Democrats Autopsy Report from 1989
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 02:18:19 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Democrats Autopsy Report from 1989
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Democrats Autopsy Report from 1989  (Read 1145 times)
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,350


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 03, 2020, 03:00:12 AM »

It was not official but pretty interesting(and Bill Clinton pretty much followed it) : https://www.progressivepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Politics_of_Evasion.pdf
Logged
Orser67
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,947
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 03, 2020, 11:03:17 AM »

Interesting stuff.

Quote
Democrats have ignored their fundamental problems. Instead of facing reality they have embraced the politics of evasion...

This paper is an exploration of three pervasive themes in the politics of evasion. The first is the belief that Democrats have failed because they have strayed from the true and pure faith of their ancestors -- we call this the myth of Liberal Fundamentalism. The second is the belief that Democrats need not alter public perceptions of their party but can regain the presidency by getting current nonparticipants to vote -- we call this the Myth of Mobilization. The third is the belief that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the Democratic Party: there is no realignment going on, and the proof is that Democrats still control the majority of offices below the presidency. We call this the Myth of the Congressional Bastion.
Logged
Sumner 1868
tara gilesbie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,053
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 03, 2020, 08:57:17 PM »

This is a real riot:

Quote
One final element of the myth of mobilization is what we call "The California Dream." The thesis is
that rising strength in the West can counterbalance the collapse of Southern support for the party's
presidential candidates and that Democrats therefore don't have to work hard at regaining
competitiveness in the South.

This exercise in the politics of evasion fails the test of basic arithmetic. Non-Southern gains
cannot fully compensate for a Southern wipeout. If Dukakis had prevailed in all the Western states
where he had a chance, carried the heartland states he narrowly lost, and won all the Eastern states
within reach, he still would not have assembled enough electoral votes to win.

The underlying logic of the electoral college shows why. There are 155 electoral votes in the
Southern and border states, 41 in the Plains and Rocky Mountain states with impregnable
Republican majorities, and 23 more in reliably Republican states of the Midwest and Northeast. If
the South is conceded to the Republican presidential nominee, he begins with a base of 219 electoral
votes and needs only 51 more. Michigan, Ohio and New Jersey are enough to put him over the top --
and George Bush carried them handily, with margins of 8 to 14 points.

The electoral college arithmetic only gets worse in 1992. According to projections from
preliminary Census estimates, reapportionment will net the states in the Republican base 12
additional electoral votes for a total of 231. New Jersey and Ohio would be just about enough to
give Bush a victory even if he loses California and a host of other states he carried last time. If
Democrats are only competitive in states with 310 electoral votes, the odds against their nominee
attaining 270 are dauntingly high. The Republican nominee will start with two pairs while his
Democratic opponent would have to draw to an inside straight.21
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,350


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 03, 2020, 09:12:47 PM »

This is a real riot:

Quote
One final element of the myth of mobilization is what we call "The California Dream." The thesis is
that rising strength in the West can counterbalance the collapse of Southern support for the party's
presidential candidates and that Democrats therefore don't have to work hard at regaining
competitiveness in the South.

This exercise in the politics of evasion fails the test of basic arithmetic. Non-Southern gains
cannot fully compensate for a Southern wipeout. If Dukakis had prevailed in all the Western states
where he had a chance, carried the heartland states he narrowly lost, and won all the Eastern states
within reach, he still would not have assembled enough electoral votes to win.

The underlying logic of the electoral college shows why. There are 155 electoral votes in the
Southern and border states, 41 in the Plains and Rocky Mountain states with impregnable
Republican majorities, and 23 more in reliably Republican states of the Midwest and Northeast. If
the South is conceded to the Republican presidential nominee, he begins with a base of 219 electoral
votes and needs only 51 more. Michigan, Ohio and New Jersey are enough to put him over the top --
and George Bush carried them handily, with margins of 8 to 14 points.

