Vox: The overall message of 2017 special elections is Republicans are in trouble

[Virginiá]

The overall message of 2017 special elections is that Republicans are in trouble

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/21/15846464/republicans-are-in-trouble

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Finally:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You can define 'trouble' however you want, though. Trouble could mean losing the House, or barely holding it and maybe losing it in 2020, or it could mean holding the House but losing bigly in Governors races/etc.

But the point is that Republicans significantly lost ground to Democrats in districts with all kinds of demographic profiles, showing that Democrats have already proven they can make up lost ground with working class whites while also keeping their newfound gains with white college graduates. While everyone is bickering about losing special elections in deeply Republican districts, not appreciating the massive swings to Democrats would be absurd. We have had a number of special elections in legislative and Congressional seats so far, and it is enough to say that Republicans are likely facing a pretty bad midterm - that is, unless things get significantly better for Trump and Republicans, which isn't likely so long as Mueller is there.

Let's also keep something else in mind - it's not all about Congress. It's also about state legislative and gubernatorial races, both of which Republicans are overextended in. State politicians can sometimes avoid the heat of their national party, but not completely.

Anyway, good article. Worth a read.

[RINO Tom]

For my part, I have never predicted that the GOP will be just fine during midterms under Trump.  I have, however, maintained that the GOP has a VERY high floor among wealthy, college-educated White voters, and those will be harder areas to incorporate into a longterm Democratic coalition, even if a chunk of them were scared off by Trump.  I stand by that.

[publicunofficial]

It's not really surprising that Vox would publish something like this.

Vox exists to tell establishment liberals that everything is fine.

[Virginiá]

Did you guys actually read the article? It did criticize Democratic leadership for their assumptions and strategy. What it doesn't do is cast aside the massive swings in all the special elections and numerous legislative elections, as if it means nothing, because it does. It also stated that Republicans still have a substantial advantage in holding the House.

Seriously, I'm just curious - how exactly is Ossoff performing 3-4 points better and winning make such a substantial difference in the importance of the numbers long-term? If that was the case, I guarantee we'd see a whole less bickering, yet in reality the numbers suggest it shouldn't even matter.

[_]

>WE'RE GOING TO WIN THESE SPECIALS AND STOP DRUMPF
>Lose all of them
>W-We are fine, w-we can run purely against Trump and have no platform and win the House.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Seriously, I'm just curious - how exactly is Ossoff performing 3-4 points better and winning make such a substantial difference in the importance of the numbers long-term? If that was the case, I guarantee we'd see a whole less bickering, yet in reality the numbers suggest it shouldn't even matter.

It matters in the minds of everyday people who don't have the time or inkling to figure out that these races suggest a trend towards the Democrats and instead just hear about how every special election thus far has been won by the Republicans. That will likely have some kind of negative ramifications in regards to the energy and movement of the Democratic Party in the short run.

[Associate Justice PiT]

It's not really surprising that Vox would publish something like this.

EDIT: To clarify, arguing about this is a complete waste of time. Democrats will see the results of these special elections as proof that 2018 will be a very good year for them or even a wave, while most Republicans won't. We won't know who is right until the election actually happens.

     This about sums it up. I am content to wait until November 2018 to see what actually happens; folks until then are just going to go back and forth insisting that this or that will happen, with this or that typically being what is politically convenient to the speaker.

[Virginiá]

The two things I'm worried the Ossoff loss might affect is (1) fundraising from small donors - not a substantial depression, but maybe a little, and (2) Potential retirements from various House Republicans. It was suggested that the more Republicans thought they were in trouble, the more likely it would have been that some in competitive districts would not run again.

The thing is, I know (2) matters, but (1) more and more seems less important. I mean I know money matters, but if the voters are pissed off at your party, you aren't likely to change their minds with ads and mailers.

[Skye]

Maybe. It mostly depends on Trump's numbers for the 2018 election. Let's remember that one of the reasons Democrats are overperforming in these elections is because Trump's approvals are underwater.

[Yank2133]

>WE'RE GOING TO WIN THESE SPECIALS AND STOP DRUMPF
>Lose all of them
>W-We are fine, w-we can run purely against Trump and have no platform and win the House.

Worked for the Republicans in 2010.

It hilarious how people forget how mid-term elections work in this country. If Trump is underwater, the GOP will suffer.

R's can act like D's in 2010 and keep ignoring the warning signs, but we have seen this song and dance before.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

But NEOLIBERALS!!!

[GlobeSoc]

But NEOLIBERALS!!!

I don't like complaining about new democrat types. In an ideal world, I would absolutely support them where they were a good fit, but this is not an ideal world.

Right now the economy is structured in a garbage way. Wealth inequality is high, college tuition and healthcare costs skyrocketing. We're in a time when the working class regardless of race is getting pummeled.

