To add a little bit of rigor to the point I made this morning, take a look at the following:
This is a diagram of the partisan composition of the 109th and 111th Congresses. The 435 Congressional Districts are arranged from left (most Democratic) to right (most Republican) based on their PVI -- that is, partisan voting patterns in the 2000 and 2004 Presidential Elections.
We see that most of the damage to the Republican Party has come in moderate districts. Not a big surprise really, but -- the numbers are fairly jarring. There are 81 districts with a PVI of between D+3 and R+3: these are your prototypical swing districts. After the 2004 elections, Republicans controlled 54 of these 81 seats and Democrats 27. Following November's elections, however, the ratio had almost exactly reversed itself: 55 Democrats and 26 Republicans.
Framed differently: in the 109th Congress, about 3 out of every 10 Republican Congressmen came from swing or Democratic-leaning districts. Now, only about 1 in 6 does. The Republican conference is very very close, by the way, to being majority Southern. To the extent there are moderate voices in the conference, they are going to get drowned out. There is no possibility of revolt from the moderates; they don't have the ground forces.
I don't mean to suggest, by the way, that most individual Republican lawmakers were wrong in their decision to oppose the stimulus. On the contrary, from a tactical perspective, they had few incentives to compromise. And for cripes' sake: the stimulus does represent roughly half a trillion dollars in new government spending. If conservatives weren't going to oppose this, then what are they supposed to oppose?
But what purpose Boehner and Cantor thought they were serving by whipping votes, instead of letting their members come to a decision on their own, I don't really understand. Nor do I understand what the House Republicans thought they were accomplishing by coming out en masse against something like the digital TV bill, which is about as harmless as it gets -- precisely the sort of thing on which you offer an olive branch to build credibility for more important battles.
1.29.2009
The Republican Death Spiral, in Graphic Form
@ 4:54 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
78 comments
In graph format it looks pretty....bad. But lest we forget, the gains we have made can be reversed just as quickly if we arent on the ball, effective, and vigilant.
Who's the second red line in the 2008 graph? (First is obviously Anh Cao.)
"To the extent their are moderate voices"
Spelling error, Nate.
Anh Cao looks lonely all the way on the left of that chart. I wonder who the next few red stripes are.
When I saw the post title in my RSS feed, I admit no small measure of curiousity about what the post would be. Nate, shouldn't the title more appropriately be "in Graphical Form"?
So they are becoming a Southern party. How long before a new party arises?
Is there any chance the House will try again on the Digital TV bill, under simple majority rules?
Are the Repubs assuming Cao's district is hopeless (not a bad assumption) and leaving him to swing in the wind? Just took a look at his voting record - he voted for CHIP, TARP II and Paycheck Fairness, but against the stimulus and Lilly Ledbetter. Which makes me wonder if he was whipped into line on those two, completely against his own electoral interests. Anyone know?
His record is here:
http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=93967
In an ironic twist, those of you hollering the loudest that there is a "death spiral" for the Republican party will be the ones to cause a rejuvenation within their ranks.
Your hubris is astonishing, and I was thinking that after years and years of the same old cycle that maybe some of you would have learned your lesson. As someone alluded to on the previous thread, a party is most in danger when it thinks it has a monopoly on the truth and is the only party for Good and Right.
This is rearing its ugly head among Dems/Libs/Progressives as we speak, and the country will only take so much of it. We just came out of several years of Republican rule that epitomized that mindset. I didn't realize we'd so quckly devolve into it once again just on the Left side of the aisle.
In the end, people like Nate and posters like Cugel and PorridgeGun will be the ones to hand seats right back to Republicans as their myopic and narrow-minded view is no longer tolerated as a ruling tyranny.
It's interesting that there are a good handful of Democrats in very conservative districts, but only one Republican in a very liberal district, and that one's only because his Dem opponent was obviously a crook.
I think it's rather interesting that someone comments about the hubris of "Dems/Libs/Progressives" and then produces a comment full of the same hubris she/he condemns.
Typical.
I think the GOP knows it needs to retool and reconnect.
The problem is--most people don't like them anymore.
Call it whatever you like, but lots of Americans are tired of the "moral" superiority and entitled attitude of the GOP.
When it comes down to the issues, the party who dominated this election cycle knows what Americans want. And the GOP acting as an obstacle to those wants and needs only deepens the hole into which they have dug themselves.
Love ya, Nate. Keep up the good work.
This bloated, wrong-headed stimulus package will assure the ressurection of the GOP. The details larded within all that pork will be so salacious as to stimulate derision of Democrats for years!
I wouldn't sign the death warrant for the GOP just yet. Remember that the figures from the 2008 reflect a unusual nationwide phenomenon not ikely to be repeated anytime soon--Obamamania--and also the utter disgust with which most people viewed GWB.
The only thing that will kill off the Republican Party for good is the formation of a common-sense conservative party. Most of the GOPers aren't insane wingnuts, and they would love to have a place to go that espouses true conservative principles, rather than a flimsy tent where everyone's religious credentials are scrupulously checked at the door.
Unrelated to this topic: Congratulations on getting a new governor, Nate!
