Obama has decimated the Democratic Party

[BM]

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.

[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...

[100% pro-life no matter what]

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'm sorry to tell you that my school's College Republicans is twice as large as its College Democrats.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

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.

[Hydera]

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.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I'll note that the Republican Party/American Right in general has become more anxious about "voter fraud" in the wake of Obama's election (and reelection, for that matter). Republicans lost the presidential election both times even as they won a solid majority of the white vote - especially in the South.

My point is that Democrats have proven that they can win the Presidency without the help of a majority of white voters (including the vast majority of Southern white voters). Republicans are very aware of this, but they also understand who much of their voter base is these days, geographically and ideologically. They also know that many of the demographics they do poorly with are the least likely to turn out in midterm elections.

If you're a Republican strategist these days, it makes a lot of sense (in a deeply cynical way, granted -but still...) to milk the support of Southern whites, hard-core conservatives, white evangelicals, Tea Partiers, etc.  as much as possible. These are not only the voters who most strongly back the GOP these days, they are among the most reliable voters in general. That means midterm elections. That means local and state races. And for candidates and elected officials, that means proposing hard-right policies,  making "outlandish" public statements that endear those political figures to that same hard-right voter base (other demographics be damned...they don't vote as much anyway, and when they do vote, they vote Democratic)...you get the picture by now.

The other side of this, of course, is doing as much as possible (once in power) to depress turnout among those aforementioned Democratic-voting groups. Why? Because of the presidential election, in the short term. Which brings us full circle. Honestly, right-wing Republicans have a lot of political power at the present moment. They control the bulk of state legislatures, they have a lot of Governors, they have a strong majority in the U.S. House of Representatives and a less-strong (but still worrisome for Democrats) majority in the Senate, they control the U.S. Supreme Court....

The Presidency may still be out of reach for them in 2016. Or, it may not be. It's way, way too early to tell (Captain Obvious to the rescue! ).

tl; dr the GOP knows their voter base and who is outside that base, and so they have a pretty rational (for them, in their position...) strategy for winning elections and cementing their political power that proceeds from that understanding.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

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.

I'm not really a socially, but a hard core liberal, but I'm not a socialist like Bernie Sanders.

[hopper]

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.

MI, WI, OH, and PA aren't in the Deep South. I will give you that VA and NC are in the South but Deep South no? They are Mid-Atlantic Southern States. By the way, the Dems gerrymandered-lite Illinois just like the Republican gerrymandered-lite Michigan.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

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.

MI, WI, OH, and PA aren't in the Deep South. I will give you that VA and NC are in the South but Deep South no? They are Mid-Atlantic Southern States. By the way, the Dems gerrymandered-lite Illinois just like the Republican gerrymandered-lite Michigan.

TN could have easily been gerrymandered to 8-1 GOP (the 5th is D+5, completely surrounded by R+1X districts), but it was left at 7-2 (unless Cooper retires in a wave year, perhaps).

[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....

[Rockefeller GOP]

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.

Spoken like someone who lives in a sh*tty little bubble.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Wrong.  The Tea Party movement has decimated the Republican party.  Remember, Democrats had less than 20 governors during Clinton's last two years and Bush's first two.

[Figueira]

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.

Spoken like someone who lives in a sh*tty little bubble.

Honestly, everyone should be embarrassed to support pretty much any US political party, even if they begrudgingly vote for it occasionally. Especially the Republicans.

[ElectionsGuy]

Wrong.  The Tea Party movement has decimated the Republican party.  Remember, Democrats had less than 20 governors during Clinton's last two years and Bush's first two.

And they have less than 20 now...

[Skill and Chance]

I'll note that the Republican Party/American Right in general has become more anxious about "voter fraud" in the wake of Obama's election (and reelection, for that matter). Republicans lost the presidential election both times even as they won a solid majority of the white vote - especially in the South.

My point is that Democrats have proven that they can win the Presidency without the help of a majority of white voters (including the vast majority of Southern white voters). Republicans are very aware of this, but they also understand who much of their voter base is these days, geographically and ideologically. They also know that many of the demographics they do poorly with are the least likely to turn out in midterm elections.

If you're a Republican strategist these days, it makes a lot of sense (in a deeply cynical way, granted -but still...) to milk the support of Southern whites, hard-core conservatives, white evangelicals, Tea Partiers, etc.  as much as possible. These are not only the voters who most strongly back the GOP these days, they are among the most reliable voters in general. That means midterm elections. That means local and state races. And for candidates and elected officials, that means proposing hard-right policies,  making "outlandish" public statements that endear those political figures to that same hard-right voter base (other demographics be damned...they don't vote as much anyway, and when they do vote, they vote Democratic)...you get the picture by now.

The other side of this, of course, is doing as much as possible (once in power) to depress turnout among those aforementioned Democratic-voting groups. Why? Because of the presidential election, in the short term. Which brings us full circle. Honestly, right-wing Republicans have a lot of political power at the present moment. They control the bulk of state legislatures, they have a lot of Governors, they have a strong majority in the U.S. House of Representatives and a less-strong (but still worrisome for Democrats) majority in the Senate, they control the U.S. Supreme Court....

The Presidency may still be out of reach for them in 2016. Or, it may not be. It's way, way too early to tell (Captain Obvious to the rescue! ).

tl; dr the GOP knows their voter base and who is outside that base, and so they have a pretty rational (for them, in their position...) strategy for winning elections and cementing their political power that proceeds from that understanding.

The Democrats crowed about demographic change a decade or so too soon IMO.  Now Republicans have seen their best cards and will likely respond with severe immigration restrictions and mass deportations they next time they get the presidency back. 

I actually wouldn't worry too much about the Senate.  Obama won 26 states twice, so it's only barely skewed R and there is an underlying tendency for small states to be more open to statewide officials of the "wrong" party that doesn't seem to have faded yet.  The House will be very, very hard even with fair maps until coalitions shift (the best bets would be gaining with college white voters or boosting Hispanic turnout in the rural West).   

[Figueira]

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.

[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.

[Mr. Illini]

The article starts with a bang in saying that Obama has been the MOST disastrous for his party and then admitting that the Dems are in a similar spot now as the Pubs were in 2008 (which is quite a stretch regardless, but immediately calls into question why the article is claiming that Obama's impact on the party has been worse than Bush's was).

It's a BS claim in general, though. Democrats are still poised to win in 2016, which is an anomaly in terms of Presidential elections - the only times in recent decades that a party has been so likely to hold the executive branch after 8 years of power were in 2000 (following popular Clinton) and 1988 (following popular Reagan).

In terms of the legislative branch, Obama knows he is playing the long game, but gerrymandering is a large part of this as well. Dems have gotten disproportionately hammered in blue states that vote red state-level. The House is not an accurate reflection of the climate of the country.

As far as the Senate goes, many/most Presidents in recent decades have seen the other party take gains in the chambers. The Dems small disadvantage in the Senate as of present is not reflective of the "Worst President Ever"s impact on his party.

[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..

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

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.

[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...

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

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.

[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

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Wrong.  The Tea Party movement has decimated the Republican party.  Remember, Democrats had less than 20 governors during Clinton's last two years and Bush's first two.

And they have less than 20 now...

That's my point.  Having less that 20 governors is far from having your party "decimated."  And while the GOP may be nearing its House ceiling, it's still far from having a similar majority in the Senate (partially due to the Tea Party costing us winnable races in 2010 and 2012).  Our Senate majority isn't even as large as the one we had in 2005-06.

[Figueira]

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.