Responding to these conditions, a right-populist movement emerged among the more conservative parts of the working class. Rather than countering with bold solutions, they said "this is fine" and targeted the conservative suburb, in many cases the very people who support a status-quo that is choking the worker. Yes, there is an opening in these places, but it means becoming a fundamentally different party from the one that supports unions and strong government programs to fill it. I get that those suburbs have a certain cosmopolitanism that makes them attractive to target, but that's the only thing in common with them and the democratic party.

In my view, the corporate leeching on America is a massive and urgent crisis that needs to be addressed. At every level, in every industry, there is some middleman monopolizing, ripping someone off, or bribing government officials. It's an nearly inexorable march to a new serfdom where all your secrets are sold to the highest bidder and taking on the slightest bit of debt means paying 1000% interest and being harassed 24/7.

If the New Democrats had their way, we might slap a bandaid onto one or two issues while otherwise plugging their ears and ignoring the rot. They are not addressing the main issue. In those few cases where they do apply the bandaid, the incrementalist approach sees and will see the result torn down by a republican party that screams "socialism" one two or three elections later because they ignored the bold, and more importantly popular policy that could have been put into place.

Every New Democrat type that wins a primary is one step closer to the dems being a party that ignores the crisis completely. Because I'm pragmatic, I'd vote for them over a republican every time but that's because the R would accelerate it.

[Technocracy Timmy]

If the New Democrats had their way, we might slap a bandaid onto one or two issues while otherwise plugging their ears and ignoring the rot. They are not addressing the main issue. In those few cases where they do apply the bandaid, the incrementalist approach sees and will see the result torn down by a republican party that screams "socialism" one two or three elections later because they ignored the bold, and more importantly popular policy that could have been put into place.

2008-2016 in a nutshell basically.

1. Financial crisis ensues.
2. Beg Mr. Bernanke to fix it.
3. Congress bails out the banks and auto industry after Bernanke had exhausted everything in his toolbox at the Fed.
4. Call it a day and keep most of the pre-2008 system chugging along.
5. Disgruntled working people turn to a populist demagogue in Trump. Brexit. The rise in political power of populist Parties all across the OECD, etc.

[Mr. Smith]

>WE'RE GOING TO WIN THESE SPECIALS AND STOP DRUMPF
>Lose all of them
>W-We are fine, w-we can run purely against Trump and have no platform and win the House.

Worked for the Republicans in 2010.

It hilarious how people forget how mid-term elections work in this country. If Trump is underwater, the GOP will suffer.

R's can act like D's in 2010 and keep ignoring the warning signs, but we have seen this song and dance before.

The Republicans are also better at getting lockstep responses at every turn, and they had tax cuts as an agenda. So no, it wasn't just Obama rage.

You can't use pure rage until the sixth year-itch happens and nothing changes.

There needs to be some kind of mechanism to clobber with, otherwise you get what 2012 was for the GOP.

[Sumner 1868]

Let's remember that Drumpf only 45 percent of the popular vote. Dubya in 2004, by contrast, fell just a bit short of 51 percent. Drumpf's approval ratings generally are in the high thirties, which is about where Dubya's were by 2006, but the decline in support was actual steeper and explains the swing that year. Also note that in the 2006 the Democratic Party had a majority favorability rating while the GOP's was low, whereas it's at forty percent now and about even with the GOP when last month. With a more modest decline of the Republican president's popularity and public equalization of the parties, Democratic gains will be modest and I strongly doubt they take back the House in 2018.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Let's remember that Drumpf only 45 percent of the popular vote. Dubya in 2004, by contrast, fell just a bit short of 51 percent. Drumpf's approval ratings generally are in the high thirties, which is about where Dubya's were by 2006, but the decline in support was actual steeper and explains the swing that year. Also note that in the 2006 the Democratic Party had a majority favorability rating while the GOP's was low, whereas it's at forty percent now and about even with the GOP when last month. With a more modest decline of the Republican president's popularity and public equalization of the parties, Democratic gains will be modest and I strongly doubt they take back the House in 2018.

The problem with your point is you are comparing the dems right at the midterm vs the dems now only 6 months after the election. I wouldn't doubt the dems were not polling well in 05 after the Kerry loss

[UncleSam]

Are people forgetting that. Rep publicans won the house in 2010 literally with the platform of repealing and replacing ObamaCare? I mean come on the Democrats are going to need SOMETHING

It could be re entering the Paris accords. It could be expanding the social safety net. Hell it could even be tearing down whatever of Trumps wall has been built by 2018

But Democrats have to have a unified policy message or they are going to have a really hard time convincing Republican lea ers looking for any excuse to vote R not to do so again / actually turn out low propensity voters simtaneously.