he Democrats have lost thousands of seats in the last decade. Corporate centrism is a failure. The Democrats need a new, progressive approach.
Nonsense. The loss of seats at the national level comes from policy overreach, an illness both parties suffer from. But on both levels, clearly the Dems, in their pursuit of identity politics, forgot that 70% of the electorate is white, and if that percentage gets the sense that all you care about are the minority identities, you’re electorally fucked.
The Republican Party has been organizationally brilliant and tactically ruthless. The Democrats need to match them, not continue with their usual, hapless milquetoastery.
Yea, that’s nonsense also. The GOP have done some things very right, but they were simply in the right place at the right time after the Dems screwed the pooch, strategy-wise.
And the claim that those 1042 seats reveal a flaw in the Democratic Party betrays a shallow understanding of history and politics. The decade in question started with Democrats at a historic and unsustainable high point; they then lost seats owing to common historical trends mostly out of their control;
That’s very true. Obama’s popularity with the minority identity groups (et al) incented a very high level of presidential year turnout during his terms in office. Oddly, the Dems expected those turnout levels to continue. Any decent statistician would tell you that that was unlikely, and that reversion to mean was more likely.
they failed to win them back owing to a flawed electoral system that has recently favored the Republicans.
Yea….nothing flawed about the system. It’s working as designed. The fact that one side doesn’t LIKE the way it’s designed does not mean it’s flawed; it’s amusing to note that both parties, from time to time, claim that it’s “flawed” when it doesn’t benefit them.
This is a failure of civic education, and presumably the Democratic Party and candidates bear some responsibility for failing to motivate these voters; but ultimately it’s the fault of the voters themselves.
The Great Recession was so deep and long-lasting in its effects that it first worked against the Republicans when they held the White House in 2008, and then worked against the Democrats when they held the White House in 2010.
Indirectly. Health care reform was either (a) unpopular on its own, and/or (b) the Dems became unpopular for focusing on it while at the same time we were in an employment crisis. Political lesson here: If unemployment is high, and the politicians decide to work on something other than jobs, prepare to get electorally screwed.
In the case of the Great Recession, there is strong reason to assign at least some of the blame to conservative economic policy (especially from George W. Bush, but also from Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan; the roots of the crisis were deep), both in its origin, and in the failed recovery.
Hmmmm. GWB was unique in that he was pretty much the only president who was NOT at fault. He tried to re-regulate the GSE’s that were deregulated (and allowed to underwrite shit loans) under Clinton; and pretty much every President who messed with housing, going back to FDR, is partially culpable. As you say, the roots go deep.
Had Barack Obama gotten the stimulus many Democratic economists and stakeholders were calling for, the recovery might have been larger and faster.
He never ASKED for the stimulus (3.7T) that those economists were calling for. He asked for just under 1T, and got it.
But the fact that Obama and his preferred policies weren’t to blame for the bad 2010 economic conditions does not matter. There are many voters who are swung by bad economic conditions, and they swung against Obama just has they had against the Republicans two years earlier.
Stated generally, that’s correct.
This allowed the GOP to gerrymander Congress and state legislatures and thus cement the majorities they had won mostly through an accident of timing.
I always like to point out here that everything the GOP knows about gerrrymandering they learned from watching the Democrats do it to them for the previous sixty years. But, why digress. :-)
And the strength of the GOP at the state level, along with continued control of the Supreme Court, has allowed the Republicans to engage in systematic voter suppression, particularly after the Supreme Court undid Voting Rights Act protections in its 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision.
I call bullshit. The SCOTUS has ruled that a well written Voter ID act does not impose an egregious obstacle to voting; photo ID is in fact a part of the worldwide standards for democratic voting as defined by the United Nations. And Shelby County v Holder simply pulled back on SOME of the Court oversight on districting.
Besides, any alleged “suppression” measure that affects lower income voters will by definition affect more white voters than minority, simply because most poor people are white. (Nobody seems to remember than when these issues come up. Odd, that.)
Finally, starting with the Tea Party and continuing through Trump, the Republican Party has benefitted from a massive cultural and racial backlash to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and various changes in our society.
Piffle. The Democrats did it to themselves. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve posted this, on various boards:
“Excuse me. I have been opposed to large government top-down policies for fifty years. I was opposed to them when they were proposed by white presidents, and I am still opposed to them now that they’re proposed by a black president. That doesn’t make me a racist.”
Same goes for other Republicans.