among white voters than Mr. Obama. That assumption ignored Mr. Obama’s strengths among white voters outside the South.

Whether the coalition that Mr. Obama assembled in 2008 and 2012 can be remobilized in 2016, without Mr. Obama on the ballot, is a big question. But Tuesday contained enough good news for Democrats, obscured by their many defeats, that it would be unwise for Republicans to assume that the coalition cannot be rebuilt.

Many analysts have assumed that the next Democratic candidate, perhaps Mrs. Clinton, will be able to both maintain the support of these Northern rural voters and outperform Mr. Obama among Southern white voters, perhaps by a significant margin. Yet none of the strong Democratic Senate candidates in the South — Mary L. Landrieu, Alison Lundergan Grimes, Michelle Nunn, Kay Hagan, Mark Pryor and Mark Warner — did significantly better among white voters than Mr. Obama.

snip

Last week’s results suggest that Republicans would be taking a big risk if they count on nonwhite turnout falling so low again. The vaunted Democratic mobilization effort did not replicate the 2012 electorate — something it could never do given the tendency for nonwhite and young voters to stay home — but it did produce a notably more Democratic electorate in states like North Carolina and Colorado than in 2010.

The effectiveness of the Democratic turnout effort is perhaps best illustrated by contrasting those states with Virginia, where Mr. Warner nearly lost a state where he was thought to be safe. Democrats did not invest heavily in field operations in Virginia, and turnout was far lower than the other battlegrounds, particularly in the most Democratic precincts and jurisdictions.

There is no way to be sure that the Democrats will remobilize young and nonwhite voters in 2016, even if it is the outcome most consistent with the available data on turnout and demographics. But if they do, the Republicans may need to perform still better in 2016 than they did last week.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

This "let us be inactive and we will passively win!" approach has always struck me as doomed to failure. It's also a little contemptible if you spin this presumption through the outrage machine (since the presumption basically assumes that all non whites non mens non straights will mostly fall in line and vote dem since it is in the best interest of their race, gender or orientation, which may be only one of many conflicting interests they are trying to balance. This is why there isn't that huge of an advantage across the board with women, appealing only to gender issues is inherently self-limiting to those of the particular gender who prioritize gender issues as number one amongst issues).

Well you've already declared the Democratic Party doomed to failure for the next 60 years, so what's the difference?

More importantly, I said nothing about being inactive. I made a prediction about the direction the Republican Party was going to take. Should the Democratic Party then fail to do all the things that have made them appealing to the demographic groups they do well with now, no they won't be successful. Given that I was stating my optimistic view, pretty common sense to figure I'm not imagining an abandonment of base constituencies by the Democrats.

Republicans have plenty of diversity inroads in their ranks in Texas and Florida, counting on the party to passively die off seems to run against the trend that republicans will recruit and promote Cruz and Rubio types (for example) on local, state and federal levels, seeing republicans like that 'come out of the closet' will make it be okay to be conservative which is a positively reinforcing cycle. It'll be a slow trickle that will gradually add up, but republicans are not doomed by demographics, particularly if we're looking at 60 years or more.

So minorities who tend to vote Democratic, and are also disproportionately likely to be part of the poor and working class which also tends to support Democrats, will cease to do so once they see a handful of Hispanic names on the ballot. I'm tempted to put this presumption through the outrage machine.

And don't forget, only millenials that came of age in the Bush era and 2008 are solidly democrat. first time voters aged 18-20 in 2010 were 55% republican, and Obama lost the 22 and under vote 52 to 48 I believe, in 2012. that trend of course continued in 2014.

Obama won the under 24 vote by 60 to 36 in 2012. I find the claim that he did this while simultaneously losing the under 22 vote extremely difficult to believe, and in searching I've found no evidence that this is true. Perhaps you heard it somewhere along the way and in your willingness to believe all news of electoral doom for the Democrats you accepted it too uncritically.

[TrackerNeil]

Strategic stripping of Voting rights in swing states with empowered republican legislatures and governors.

And flipping that many seats is statistically unlikely even without the systematic voter abuses coming down the pike in the Thom tillis mold.

Given the advantages they're going to build in preventing people from voting and denying the franchise it seems unlikely democrats will be able to flip those seats now that the rules of the game are about to change.

Since we don't really know how many people who actually intended to vote were prevented from doing so because of ID laws, I'm not going to speculate about the future impact of those laws. Yes, they're unnecessary and unfair, but are they really effective at deterring significant numbers of Democratic voters? As far as I can see, the jury is still out.

As to flipping Senate seats, in 2006 the Dems flipped six seats, then in 2008 they flipped five. In 2010 the Republicans flipped seven seats, and in 2014 eight or nine. So it hardly seems unlikely that in 2016 the Democrats can win five to retake the majority, especially since they're only defending 10 to the GOP's 24.

[lokisnow]

Well you've already declared the Democratic Party doomed to failure for the next 60 years, so what's the difference?

More importantly, I said nothing about being inactive. I made a prediction about the direction the Republican Party was going to take. Should the Democratic Party then fail to do all the things that have made them appealing to the demographic groups they do well with now, no they won't be successful. Given that I was stating my optimistic view, pretty common sense to figure I'm not imagining an abandonment of base constituencies by the Democrats.

So minorities who tend to vote Democratic, and are also disproportionately likely to be part of the poor and working class which also tends to support Democrats, will cease to do so once they see a handful of Hispanic names on the ballot. I'm tempted to put this presumption through the outrage machine.

Obama won the under 24 vote by 60 to 36 in 2012. I find the claim that he did this while simultaneously losing the under 22 vote extremely difficult to believe, and in searching I've found no evidence that this is true. Perhaps you heard it somewhere along the way and in your willingness to believe all news of electoral doom for the Democrats you accepted it too uncritically.

Hah touche.

The under 22 stat was from a monkey cage post by John sides, Iirc.

[Shryke]

Republicans can make an effort, right now to bring Hispanics into their fold. Many Hispanics share the conservative beliefs that form the base of the Republican party. If they can reach out to Hispanics and come up with meaningful immigration reform that doesn't vilify the Hispanic community, they can solidify their place as a political party moving forward.

The problem with that is there is a large portion of the Republican Party who wont allow that to happen.

Actually they don't. Every poll shows that hispanics, while religious, are alot more economically liberal then the GOP. And also, like blacks, not stupid when it comes to knowing which party hates them.

[Shryke]

True but patronage systems are self reinforcing even and perhaps especially in the face of coalition changes. It took until 2010 to purify the Democrats of the blue dog turds despite the realignment that had taken place the system still advanced candidates who won regularly for a party they were part of but had no agreement with. The system will easily recruit and promote candidates who will win no matter the changes in coalition the system will survive until there is another large exogenous shock like the great recession or depression that occurs near a census year.

I just wish dems would vocalize their beliefs and fight for their ideals like in 2006 and 2008. This strategy of preemptive failure, of a pacifist refusal to fight for what you believe in is the thing I really hate in democrats right now, it took that disastrous first debate to snap Obama out of its hypnotic spell, before that he was trying to lose in his stalwart refusal to give people a reason to vote.

Actually the Blue Dogs got killed because they were the Democrats in conservative districts who, as one would expect, got wiped out in a wave election.

And don't forget, only millenials that came of age in the Bush era and 2008 are solidly democrat. first time voters aged 18-20 in 2010 were 55% republican, and Obama lost the 22 and under vote 52 to 48 I believe, in 2012. that trend of course continued in 2014.

I'm not aware of any exit polls that break it down that finely. It's usually under 29 and Obama has like a 20 points lead there.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Prediction: the Senate will flip again in 2016 (excellent Democratic map, combined with Presidential year turnout), 2018 (apocalyptic Democratic map, combined with what might well be Hillary's first mid-term), and 2020 (excellent Democratic map, combined with Presidential year turnout).

[Shryke]

Prediction: the Senate will flip again in 2016 (excellent Democratic map, combined with Presidential year turnout), 2018 (apocalyptic Democratic map, combined with what might well be Hillary's first mid-term), and 2020 (excellent Democratic map, combined with Presidential year turnout).

Like I posted earlier, alot of the predictions are that the Senate will flip back and forth like every election because Democrats don't vote in midterms.

[TrackerNeil]

Prediction: the Senate will flip again in 2016 (excellent Democratic map, combined with Presidential year turnout), 2018 (apocalyptic Democratic map, combined with what might well be Hillary's first mid-term), and 2020 (excellent Democratic map, combined with Presidential year turnout).

I'm really up in the air about 2016 when it comes to the presidential race. On one hand, I think that a recovering economy combined with the small Democratic edge in the EC makes Democrats the slight favorite, but then I remember that it's hard for one party to control the White House for more than two consecutive terms.

[Fez]

I thought Reid wasn't running.

Up until now, Reid's been pretty clear about running again. But Sandoval is a lot more popular than him, and if he decides to run for senate, I suspect Reid will retire to avoid the embarrassment of a loss like that at the end of his career. However, Sandoval might not run. He just got re-elected governor, he's very popular, and he has a Republican state legislature for the first time; he might considering governing his state pretty much as he sees fit to be more enticing than getting caught up in senate gridlock.

[Ormond]

Actually they don't. Every poll shows that hispanics, while religious, are alot more economically liberal then the GOP. And also, like blacks, not stupid when it comes to knowing which party hates them.

Precisely. The only issue where the polling seems to me to show that Hispanics as a group are more conservative on than the nation as a whole is abortion. They really aren't very different from the country as a whole on same sex marriage, and as you say are definitely MORE "liberal" when it comes to issues dealing with the size of government.

A lot of conservative Republicans seem to mistake the "family-oriented" culture of Hispanics for the same sort of "family values" right wing evangelical Christians espouse. But the "familism" of Hispanics is really not the same thing. It comes out of a culture of collectivism, not a culture of individualism. The "family" for Hispanics is much broader than the nuclear family -- Hispanics are much more likely to feel a strong sense of obligation to cousins and more distant relatives than Anglos are -- and this sort of broad definition of family can actually much more easily be extended to a sense of responsibility for all of one's fellow citizens than a more individualistic family concept.

So Hispanics are much more susceptible to liberal rhetoric which emphasizes that "all people are brothers/sisters" and so the government has a responsibility to take care of the less fortunate than the non-Hispanic "family values" crowd are.

http://www.pewforum.org/2014/05/07/chapter-9-social-and-political-views/