Obama has decimated the Democratic Party

[smoltchanov]

Democrats in general have decimated their party by neglecting local and state races for so long. Those elections are the building blocks of congressional majorities. But few on the Democratic side seem to care about what happens locally, or if they do, they fail to connect it to political action that translates into more Democrats being elected into office at all levels of government.

The GOP has been at this for decades now. Democrats would do well to focus less on the presidential race - or even national politics in general, for that matter - and more on what is happening in their own communities. No progressive social change ever originated in the White House.

Agree. Now presidency is "the last straw" for many Democrats. That must be held at any price simply to prevent Republican trifecta. I read Daily Kos Elections daily (and this is relatively reasonable part of Daily Kos, which is not too infested with lunatic mainpagers), and even they talk mostly about Presidency. They know that Democrats have no chances for majority in House, that most of Republican state legislatures, which Republicans won in 2010 and 2014, will remain Republican, that even (and that's not especially likely) if they win Senate in 2016 - the bloodbath is waiting in 2018, that they, most likely, will make gains, but only modest gains, in governor elections, most of which are in 2018, so - keeping the Presidency is their only chance.

Democrats can't substantially improve their support from minorities in the near future (it's already sky high),  and (with their presidential candidate, most likely, being white for the next elections), may even lose some percentages there. On the other hand - they already lost a lot of white vote (yes, first of all - blue collar, ethnic, and, generally, relatively social moderate or conservative), which are not likely to return. Strategically, Democrats may be correct: 30 years from now demographic changes wil make it possible to win with minimal support from whites, but that will be 30 years from now. In the meantime - Republicans have very good chances to govern on most levels.. AFTER that years present day republican strategy (ultraconservative both on economics and social issues) will, most likely, become suicidal, but that will be after....

P.S. I don't even talk about overconcentration of Democratic votes in House elections: what for do you need 85+% districts at all??? 65% would do the trick equally well and would help you to win other districts....

[smoltchanov]

I wouldn't go that far. I'd put this in the same camp as all the talk about permanent democrat majorities or permanent republican majorities that get talked about in 2008 or 2004.

The dems got their bench destroyed in 2010 and 2014. The GOP got their bench last destroyed in 2006 and 2008. The bench-whacking of 2006/2008 helped the dems survive in 2012 since the up and comers didn't have experience yet.

Both parties have major issues. Dems have a problem with white voters that don't live in academia havens. Republicans have a problem with minority voters.

Until either party solves the identity politics issues and adapts, we'll have a stalemate back and forth for a long time. 

Almost completely agree. If by stalemate you understand some Democratic advantage on Presidential level, almost balance (some Republican advantage) on Senate level, and tangible Republican advantage - on Governor, House and state legislative level - then agree completely. I think we all keep in mind that most Governor races and maximum number of state legislative's are held in midterms)))

[smoltchanov]

It may take some time to recover, but I think Obama has removed the cancerous and vile portions of the Democratic party so that, over the next 20 years they can become a much stronger and truly progressive institution.

20? No. 30? May be, but even then not guaranteed...

[smoltchanov]

Oh please, if the Democratic Party is decaying than the Republican Party is already fossilized.

There's only one party most reasonable people under 35 are embarrassed to say they support.

I am surely, reasonable (though i am over 35). And i don't know even one such party...

[smoltchanov]

The House is controlled by the R gerrymandering in the Deep South. Whereas at presidential level, and senate elections, dynamics are different, and Latino coalition is much more important in states like CO, NV & Pa where the senate map is a reflection of the presidential map, in 2016.

Term limits are up for GOP give in MI, FL, NV & NM; Dems are expected to win IL & MD in 2018, we will see the R gerrymandering in Deep South in House start to come to an end, by 2022.

I wish i could have a button to Ignore every S avatars.

S stands for "socialist"? Then - me too....

