|
evilweasel posted:The article you linked is paywalled, but another article that has the same opener has this: Sure, what I actually said, repeatedly, is that Republicans don't need to carry the Latin vote, but peel a few points off to augment their strong and growing advantage amongst white voters. If it makes you feel better to imagine demographics are going to save the D party in 2016, 2020, or beyond, then you can continue to do so.
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 20:47 |
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:Sure, what I actually said, repeatedly, is that Republicans don't need to carry the Latin vote, but peel a few points off to augment their strong and growing advantage amongst white voters. If it makes you feel better to imagine demographics are going to save the D party in 2016, 2020, or beyond, then you can continue to do so. I don't think the Republicans have too much more margin available in being the party of white people. They've pretty much got everyone they're going to get based on racial identity alone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:Sure, what I actually said, repeatedly, is that Republicans don't need to carry the Latin vote, but peel a few points off to augment their strong and growing advantage amongst white voters. If it makes you feel better to imagine demographics are going to save the D party in 2016, 2020, or beyond, then you can continue to do so. Well, there's many problems with your post. The first is the most trivial - we can look at what you did post relatively easily and it's a throwaway attempt to talk about Texas border districts. As to that Republicans do not need to carry the latino vote, that's based on a pretty basic lack of understanding of the demographic problem. The basic problem is that whites do indeed tend to vote Republican, but the percentage of voters who are white are steadily declining. What you're basically trying to claim is the Romney playbook which lead to the hilarious voter unskewing nonsense - the idea that 2008 represented a high-water mark in minority turnout. 2012 showed that wasn't the case and that Republicans could no longer hope that although minorities are a steadily growing part of the populace perhaps they just wouldn't vote. That's what the demographic issue really is: relying on winning the white vote gets you less and less as time goes on and Obama still handily won re-election while losing the white vote pretty badly in the worst economic conditions for an incumbent to hold the White House in a generation. To be fair though you manage to have blundered near, accidentally of course as you're referencing Presidential election years, something that is actually correct - the demographic advantage the Democrats have is not of much use in the House and won't be for some time. The reason that immigration reform is going nowhere, though Republicans agree it's necessary for the party to compete in Presidential elections, is because the amount of Republican congressmen who actually require a single latino vote to hold their seat is astonishingly small. It's not in the interest of any of them, who face primaries full of people who go into a screeching rage at the very thought of 'amnesty' but aren't going to be running for President.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
Ultimately which is why the Democrats will have an advantage in holding in presidency but the GOP will have an iron hold on the House.
Ardennes has issued a correction as of 21:40 on Nov 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I don't think the Republicans have too much more margin available in being the party of white people. They've pretty much got everyone they're going to get based on racial identity alone. So, what's the bigger number, Latinos who vote on racial identity alone, or white voters who do so?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:So, what's the bigger number, Latinos who vote on racial identity alone, or white voters who do so? Why does that matter? Your argument was that Republicans should ignore Latinos and concentrate on getting more of the white vote. I'm skeptical of that argument as I don't think there's much more of it to get. It's also a losing strategy, as the gains from pursuing a larger portion of a shrinking demographic do not offset the losses from winning a smaller portion of an increasing demographic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Why does that matter? Your argument was that Republicans should ignore Latinos and concentrate on getting more of the white vote. I'm skeptical of that argument as I don't think there's much more of it to get. No, my point, explicitly stated a number of times in this and other threads, is that Republicans can tread water or peel off a few points of Latinos and even Blacks, since I seriously doubt (and would love to hear you rationalize otherwise) that an elderly white grandmother will generate the same level of excitement in either community as Obama did in 08 and 12. Also, you may want to consider the actual demographic trends and stop thinking that tomorrow we're going to wake up and all the road signs will be in Spanish. We're a LONG way off from the 'ascendent coalition' from being in the majority.