Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 24, 2014, 11:33:00 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  Congressional Elections (Moderator: Joe Republic)
| | |-+  Why couldnt the Democratic classes of 2006 and 2008..........
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Why couldnt the Democratic classes of 2006 and 2008..........  (Read 998 times)
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4963


View Profile
« on: October 19, 2011, 07:16:28 pm »
Ignore

use the advantages of incumbency to get reelected in 2010 the way the Democratic classes of 1974 and 1976 were able to survive the tough climates of 1978 and 1980?

Democrats lost 50 seats total in 1978 and 1980 and the strange thing about those losses were that in most cases, they were not members from the classes of 1974 and 1976.  They were mostly old timers who had lost touch with their districts like Al Ullman, Ed Beard, and Bob Eckhardt.  The classes of 1974 and 1976 mostly survived, even those in very Republican districts like Marty Russo, Floyd Fithian, and Tom Luken.

The question is, why couldnt people like Ron Klein, Baron Hill, John Hall, and Scott Murphy survive 2010 the way many past members in their situations survived 1978 and 1980 by using the advantages of incumbency?
« Last Edit: October 19, 2011, 07:21:25 pm by Mr.Phips »Logged
Comrade Sibboleth
Realpolitik
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 55490
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 19, 2011, 07:19:06 pm »
Ignore

Because that was then and this is now.
Logged



Richard Hoggart 1918-2014
Less-Progressivism, More Realism
Progressive Realist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5372
United States


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: October 19, 2011, 07:55:48 pm »
Ignore

Because of The Wave of Tea Partiers.

Logged

Ready 4 Reform.
Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon
htmldon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8847
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.03, S: -2.26

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: October 19, 2011, 08:00:40 pm »
Ignore

I think we are in an environment now where Congressional elections are more nationalized so it is harder for an individual incumbent to make the case that he is different from whatever people don't like about Congress.

I'm not sure how Democrats thought they could put up a liberal Speaker of the House from San Fransisco and a left-wing President from Chicago and expect that the rest of the country would just lie down and take it without a fight.
Logged
Username MechaRFK
RFK
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1275
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -5.16, S: -7.30

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: October 19, 2011, 08:15:09 pm »
Ignore

I think we are in an environment now where Congressional elections are more nationalized so it is harder for an individual incumbent to make the case that he is different from whatever people don't like about Congress.

I'm not sure how Democrats thought they could put up a liberal Speaker of the House from San Fransisco and a left-wing President from Chicago and expect that the rest of the country would just lie down and take it without a fight.


Obama is not anywhere as left wing as your making him ought to be.
Logged



 
redcommander
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3833
View Profile
« Reply #5 on: October 19, 2011, 08:29:04 pm »
Ignore

Obama's temperament didn't exactly appeal to the ancestrally Republican districts many of those Democrats held.
Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4963


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: October 19, 2011, 08:45:08 pm »
Ignore

Obama's temperament didn't exactly appeal to the ancestrally Republican districts many of those Democrats held.

Obama carried many of those districts. 
Logged
Talleyrand
TexasDemocrat
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2586
United States


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: October 19, 2011, 08:55:51 pm »
Ignore

Obama's temperament didn't exactly appeal to the ancestrally Republican districts many of those Democrats held.

Obama carried many of those districts. 
Ancestrally GOP does not necessarily mean it is a McCain district or GOP-leaning PVIwise. Some good examples are the districts formerly held by Patrick Murphy, Steve Driehaus and Ron Klein.
Logged
freepcrusher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2251
United States


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: October 19, 2011, 11:00:48 pm »
Ignore

the lesson of the 2010 districts is that you have to realize what districts you need to win to get a majority. In my opinion, I think the democrats in 06 and 08 should have withheld funding from incumbents in reactionary districts (think someone like Lincoln Davis) and made sure the can capture what I call the ancestrally republican "silk stocking districts" such as CA 50 or WA 8. At least in the silk stocking districts there is a brighter future as opposed to TN 4.
Logged

Miles
MilesC56
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13038
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.26, S: 6.26

View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: October 19, 2011, 11:20:59 pm »
Ignore

the lesson of the 2010 districts is that you have to realize what districts you need to win to get a majority. In my opinion, I think the democrats in 06 and 08 should have withheld funding from incumbents in reactionary districts (think someone like Lincoln Davis) and made sure the can capture what I call the ancestrally republican "silk stocking districts" such as CA 50 or WA 8. At least in the silk stocking districts there is a brighter future as opposed to TN 4.

