![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mahnmut posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsYes, the Democrats took the House, but they were supposed to. The party that is out of power almost always picks up seats in midterm elections. By no means was it a resounding, historic victory or complete repudiation of Trumpism. They will now have a slim majority that they can use to gum up Trump's legislative agenda and attempt to drown the administration in a deluge of subpoenas and investigations. That might sound reassuring, except that Trump's legislative agenda is nearly nonexistent, preferring to accomplish things largely in foreign policy, appointing judges, and through executive order or policy changes in the Executive Branch, all mostly outside of the reach of the House.
Also, if the last couple of years have shown us anything, it's that if an administration operates among a din of ethical impropriety there is only so much traction the opposition can gain by attempting to address those scandals.
In the Senate, it is looking like the Republicans will end up adding 2 or 3 seats to their majority. One argument is that the map strongly favored the Republicans, therefore this could be expected. However, it is hard to see how the Democrats wouldn't be disappointed with this outcome given the incessant talk of a Blue Wave and Trump's poor approval numbers up until the last month. There was also intense excitement about candidates running close races in traditionally Republican states (Texas, Arizona) and hope for incumbents trying to hang on in what looked to be tough races(North Dakota, Missouri, Florida, Indiana). All of which Democrats lost or might just barely squeak out a win. Many of which Democrats are going to need in order to win back the presidency in 2020. Trump campaigned heavily for the Republican candidates in all of the close Senate races. There was also what appeared to be a Kavanaugh correlation; the Democrats in red/reddish states who voted against Kavanaugh's confirmation all lost and the one who voted for Kavanaugh(Joe Manchin in West Virginia) won. Indicating there is still plenty of support for Trump and his agenda in states the Democrats will need to win. Democrats fared better in races for governorships. Although, similar to the House, not the irrefutable victory the Democrats would have hoped for given what they see as the stakes in this election, especially when noting the high profile losses in Florida and Georgia.
The Democrats are attempting to portray the results of the midterms as an unmitigated triumph. Citing the diversity of candidates who were elected, the handful of governorships that they flipped, and taking over the House. I don't see the same rosy picture. There were many "firsts" elected, first Indigenous People elected to Congress, first Muslim women elected to Congress, trans people, black women, many other women. Most of these new congresspeople, and certainly the ones who are more Liberal, are from reliably safe Democratic districts. The districts that Democrats flipped were largely with more moderate candidates. Of the governorships that were flipped, the only one that would appear surprising for a Democrat to have won is Kansas. And again, the Democrats were expected to have flipped the House and they did so relatively meekly given the festering fervor of the resistance. In this election we saw both an increase in partisanship and a lack of resolution to the internal debate within the party as to whether it should fully move towards Democratic Socialism or leave room for more moderate voices within the party.
There have been many articles pointing out that even though the Democrats lost seats in the Senate, they received roughly 10 or 11 million more votes for their Senate candidates, as if this should be some type of consolation or cause for optimism. As more than one recent presidential election has shown, winning the most votes isn't how a race is won. A candidate or party must find just enough votes in precisely the right places in order to win. Similarly, when the final count is in, the Democrats will have many millions more votes for their House candidates than the Republicans have for their candidates, yet the Democrats will only have a small lead in the House. These anti-democratic nuances in the US system are not there by accident. The Senate, originally appointed by state legislatures and only elected by the people after 1913, was specifically designed to ameliorate the puerile passions of the mob and over-represent states will small populations and under-represent states with large populations. A situation which will be exacerbated in the coming years by shifting demographics as more of the population moves to urban and suburban areas. Since Republicans tend to be the ones who live in rural areas and Democrats tend to live in urban and suburban areas, this means that, based on population, Republicans will be over-represented in the Senate and Electoral College, and Democrats underrepresented. The current make up of the House is largely due to the gerrymandering that took place after the 2010 census creating multitudes of safe districts on both sides, but giving an advantage to Republicans. An issue they are actively seeking to worsen by adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census.
Democrats have created something of a catch-22 for themselves in winning the House. On one hand, they won on the strength and determination of an invigorated, energized base who will demand results and, after Bernie Sanders, is increasingly less afraid to back far-left candidates over more moderate candidates based on "electability". On the other hand, in order to overcome the structural hurdles mentioned above they will have to appeal, in some way, to the middle of the country. The "middle" of the country meaning, the 30-40% who aren't adamant partisans and who don't avidly follow the daily political machinations. These people tend to be the ones swayed by the false equivalency argument of "both sides do it", which is an increasingly insidious form of voter suppression. Another factor which advantages Republicans, as lower voter turnout tends to favor Republican candidates. Wait a minute, didn't we just have the highest turnout in a midterm election in, like, forever?? Yes, we did, and it was still below 50%. Figure that.