The electoral college arithmetic only gets worse in 1992. According to projections from
preliminary Census estimates, reapportionment will net the states in the Republican base 12
additional electoral votes for a total of 231. New Jersey and Ohio would be just about enough to
give Bush a victory even if he loses California and a host of other states he carried last time. If
Democrats are only competitive in states with 310 electoral votes, the odds against their nominee
attaining 270 are dauntingly high. The Republican nominee will start with two pairs while his
Democratic opponent would have to draw to an inside straight.21


Well the democrats had to make inroads into the south for California to matter . 2000 and 2004 prove this
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,072
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 03, 2020, 09:47:50 PM »

This is a real riot:

Quote
One final element of the myth of mobilization is what we call "The California Dream." The thesis is
that rising strength in the West can counterbalance the collapse of Southern support for the party's
presidential candidates and that Democrats therefore don't have to work hard at regaining
competitiveness in the South.

This exercise in the politics of evasion fails the test of basic arithmetic. Non-Southern gains
cannot fully compensate for a Southern wipeout. If Dukakis had prevailed in all the Western states
where he had a chance, carried the heartland states he narrowly lost, and won all the Eastern states
within reach, he still would not have assembled enough electoral votes to win.

The underlying logic of the electoral college shows why. There are 155 electoral votes in the
Southern and border states, 41 in the Plains and Rocky Mountain states with impregnable
Republican majorities, and 23 more in reliably Republican states of the Midwest and Northeast. If
the South is conceded to the Republican presidential nominee, he begins with a base of 219 electoral
votes and needs only 51 more. Michigan, Ohio and New Jersey are enough to put him over the top --
and George Bush carried them handily, with margins of 8 to 14 points.

The electoral college arithmetic only gets worse in 1992. According to projections from
preliminary Census estimates, reapportionment will net the states in the Republican base 12
additional electoral votes for a total of 231. New Jersey and Ohio would be just about enough to
give Bush a victory even if he loses California and a host of other states he carried last time. If
Democrats are only competitive in states with 310 electoral votes, the odds against their nominee
attaining 270 are dauntingly high. The Republican nominee will start with two pairs while his
Democratic opponent would have to draw to an inside straight.21


Well the democrats had to make inroads into the south for California to matter . 2000 and 2004 prove this

Are you talking about 2000, the one where The South unilaterally went for Bush, and ultimately Gore could've won with just New Hampshire on top of the others?

And 2004, where the difference was literally and more clearly Ohio? Alternately, a few Western gains could've been the offset.


Oh and Obama won the Presidency twice without The South, while it's true that Virginia/Florida/NC flipped in the end, they weren't needed at all.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,350


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 03, 2020, 10:34:56 PM »

This is a real riot:

Quote
One final element of the myth of mobilization is what we call "The California Dream." The thesis is
that rising strength in the West can counterbalance the collapse of Southern support for the party's
presidential candidates and that Democrats therefore don't have to work hard at regaining
competitiveness in the South.

This exercise in the politics of evasion fails the test of basic arithmetic. Non-Southern gains
cannot fully compensate for a Southern wipeout. If Dukakis had prevailed in all the Western states
where he had a chance, carried the heartland states he narrowly lost, and won all the Eastern states
within reach, he still would not have assembled enough electoral votes to win.

The underlying logic of the electoral college shows why. There are 155 electoral votes in the
Southern and border states, 41 in the Plains and Rocky Mountain states with impregnable
Republican majorities, and 23 more in reliably Republican states of the Midwest and Northeast. If
the South is conceded to the Republican presidential nominee, he begins with a base of 219 electoral
votes and needs only 51 more. Michigan, Ohio and New Jersey are enough to put him over the top --
and George Bush carried them handily, with margins of 8 to 14 points.

The electoral college arithmetic only gets worse in 1992. According to projections from
preliminary Census estimates, reapportionment will net the states in the Republican base 12
additional electoral votes for a total of 231. New Jersey and Ohio would be just about enough to
give Bush a victory even if he loses California and a host of other states he carried last time. If
Democrats are only competitive in states with 310 electoral votes, the odds against their nominee
attaining 270 are dauntingly high. The Republican nominee will start with two pairs while his
Democratic opponent would have to draw to an inside straight.21


Well the democrats had to make inroads into the south for California to matter . 2000 and 2004 prove this

Are you talking about 2000, the one where The South unilaterally went for Bush, and ultimately Gore could've won with just New Hampshire on top of the others?

And 2004, where the difference was literally and more clearly Ohio? Alternately, a few Western gains could've been the offset.


Oh and Obama won the Presidency twice without The South, while it's true that Virginia/Florida/NC flipped in the end, they weren't needed at all.