I trust Governor Quinn will do a fine job.
On-topic: Yes, I know John Galt is likely the guy on the mule whose name we dare not speak, but for once I almost agree with him. I wouldn't be so quick to sing the misfortunes of the Republican Party just yet - granted, Kerry did not get handed as convincing a loss as McCain did, but I believe that - in part - was because he tacked to the center-right and there was huge partisanship. (I think there are more people who would never vote for a Republican than there are who would never vote for a Democrat.)
Also, a lot of Dems are highly conservative. Look at West Virginia and Louisiana, for example - and even Arkansas. We agonize over Mary Landrieu and the Arkansas senators being only slightly to the left of Genghis Khan, for crying out loud. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if there was a schism.
And like I said in the other thread - it's good to have loyal opposition. It's bad when that opposition goes completely off the rails, but it's good to have the opposition.
Change in 2010. Everyone wants change, so change we will get in 2010.
Recall that many of the so-called moderate(swing) seats are called that for a reason, they swing back and forth. Most of the new democrat majority are not claiming to be liberal on most issues. In fact, that is how they got elected.
The simple answer is to recruit good candidates for 2010, then roll with the landslide change in congress.
Congress is now going to have to own those horrible approval numbers.
Time for a change.........
Chachy - I'm guessing most of the blues in far red territory are southern Blue Dogs.
The digital TV bill is bad policy, even if it makes for good politics. The conservatives might actually be voting against it because it's stupid.
...and then produces a comment full of the same hubris she/he condemns...
I'd like to see how you would twist anything I said as displaying hubris. Please. Be my guest. Or at least explain how my post was more partisan and biting than the likes of Nate, Cugel, and PorridgeGun.
Any reasonable person would see you're just hurling the nearest fecal matter you can get your hands on because you don't have anything else intelligent to reply with...and deep down, you know I speak an element of truth of the Dems bringing about their own demise via swollen pride and egos.
GOP will doubtlessly come back some day, or at least another conservative party, but for now, Nate's right: they are in a death spiral, completely divorced from the public mood and concerns of the citizenry.
In addition to the fiasco with the Stimulus package, there's a new scandal involving the Florida speaker of the house, and the leading candidate for the RNC chair, Chip Saltzman has another racially disparaging song on that DVD of his, this one targeting Hispanics, a demographic the GOP desperately needed.
Didn't the Republicans fight the digital tv bill when it was introduced back with Clinton?
Now they can't wait to get it out, in such a rush they don't want to wait to be sure everyone is going to be hooked up, thanks to Bush?
I just don't get these guys. The blind following the blind or what?
How about Eric Cantor and Jon Kyl, eh? What a couple of dickheads. Both of them are whining about Obama saying "I won". I really hope Napolitano challenges Kyl in 2012. Either McCain or Kyl will do, but she has to take one of them out. I can't believe these morons are even relevant at this point.
CNN's Dana Bash is a GOP groupee. She was bad enough putting out McCain talking points and lies during the campaign, but produced two stimlus hit pieces in the last couple of days, made Pelosi out to be a partisan while giving the Boehner and Cantor a pass.
The cable bill should be something most posters can agree on, and I was completely confused when I saw the result; glad to see I'm not alone in my confusion. If I remember correctly, almost all of the Senate Republicans voted for it. So why is the house GOP voting against it down the line?
To show their power and unity as a bloc and actually defeat a bill is the only thing I can come up with. Maybe that gets Boehner a tiny bit more leverage at the cocktail party. The problem is that Obama has the votes to run over the GOP house as often as he wants (all it will take is a floor vote to pass the bill) and he is smart enough to make moves to look like a reasonable bipartisan guy. It might get Obama's disapproval rating up to the low 20's as the conservative base comes home, but exactly where do you go from there?
The president is a moderate on things like eliminating the Bush tax cuts in 2009 and reforming entitlements. And there are some upcoming votes on which the public is genuinely divided, like card-check. Voting down the line on an innocuous bill that senate Republicans supported just makes Obama less likely to work with you and the public less likely to listen to you on the truly divisive issues.
Which I guess is kind of a rephrasing of your post Nate, looking over it again. What can I say, great minds think alike.
BTW, any chance of implementing your tracker for Obama job approval ratings so I don't have to bother with RCP any more?
PeteKent said...
This bloated, wrong-headed stimulus package will assure the ressurection of the GOP. The details larded within all that pork will be so salacious as to stimulate derision of Democrats for years!
Don't forget the condoms. That's the latest stimulus bitchfest from the christian fundie wingnuts.
Obama Approval Spills Over on Congress
The latest FOX NEWS poll finds 65% of Americans approve of the job Obama is doing, 16% disapprove and for 19% it is too soon to say.
In addition, congressional approval increased significantly in the last two weeks with some 40% of Americans approving of the job Congress is doing, up from 23% just two weeks ago.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/01/29/obama_approval_spills_over_on_congress.html
Who's the second red line in the 2008 graph? (First is obviously Anh Cao.)
Not sure, but probably Castle from Delaware.