Davis was one of my favorites...sigh. In his defense, most polls showed the outcome of his race would be closer than it actually was, so I can see why the DSCC spent money there. But I agree with you that districts like TN-04, OK-02, AR-04, etc. is moving aggressively towards the GOP.

I do think most of the House races last year were intensely nationalized. Republicans like Steve Palazzo and Vicki Hartzler were running against Nancy Pelosi, not Gene Taylor or Ike Skelton.
Logged

Paul Kemp
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5367
United States
View Profile
« Reply #10 on: October 20, 2011, 08:17:39 am »
Ignore

I think we are in an environment now where Congressional elections are more nationalized so it is harder for an individual incumbent to make the case that he is different from whatever people don't like about Congress.

I'm not sure how Democrats thought they could put up a liberal Speaker of the House from San Fransisco and a left-wing President from Chicago and expect that the rest of the country would just lie down and take it without a fight.


Obama is not anywhere as left wing as your making him ought to be.

Don's just reading the talking points he's handed.
Logged

Abdul the Damned
Kalwejt
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 37898
Turkey
View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: October 20, 2011, 08:58:00 am »
Ignore

use the advantages of incumbency to get reelected in 2010 the way the Democratic classes of 1974 and 1976 were able to survive the tough climates of 1978 and 1980?

Defeated Democratic Senators from 1974 class:

John Durkin (New Hampshire)
John Culver (Iowa)
Richard B. Stone (Florida)
Robert Morgan (North Carolina)

What a great survivors Tongue
Logged

Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15636


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: October 20, 2011, 12:17:03 pm »
Ignore

And to think that as recently as five years ago politicos were agonizing over the stultifying effects of incumbency advantage.
Logged

Brian Schweitzer '16
Comrade Sibboleth
Realpolitik
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 55490
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: October 20, 2011, 12:20:35 pm »
Ignore

And to think that as recently as five years ago politicos were agonizing over the stultifying effects of incumbency advantage.

I suppose everyone misses the obvious, don't they? Especially at the time. The key point a few years back was that neither party was really trying outside a carefully selected list of marginals, which, with the benefit of hindsight and historical perspective, is the actual weird thing that needs explaining. Because it was never like that before the late 1990s.
Logged



Richard Hoggart 1918-2014
RodPresident
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 822
Brazil


Political Matrix
E: -7.23, S: -3.30

View Profile
« Reply #14 on: October 20, 2011, 07:33:24 pm »
Ignore

I think that Democrats failed to go very against GOP. If Obama tried to be a true anti-Bush (closing Guantanamo...), liberal turnout, that gave victories in 2006 and 2010, would be higher. I think that if Democrats acted better, I can see Strickland, Sink, Feingold, Giannoulias, Sestak and White winning their races. Democrats could try to turn election at a referendum about welfare state. Another thing is that democrats acted too as social-liberals, what was very toxic at conservative districts. They could have tried to compromise on some things like abortion, thing that is impossible under Pelosi's speakership.
Logged


Rest in Peace, my dear governor Deda.
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4963


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: October 20, 2011, 07:50:54 pm »
Ignore

use the advantages of incumbency to get reelected in 2010 the way the Democratic classes of 1974 and 1976 were able to survive the tough climates of 1978 and 1980?

Defeated Democratic Senators from 1974 class:

John Durkin (New Hampshire)
John Culver (Iowa)
Richard B. Stone (Florida)
Robert Morgan (North Carolina)

What a great survivors Tongue

I was talking more about the House classes. 
Logged
krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5677


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: October 21, 2011, 09:20:21 am »
Ignore

The Republican Senate class of 1994 suffered a bloodbath in 2000. 5 incumbents lost, the same as 2008 and just 1 less than 2006.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines