Re: A demographic shift....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stavros
The curious aspect of US politics is that the demographic shift is being used to explain Obama's election victories, yet the Senate and the House have not changed markedly over the last 30 or so years, yet that is where the battles over policy take place. It will be interesting to see if the Democrats can take back control of the House in the mid-term elections, which is why the behaviour of the GOP over the next 18 months could reveal how far this party is so badly divided even 'loyal Republicans' desert it. But I am not sure it will happen; either the boundaries of districts need to change for change to take place, or for everything to remain the same.
There actual were what they call coattails for other Dems in Obama's 2008 election and again in 2012.
In some ways the 2012 Democratic gains were muted by the results in the House where gerrymandering reduced the number of seats the House GOP lost, but they did lose seats. In the Senate the Democrats had many more seats up for election than the GOP did, yet the Democrats actually increased their majority from 2010.
The "Obama" effect is turnout. A good part of that turnout factor is that Americans pay more attention to Presidential Elections. But it is worth noting that Obama's team has been very good at GOV. Much of the "Obama Coalition" did not vote in the 2010 mid-terms and Romney's internal polling was so off that he actual taught he would win on eve of this last election because they assumed the turnout would be like 2010 rather than 2008.
There actually have been some radical swings in the make-up of Congress over the last 30 years. In 1983 the Democrats had a vise grip on both houses. The GOP has gained control of both chambers, lost control of the Senate a few times during that time and the House was taken by the Democrats from 2006-2010.
As the 2014 mid-terms take place a number of things will come into play but turnover certainly is going to be one factor. The gerrymandering will help the GOP cause and the events of the next two years will play a big role.
But one thing that I think can be drawn from recent elections is that in National elections some of the very tactics that fueled the Reagan Revolution are now dead weight as younger Americans tend to view race, women's rights and sexual orientation differently than their elders.
It is just going to get to be real hard to win a national election being against gay rights, demonizing poor people and immigrants, that climate change is hoax and even trickle down economics is going to get to be a hard sell.
The dark side of America that Lee Atwater and Karl Rove tapped so well is getting older and a new generation of voters don't bristle over Adam and Steve like the elders...and many believe that the deck is being stack against meritocracy to favor those who have already achieved advantage.
BTW I agree that African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, etc. have unique cultures and unique issues and in fact aren't 100% of any political persuasion. And yes much of the criminalization of drugs in the US is class based and at the core of class based issues in the US is the issue of race.
While Obama's proclamations about there "not being red states and blue states, a white America, a black America..." are nobel thoughts and worthy of our continuing the journey towards that end, race, gender, religion and sexual orientation still loom over our Republic and reveal themselves in ways that conflict with utopian self-image Americans sometimes have of our nation as a beckon of democracy and equality.
Re: A demographic shift....
I agree with your analysis, fivekatz -but does this mean that the Democrats will regain control of both Senate and the House? This to me is the key issue on which the argument about the 'demographic shift' will manifest itself, institutionally.
Re: A demographic shift....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stavros
I agree with your analysis, fivekatz -but does this mean that the Democrats will regain control of both Senate and the House? This to me is the key issue on which the argument about the 'demographic shift' will manifest itself, institutionally.
Hard to say. In the Senate there is still the question whether the Senate will modify the rules so that the filibuster actual becomes a talking filibuster where the individuals holding up legislation must be present and going on record. Right now the rules allow for the minority to call for cloture without debate and that requires the majority to have 60 votes for the bill to even move forward. The GOP used this method a record 300 times in the two years of the last congress with little accountability from the average American for the obstruction. Now while filibuster is hardwired into the basic structure of the federal government, it is safe to assume that if the process were less opaque, GOP senators would be less willing to us it. I seriously doubt that the GOP would have killed a bill that was designed to provide jobs relief for returning Afgan-Iraq vets if not for the cloak of cloture prior to debate by example. The rules change has been tabled but left open until later this month. So it is a wait and see factor. Without that change it is hard to see much change because I doubt the Dems could command as 60 seat super majority in 2014.