Are the Repubs assuming Cao's district is hopeless (not a bad assumption) and leaving him to swing in the wind? Just took a look at his voting record - he voted for CHIP, TARP II and Paycheck Fairness, but against the stimulus and Lilly Ledbetter. Which makes me wonder if he was whipped into line on those two, completely against his own electoral interests. Anyone know?
Cao is a goner in 2012 no matter how he votes. Even if he changed parties, he'd wouldn't win the primary. The only way he survives is if Jefferson runs from prison and wins the D primary. Even then, he's only a 50-50 shot.
Don't forget, JBN, that there is a partisan split in congressional approval numbers.
In the last Gallup study I saw in December, Democrats had improved to 37% approval (still bad), while Republicans were stuck at 25%. Generic approval was lower than either party's individual approval.
The GOP has to close those numbers up if they want to make substantial gains in 2010. If I were a GOP advisor, I would recommend Republicans take the lead on entitlement reform and immigration enforcement for a start.
How about Gregg for Commerce and then the NH governor appoints the 60th democratic senator? Sound good to me.
http://www.americablog.com/2009/01/obama-may-name-gop-senator-judd-gregg.html
Since Obama took power congress approval has gone from 20% to 40%.
So the people like a congress that works with it`s president.
GOP death spiral goes on in 2010.
John Galt:
What Nate is showing is not hubris.
Let me be clear. There are certainly Democrats that are doing victory dances already, who believe that the GOP is going to disappear in four years. They are of course mistaken. Further, there are those that blindly follow a party line without any realization of what actual policy means. They are foolish.
But just as it is unreasonable to take Rush Limbaugh and claim all Republicans are like that, it is unreasonable to take a fringe Democrat and claim all Democrats are like that, and especially to say that a particular Democrat is a hubristic nutjob.
Nate's analysis is precisely that, an analysis. His factual evidence is correct and easily verified. His claims are not excessive; he is merely questioning the wisdom of specific actions by Republican leaders, not predicting that they cannot possibly turn back the tide.
It's clear you disagree with his opinion on what effective policy is. I imagine you might disagree on what effective politics are, as well - the two being often correlated but not always identical. I would be interested to hear what your disagreement is in particular - is there something about this Republican voting pattern that makes you think they've got a long-term strategy in place? Do you see a specific set of circumstances that others don't? I think that would be a more interesting and mutually educating conversation than one about whether Democrats are puffing up with pride or not.
I have to say I almost agree with John Galt on this. The Republicans are only dead meat if the Democrats manage to magically undo eight years of Bush in less than two years of Obama. Likely? No.
As a nitpicker, I must complain that the graphic in this article is not a spiral.*
I'm curious... what district is the outlier on the left side of the graph? It appears there was one highly Democratic district that flipped to the Republican's from 2004 to 2008. Is that Jefferson->Cao?
*Kidding... great post.
The House Republicans' bloc voting is mystifying because tactically it is exactly the wrong thing to do. By bloc voting against bills that pass, the House Republicans show that they are irrelevant- a protest party whose figurehead is Rush Limbaugh.
This behavior may also have long lasting economic and political consequences down the line. If regions of the country where Democrats dominate get more of the stimulus money and recover sooner, voters in Republican-leaning districts may not be happy with their Representatives.
Suck it Republican losers. The only reason you post here is because the wingnut sites have devolved into a bunch of frothing idiot with no ideas, just like your party.
If you think the only reason Republicans lost is because of hubris, and hoping for failure is your only strategy, you are even more stupid than you appear to be.
So Much for GOP Opposition in the House
The really stunning part of that graphic is how few seats have gone from dem to repub.
Kep it up Boehner! You are clearly going the right way! Follow Rush to true third party status!
Let's not get complacent. The future of the party and the Obama presidency is entirely based on how successfully they cure the economy. And I'm not enormously optimistic. The strategy should be to gain the voter's trust that the Dems can manage the economy, NOT to try to reverse 25 years of Reaganism in 100 days. Some more restraint on the pork, and yes, deferring some important progressive agenda items (family planning) which have nothing to do with economic stimulus, are all necessary now, if the Obama revolution is to survive the first term. The main obstacle is not the GOP, but an undisciplined House of Rep. which has opened Obama and the party to some well-deserved criticism on this stimulus package.
Gotta read this:
Mark Halperin blames President Obama for being too partisan
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/mark-halperin-blames-president-obama-be
Other than perhaps Bill Sammon, Halperin could very well be the dumbest motherfucker in America.
Gotta read this:
Mark Halperin blames President Obama for being too partisan
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/mark-halperin-blames-president-obama-be
Other than perhaps Bill Sammon, Halperin could very well be the dumbest motherfucker in America.
Off topic but is there a better monument to the legacy of Bush than this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7859444.stm
Obama may name GOP Senator Judd Gregg (NH) as Secretary of Commerce
http://www.americablog.com/2009/01/obama-may-name-gop-senator-judd-gregg.html#disqus_thread
Call me a sceptic on the death spiral. To wit:
1. Eight years (for an Obama presidency) is an eternity in politics. After all, it was more recently than eight years ago that people actually believed Karl Rove's talk of a perminet Republican majority.
2. As Lord Acton said, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Democrats will eventually do something (or some series of things) that will bring opposition, presumably Republican opposition, back to power.
3. Only once in American history has an established party capable of winning national elections been replaced by an insurgent party. It is far more likely (in some non-statistical sense of likely) that the Repubs come back than that they are replaced.
With that said, the Republicans need to reinvent themselves and things will probably get worse for them before they get better--a somewhat milder prognosis that a death spiral.
a. The Republicans reinvention attempts so far have consisted of pointing guns aimed at their own feet.
b. Gerrymandering will help keep the wingnuts in power within the party.
c. The Republicans are facing some daunting demographics:
-- The bluing of the suburbs.
-- The reduced influence of rural voters in national elections.
-- The reduced influence of white voters in national elections.
-- The likely continued popularity of Obama.
d. There is no obvious low hanging fruit. When the Democrats became the party of civil rights, racists made for some obvious low hanging fruit. So Nixon launched his very successful Southern strategy. When it came time to morph racist support into something else, social conservatives were a natural and obvious target. But what low hanging fruit can be found now? Maybe I'm just not being imaginative, but I don't see any.
So the the Rebuplican certainly have a tough road to hoe. Things will get worse for them before they get better. But they will eventually reinvent themselves and make a comeback. So however bright things look for the Democrats now, I wouldn't call the Republican's predicament a death spiral.
PVI is calculated by the Cook reports averaging how far the district voted off the national average in the last two national presidential elections, right? (So the 2008 PVI in an Obama +9 2008, and Bush +1 2004 district would be 9-7 Dem +2 2008; 1-4 Dem +3; About a PVI +2;of course my math could be way off). But the 2008 PVI isn't out yet so all PVI calculations are the 2004 (2000 & 2004 election) numbers. So we are seeing what districts congresscritters represent relative to their ideological balance circa 2002 with the chart.
What would be interesting to know is how much the PVI of the flipped districts of 2006 & 2008 have actually been ones that changed and shifted in relative PVI and if the real chart for 2008 would be even more easily divided because the shades of blue in the red are actually *moving* blue at all levels faster than the country.
I guess I am saying this because based on my district with guestimates (where is the PVI listed) is probably a R+2 or 3 on the 2004 numbers but I think is more D now (VA-10;Frank Wolf probably being in a district with a more precarious PVI than the rest of the caucus).
Why is delaying the DTV switch a bad idea? Millions of people won't have TV service if they stop analog broadcast in February. They have also run out of funding for the coupon program, and the wait list is long. Plus, many TV stations in my area are still working on a stronger signal; personally, I get less stations on my TV now because the digital signals aren't powerful enough.
It's not a stupid policy, unless you want to deal with the ramifications of millions of mostly low-income and elderly people who can't television anymore.
"Anh Cao looks lonely all the way on the left of that chart. I wonder who the next few red stripes are."
Next over would be Michael Castle in Delaware.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/29/judd-gregg-commerce-secre_n_162378.html
Ok I am really waiting for Nates input into this. My feeling is, would u rather A) serve under the mostpopular president since JFK
or B) serve under the most unpopular party since hoover with Mitch McConnel and friends?
I think this isnt as cut an dried a "no" as it might seem at first blush. After all, the president has asked him to serve.
jonah said...
The digital TV bill is bad policy, even if it makes for good politics.
I agree.
The conservatives might actually be voting against it because it's stupid.
No. The RepubliCANTs voted against it because the Democratic House members sponsored it and voted for it.
The funny thing is that, from what I can tell, a very large number of people who would have 'benefited' from the extension (those who haven't yet picked up the converter box) will remember that it was the Republicans who voted against the extension, thus 'shutting them off' from getting their tee-vee, and thus they will be inclined to not be as enthusiastic for that RepubliCANT candidate in the next election cycle.
OK, just looked up the PVi on Wiki. VA-10 is actuall r+5= I thought we were further D than that;so we're likely moving in the next iteration. Then again I'm in the Fairfax County bit.
People were asking who the Republican in the second most Dem district held by a Rep was and I think its Mike Castle Delaware at large with PVI D+7 (opposed to Cao's D+28).
Republicans still hanging on in territory more presidentially democratic against W (2000 & 2004)
D+28 - LA-2
D+7 - DE-AL
D+4 - IL-10, NJ-2
D+2 - NY-3, PA-15, WA-8
D+1 - FL-10
D+0 - IA-4 (wiki lists 0 based on D not R here)
So 8 or 9 depending how you count the zero.