[smoltchanov]

The House is controlled by the R gerrymandering in the Deep South. Whereas at presidential level, and senate elections, dynamics are different, and Latino coalition is much more important in states like CO, NV & Pa where the senate map is a reflection of the presidential map, in 2016.

Term limits are up for GOP give in MI, FL, NV & NM; Dems are expected to win IL & MD in 2018, we will see the R gerrymandering in Deep South in House start to come to an end, by 2022.

I wish i could have a button to Ignore every S avatars.

S stands for "socialist"? Then - me too....

Thanks, I love you too.

Thanks a lot! And don't be too surprised: Russians, many of whom (including myself) has lived under real socialism,  either adore socialism (and even communism) or absolutely hate it. I belong to second group.

[smoltchanov]

^ What about "small reduction" in Democratic representation in Congress and in state legislatures (especially in the southern or border states like Arkansas, Tennessee, Alabama or West Virginia)? Not long ago Democrats had solid majorities in all of them, and now they are not simply in minority, but - in dire minority there. For example - almost all Democratic legislators in Alabama now represent black-majority districts, and, as a result, there is only 1 white Democrat in Alabama's state Senate and about 6 white Democrats in Alabama's state House. If tendency will continue for few more years - there will be none... If it's not a "loud rejection" - i don't know what is..

[smoltchanov]

Doesn't every president decimate his party down the ballot?

Okay...well some do worse than others. Fun fact: Eisenhower's well-regarded today, but he hurt Republicans down the ballot (mainly because of the '58 elections) worse than Dubya did.

Agree almost completely. But  FDR immediately comes to mind as a sort of counterexample...

[smoltchanov]

Doesn't every president decimate his party down the ballot?

Okay...well some do worse than others. Fun fact: Eisenhower's well-regarded today, but he hurt Republicans down the ballot (mainly because of the '58 elections) worse than Dubya did.

Agree almost completely. But  FDR immediately comes to mind as a sort of counterexample...

The Democrat's margins in Congress were narrowed significantly during his tenure, but that's largely because they were so big at one point they had nowhere to go but down. Remember, Republicans came within a hair of a House majority in 1942 and actually won the popular vote.

Democrats still had a healthy, if reduced, congressional majority at the end of Kennedy-Johnson, but their numbers in governorships were down significantly.

Yes, i know that. Still - situation was different from, say big Republican losses of 1958, 1974 and 2006 and Democratic of 1966, 1994, 2010 and 2014

[smoltchanov]

The House is controlled by the R gerrymandering in the Deep South. Whereas at presidential level, and senate elections, dynamics are different, and Latino coalition is much more important in states like CO, NV & Pa where the senate map is a reflection of the presidential map, in 2016.

Term limits are up for GOP give in MI, FL, NV & NM; Dems are expected to win IL & MD in 2018, we will see the R gerrymandering in Deep South in House start to come to an end, by 2022.

I wish i could have a button to Ignore every S avatars.

S stands for "socialist"? Then - me too....

Thanks, I love you too.

Thanks a lot! And don't be too surprised: Russians, many of whom (including myself) has lived under real socialism,  either adore socialism (and even communism) or absolutely hate it. I belong to second group.

I momentarily forgot that you were Russian when I posted that; I guess that makes it slightly more understandable. Still, I'm a democratic socialist (who is basically a social democrat in practice) so don't expect any Stalinist revolutions from me (or OC for that matter, although I have no idea what his ideology is).

Anyway, the Democratic Party has not been "decimated" and neither has the Republican Party. The two-party system is sadly still alive and well.

Thanks for understanding! I have nothing against reasonable social democracy when country can afford it (but only in that case: see Greece, which tried to be it when it lacked proper resources). And i agree that there is no strong third party in sight. In fact, all circumstances being equal i would prefer a multiparty system like in most of the Europe. What i frequently (and loudly) object - a present day situation, where 35-40% of American population, which calls (and frequently, is) itself a "moderate" doesn't have real political representation: in the past more conservative wing (not neccessary racist, simply more conservative) of Democratic party and more liberal wing of Republican blended together in informal coalition and gave these people a voice and representation, but - no more, on peak of political polarization. If this tendency will continue - soon both parties will stand so far apart, that "hole in the middle" will be almost intolerable.