The House is a different animal. A lot of districts are safe due to the gerrymandering that 2010 census and the GOP being the majority party in so many states. But the Tea Party is a wild card, putting up candidates that are so extreme and the House taking positions that all but true Tea Party believers may have trouble supporting in 2014.
The Dems would have to pick up 13 seats in 2014 to take a majority in the House. With National election turnout they were only able to pick up 9 seats.
Whether the shifts in the American electorate will swing so far in a mere two years that mid year elections will reject the conservative social agenda is yet to be seen but the shifts in the populace are clear and if the GOP uses the same wedge issues that served them so well in the last part of the 20th Century and the the start of this century, parts of what the media calls "red states" will turn blue or swing. Texas is a most notable example because of its size.
Events have a funny way of playing out and making these kind of forecasts moot. GW Bush was well on his way to being a one term President after only a few months in office when the events of 9/11 changed everything.
Re: A demographic shift....
A fair analysis, thank you fivekatz.
Quote:
The House is a different animal. A lot of districts are safe due to the gerrymandering that 2010 census and the GOP being the majority party in so many states. But the Tea Party is a wild card, putting up candidates that are so extreme and the House taking positions that all but true Tea Party believers may have trouble supporting in 2014.
Here it might also be mentioned that the Boehner is manipulating the House by never allowing anything to come to a vote unless the GOP can pass it without bipartisan help. This effectively reduces the Congress to a 100% republican body (shutting out all democratic input). This reduction also effectively increases the tea party power, which is why nothing gets done. This bit of two-edged trickery is known has the Hastert rule; though it is not a rule of the House but rather a strategy the GOP employs whenever they're in control of the House (at least since Hastert invented the strategy under Bush One).
Re: A demographic shift....
A VG point Trish. The Hastert Rule may become more distasteful to the Speaker in this next term as it was when it came to the vote on taxes we just went through. It must be said that the Obama administration did not always do a great job framing arguments during the first term. In part because IMO Obama really did believe in a post-partisan America and therefore he was reluctant to use the bully pulpit in an aggressive way to paint his opponents in a bad light.
An thoughts on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue that there can be a post-partisan era without the spirited "battle" must be gone by now. While the vast majority of the GOP would love to dismantle Medicare and Social Security they also know that these are relatively toxic issues that they want to force the WH and Dems to take the lead on, hence the desire to use the debt ceiling and possible default as a hammer on the President.
My feeling is that while Obama rightfully so has great fear of taking the US and possible the rest of the world into another recession caused by the lack of confidence a government shut down would create and will make some concessions, he also knows that he is (as was Clinton in 1994) on the right side of this issue. The concessions IMO will not be enough for the Speaker to be able to get the necessary 217 in his own caucus (too many Tea Baggers). So he will find himself once again going to the floor with a bill requiring Dem support IMO.
A big part of the GOPs support are seniors and they just can't be seen as shut down the government and destroying the credit of the USA so they can get dramatic cuts in Medicare and Social Security. So while some of the more unhinged in the GOP may not care, enough will IMO that the Hasert rule will once again be over looked.
Re: A demographic shift....
Just as a follow-up, today Eric Kantor announced bring a bill to the floor of the House extending the debt ceiling for three months. He is doing so IMO he recognizes that using the debt ceiling as a hostage in negotiations for spend cuts is a political loser for the GOP.
But as he does this he knows he is going to have to get some Dem votes to get it to pass. It appears that the Hasert rule may be fading, which is a good thing.
IMO we are better served when the both political parties have a variety of policy thought in their caucus, the lock step nature of the GOP caucus since Newt has not been good for the US.
More diverse thinking within the caucus, returning the filibuster to a function where people would have to be seen and heard rather than a procedural function in the dark (used over 300 times in the last congress) would go far to make the government function better.
I think that the Tea Party's extreme take on so many issues could be a catalyst for breaking the Hasert rule and in fact move us a little more towards that post-partsain era that Obama naively thought he could accomplish in his first term.