Given the psychological, internal, and structural issues at hand. How can Democrats cobble together a viable, sustainable coalition that will deliver the White House and the Senate? In no particular order... First, they must avoid the appearance of having solely a political agenda with the investigations they intend to initiate in the House. No matter what they do, Ben Shapiro and Glenn Beck are going to vilify them. But that 40% in the middle isn't listening to Glenn Beck, they catch bits and pieces of news in passing. This might mean not investigating every single thing and focusing on the most egregious infractions. It also definitely means, unless Mueller has an explicit smoking gun in his report, there can be no impeachment. With the expanded Senate majority it will not go anywhere and will only foment the partisan divide and turn away those in the middle.
Second, Democrats need to have specific, viable policy proposals ready to go. Start passing them in the House right away, let the Republican Senate kill them, but also let the public see what you want to do. When Republicans controlled Congress during the Obama presidency they passed dozens of repeals of Obamacare, but then when they got the majority they needed to pass the thing they couldn't get their crap together to agree on how they wanted to do it. Democrats need to learn from this mistake.
Third, don't have 25 candidates for president. This will inflame the internal divisions within the party, which will also drive away casual observers.
Fourth, stop taking the bait, or as Michelle Obama said, "When they go low, we go high". To which I'd add the addendum: Just go high all the time. Appeal to the highest ideals of the founding documents and aspirations for serving the country through politics.
Fifth, run a semi-moderate candidate for president. A prominent liberal firebrand like Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris is going to be too polarizing, both within the party and among the general electorate. To me, it needs to be someone who appears authentic and can appeal both across the Democratic Party and to a broad section of those in the middle. Who is that?
Also, if the last couple of years have shown us anything, it's that if an administration operates among a din of ethical impropriety there is only so much traction the opposition can gain by attempting to address those scandals.
In the Senate, it is looking like the Republicans will end up adding 2 or 3 seats to their majority. One argument is that the map strongly favored the Republicans, therefore this could be expected. However, it is hard to see how the Democrats wouldn't be disappointed with this outcome given the incessant talk of a Blue Wave and Trump's poor approval numbers up until the last month. There was also intense excitement about candidates running close races in traditionally Republican states (Texas, Arizona) and hope for incumbents trying to hang on in what looked to be tough races(North Dakota, Missouri, Florida, Indiana). All of which Democrats lost or might just barely squeak out a win. Many of which Democrats are going to need in order to win back the presidency in 2020. Trump campaigned heavily for the Republican candidates in all of the close Senate races. There was also what appeared to be a Kavanaugh correlation; the Democrats in red/reddish states who voted against Kavanaugh's confirmation all lost and the one who voted for Kavanaugh(Joe Manchin in West Virginia) won. Indicating there is still plenty of support for Trump and his agenda in states the Democrats will need to win. Democrats fared better in races for governorships. Although, similar to the House, not the irrefutable victory the Democrats would have hoped for given what they see as the stakes in this election, especially when noting the high profile losses in Florida and Georgia.
The Democrats are attempting to portray the results of the midterms as an unmitigated triumph. Citing the diversity of candidates who were elected, the handful of governorships that they flipped, and taking over the House. I don't see the same rosy picture. There were many "firsts" elected, first Indigenous People elected to Congress, first Muslim women elected to Congress, trans people, black women, many other women. Most of these new congresspeople, and certainly the ones who are more Liberal, are from reliably safe Democratic districts. The districts that Democrats flipped were largely with more moderate candidates. Of the governorships that were flipped, the only one that would appear surprising for a Democrat to have won is Kansas. And again, the Democrats were expected to have flipped the House and they did so relatively meekly given the festering fervor of the resistance. In this election we saw both an increase in partisanship and a lack of resolution to the internal debate within the party as to whether it should fully move towards Democratic Socialism or leave room for more moderate voices within the party.
There have been many articles pointing out that even though the Democrats lost seats in the Senate, they received roughly 10 or 11 million more votes for their Senate candidates, as if this should be some type of consolation or cause for optimism. As more than one recent presidential election has shown, winning the most votes isn't how a race is won. A candidate or party must find just enough votes in precisely the right places in order to win. Similarly, when the final count is in, the Democrats will have many millions more votes for their House candidates than the Republicans have for their candidates, yet the Democrats will only have a small lead in the House. These anti-democratic nuances in the US system are not there by accident. The Senate, originally appointed by state legislatures and only elected by the people after 1913, was specifically designed to ameliorate the puerile passions of the mob and over-represent states will small populations and under-represent states with large populations. A situation which will be exacerbated in the coming years by shifting demographics as more of the population moves to urban and suburban areas. Since Republicans tend to be the ones who live in rural areas and Democrats tend to live in urban and suburban areas, this means that, based on population, Republicans will be over-represented in the Senate and Electoral College, and Democrats underrepresented. The current make up of the House is largely due to the gerrymandering that took place after the 2010 census creating multitudes of safe districts on both sides, but giving an advantage to Republicans. An issue they are actively seeking to worsen by adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census.