If Gore picked Shaheen it’s very possible he loses NM and maybe IA so it’s not an easy trade off as it looks like


As for 2004 Bush did better in NV and CO than he did nationally . In that report it clearly states Ohio as a problem states democrats need to regain too .
Logged
Please delete this account. :)
1864
Rookie
**
Posts: 32
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 03, 2020, 11:37:13 PM »

Very interesting.
Logged
SInNYC
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,204


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 05, 2020, 02:34:47 PM »

Interesting stuff.

Quote
Democrats have ignored their fundamental problems. Instead of facing reality they have embraced the politics of evasion...

This paper is an exploration of three pervasive themes in the politics of evasion. The first is the belief that Democrats have failed because they have strayed from the true and pure faith of their ancestors -- we call this the myth of Liberal Fundamentalism. The second is the belief that Democrats need not alter public perceptions of their party but can regain the presidency by getting current nonparticipants to vote -- we call this the Myth of Mobilization. The third is the belief that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the Democratic Party: there is no realignment going on, and the proof is that Democrats still control the majority of offices below the presidency. We call this the Myth of the Congressional Bastion.

Interesting, considering that it was after the ascendancy of this sentiment that Democrats never again held the majority of offices below the presidency. Before 1994 Ds almost never had <250 seats; after 1994, they almost never had >215 seats, and the few times they did were after massive R screwups.

It doesnt get any  better for governors and senators, though the smaller sample size makes numbers less meaningful.
Logged
Battista Minola 1616
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,281
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -1.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 05, 2020, 02:45:09 PM »

Interesting stuff.

Quote
Democrats have ignored their fundamental problems. Instead of facing reality they have embraced the politics of evasion...

This paper is an exploration of three pervasive themes in the politics of evasion. The first is the belief that Democrats have failed because they have strayed from the true and pure faith of their ancestors -- we call this the myth of Liberal Fundamentalism. The second is the belief that Democrats need not alter public perceptions of their party but can regain the presidency by getting current nonparticipants to vote -- we call this the Myth of Mobilization. The third is the belief that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the Democratic Party: there is no realignment going on, and the proof is that Democrats still control the majority of offices below the presidency. We call this the Myth of the Congressional Bastion.

Interesting, considering that it was after the ascendancy of this sentiment that Democrats never again held the majority of offices below the presidency. Before 1994 Ds almost never had <250 seats; after 1994, they almost never had >215 seats, and the few times they did were after massive R screwups.

It doesnt get any  better for governors and senators, though the smaller sample size makes numbers less meaningful.


Well, downballot gains tend to correlate to presidential losses and vice versa, because of the midterm penalty effect (of course it is a very rough correlation, but still).
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,350


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 05, 2020, 03:00:52 PM »

Interesting stuff.

Quote
Democrats have ignored their fundamental problems. Instead of facing reality they have embraced the politics of evasion...

This paper is an exploration of three pervasive themes in the politics of evasion. The first is the belief that Democrats have failed because they have strayed from the true and pure faith of their ancestors -- we call this the myth of Liberal Fundamentalism. The second is the belief that Democrats need not alter public perceptions of their party but can regain the presidency by getting current nonparticipants to vote -- we call this the Myth of Mobilization. The third is the belief that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the Democratic Party: there is no realignment going on, and the proof is that Democrats still control the majority of offices below the presidency. We call this the Myth of the Congressional Bastion.

Interesting, considering that it was after the ascendancy of this sentiment that Democrats never again held the majority of offices below the presidency. Before 1994 Ds almost never had <250 seats; after 1994, they almost never had >215 seats, and the few times they did were after massive R screwups.

It doesnt get any  better for governors and senators, though the smaller sample size makes numbers less meaningful.


Many of the Democrats were literal DINO's though. If you just went based on ideological record Republicans had a defacto majority in the house from 1946-1958, in each of the first two years of Nixon's terms and from 1981-1987 as well.

Now it was overall still a liberal era with liberals having control for 40/62 years from 1932-1994 but that number is no where near as dominant as the nominal numbers showing the Democrats having control for 58/62 years
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,350


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 05, 2020, 03:02:33 PM »

Here's an interesting fact

Quote
Therefore, in a switch
from the traditional Republican position, Congressman Newt Gingrich, the Republican Whip,
supported a proposal that would make it much easier for Americans to register to vote. His position was based in part on data indicating that one of the largest groups of potential new voters -- young
people -- has turned increasingly Republican
Logged
Figueira
84285
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,175


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 05, 2020, 03:56:07 PM »

This is a real riot:

Quote
One final element of the myth of mobilization is what we call "The California Dream." The thesis is
that rising strength in the West can counterbalance the collapse of Southern support for the party's
presidential candidates and that Democrats therefore don't have to work hard at regaining
competitiveness in the South.