And, yes, i understand the need (and base) for more progressive party then present day Democratic party too. And some people (especially from the South and Appalachia) will, probably, argue, for another party - socially conservative, but economically populist and "redistributive" - and they may also be correct. But FPTP system makes that VERY difficult.

[smoltchanov]

A century ago the Senate was effectively chosen by State legislatures and no better than those legislatures.  The Seventeenth Amendment made the Senate electable by the People of the States, thus ensuring that the Upper House was democratically elected. Now the State legislatures mostly have effective control of the content of the state delegations to the House of Representatives through control of the boundaries of districts.

The trick is to concede a few districts to the "wrong" Party and dilute the rest.  Republicans can thus ensure that small cities that might vote "wrong" are diluted in a rural hinterland that votes "right". If at the opportune time the State legislature goes one way it can entrench Congressional representatives of its choosing.

Even worse is that state legislatures get to chose the state level districts as well.  I.e. they can gerrymander themselves in place.  The only way Democrats have to break this cycle is to win Governorships.

States where the governor has veto power over redistricting, there are multiple districts to draw, and districts aren't drawn by commission:
2015: KY, LA
2016: MO, IN, WV, NH, UT, OR
2017: VA, NJ
2018: HI, NV, NM, CO, TX, OK, KS, NE, AR, IA, MN, IL, WI, TN, AL, GA, SC, OH, MI, PA, NY, MA, RI, ME

Color (not Atlas colors, sorry) is which party currently holds office, bolded states are what I think Democrats should focus on taking/holding.  

Well, let's analyze:

KY: One word - Appalachiana. Where Democrats generally tanked recently. State party is one of the best, but even for it  it may become very difficult soon

MO: Democrats have little base besides 2 big cities. Republicans can override any veto AFAIK.

IN: Governor only. And even then Republicans may have votes to override.

WV: Even more Appalachian then KY. Same problems.

NH: sure, no problems (Democrats have rather good chances to win Legislature in 2016 and 2020)

VA: Yes. State simply grows slightly more blue statewide and reasonable chances to get a majority in state Senate sooner or later.

NJ: Surely possible

NV: Depends on candidates. One popular candidate (like Sandoval) can drastically change chances.

NM: Absolutely

CO: Depends.. Very polarized state, where numbers in Legislature and Governor percentages will be close for foreseeable future.

IA: Doubt. State seems slowly moving R. Very slowly, but - .. Only better quality of Democratic candidates (lesser number of idiots) saves..

MN: Possible. But mostly because of idiocy of most Republican candidates.

IL: Yes, but... Southern Illinois may swing heavily Republican.

WI: See MN...

OH: Governorship. Don't see Democrats getting majority in Legislature.

MI: Possible. The problem - Democratic votes too concentrated in Detroit, Ann Arbor and few other areas, so - Republicans have more room to maneuver in Legislature. But Governorship - sure. Even more so because it's likely that next Republican candidate will be much less sane then Snyder.

PA: The same. Especially - with seemingly non-controversial Governor. But Western (Appalachian) PA is swinging R.

MA: Baker is very popular and likely to remain so. But Democrats can override his veto if necessary. So - yes.

ME - Yes. But winning governorship in 2018 is critically important.
 

[smoltchanov]

^ I mentioned exactly the states that were chosen by previous poster, and gave my estimates of Democratic perspectives there. But if you wish so much - i don't see anywhere a states trending D at such avalanche rate as, for example, Arkansas or West Virginia trended R in last years. In most of the "blueing" states the process is extremely slow (Arizona, North Carolina, Florida and so on) and caused not by popularity of party's platform, but by demographic changes. And that happens really slowly.