dsc
Resident Member
Posts: 759
|
Post by dsc on Jun 17, 2020 10:56:42 GMT -8
Their new strategy is voter suppression and gerrymandering, that lets them hold on to power as a minority party. Which is why this is a crucial year for state races. All legislative districts will be redrawn and with Republicans in control of state legislatures, they will stay gerrymandered. I hope Democrats are paying attention to state races.
|
|
|
Post by blublood on Jun 17, 2020 12:02:51 GMT -8
Democrats ARE paying attention. There two Democratic PACs to be aware of: DLCC Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee www.dlcc.org/NDRC National Democratic Redistricting Committee democraticredistricting.com/The DLCC uses its funds to win state legislative races across the U.S. The NDRC promotes permanent fair-districting laws (like California has). A good way for a citizen to demonstrate they are paying attention would be to send money to these organizations, as I have. It's really easy to make these donations through ActBlue.
|
|
|
Post by Born2BBruin on Jun 18, 2020 7:19:05 GMT -8
What can "smart" Republicans do at this point to salvage the coming elections? For 2020, the Republicans not named trump who matter most are the Senators running for reelection. They are already social distancing from the president, not even mentioning him in their latest adds. If I had a dollar to bet, I'd bet they'll run on what they're doing for their state and for their voters; and I'd bet ten dollars they'll run on the importance of Republican Senate to "protect" the Supreme Court. And don't think for one minute Republicans can't run away from trump, no matter how close they've cozied up to him over the last three years. Most voters don't pay attention to that sort of thing. This board probably represents the top 1%, or less, in terms of political engagement.
|
|
|
Post by grant73 on Jun 18, 2020 16:11:58 GMT -8
Rather than start a new thread, I'll just repeat from above that there is no avenue to a GOP resurgence other than the perfect storm of both a full-leftist Democratic head of ticket combined with a reasonable-seeming, charismatic moderate Republican heading the GOP's, for both elements I'm saying 2024. A third party run on the conservative side would condemn that side until 2028 or beyond. A third party run on the Democratic side might put a Republican in the White House in 2024 as well as cost that slim 2024-2026 majority in the Senate which I hope for (now, and a tenuous hold in off-year 2024).
Both Kamala Harris and Stacy Abrams have had softball questions leading to home runs the envy of the Lady bruins this week. I love both candidates. The only hardball question was re Biden's support (hell, among hundreds of other Democrats) for 1994's crime bill -- 24 years ago. Both women said basically that the country felt one way back then, all but left extremists were on board back then, and that under Obama and already now, Biden's words showed he realizes a "sea change" in the public's attitude. More direct to the VP issue, I heard how proud and confident they were to be on his list, and they had no criticism of any of the other women on it. I am still for Harris but I was impressed with Stacy quite a bit. Abrams made me think "Presidential material," though I think Harris will get more white votes for Biden in 2024. Every radical black talking head seems to think blacks will NOT sit out regardless of the VP choice. To any who think VP choice is a non-effect issue, I remind that the age and health of Joe Biden not only removes that, and that a VP sworn in between now and 2024 would be an incumbent with a chance of nn-months to have impressed on foreign and domestic policy (and results, hopefully) as well as (again I hope) and ability to get things negotiated through both houses of Congress. As such, bring on 2024! PLUS … IF Biden survives, she (whichever) will have had a chance to be the most active and progressive VP in history, not merely a second "First Lady" who merely sits in the House and breaks ties. That would be close to an incumbency, I think.
|
|
|
Post by Born2BBruin on Jun 18, 2020 16:42:15 GMT -8
...there is no avenue to a GOP resurgence other than the perfect storm of both a full-leftist Democratic head of ticket combined with a reasonable-seeming, charismatic moderate Republican heading the GOP's, for both elements I'm saying 2024. Grant, IIRC, in 1992, people were saying Clinton and Gore had found the magic formula (moderate Dems from southern states) that would ensure Democratic hegemony for years to come; then in 2000, there were people saying W's illegitimate victory would kill his reelection chances; then in 2008, there were posters on the BZOF who said Obama's victory would seal a new Democratic majority for decades to come; and just three years ago, people were either saying trump had remade the electoral map to ensure a string of GOP presidents, or that his presidency would scuttle the Republican party forever. The next president is one pandemic, one recession, one sticky zipper, one terrorist attack away from being a one-term president. New events no one could have predicted before they happened were significant factors in 1980, 1992, 1994, 2004, 2008, and 2016. Arguably, you could add 1964, 1968, 1976, and 2000 to that list. That's 10 of the 15 elections in my lifetime. So, in any given election, there are likely plenty of avenues for a resurgence of whichever party is need of one at the time.
|
|
|
Post by mhbruin on Jun 18, 2020 17:03:38 GMT -8
Here is the Republican share of the 2-party popular vote in the last 7 elections:
46.5% 45.0% 49.7% 51.2% 48.3% 48.0% 48.8%
They have gotten more votes than the Democrats only once in the last 28 years. And that is with increasing voter suppression.
They may have won 3 of these elections, but this is not a formula for future success. They cannot count on the electoral map remaining static. Arizona may be turning blue.
I like the future of the blue team. As some point they will be the party of Trump, without Trump on the ticket. Imagine Pence trying to lead a trumpist party.
|
|
|
Post by Born2BBruin on Jun 18, 2020 17:29:37 GMT -8
That's a small sample size, and you're not showing the corresponding Democratic share. And off the top of my head, the GOP won 5 of the 6 elections before that.
Which is all pretty meaningless when you realize we live in a world where over 8 million people voted for Obama in 2012 and trump in 2016.
|
|
|
Post by grant73 on Jun 18, 2020 17:34:02 GMT -8
Crossing my fingers! And I have my abs. ballot application ready to mail to Lansing.
|
|
|
Post by mhbruin on Jun 18, 2020 18:19:24 GMT -8
That's a small sample size, and you're not showing the corresponding Democratic share. And off the top of my head, the GOP won 5 of the 6 elections before that. Which is all pretty meaningless when you realize we live in a world where over 8 million people voted for Obama in 2012 and trump in 2016. Democratic share is 1 - R share. It is adjusted to remove other candidates' votes.
|
|
|
Post by Born2BBruin on Jun 18, 2020 21:11:54 GMT -8
Democratic share is 1 - R share. It is adjusted to remove other candidates' votes. But other candidates actually got votes. You're kind of cherry picking your data. It's a bit of a made up stat that doesn't fully reflect reality.
|
|
|
Post by mhbruin on Jun 18, 2020 21:31:53 GMT -8
It's not cherry picking. The Democrat got more votes than the Republican in 6 of the last 7 elections.
|
|
|
Post by Born2BBruin on Jun 19, 2020 7:14:01 GMT -8
Ralph DePalma led 196 of the 200 laps of the 1912 Indianapolis 500 but didn't win. Should have been declared the winner?
Michael Andretti led the race for 431 laps in his career, 11th on the all time list, but never won. Should he take a victory lap anyways?
Presidential elections aren't measured by the popular vote. Perhaps they should be but the rules haven't changed since 1789. Maybe Republicans weren't even trying to win the popular vote, since doing so could be a waste of scarce resources.
Here are the actual popular vote percentages for the Democratic Party candidate since 1948.
1948 49.6% 1952 44.3% 1956 42.0% 1960 49.7% 1964 61.1% 1968 42.7% 1972 37.5% 1976 50.1% 1980 41.0% 1984 40.6% 1988 45.6% 1992 43.0% 1996 49.2% 2000 48.4% 2004 48.3% 2008 52.9% 2012 51.1% 2016 48.2%
Democrats won more than 50% of the actual popular vote only four times in the last 18 presidential elections. Three of those elections were clearly shaped by events outside the control of the party and the candidates; the assassination of President Kennedy, the resignation of President Nixon (and also record inflation), and the start of the great recession in 2008.
Your point about the good news is backed up by the fact Democrats haven't had less than 48% of the actual popular vote since 1992, where they received less than 45% seven times from 1948 to 92. So, they're more competitive, but they still don't win more elections than Republicans do.
|
|
dsc
Resident Member
Posts: 759
|
Post by dsc on Jun 19, 2020 12:38:44 GMT -8
For 2020, the Republicans not named trump who matter most are the Senators running for reelection. They are already social distancing from the president, not even mentioning him in their latest adds. If I had a dollar to bet, I'd bet they'll run on what they're doing for their state and for their voters; and I'd bet ten dollars they'll run on the importance of Republican Senate to "protect" the Supreme Court. And don't think for one minute Republicans can't run away from trump, no matter how close they've cozied up to him over the last three years. Most voters don't pay attention to that sort of thing. This board probably represents the top 1%, or less, in terms of political engagement. You think Trump would just sit there and leave them alone to distance themselves from him? There is no room for that kind of flexibility in his malignant narcissist head. Trump warns Senate Republicans to stay loyal: 'If they don't embrace, they're going to lose'
|
|
hasben
Resident Member
Posts: 1,023
|
Post by hasben on Jun 19, 2020 13:53:58 GMT -8
dsc: You think Trump would just sit there and leave them alone to distance themselves from him? There is no room for that kind of flexibility in his malignant narcissist head.
I think you're right about that. He would never sit still for disloyalty. And his lemming followers would support his attacks on a senator who turned on him. Trump's strategy has always been control everything--senate, scotus, doj, state dept., law enforcement and to subvert the constitution any time he can get sway with it.
|
|
bobinmd
Contributing Member
Posts: 51
|
Post by bobinmd on Jun 21, 2020 4:58:34 GMT -8
While Republican strategists inside Washington view Donald Trump as a millstone around their necks, GOP officials in the states are donning their rose-colored glasses and chilling the Asti Spumante for Election Day. Politico reports that interviews with more than 50 Republican party chairs at the state, district, and county level revealed a mindset of optimistic denialism. They apparently think coronavirus is over, the economy is roaring back, and remain impervious to the national conversation about systemic racism and police brutality. Joe Biden? Well, he's old and frail and probably has trouble drinking and navigating ramps. And the media—ha!—they're out to lunch. “The more bad things happen in the country, it just solidifies support for Trump,” Phillip Stephens, GOP chairman in Robeson County, North Carolina, told Politico. Right on—Trump's failures are priceless! Robeson is a rural Obama-to-Trump county in a swing state that Trump won by 3.5 points and has grown very competitive in the last several months. “We’re calling him ‘Teflon Trump.’ Nothing’s going to stick, because if anything, it’s getting more exciting than it was in 2016.” Never a dull moment with a stable genius at the helm. "We're thinking landslide," Stephens added. We have our own facts
|
|