Democrats Autopsy Report from 1989

[OSR stands with Israel]

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

[OSR stands with Israel]

This is a real riot:

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

[OSR stands with Israel]

This is a real riot:

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 .

[OSR stands with Israel]

Interesting stuff.

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

[OSR stands with Israel]

Here's an interesting fact

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