Democrats have created something of a catch-22 for themselves in winning the House. On one hand, they won on the strength and determination of an invigorated, energized base who will demand results and, after Bernie Sanders, is increasingly less afraid to back far-left candidates over more moderate candidates based on "electability". On the other hand, in order to overcome the structural hurdles mentioned above they will have to appeal, in some way, to the middle of the country. The "middle" of the country meaning, the 30-40% who aren't adamant partisans and who don't avidly follow the daily political machinations. These people tend to be the ones swayed by the false equivalency argument of "both sides do it", which is an increasingly insidious form of voter suppression. Another factor which advantages Republicans, as lower voter turnout tends to favor Republican candidates. Wait a minute, didn't we just have the highest turnout in a midterm election in, like, forever?? Yes, we did, and it was still below 50%. Figure that.
Given the psychological, internal, and structural issues at hand. How can Democrats cobble together a viable, sustainable coalition that will deliver the White House and the Senate? In no particular order... First, they must avoid the appearance of having solely a political agenda with the investigations they intend to initiate in the House. No matter what they do, Ben Shapiro and Glenn Beck are going to vilify them. But that 40% in the middle isn't listening to Glenn Beck, they catch bits and pieces of news in passing. This might mean not investigating every single thing and focusing on the most egregious infractions. It also definitely means, unless Mueller has an explicit smoking gun in his report, there can be no impeachment. With the expanded Senate majority it will not go anywhere and will only foment the partisan divide and turn away those in the middle.
Second, Democrats need to have specific, viable policy proposals ready to go. Start passing them in the House right away, let the Republican Senate kill them, but also let the public see what you want to do. When Republicans controlled Congress during the Obama presidency they passed dozens of repeals of Obamacare, but then when they got the majority they needed to pass the thing they couldn't get their crap together to agree on how they wanted to do it. Democrats need to learn from this mistake.
Third, don't have 25 candidates for president. This will inflame the internal divisions within the party, which will also drive away casual observers.
Fourth, stop taking the bait, or as Michelle Obama said, "When they go low, we go high". To which I'd add the addendum: Just go high all the time. Appeal to the highest ideals of the founding documents and aspirations for serving the country through politics.
Fifth, run a semi-moderate candidate for president. A prominent liberal firebrand like Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris is going to be too polarizing, both within the party and among the general electorate. To me, it needs to be someone who appears authentic and can appeal both across the Democratic Party and to a broad section of those in the middle. Who is that?
(no subject)
Date: 13/11/18 22:02 (UTC)If the economy is great? Oprah - that may be it. Meets all your criteria, plus - she's a black woman - meaning the inevitable charges of racist and sexist will stick, much more than they would with a Joe or Beto.
Hillary, at 66 to 1, is a bargain right now. The democrats won't be excited about it - but with no other good options, she could absolutely be a reluctant pick (like Romney for the GOP in 2012).
An unknown candidate from the rust belt would be the safest strategy. Madeline Dean is from Pennsylvania, and I don't know who the hell she is - so she checks both boxes - keep her in mind.
(no subject)
Date: 14/11/18 08:56 (UTC)Many would now argue that almost any Dem would be able to wipe Trump out come 2020, the midterms being used as proof of that.
And these are not just some extrapolations and wishful thinking. I'm looking at the metrics. HRC was a big time flawed candidate, the only person with lower negatives was Trump. A lot of the big cities did not show up for HRC. Detroit was down by 35k votes alone and Trump only won MI by 10k. it was like that in Philly and a lot of other big cities. in the midwest those states went to trump only do to voter apathy on Dem side. These last midterms demonstrated that is no longer the case. this was the highest voter turnout since 1914. Voters are chomping at the bit to vote against Trump. trump was on the ballot like he said and he was booted last week.
(no subject)
Date: 14/11/18 13:46 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/11/18 07:32 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/11/18 12:10 (UTC)The second point is the most important however. Democrats need to do better with white voters, they were 74% of voters in the 2016 election after all. There's plenty of liberal policies that can achieve this without being racist. Worker retraining, drug treatment programs for those suffering from opiate addiction, and immigration that people won't see as threatening their jobs would be some good ways to go about this. Be a bit protectionist, not stupidly like Mr. Trump, but at least make noise about taking a harder line with China.
Also, talk more about inequality. No need to be divisive, say you're happy a lot of people have done well but that we need to do better for those who haven't. Assure those at the top that they will continue to do better than their parents, ask them for a bit more in taxes, and thank them for it on behalf of those you plan to help. After all, the top quintile pay about 25% of their income in taxes, the top 1% about 30%. These aren't oppressive rates or anything, but saying thanks rather than scolding someone for not paying their fair share seems like a good way to go about it when asking for more.
(no subject)
Date: 14/11/18 12:40 (UTC)