This exercise in the politics of evasion fails the test of basic arithmetic. Non-Southern gains
cannot fully compensate for a Southern wipeout. If Dukakis had prevailed in all the Western states
where he had a chance, carried the heartland states he narrowly lost, and won all the Eastern states
within reach, he still would not have assembled enough electoral votes to win.

The underlying logic of the electoral college shows why. There are 155 electoral votes in the
Southern and border states, 41 in the Plains and Rocky Mountain states with impregnable
Republican majorities, and 23 more in reliably Republican states of the Midwest and Northeast. If
the South is conceded to the Republican presidential nominee, he begins with a base of 219 electoral
votes and needs only 51 more. Michigan, Ohio and New Jersey are enough to put him over the top --
and George Bush carried them handily, with margins of 8 to 14 points.

The electoral college arithmetic only gets worse in 1992. According to projections from
preliminary Census estimates, reapportionment will net the states in the Republican base 12
additional electoral votes for a total of 231. New Jersey and Ohio would be just about enough to
give Bush a victory even if he loses California and a host of other states he carried last time. If
Democrats are only competitive in states with 310 electoral votes, the odds against their nominee
attaining 270 are dauntingly high. The Republican nominee will start with two pairs while his
Democratic opponent would have to draw to an inside straight.21

I made an illustration of this to see what states exactly they were talking about.

Yellow=the South (155 EVs in 1988)
Blue=Mountain/Plains states that are solidly R (41 EVs) (I assume Alaska was an oversight, unless they were counting South Dakota as a potential D state)
Green=Northeastern/Midwestern states that are solidly R (23 EVs)
Gray=Michigan/Ohio/New Jersey (59 EVs)
Red=everything else, conceded to Dems (260 EVs)



What they didn't realize is that a lot of the "solidly Republican states" outside the south were actually potential Democratic wins: Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Nevada. That said, this never ended up being relevant: Clinton won easily with the South (but would still have won if you subtract the South), Gore and especially Kerry could have won without the South, but fell short, and Obama basically won without the South, but he still won a few Southern states on the fringes of the region. At this point it's kind of obsolete: you don't have to be that moderate to win Virginia, so no Democrat nowadays has the goal of winning without Virginia for purity's sake. There's a bit of negativity in the Democratic base towards Florida, but I don't think that has anything to do with "Southern-ness".
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 07, 2020, 11:26:37 AM »

Interesting stuff.

Quote
Democrats have ignored their fundamental problems. Instead of facing reality they have embraced the politics of evasion...

This paper is an exploration of three pervasive themes in the politics of evasion. The first is the belief that Democrats have failed because they have strayed from the true and pure faith of their ancestors -- we call this the myth of Liberal Fundamentalism. The second is the belief that Democrats need not alter public perceptions of their party but can regain the presidency by getting current nonparticipants to vote -- we call this the Myth of Mobilization. The third is the belief that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the Democratic Party: there is no realignment going on, and the proof is that Democrats still control the majority of offices below the presidency. We call this the Myth of the Congressional Bastion.

Interesting, considering that it was after the ascendancy of this sentiment that Democrats never again held the majority of offices below the presidency. Before 1994 Ds almost never had <250 seats; after 1994, they almost never had >215 seats, and the few times they did were after massive R screwups.

It doesnt get any  better for governors and senators, though the smaller sample size makes numbers less meaningful.


Congressional lag of Presidential alignments, as well as the lag of down ballot races in the South where many older voters clung to the good ole boy network and thus remained as Democrats. This began to unravel in the 1990s because of Greatest Generation dying off and Boomers aging up to more reliable voting years. There was also the redistricting prior to 1992 and the greater concentration of black voters that it created, pulling the rug out from under many white Democrats in the South.
Logged
Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner
Jalawest2
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,481


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 12, 2020, 11:31:45 AM »

Rod Dreher makes a surprising appearance on Page 14
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.059 seconds with 12 queries.