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Ultimately which is why the Democrats will have an advantage in holding in presidency but the GOP will have an iron hold on the House. They don't need to have a disadvantage in the House - if they redistricted in 2020 they could easily fix that. But until then, yes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:No, my point, explicitly stated a number of times in this and other threads, is that Republicans can tread water or peel off a few points of Latinos and even Blacks, since I seriously doubt (and would love to hear you rationalize otherwise) that an elderly white grandmother will generate the same level of excitement in either community as Obama did in 08 and 12. Also, you may want to consider the actual demographic trends and stop thinking that tomorrow we're going to wake up and all the road signs will be in Spanish. We're a LONG way off from the 'ascendent coalition' from being in the majority. The ascendant coalition is already in the majority. That's why Obama won twice. Seriously, it's like you're Mitt Romney a week before the election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:No, my point, explicitly stated a number of times in this and other threads, is that Republicans can tread water or peel off a few points of Latinos and even Blacks, since I seriously doubt (and would love to hear you rationalize otherwise) that an elderly white grandmother will generate the same level of excitement in either community as Obama did in 08 and 12. Also, you may want to consider the actual demographic trends and stop thinking that tomorrow we're going to wake up and all the road signs will be in Spanish. We're a LONG way off from the 'ascendent coalition' from being in the majority. Well, historically blacks have been voting overwhelmingly Democratic for close to 50 years now, so the identity on the top of the ticket is largely irrelevant. The GOP actually used to have an advantage with Latinos which they have squandered in the last couple decades. The 'ascendent coalition' is already a majority, by the way. Ask Mitt Romney about it. The trend is that things continue to get worse for Republicans in Presidential elections into the future if they don't change their policies. The Republicans continue to dominate in off-year elections because they dominate in groups that historically vote in larger proportion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The ascendant coalition is already in the majority. That's why Obama won twice. Oh, good point, the Republicans will run Mitt Romney every 4 years henceforth. I hope he does better against Barack Obama next time! In 2004 GWB got 44% of latino vote. Your entire strategy relies on that never ever happening again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:Oh, good point, the Republicans will run Mitt Romney every 4 years henceforth. I hope he does better against Barack Obama next time! He also won 72% of the Muslim vote in 2000. Clearly the GOP should just be able to walk back into that as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:Oh, good point, the Republicans will run Mitt Romney every 4 years henceforth. I hope he does better against Barack Obama next time! The GOP had its shot to cement this when Bush proposed comprehensive immigration reform - and the rest of the party doubled down on the white right. Short of some serious realignment, undoing the last decade of Republican rhetoric on, well, Latinos generally is not happening any time soon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:Oh, good point, the Republicans will run Mitt Romney every 4 years henceforth. I hope he does better against Barack Obama next time! Obama also beat McCain. And Romney was the strongest candidate by far of the bunch in 2012 and Obama had four years of pretty terrible economic conditions. Sure, the next candidate won't be Romney - but they also won't have the last four years be some of the most miserable years economically since the Great Depression. GWB did indeed get 44% of the latino vote. It's what happened after that that started significantly increasing the share of the latino vote the Democrats receive: the xenophobic Republican backlash to the idea of immigration reform. It's that base that's the problem, and the constraints they place on any Republican candidate. It forces people like Romney, who probably has no personal animosity to hispanics, to toe the party line with such stuff as self-deportation and gets the high profile candidates in a primary attacking each other for being too soft on undocumented immigrants. And that's not even counting the new explosion we're expecting from that base in the next few weeks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:Oh, good point, the Republicans will run Mitt Romney every 4 years henceforth. I hope he does better against Barack Obama next time! You may not have noticed, but the GOP as a whole has changed a wee bit in its attitudes towards latinos in the intervening decade, and even W himself got shredded by his own party when he belated attempted to do something about immigration in 2007. Much as has been the ongoing existential crisis of the whole party, I don't see how they can pivot away from that without getting killed by their own base. It's not so much "it'll never happen again" as "as things stand right now, I don't see how it can happen anytime soon."
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:The GOP had its shot to cement this when Bush proposed comprehensive immigration reform - and the rest of the party doubled down on the white right. Short of some serious realignment, undoing the last decade of Republican rhetoric on, well, Latinos generally is not happening any time soon. Then no doubt, we are entering a permanent era of Democrat dominance at the Federal level!
