Obama has decimated the Democratic Party

[madelka]

Politico article

So much for the ''Obama coalition''.

[Hydera]

He decimated it amongst White-working class. If he just drop the gun control and forcing legalization of illegal immigrants by executive order. The democrats support amongst them would not of dropped so low.

[Jacobtm]

He decimated it amongst White-working class. If he just drop the gun control and forcing legalization of illegal immigrants by executive order. The democrats support amongst them would not of dropped so low.

Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

I honestly Obama doesn't care all that much about the fate of the Democratic party after he's gone. He's relied far more on the insurgent left than on the old hands and state machines.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Democrats in general have decimated their party by neglecting local and state races for so long. Those elections are the building blocks of congressional majorities. But few on the Democratic side seem to care about what happens locally, or if they do, they fail to connect it to political action that translates into more Democrats being elected into office at all levels of government.

The GOP has been at this for decades now. Democrats would do well to focus less on the presidential race - or even national politics in general, for that matter - and more on what is happening in their own communities. No progressive social change ever originated in the White House.

[smoltchanov]

Democrats in general have decimated their party by neglecting local and state races for so long. Those elections are the building blocks of congressional majorities. But few on the Democratic side seem to care about what happens locally, or if they do, they fail to connect it to political action that translates into more Democrats being elected into office at all levels of government.

The GOP has been at this for decades now. Democrats would do well to focus less on the presidential race - or even national politics in general, for that matter - and more on what is happening in their own communities. No progressive social change ever originated in the White House.

Agree. Now presidency is "the last straw" for many Democrats. That must be held at any price simply to prevent Republican trifecta. I read Daily Kos Elections daily (and this is relatively reasonable part of Daily Kos, which is not too infested with lunatic mainpagers), and even they talk mostly about Presidency. They know that Democrats have no chances for majority in House, that most of Republican state legislatures, which Republicans won in 2010 and 2014, will remain Republican, that even (and that's not especially likely) if they win Senate in 2016 - the bloodbath is waiting in 2018, that they, most likely, will make gains, but only modest gains, in governor elections, most of which are in 2018, so - keeping the Presidency is their only chance.

Democrats can't substantially improve their support from minorities in the near future (it's already sky high),  and (with their presidential candidate, most likely, being white for the next elections), may even lose some percentages there. On the other hand - they already lost a lot of white vote (yes, first of all - blue collar, ethnic, and, generally, relatively social moderate or conservative), which are not likely to return. Strategically, Democrats may be correct: 30 years from now demographic changes wil make it possible to win with minimal support from whites, but that will be 30 years from now. In the meantime - Republicans have very good chances to govern on most levels.. AFTER that years present day republican strategy (ultraconservative both on economics and social issues) will, most likely, become suicidal, but that will be after....

P.S. I don't even talk about overconcentration of Democratic votes in House elections: what for do you need 85+% districts at all??? 65% would do the trick equally well and would help you to win other districts....

[muon2]

One thing unsaid in the article is the part of the core Dem appeal. It has shifted over the last 50 years from a labor-based appeal to an urban-based appeal. That contributes to the over-concentration problem since their historical labor votes could be found in every area, but small towns and rural areas aren't going to have a lot of pro-urban voters.

Interestingly the IL Dems have maintained a more labor-oriented message and still hold many local offices downstate, even though the Congressional seats go Pub. That has meant a lot of political work to balance competing interests between Chicago and the rest of the state, but that balance has paid off with continued supermajorities in the legislature despite the 2014 results nationwide.

[Mehmentum]

Remember in 2008 when everyone was saying that the Republicans were doomed?  They were saying it again after 2012.  After 2004 and 2010, everyone was saying that the Democrats were in deep trouble. Notice a pattern? Every time there's a wave election, people say the loosing party is doomed.

Calm down.

Yes, the Democrats do have problems at the state and local levels (and during midterm elections), but the defeatism I've been hearing for the past year is ridiculous.

 

[RFayette]

Democrats can rely on coattails in Presidential years, and they seem to now feel that governing by executive order is what to do when you have an opposing Congress, so I think the Democratic Party, at least at the national level, is OK with the situation as it is. 

[Hydera]

One thing unsaid in the article is the part of the core Dem appeal. It has shifted over the last 50 years from a labor-based appeal to an urban-based appeal. That contributes to the over-concentration problem since their historical labor votes could be found in every area, but small towns and rural areas aren't going to have a lot of pro-urban voters.

Interestingly the IL Dems have maintained a more labor-oriented message and still hold many local offices downstate, even though the Congressional seats go Pub. That has meant a lot of political work to balance competing interests between Chicago and the rest of the state, but that balance has paid off with continued supermajorities in the legislature despite the 2014 results nationwide.

The Illinois senate and assembly is heavily gerrymandered in favor of Democrats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2014

Despite a 1% margin for the GOP. The dems got 60% of seats.

[SWE]

One thing unsaid in the article is the part of the core Dem appeal. It has shifted over the last 50 years from a labor-based appeal to an urban-based appeal. That contributes to the over-concentration problem since their historical labor votes could be found in every area, but small towns and rural areas aren't going to have a lot of pro-urban voters.

Interestingly the IL Dems have maintained a more labor-oriented message and still hold many local offices downstate, even though the Congressional seats go Pub. That has meant a lot of political work to balance competing interests between Chicago and the rest of the state, but that balance has paid off with continued supermajorities in the legislature despite the 2014 results nationwide.

The Illinois senate and assembly is heavily gerrymandered in favor of Democrats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2014

Despite a 1% margin for the GOP. The dems got 60% of seats.

I'm sure this is all news to muon

[muon2]

One thing unsaid in the article is the part of the core Dem appeal. It has shifted over the last 50 years from a labor-based appeal to an urban-based appeal. That contributes to the over-concentration problem since their historical labor votes could be found in every area, but small towns and rural areas aren't going to have a lot of pro-urban voters.

Interestingly the IL Dems have maintained a more labor-oriented message and still hold many local offices downstate, even though the Congressional seats go Pub. That has meant a lot of political work to balance competing interests between Chicago and the rest of the state, but that balance has paid off with continued supermajorities in the legislature despite the 2014 results nationwide.

The Illinois senate and assembly is heavily gerrymandered in favor of Democrats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2014

Despite a 1% margin for the GOP. The dems got 60% of seats.

The Dems also hold a number of significantly Pub seats in downstate IL. Gerrymandering helps, but so does a message that keeps voters Dem in these more local contests.

[Republican Michigander]

I wouldn't go that far. I'd put this in the same camp as all the talk about permanent democrat majorities or permanent republican majorities that get talked about in 2008 or 2004.

The dems got their bench destroyed in 2010 and 2014. The GOP got their bench last destroyed in 2006 and 2008. The bench-whacking of 2006/2008 helped the dems survive in 2012 since the up and comers didn't have experience yet.

Both parties have major issues. Dems have a problem with white voters that don't live in academia havens. Republicans have a problem with minority voters.

Until either party solves the identity politics issues and adapts, we'll have a stalemate back and forth for a long time. 

[smoltchanov]

I wouldn't go that far. I'd put this in the same camp as all the talk about permanent democrat majorities or permanent republican majorities that get talked about in 2008 or 2004.

The dems got their bench destroyed in 2010 and 2014. The GOP got their bench last destroyed in 2006 and 2008. The bench-whacking of 2006/2008 helped the dems survive in 2012 since the up and comers didn't have experience yet.

Both parties have major issues. Dems have a problem with white voters that don't live in academia havens. Republicans have a problem with minority voters.

Until either party solves the identity politics issues and adapts, we'll have a stalemate back and forth for a long time. 

Almost completely agree. If by stalemate you understand some Democratic advantage on Presidential level, almost balance (some Republican advantage) on Senate level, and tangible Republican advantage - on Governor, House and state legislative level - then agree completely. I think we all keep in mind that most Governor races and maximum number of state legislative's are held in midterms)))

[pikachu]

It'd be interesting to see what would happen if the GOP controls everything going into 2018 and what effect that has on statehouses. I think that we might be overstating the Dems structural issues because of the effect of a polarizing Democratic president. (And considering the ridiculousness of the GOP base today, can you expect them not to be disappointed by a GOP president, and Democrats not to hate him?)

[Horus]

It may take some time to recover, but I think Obama has removed the cancerous and vile portions of the Democratic party so that, over the next 20 years they can become a much stronger and truly progressive institution.

[/]

Nooo.......

[Maxwell]

Obama has played the long game in terms of the Democratic Party, which means mid-terms have been very very painful.

[Bojack Horseman]

I can't help but wonder if you replace Hillary Clinton with Barack Obama if we'd be in the same situation as we are today. Most of the 63 seats we lost in 2010 were Southern blue dog Democrats. Why? The Democratic Party had committed the unforgivable sin of putting a black man in the White House.

[Maxwell]

I can't help but wonder if you replace Hillary Clinton with Barack Obama if we'd be in the same situation as we are today. Most of the 63 seats we lost in 2010 were Southern blue dog Democrats. Why? The Democratic Party had committed the unforgivable sin of putting a black man in the White House.

Bill lost just about as many seats in 1994, so I don't see why not.

[hopper]

I can't help but wonder if you replace Hillary Clinton with Barack Obama if we'd be in the same situation as we are today. Most of the 63 seats we lost in 2010 were Southern blue dog Democrats. Why? The Democratic Party had committed the unforgivable sin of putting a black man in the White House.

Bill lost just about as many seats in 1994, so I don't see why not.

Bill lost 52 US House Seats just for the record.

[hopper]

I can't help but wonder if you replace Hillary Clinton with Barack Obama if we'd be in the same situation as we are today. Most of the 63 seats we lost in 2010 were Southern blue dog Democrats. Why? The Democratic Party had committed the unforgivable sin of putting a black man in the White House.

Hillary is not as charismatic as Obama and doesn't have the political skills of her husband.

What killed the Dems in 2010 was ObamaCare that had approvals in the 30's or low 40's at best. Obama's approval rating was below 50%(at 46-47%) on Election Day 2010.

[Bojack Horseman]

I can't help but wonder if you replace Hillary Clinton with Barack Obama if we'd be in the same situation as we are today. Most of the 63 seats we lost in 2010 were Southern blue dog Democrats. Why? The Democratic Party had committed the unforgivable sin of putting a black man in the White House.

Bill lost just about as many seats in 1994, so I don't see why not.

The thing is, the South was still somewhat winnable for the Democrats after 1994, right up until 2010. It was when we elected Obama that Alabama, Mississippi, and most notably Arkansas turned completely red overnight, mostly because of the GOP's mass hysteria that the n****r in the White House hates America and the only way America won't disappear off the face of the earth is by voting Republican.

[hopper]

I can't help but wonder if you replace Hillary Clinton with Barack Obama if we'd be in the same situation as we are today. Most of the 63 seats we lost in 2010 were Southern blue dog Democrats. Why? The Democratic Party had committed the unforgivable sin of putting a black man in the White House.

Bill lost just about as many seats in 1994, so I don't see why not.

The thing is, the South was still somewhat winnable for the Democrats after 1994, right up until 2010. It was when we elected Obama that Alabama, Mississippi, and most notably Arkansas turned completely red overnight, mostly because of the GOP's mass hysteria that the n****r in the White House hates America and the only way America won't disappear off the face of the earth is by voting Republican.

Actually no, Mississippi has a PVI(Partisin Voter Index) in Presidential Elections has ranged from R+8 to R+10 from 1988/1992-2008/2012.

Arkansas-It has been trending Republican for awhile during the 2000's.


Alabama-Had an R PVI of R+7 in 1988/1992 and has an R PVI of R+14 in 2008/2012.

[smoltchanov]

It may take some time to recover, but I think Obama has removed the cancerous and vile portions of the Democratic party so that, over the next 20 years they can become a much stronger and truly progressive institution.

20? No. 30? May be, but even then not guaranteed...