On the other foot (god this will take much, much longer)
R+19- ID-1
R+18- TX-17
R+17- UT-2
R+16- MS-4
R+13- AL-2, ND-AL
R+11- MO-4
R+10- MD-1, MS-10, SD-AL
R+9- CO-4, IN-8
R+8- GA-8, PA-10
R+7- IN-9, KY-6, NC-11, PA-17, VA-9
R+6- AL-5, CO-3, MN-6, NM-2, OH-18, SC-5, VA-2, VA-5, WV-1
R+5- IL-8, IL-14, LA-3, NY-29, OK-2
R+4- AZ-5, IN-2, KS-3, OH-16, TN-4, TX-23, WI-8
R+3- CA-11, FL-8, FL-24, NY-20, NC-2, NC-7, NC-8, PA-4
R+2- AZ-1, FL-2, MI-2, PA-3
R+1- AZ-8, IL-11, MN-1, NY-19, OH-1, OH-15, TX-27, TX-28, VA-11
R+0- AR-2, MI-9, NH-1 (guess there are zeros on both sides)
14 Democrats in districts more Republican than the second most Democratic District held by a Republican (although Cao's district is 9 points farther from center than Minnick's). Which is more than all Reps in +D districts (8 or 9)
77 R+1 or greater districts held by Democrats (80 R+0 or greater).
I do think that the new PVI will shift some of these Democratic outposts over the line into Blue, but wow,
JMNorris asked what low hanging fruit the Repubs can go after now. By the end of the Obama administration there will be plenty. It will be the ever increasing group that wants to be left alone by the government and resents its intrusion into their everyday life.
Think about what's coming with the Dems agenda:
- with Government health care we'll be told what doctors we can go to, when we can see them and what procedures we're eligible to receive;
- with increasing Federal involvement with education we'll have even less choice on how to educate our kids;
- with Global Warming (excuse me, Climate Change) legislation we'll be told what we can drive, how we light our homes, what temperature to set our thermostat;
- as health care costs escalate due to government control we'll be old what to eat, when to procreate, and when to die;
- a re-enactment of something akin to the Fairness Doctrine will tell us what we can and cannot say publically;
- the so-called Employee Free Choice act will permit legal intimidation of workers by union organizers, forcing workers to join a union even if they don't want to;
The list goes on and on. At some point enough people get fed up and throw out the Dems.
Given the catastrophic results that their policies have produced, one would hope that all Republicans would just slink off into a corner and remain silent for a decade or more. The fact that they continue to raise their voices at all is just astonishing, and clear evidence that they don't have a clue.
Concerning Digital TV, I think the Republicans are looking for an early win to show that they are a force to be reconned with. They want to get a win under there belts asap to prove it's possible.
Hey Mike, you would sound much more intelligent and mature if you called members of the Republican party by their actual name.
You are making us all look bad.
I'm not much of a prognosticator, but I'm certainly not as sure as some posters here that if the economy hasn't fully recovered by 2010, the Democrats will lose seats. As I see it, the economy has to recover SOME, a lot of U.S. troops have to have been withdrawn from Iraq, and the country has to be perceived to be going in the right direction for the Democrats to have a good shot at essentially maintaining their current large lead in the House and gaining a few Senate seats. Just how far in the right direction, and just how well the Democrats and Republicans will get out the vote, only time will tell.
This is hilarious.
This is exactly the kind of langauge that preceded the fall of the Republicans. Talk about the death spiral of the Republican party and the irrelevance of the base. You just got out of the political wilderness a few years ago and you've already forgotten how quickly a party can come back.
This is an inherently cyclical system. Today, overspending by the Democrats will be heralded, tomorrow, perhaps not.
If there's one thing I've learned over the campaign season its that a lot of people don't pay attention. Americans are forgetful. Go around today, and ask people on the street how they feel about the failure of the digital TV bill without mentioning either political party and they won't know what you're talking about. Ask about it in 2010, and they'll just blink at you.
I'd suggest that both votes are threats to Obama - if the stimulus bill had passed with bipartisan support, then Obama could rest at ease with his cries of change and unification. He's hardly as partisan as the people who post here are and recognizes the fact that he can't discard the Republican party; he's going to need their support at some point. Boehner and Cantor whipped these votes together because they needed a message to re-orient the party and demosntrate to Obama that he was going to have to work for their support.
There will be dark days in the Obama Administration, there will be failures. There will be moments of great disapproval. There are moments like these in every Presidency - and if Obama listens to you guys about just striking off the Republicans and not working with them at all, then he's not going to have the leverage he needs to get through those times.
Nice graphic. I'd love to see one for the Senate too, though it wouldn't be as informative.
This is a good way to explain the behavior of the Republicans. They remaining Republican legislators are even more beholden to the radically conservative parts of the country.
Suggestion on that graph:
Create a larger version tied to a map of the United States congressional districts, so that mousing over one of the vertical lines highlights the district represented by that line on the map.
billyez, explain why Obama will ever need the support of Boehner, Cantor, or any of the House Republicans. Sure, he'd LIKE their support, and I have no doubt he'll continue to be cordial with them, but they are mathematically irrelevant.
"Who's the second red line in the 2008 graph? (First is obviously Anh Cao.)"
Pretty sure that's Michael Castle from DE-AL. He's pretty popular, but it's a very likely pickup if he ever retires.
While there's definitely some truth to the notion that Dems shouldn't get irrationally exuberant, I think some people don't quite realize how terrible the Republican brand is right now, and how deep a hole they're in. Even in the darkest days post-2004, the Dems needed 6 seats in the Senate and 16 in the House to retake control. They'd lost a presidential race, during a still-popular war, by just three points. And this was probably the worst position the Dems have been in at the national level since the 1920's.
By contrast, the Repubs need 10 senate seats and 41 house seats, face a tremendously popular president, and just had the biggest presidential defeat in at least 20 years. Structually, 2010 will almost certainly be a loss for them in the Senate, at least. And inexorable demographic change will continue to sap what strength they have barring a major realignment. They're not going to be a credible party for quite awhile.
Charlie said...
Why is delaying the DTV switch a bad idea?
The law to switch to DTV passed in 1996, with the original switch date to be in 2006. That date was postponed because "people weren't ready". The postponement was until February 2009.
For at least the last two years, there has been a steady stream of public service announcements about the switch. The opportunity to get the coupons opened in late 2007, with the mailing out of the coupons starting in January 2008.
If anyone hasn't heard, they don't watch TV, so why would it matter if their TV doesn't work after February 17?
And don't give me the 'the wait list is 3,000,000 long'. Why is the wait list that long? Because the people were too lazy to call a phone number, or log onto the Internet to a web site, to order a coupon. Or, they ordered the coupon, received it, but didn't take the small amount of time to pick up a converter box within the 90 days in which the coupon was valid.
If someone ordered a coupon in early 2008, let it expire, they could then order another coupon, let it expire, order another, let it expire, and STILL be able to order a coupon in late 2008, when there was no, or only a very short wait list.
The PR around the switch to DTV was as much, if not more, than the annual discussion about tax day. Tell the IRS you didn't know, and see how far that gets you. Tell the IRS you didn't have the opportunity to get the forms, or fill them out, or to mail them to the IRS, and see how far that gets you.
As a liberal, I am for helping those who need help, especially when that need is for reasons not of their own making. However, that does not extend to helping those who are blatantly unwilling to help themselves, then cry to high heaven that the world is against them, when the reason is absolutely and totally their own fault.
Leave_me_alone has an interesting suggestion that libertarians are the new low-hanging fruit for the Republicans. The Paulites proved they are able to organize and willing to give money; and the libertarian / isolationist arm of the party has been neglected for a long, long, long time while the GOP pandered to religious extremists and neoconservative militarists.
Leave_me_alone's prognostications seem wildly inaccurate, but government is going to grow in the next 4-8 years. That's going to generate a pushback. I actually think that pushback from the libertarian / fiscal conservative side would be far healthier for the Republic than pushback from the religious right. So Leave_me_alone: good luck!
This is also EXACTLY the same kind of talk that preceded the fall of the Democratic Party as a national party in the 1970s. Until President Obama, only SOUTHERN MODERATE DEMOCRATS won election as President. Northeastern, Midwest and Western liberals had to push so far to the left in the primaries that they got creamed in the presidential elections. The Senate slowly slid to become Republican and the House, which was a bastion of Democrats and Dixiecrats, finally went Republican under Newt Gingrich IN RESPONSE to Bill Clinton.
Some people think that the Democratic dominance will last one or two congressional election cycles. Other think it will last for a generation. The fun is finding out which one it is.
As always, the dice have no memory. It will be up to the leadership of both parties to come up with a winning strategy.
Additions to the list of possible new names for the former R-word party:
Dixiecrabs
Dittocrats
God's Own People
Confederate States of America
The Management
"I'm guessing most of the blues in far red territory are southern Blue Dogs."
That looks like it's about right (though there are a surprising handful of westerners in there too.) But the interesting question to me is why there are Blue Dogs getting elected in Mississippi but you don't see any Republicans getting elected in, like, the Bronx or Oakland or whatever. I mean, Giuliani and Bloomberg got elected mayor of NYC as Republicans. Why has this phenomenon just completely ceased to exist in the House?
Michael: Mathmatically irrelevant? Sure. Symbolically? Not so much.
Full disclosure; I'm a Republican, so I'm going to value Cantor and the House Republicans a bit more than others here. But it's hard for me to figure out how Obama can ever talk about having changed the tone of Washington if four years from now he still has legislation with no Republican support going through Congress.
More importantly though...I actually really don't want to see the country working like that. Democrats aren't the only ones who have had their fill of partisanship. I'm going to stick by Cantor and the Republicans in the House for now, because there actually some reasons to be against this legislation, and it was a powerful message to the base and the the political sphere that the Republicans want to return to real fiscal conservatism.
But if I watch the House deliberations and see political posturing for the party's own sake months from now, just so we can oppose for opposition's sake, then I'm going to have some problems witht he party leadership.
Anyway, Obama's success is tied somewaht to that whole message of unity and change and bipartisanship; he's going to need some support across the aisle in order to assert to the world that America is a united country.