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:You may not have noticed, but the GOP as a whole has changed a wee bit in its attitudes towards latinos in the intervening decade, and even W himself got shredded by his own party when he belated attempted to do something about immigration in 2007. Much as has been the ongoing existential crisis of the whole party, I don't see how they can pivot away from that without getting killed by their own base. It's not so much "it'll never happen again" as "as things stand right now, I don't see how it can happen anytime soon." It could happen if Obama shelved the EO and immigration reform advocates decided that neither party was going to help them. But I think Obama's been pretty clear since the election that's not happening and if he was going to cave he'd have done it shortly after the election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:I genuinely think the Democrats can nab Rand's senate seat if he is not on the ballot. The state Democratic party has a significantly stronger bench than the state GoP, and Obama-era Democratic policies are popular here (we just don't vote that way in the nationals due to our horrific racism, which should be less of a factor once Hillary eclipses the President). They would have to run a better campaign than Grimes did in 2014, but it can be done. Who will we trot out, though? Beshear? I think the last poll I saw showed him with an advantage over Thomas Massie - who is quite the Tea Party darling. Conway has his eyes on Frankfort. Who else does that leave? Mayor Jerry? Greg Stumbo? I worry the bench may be deep but I'm not sure they stack up well against Massie. And yeah, the 6th is an odd bird - the 2010 redistricting made it more blue than before. It's definitely winnable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:Then no doubt, we are entering a permanent era of Democrat dominance at the Federal level! Between e: Hell in the 72 years between the start of Lincoln's presidency (and the Republican Party) and the start of FDR's you had 3 Democratic presidents, serving a combined 12 years, or 17%. computer parts has issued a correction as of 22:24 on Nov 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Ultimately which is why the Democrats will have an advantage in holding in presidency but the GOP will have an iron hold on the House. But does the country survive limping forward in gridlock for another six years?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:Then no doubt, we are entering a permanent era of Democrat dominance at the Federal level! See, this is why I don't usually bother to hide my contempt for you. This thread has people clearly explaining the issue and even explaining it's limits - that it does no good at the legislative level - and what you have is a lot of feelings and not a lot of thought. So we're left with you sort of spluttering dumb lines like this. As to this line itself as was pointed out a lot after 2012, the Republicans managed to win the popular vote once in the past six Presidential elections, and that was only with the advantage of incumbency. We are pretty solidly into the era of Democratic dominance of the Presidency, the question is to what degree it matters without control of Congress. Really, the only thing that saved Republicans was the mathematical quirk of 2000 - but as the Democratic majority has strengthened the odds of a split like that have decreased and in fact a split like that is now more likely to favor Democrats than Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:They don't need to have a disadvantage in the House - if they redistricted in 2020 they could easily fix that. But until then, yes. That is going to require both major wins of state level legislatures and governor seats outside of traditional D strongholds and the courage to actually follow through. I am not going to hold my breath. It is of course technically possible, but just unlikely, and I think it is going to lead to some interesting questions in the future. (Btw, I think thats what should happen, I am just completely skeptical of it happening).
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:That is going to require both major wins of state level legislatures and governor seats outside of traditional D strongholds and the courage to actually follow through. I am not going to hold my breath. Another issue is that traditional D strongholds cannot be taken for granted with the movement of white suburbanites to cities.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:That is going to require both major wins of state level legislatures and governor seats outside of traditional D strongholds and the courage to actually follow through. I am not going to hold my breath. Oh it's definitely not guaranteed. But at least it's a presidential year (unlike 2010) so you've got the Democratic turnout advantage at least. What I am really concerned about is if those state legislatures themselves are gerrymandered. Like Pennsylvania should be an easy target - you can flip 10 seats or so with a redistricting and it leans D so it should be attainable in a Presidential year. But if their legislature also was able to gerrymander itself in 2010, is that even possible?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
I mean, Bush did a decent job of reaching out to Muslims. That's all a bygone era for the foreseeable future.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Another issue is that traditional D strongholds cannot be taken for granted with the movement of white suburbanites to cities. That would help Democrats, not hurt them. Bringing in Republican votes so they have less wasted votes in the cities would be a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:That would help Democrats, not hurt them. Bringing in Republican votes so they have less wasted votes in the cities would be a good thing. Those suburb-to-urban migrants still follow suburban voting trends, though, so it really doesn't help democrats. Unless you mean in a larger, "socially liberal and economically conservative republicans are easier to do a deal with" way?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Those suburb-to-urban migrants still follow suburban voting trends, though, so it really doesn't help democrats. Unless you mean in a larger, "socially liberal and economically conservative republicans are easier to do a deal with" way? I mean that cities are like 80% democratic, so every Republican vote you mix into there is wasted in a district by district election so it's to the Democrats advantage. If it was significant enough to disrupts their safe city districts it also disrupted whoever they used to vote for. Moving people around only changes wasted votes not the overall total.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Another issue is that traditional D strongholds cannot be taken for granted with the movement of white suburbanites to cities. There hasn't been much movement as far as the cities themselves, look at DC for example which is gotten more White recently and it still votes as Democratic as before. It may change as Gen Y ages, but the Boomers kept their voting habits as they aged for the most part and Gen Y isn't going to be as wealthy as their parents especially after paying all that rent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:Then no doubt, we are entering a permanent era of Democrat dominance at the Federal level! Not at all - the most the GOP can do for the Democrats is make it unpalatable to Latinos to vote for Republicans. Unless Democrats keep their game up re: Latino outreach, the more likely scenario is a declining Hispanic share of the electorate. I also think that individual candidates for House, Senate, and gubernatorial seats can break from this, but it's more that they're starting a few paces behind with the generic Republican line on Hispanics. Hispanics also disproportionately belong to demographics that, for whatever reason, don't turn out - the young, the working class, etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Not at all - the most the GOP can do for the Democrats is make it unpalatable to Latinos to vote for Republicans. Unless Democrats keep their game up re: Latino outreach, the more likely scenario is a declining Hispanic share of the electorate. I also think that individual candidates for House, Senate, and gubernatorial seats can break from this, but it's more that they're starting a few paces behind with the generic Republican line on Hispanics. Hispanics also disproportionately belong to demographics that, for whatever reason, don't turn out - the young, the working class, etc. This is a pretty decent article on the topic http://thefederalist.com/2014/11/10/democrats-history-is-on-our-side-history-good-luck-with-that/ It's opinion for sure but doing a better job than me of describing the parts in motion
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I mean that cities are like 80% democratic, so every Republican vote you mix into there is wasted in a district by district election so it's to the Democrats advantage. If it was significant enough to disrupts their safe city districts it also disrupted whoever they used to vote for. Moving people around only changes wasted votes not the overall total. These are millenials who are aging whites though, and becoming more likely to vote and more frequent voters as they age. http://newssun.chicagotribune.com/2014/11/04/schneider-dold-campaigns-wait-results-10th-district-race/ One example of what I'm talking about - enough to change the outcome of a race between two candidates with no major position differences. It may also be enough to have put the state treasurer race in play in IL, from what would otherwise have been decided. http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20141106/BLOGS02/141109851?template=mobile And here's the establishment take on the election, and what it implies about the power of progressive political positions: http://politics.suntimes.com/article/chicago/if-tuesday-was-test-mayoral-contest-progressives-failed/wed-11052014-806pm quote:Rather than bringing more people to the polls Tuesday, voter turnout was down sharply in the city’s wards compared to the 2010 election. According to the city’s election authorities, less than 622,000 votes were cast — a drop of about 70,000 in four years. Quinn received more than 40,000 votes fewer in Chicago than four years ago. Further, those wards with near-parity turnout (40%+) for Rauner have a statistically significant higher concentration of campaign donors than those wards that went heavily Quinn (Af. American, working class).
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:See, this is why I don't usually bother to hide my contempt for you. This thread has people clearly explaining the issue and even explaining it's limits - that it does no good at the legislative level - and what you have is a lot of feelings and not a lot of thought. So we're left with you sort of spluttering dumb lines like this. It also doesn't hurt that Kerry was a garbage candidate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
None of this stuff does anything to support that people moving matters. I don't want to get into the rabbit hole of your apparent breakdown over the IL results and I'm going to ignore that part. But people moving around does not change the vote totals, it changes where those votes are. The biggest problem that Democrats have is that their votes are in the wrong places (i.e. either in massively democratic areas like cities with 80+% Democratic support, or in weakly republican areas with 55-60% Republican support), so they waste far more votes than Republicans do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
Senator by Net Approval: Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) ................. 59/28 (+31) Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) ...... 54/32 (+22) Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) .................... 48/29 (+19) Kelly Ayotte (R-New Hampshire) .......... 49/32 (+17) John Boozman (R-Arkansas) ............... 40/27 (+13) Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) .................. 43/30 (+13) Mark Kirk (R-Illinois) .................. 38/28 (+10) Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) ............... 46/38 (+8) Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) .................. 43/36 (+7) Johnny Isakson (R-Georgia) .............. 39/33 (+6) Rob Portman (R-Ohio) * .................. 38/32 (+6) Richard Burr (R-North Carolina) ......... 33/28 (+5) Roy Blunt (R-Missouri) * ................ 37/36 (+1) Marco Rubio (R-Florida) ................. 40/41 (-1) Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) * ............. 34/36 (-2) Michael Bennet (D-Colorado) ............. 30/35 (-5) Patrick Toomey (R-Pennsylvania) * ....... 36/46 (-10) Harry Reid (D-Nevada) * ................. 32/55 (-23) (Poll results as of 2014.11.06, unless otherwise noted by *) Overall, I expect another Democratic surge up from these numbers by Election Day 2016, since current polling represents a nadir for Democrats and since the Republicans have about zero likable people who can win the Primaries, whereas the Democrats are going to have likable primary candidates coming out the wazoo (Biden, Castro, and Schweitzer would all be fun presences in the race; Clinton's been quietly improving her charm for years and is twice as clever as any Republican opponent.) Expect Democrats to ride the Nominee's coattails on up, especially once Billary starts packing their usual wallop on the trail, while the Republicans ride their inevitably douchey Nominee's coattails straight into disappointmentville. Highly popular governor Jay Nixon (D-Missouri) is term limited in 2016. If he runs for Senate, he will almost certainly crush unpopular incumbent Roy Blunt (R), whose approval rating was at 37/36 (+1) in 2012. Harry Reid has survived very low approval ratings for several terms. If he pulls one out again, good for him. If he loses, Dems will find someone better. It's win-win, unless Republicans retain the Senate. Nameless_Steve has issued a correction as of 18:29 on Nov 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Rahm isn't getting picked for poo poo and will probably lose mayor. Madigan isn't running for mayor and will likely be the Senate candidate, if for whatever reason she doesn't run my money is on Simon for name recognition because who else is there? Schakowsky. eta: I mean, I think she's gonna run for the senate seat, rather than Madigan. Madigan will run for gov. Willa Rogers has issued a correction as of 23:37 on Nov 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:(Poll results as of 2014.11.06, unless otherwise noted by *) Thanks for those poll numbers. Do you have a site that does that work for you that you could link me to? I'd love to add it to the OP. If not, and you took the time to compile that: (1) thanks for doing that, and (2) please continue doing it periodically.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Schakowsky. Yeah, Shakowsky could be a runner. Shakowsky, Duckworth, [Rich downtown imsurance man]: Pick two for your likely primary fight, assuming Duckworth isn't given the nod for Veep/included on the shortlist for cabinet positions. I'd have to know more about Duckworth's relations with the Clintons to make a better assessment. No gently caress'n way is it Sheila Simon though. Personally, I think Madigan won't run for governor--she isn't willing to place herself in a position where she'd have even the option to go against her father's machine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
Do states lock in House re-districting to the post-census only? It follows that 2020 census will be more beneficial to the Democrats, but are Democratic legislature gains in 2016 actually prevented from overturning the current 2010 Republican gerrymanders?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 20:47 |
|
|
twoot posted:Do states lock in House re-districting to the post-census only? Your legislature can re-district at any time it pleases; if nothing changed during the census, you can keep your old map. However, things always change in 10 years, so re-districting after a census is a given occasion for which you use your clout to produce your best outcome and during which the party bosses try to gently persuade you which slot you should run in and during which election. At least, that's how it is in Illinois.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 00:11
|
|