And looking at the PVI for the leadership, it shows why having the congressional party be slightly disorganized, while not getting the approval of the purity hounds, improves your ability to compete further away. Because leadership positions come with seniority and seniority comes with safe districts distributed farther from the zero points:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi- CA-08 D+36
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer- MD-5 D+9
House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn- SC-6 D+11
House Minority Leader John Boehner- OH-8 R+12
House Minority Whip- Eric Cantor- VA-7 R+11
So the leadership (excepting Pelosi whose biggest threat in district is from the Greens) are clustering around a +10. If they are not allowing some dissent from members nearer the zero point or over the edge (and this assumes that the zero point is the center of politics in equilibrium and that there isn't a minor D advantage now), than they are endangering their grips on their seats. A hard whip consistant with the views of the districts producing the leadership is going to be worse for electoral prospects than letting some members go with a wink occasionally. Of course there is the other chaos problem at the opposite end but some congressional chaos would be better than entrenchment.
And this is where the high party cohesion of the Republicans brings us to a question of what we will see in the future: Is it because they have been left to the safe electorally comfortable territory and thus have less fudgers? If this is true there is less likely for someone to emerge as a good model for how to move into territory that elects Democrats- who will create the new mold if they are all operating as if they were in a +R environment?
Or is Cantor applying a strong whip? Blackmail photos if you don't vote our way, you need to be 100% obstructionist all the time. Because too strong a whip is bad for Republicans at the moment when they need to rework their platform and come up with something new. Letting the congresscritters have some room to explore the center and come up with something fresh might lead to the next Republican program coming from the House. A tight whip means that you had better have someone good at the state level somewhere.
Aside from rewarding procrastinators, the other strike against delaying the digital television transition is that it'll impose a significant hardship on the broadcasters, and that it'll make a hash out of the plans of those who are expecting to get the use of the spectrum now occupied by analog broadcasts (who include emergency responders).
Currently, television broadcasters are supporting two transmissions, digital and analog. Doing this requires significant budget for electrical power and equipment leasing/maintenance, all of which has been planned to end in February. If we now, at the last moment, decide to push back the deadline, then many local stations will be in a bind as their leases on towers and equipment is expiring. Many may need to lay off employees.
Why are we imposing these hardships? For people who could not get off their butts for the past year and deal with the well-publicized transition? I generally never agree with Republicans, but this time they are right.
Also, mistake on my list of reps in other parties PVI- MN 6th is R+5 with a R in it (Bachmann); MN-7 is R+6 Colin Peterson.
PVI will be impacted in those middling districts during reapportionment in 2012.
but the DEMs are looking like they are in relatively good position right now to hold to or even expand their PVI advantages by jiggering the redistricting
controlling reapportionment [especially in states like TX & FL] was a key to the short-lived GOP 'permanent majority' in the House in the 90's
and clearly the GOPer talking/walking papers as issued by RUSH & Hannity are still stressing that it is absolutely imperative to continue in the Bush/Rove mode of only referring to the 'others' in public by spitting out they are the traitorous 'DEMOCRAT PARTY' - never EVER call 'em by their proper name of Democratic Party...
but lil' Eric Cantor [representing all the Lizard People] demands respect & equal standing for his motley crew of pint-sized mental midget renegades...
I mean that in the nicest possible way, of course - as if there exists such a parallel universe bizarro world where it even matters right now
maybe Blago will announce his candidacy for head of the RNC tomorrow since he is without a party & needs a job [any job] real bad + the GOPers seem to welcome liars, crooks, thiefs & felons in their big tent with no center pole...
Love the Republican death spiral analysis!
Would like to hear your take on the Karl Rove Contempt of Congress issue. Do you think he'll really try to get away with it again? and could he possibly? I don't know the legal processes behind it.
538 always helps me with these situations :D
Patrick said...
Hey Mike, you would sound much more intelligent and mature if you called members of the Republican party by their actual name.
You are making us all look bad.
And for the last umpteen years, did you call out each and every RepubliCANT every time they wrote of the 'DemocRAT' party?
Maybe you would prefer me calling them the GOOPers ('Gratuitously Oppressive and Obnoxious Party,' or 'Graceless, Oppressive and Obnoxious Party')? In the Urban Dictionary, GOOPer is defined as "A wannabee pundit; uniformed hayseed; One who purports to be politically knowledgeable; country jerk", which also is, IMO, an accurate description of most members of the RepubliCANT Party, their hangers on, and indicative of the prattle we have to put up with from most of that party's 'spokespeople' on Internet discussion groups and sites.
Or were you speaking of when I mention the 'Reich-wing'? That wing isn't inclusive of the entire RepubliCANT Party, just the most right-wing portion of that party (which today is, in actuality, the major portion of the RepubliCANT Party in Congress, especially the House). My definition of the Reich-wing is that wing of the RepubliCANT spectrum that holds political views that would be somewhat to extremely difficult to differentiate from the Fascist political philosophy, with (for the most part) only the anti-Semite philosophy stripped out.
Or was it when I spoke of Lush Rimbaugh and/or Bill O'Lielly? The former is a lush (for drugs instead of the usual association of the word 'lush' to an alcoholic), and who, I've heard, is a practitioner of what some might call at least somewhat perverted sex; and the latter is a full-time liar, so I'm just associating a 'factual' name to them, and taking a bit of liberty with the spelling of their names.
Or was it something else that you're complaining about? You weren't specific, so I've got to guess which one you're discussing, and try to discuss them all.
MIKE in MD
the proper term is now officialy 'RepubliCON'
didn't you get the message ?
or you can sub: PubliCON, Pub or CON - they are all interchangeable for GOPers
All of the name-calling is stupid. They're Republicans. Period. And the other party is the Democratic Party. Name-calling is so 1st-grade.
Note that even with a new CPVI, the numbers don't tell the full story because they ignore the fact that the country currently leans Democratic. For instance, using solely the 2008 election an "R+2" district still voted marginally for Obama.
If you think the only reason Republicans lost is because of hubris, and hoping for failure is your only strategy, you are even more stupid than you appear to be.
That's funny. Because from what I remember, that was the Democratic strategy from 2002-2006...and it finally worked!
The Dems had no new ideas in that time period. They could only dryly recite the same inane lines over and over - "Bush lied" or "Bush sucks" et cetera.
Finally, Bush (and the Reps) DID prove to be enough of a failure in the public's opinion to start putting the other party in office. And the Republicans demise WAS strongly correlated to their own hubris. Much like the Dems are exhibiting now.
As much as I don't understand the current House Republican tactics and think they're short-sighted, I think any talk of imminent demise for the GOP is probably equally so.
I remember saying almost the same things in 2004, only about the Democrats. They seemed utterly unable to come up with a credible candidate against a Republican president who by rights should have been vulnerable. That he turned out not to be seemed to speak of a deeply flawed liberal party, one which needed to get a clue (soon!) or go the way of the Whigs.
Well, of course that looks pretty silly now. Two things happened: The left actually did get a clue with their 50-state strategy, and (most importantly) the reputation of Bush and the GOP fell further and faster than I would have believed.
Now, I think Obama's going to be a good president. I agree with his philosophy and (most of the time) his approach. But we've got a real bad economy, voters getting restless about various bailouts, and a situation in Afghanistan that could get ugly regardless of what happens in Iraq. The current administration may be-- and hopefully is-- much less susceptible to the kind of tumble the GOP took from 2004-2008, but does anyone really want to bet that it CAN'T happen?
Indeed, it seems to me the healthiest course for the Obama administration to take would be to assume the GOP's recovery is right around the corner and act with an abundance of caution... now matter HOW nice the graphs look right now.
John Galt,
Why does a party need to "have new ideas"? Fundamental truths about the state of the world, and humanity, don't change over the course of four years. Let's say that the Republicans are really correct about the majority of those opinions in which they differ from the Democrats. If they don't gain power back for another ten years, that doesn't mean they will have been any less correct right now. Similarly, it's possible for the Democrats' worldviews to have been correct during the 2002-2006 period you speak of, and only after 2006 did people start to pay attention and realize that. Repeating the same lines and ideas can be considered "stale" - or it can be considered "consistent". It depends, really, on what those ideas are and why they're being repeated.
Honestly, the Democrats haven't had time to show hubris yet. It's entirely possible that they will start to do utterly dumb shit. It's possible that Obama will forget the lessons of the last eight years and of his campaign. On the other hand, it's possible that he won't, and that he'll be able to keep in check those Democrats who don't care about anything but their own political power. We'll see in a few years, certainly by 2010.
Bear in mind that people gloating in blog comments about how the GOP is doomed are not the leadership of the Democratic party. The vast majority of the population isn't going to change its political position based on what random Democrats are posting on the Internet. If they're going to change their position, it's going to be because of policy that negatively affects them, their loved ones, and their goals.
That's why the Bush-GOP was repudiated. People didn't think, "Man, that Bush sure is self-righteous and hubristic. I'll show him what for." They thought "Man, these laws and policies suck and make my life suck. I'll vote for someone who will give me better laws." If the current administration & Congress passes shitty laws and enacts shitty policies - and the population sees that - they'll get voted out. If they pass good laws and enact good policies, they'll stay around no matter how puffed up with pride they become.
"...the stimulus does represent roughly half a trillion dollars in new government spending. If conservatives weren't going to oppose this, then what are they supposed to oppose?"
Yes, they have turned Edmund Burke, the Father of Conservatism, into just another lousy Progressive.
"Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy."
Letter to a Noble Lord (1796)
As to what the Republican strategy is at this point, my guess is that they are continuing the push they made toward the end of the campaign which was "don't give the Democrats carte blanche". They would like to win seats back on the fear that with no opposition, the Democrats will tax and spend us to death. In the next election cycle, they will be sure to point out that the Democrats were able to pass any bill they wanted, despite complete Republican opposition. This seems like a pretty big gamble, which will pay off or not depending on whether Obama fails or not. I agree with Nate that a better strategy would be to prove that they are capable of bipartisanship and cooperation. That is, they should at least pretend that the good of the country is more important than their ideology. If Obama stays popular they are screwed either way, but Nate's strategy would cut their losses a little more.
Nate,
Could you add to this chart, the makeup of the 1993 senate that stopped everything good that Clinton tried to do? there were only 43 republicans, but they were able pretty much to stop every single thing of value Clinton wanted to do... how much fight did they have compared to the current senate?
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment