I have written many, many, many times about the Republicans’ Electoral College problem. The Washington Post‘s Dan Balz does a great breakdown on the issue in today’s paper.
The short version is that you need 270 out of 538 Electoral College votes in order to become the president of the United States, and the Democrats:
1. Haven’t done worse than 251 votes (2004) since 1988.
2. Have averaged 327 votes over the last six elections.
3. Have won eighteen states and the District of Columbia (totaling 242 electoral votes) in each of the last six elections.
While the Republicans:
1. Haven’t done better than 286 votes (2004) since 1988.
2. Have averaged 211 votes over the last six elections.
3. Have won thirteen states (totaling 102 electoral votes, most of them from Texas) in each of the last six elections.
You can look at this as a structural problem for the Republicans, where the floor for their opponents appears to be 251, which is just 19 votes shy of the number required. If Ohio had flipped to Kerry’s column, he would have still have lost the popular vote, but he would have become president anyway.
Of course, Kerry did lose, but it appears that the 2004 election could be a real ceiling for any Republican candidate up against a competent Democrat. Roll the clock forward twelve years, and demographic changes make even a repeat of 2004 a very challenging task.
On the other hand, the situation is reversed in Congress, where districts are drawn in ways that make it difficult for the Democrats. But in a country that is rapidly embracing gay equality and beginning to legalize marijuana, a traditionally conservative party doesn’t seem to have any future in presidential elections. And I think pollsters will discover that the demographic that despises President Obama is significantly more open-minded about Hillary Clinton. If there are states that are going to flip colors in 2016, I’d bet more money on Georgia, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Arkansas than I would on Michigan or Wisconsin or Iowa.
I think Chris Christie was supposed to upend this map. Now they’ll need a Plan B.
There is no Plan B to speak of that I can see. Don’t get me wrong, they have been working to produce a crop of believable syncophants, but it’s a long incubation period with a short shelf life once mature. They really wanted Christie. He was the only one that could follow somewhat the Romney game plan and have a chance to stop Cruz (or whatever teabagger…)
Ha, look over there! Mittens is leering from the sidelines.
We need Texas. We need Liberal Democrats from Texas. If you say that’s impossible, Blue Dogs only, then I say remember LBJ was a Senator from Texas.
LBJ was the epitome of a blue dog.
You’re thinking of Jim Hightower.
Using LBJ and Blue Dog as a comparison is an anachronism. LBJ was a New Deal Democrat with all the imperfections as well as accomplishments that that connotes.
Calling someone a Blue Dog who was in office a decade before the Blue Dog Caucus formed is like calling George H. W. Bush a Federalist. It’s not even a good analogy.
Jim Hightower is from the New Deal tradition that formed him and the Progressive politics that still is alive in the South.
New Deal Democrats don’t exist in part because the farmer-labor coalition that FDR and Democrats put together no longer exists.
AFAICT it was also a farmer-labor-racist coalition that buoyed and reinforced the success of the New Deal. When the racist populists decided they’d rather be racists than populists, the whole thing crumbled.
That’s an accurate analysis. I don’t deify New Deal Democrats. I know who they were in South Carolina. And they were not helpful on a lot of fronts. For example, Secretary of State James F. Byrnes from South Carolina was one of the architects of the national security state and was critical in Truman’s decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
On the surface LBJ was a NDD, but it’s a little more complicated. I see him more as a classic finger-to-the-wind narcissistic pol out to get power, and money, for himself and his benefactors, attaching the Dem label being necessary given the monopoly politics of his era in that part of the country. His principles concerned mainly what was good for Lyndon Johnson and his political/personal prospects. If he had come along in the 70s or 80s instead of the 30s/40s, he might well have aligned w/the GOP, or switched from D to R as political trends changed, and shown a few mavericky moderate tendencies a la the old McCain.
Jim Hightower is more of a principle-driven non-aligned progressive, consistently so regardless of the political winds and trends. Sen Ralph Yarborough, the last true liberal Dem senator from TX, makes for a little better comparison and contrast w/LBJ, both representing respectively the liberal and conservative wings of their party in TX.
(Yarborough was the guy who stubbornly refused to sit in the same car as Johnson during JFK’s Dallas trip; Kennedy eventually intervened personally to persuade RY he needed to put things aside briefly and help the party show unity.)
It is an illusion that New Deal Democrats were driven by principle. They weren’t except for Eleanor Roosevelt and she had limited real power, which she exerted to achieve what she could.
If it wasn’t principle, it would do until something better came along.
Evidence does show LBJ as a “narcissistic pol,” but he was more than that.
How do you square your view that he was merely “out to get power, and money, for himself and his benefactors” with his many historic, highly liberal policy accomplishments? I’d draw your special attention to the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, which were viciously opposed by many of his benefactors. It’s also worth considering that LBJ gave a lot of power to previously powerless people who were not his benefactors.
Because that was probably the minimum of what it took for a Dem president in the 1963-65 period to maintain and increase his power. And generally, under those post-Dallas circumstances, was any Dem prez this side of the Southern Manifesto Dem Caucus going to not carry forward with JFK’s most important legislative initiative? Doubly so for a president about whom doubts still lingered as to his involvement in the tragedy of 11-22-63.
Failing to act in CR and one or two other liberal measures Kennedy had in mind (Poverty for instance) would have only caused the dark rumors to intensify.
Mind you, I don’t consider all Johnson’s measures in his presidency to be from an evil or selfish or purely political motive. Few people are 100% bad or good. But, for sure, as a general matter, I tend to view Johnson’s actions skeptically — and I think most times the record has proved me right.
Not true regarding civil rights. There still were many racist Democrats including George Wallace who got many votes in the North. I believe Wallace was the most successful third Party candidate since Lincoln, certainly in the 20th century.
Yes there was still plenty of racism in the land, not just in the South. The populations in some non-southern states were more in favor of CR than others, like CA, where there was some resistance and it hurt the pro-CR senate Dem candidate Pierre Salinger.
But CR was the most prominent initiative still unfinished from the Kennedy presidency, and no successor to him who wanted to run and win in 1964 was going to fail to try to push for its passing. Had it been Stu Symington taking over (JFK’s likely first choice for VP, until Lyndon inserted himself brutally into the process) or even the more conservative Scoop Jackson, that CR bill still would have been pushed, and the related VR Act of ’65.
Btw, in terms of popular votes, it was Ross Perot in 1992 who undoubtedly the most successful 3d party candidate with some 19% of the overall vote. Wallace got near 13% in 1968, his best showing, and received some EVs in the Deep South because he had stronger regional appeal (running as he did a thinly-veiled racist “law ‘n’ order” campaign).
Nixon, iirc, always believed Wallace nearly cost him the election in 1968, taking away more votes from him than GW did from Hubert.
Popular vote vs EV count, you could argue either way, but I’m not pressing the point. Your point of view is at least as valid as mine.
Who did Wallace hurt more? Well, you should have heard the conversations I heard in Chicago suburban bars and a barber shop. These were white working Democrats and there were plenty pro-Wallace remarks and a lot uglier too. But, on reflection, that proves your point. Those guys were Democrats but they were going to vote for either Wallace or Nixon.
Wow, brodie’s off on some history in that 6:14 post. Here’s some of what President Johnson was able to push through, and I do mean push, in the wake of his landslide victory:
Civil Rights Act
Voting Rights Act (at least as vital as the CRA)
Medicare/Medicaid
Major increases and greater equitability in lower and higher education funding
Head Start
Food Stamps
Economic Opportunity Act, the multi-pronged centerpiece of the successful “War on Poverty”
Fair Housing Act
Gun Control Act
Increased funding to carry on NASA’s progress toward a manned mission to the moon
Public Broadcasting
LBJ and his Congresses advanced the New Deal by leaps and bounds. Some of these things weren’t even realistic parts of Kennedy’s agenda.
And, I dunno, Stu Symington? Perhaps “…no successor to (Kennedy) who wanted to run and win in 1964 was going to fail to try to push for the (CRA’s) passing.” But an incredible weight is placed on the word “try” in that sentence.
And how about the rest of the list above? With the loss of the Dixiecrats, would a President Symington have had the skills to put together the truly bipartisan coalition of Congressmen with wildly disparate interests to accomplish everything in that extraordinary list? Would Stu have even achieved the mega-landslide ’64 victory which Johnson made maximum use of?
And yeah, as far as whether these Democrats were driven by principle, what The Voice In The Wilderness said.
CF:
The CRA was not passed “in the wake of the 64 landslide election” but before it, more in the wake of Dallas.
That election was mighty important to LBJ getting his legis passed, as it resulted in a 2-1 Dem majority in both chambers, and a working liberal majority, something Kennedy never enjoyed. So with a decided partisan and ideological advantage, the person sitting in the Oval Office didn’t need to be some legislative genius to get bills passed.
Some legis genius was needed to pass the 64 bill, but while I credit Johnson for a strong bill, my reading of its passage suggests the genius in getting it passed came more from Maj Ldr Mansfield and Sen Humphrey. Lyndon was unsure of being successful, and so didn’t want to stick his neck out too far, thus he left it to others (above) plus AG Bobby Kennedy to act as public point men for the bill.
As for whether Symington would have gotten a 64 landslide, I think the answer is yes. Two reasons: carrying the banner of the fallen president, and Barry Goldwater.
It’s also highly unlikely Symington, or Humphrey or Jackson as VP would have governed in personal and policy ways so as to split the damn country in two, which is what we got with Lyndon and his war. Certainly Humphrey never would have sent troops to VN. Symington likely would have cut his losses early, had he committed some, and gotten out. Not stubborn stupid insecure Lyndon though — he needed to be a war hero (to compensate for that deficit wrt JFK??) and didn’t want to be the first president to lose a war.
The CRA went through a 2-MONTH FILIBUSTER in mid-’64. So, yes, even before the election and the permanent loss of the Dixiecrat caucus, LBJ did “need to be some legislative genius to get bills passed.”
Johnson’s need to get his entire Administration to execute extraordinary legislative skills didn’t stop after the election. Let’s consider the Voting Rights Act. In order to pass it, Johnson had to:
There were 68 Democrats in the Senate, but Johnson never had 68 Senators; far, far from it. Much wheeling and dealing was necessary for ALL of the accomplishments listed above.
“…Lyndon and his war.” The Senate voted 98-2 to grant the President broad military powers. Congress never took them away from him and funded the whole thing during Johnson’s term. McNamara, Westmoreland, and many other leaders of Johnson’s era have plenty of fingerprints on Vietnam; even Kennedy does. Yet, I would grant you that, once Congress ceded its war powers to the Executive, a truly tragic precedence, the broad escalation relied on Johnson’s decision, and LBJ was the only one who could have stopped or reduced the ultra-violence solely on his decision.
It is extraordinarily amusing to have someone claim that it was the Vietnam War that “split the country apart.” It created more divisions, but divisions were extremely plentiful well in advance of the post-Tonkin escalation.
Eerily reminding me of Iraq. And, yes, with the “weapons of mass destruction” substituting for the Gulf of Tonkin and the War on Terror replacing the Cold War. Al-queda for the “international communist conspiracy”.
Your VRA analysis neglects the role of ML Mansfield, more skilled at knowing and using the parliamentary procedures at his disposal than Johnson, as well as key Dem senators.
It also fails to account for the large role of the many moderate and liberal pro-CR Repubs in office after the 64 election. Yes, LBJ couldn’t count on 68 Dems on CR, but he could count on a sufficient working majority, or supermajority to get the bill through.
Passing the VRA was easy compared to the major slog in 64 of the CRA — that was the one I emphasized, where legislative skill was of paramount importance. And the history of its passage suggests it was Mansfield, not the more traditional-route-oriented LBJ sitting safely in the WH, who made the key decisions in the senate that enabled its eventual passage. Johnson had expected the usual difficult committee route, but Mansfield knew the bill would likely die there, and so chose a procedure which bypassed committee and brought the bill immediately to the floor pushing all else to the side.
ANd it was Mansfield and Humphrey, not Johnson, who did the major llifting wrt getting Dirksen eventually on board. Yes, Johnson brought him in for a chat, but 90% of the work was done in the backrooms by those two senators, from my reading of the history.
As for Lyndon’s War, of course no one was suggesting there were no fault lines in the country prior to his escalation – -that’s a silly straw man argument. But the war was a major factor in heightening tensions in this country in the 1965 to 68 period and it caused considerable generational and ideological (hawk vs dove) divisions throughout the country. We damn near had a civil war in this country largely owing to what his unnecessary war caused in creating massive political and social upheaval.
Contra your attempt to downplay Johnson’s central role in the war, it was clearly his decision to escalate — when, curiously, there was no significant, credible political pressure to do so particularly following a landslide election where the Right was discredited — then his ongoing decision, year after year, to stubbornly slog forward, sending in more and more troops, when it was clear that even sending over a million troops might not be enough.f
That’s something like the definition of insanity we all know. And knowing Lyndon more now than then, insanity ran deep in the man. That’s not just cynical me — check out what Bill Moyers and Richard Goodwin were seeing in Lyndon in the 64-65 period as his masively escalated.
Johnson, his Congressional allies and staff despicably escalated the Vietnam War, even though we now know LBJ was privately telling colleagues that he didn’t see how the war was winnable. There was an anti-Communist craze which did provide Johnson and his allies with their credible political motivation to escalate. Those hawks you mentioned certainly put pressure on Johnson; they existed pre-escalation, and they kept the pressure on to maintain the escalation. And the hawks were plentiful in both Parties.
That does not do away with the remarkable list of legislative accomplishments Johnson and his Congresses piled up. He worked with Mansfield and Humphrey to make the CRA happen; he used his bully pulpit fully to pressure both Congress and the Nation, and it is apparent that they needed that pressure; it barely passed.
Johnson stuck his neck out for the CRA, VRA and the rest of the Great Society achievements way more courageously and successfully than Kennedy did.
While a bit hagiographic, the video below provides contemporaneous video footage and a brief, accurate timeline of the Civil Rights Act campaign, both pre-and post-Kennedy.
FDR dealt quickly with his concern about “sticking his nsck out too far”; his speech before a joint session of Congress urging the “earliest possible passage of the Civil Rights Bill” took place 4 DAYS after Kennedy’s assassination. It’s at 9:45 on the video, and begins the video’s brief summary of President Johnson’s actions to gain the Bill’s passage. It barely talks about the 2-month filibuster at all, but does include a description of Johnson telling Senator Sam Irvin that “the n***er Bill” would be brought to the Senate soon:
Of course, I meant to write LBJ, not FDR.
Wendy Davis’ fundraising has been impressive so far… if she can somehow pull off a win this November, all bets are off for Texas in ’16.
RealPolitick people. Like her, love her, hate her or puke when you think of her … Hillary is white. And she has the first “black” president in her bed (sometimes). Shoving a fork into the racists in GA, TX and TN (yes, TN is trending blue) to say nothing of the crackers in north and central FL is worth a LOT of crap from Blue Dogs.
Of course, I still don’t think she will run. But the RW will expend far more $$$ and effort on her than on the flag amendments .. which I am convinced kept them and their resources from obliterating the progressive left in this country in 82-89. I been around a long time. This is not my first rodeo. These guys (TP and current R mainline) couldn’t get elected DOG CATCHER in SW Missouri in the mid ’60s.
You can ask my stupid brother.
You want to take back the House? Want to crush the GOP? Run on boosting the minimum wage to $15. Run on decriminalizing marijuana. There are a few more. But I think people get the point. If people believe you and you follow through, that’s what will smash the GOP.
This.
I mean, Republicans don’t even like Republicans.
But a lot of them hate Democrats because they’ve been told over and over again that Democrats only care about minorities, women, abortion, and banning guns.
If Democrats really wanted to dogstomp Republicans, they’d nominate Hillary with a slightly progressive white man (Brown from Ohio).
They’d argue for all of the things you’ve mentioned and make sure that anyone paying attention can name off the 3 or 4 really important things they stand for.
And intelligent progressives and liberals who might not vote because they’re just too PureTM to vote for HRC would instead start putting progressives into every conceivable race because HRC will have very long coattails.
Pretty much true, except some like white men as long as they are rich.
Raising the minimum wage is stimulus without raising taxes and will create more tax revenue. It will pry money from corporations and put it too work.
This is real to the average person who lives Fox propaganda. Screwing people with trade agreements and confusing taxcuts for the rich its too far removed removed from their everyday lives.
Its hard to vote against your wallet. Raising the minimum wage makes so much sense on so many levels. In Virginia we are still at 7.25. Imagine the stimulus of even a 3.00 increase. Imagine the help this brings a family relying on one or more earner making 7.25.
Remember 98% of small business have no employees. Its not going to hurt small business. This is about the big guys and getting them to put their freaking money to work. Maybe quit torturing their employees.
Raising the minimum should be the focus of 2014.
Always the talk about PA. PA isn’t going Republican. It just isn’t. Especially after the disaster that is Corbett. Shit, I remember a lot of concern troll articles in October of 2008 about how PA just might flip. He won it by what? 10 points? 11? Somewhere around there. 2012 was a little closer, but voter ID plus bad weather does the math on that one, plus a shit economy. The GOP would have to have a lot of luck to steal that one.
PA isn’t going GOP in a Presidential year. Not anytime soon. Places like WI, MI, PA and a few others would never be in the messes they are in if they held the election of their Governors the same year as the Presidential election.
And for the Democrats, the way to upend the map is to turn out 170,000 voters in each Congressional District. There should be some angry and potentially solid voters in North Carolina, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio after the shaft their legislatures have given them over the past four years. States where they are governor’s races provide an opportunity to jointly turn out people.
The Democratic strategy this year must include flipping a bunch of gerrymandered districts and flipping them solidly.
The Congressional election in 2014 is the main event, even more important than the shape of 2016. With a wave Congressional election this year and resulting strong Congressional performance over the following two years, the mood of the voters would be to want more and not go back. And that broadens the options among Democratic candidates because more can potentially win the general election and with larger margins.
The task is changing the political culture and getting rid of zombie Reaganism in both parties. And getting out of being sucked into the status PVI is destiny mindset; that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and not a scientific fact. It is intriguing that the folks most promoting it have establishment Republican leanings.
That would take a 50 state strategy and I think current thinking is for defense not offense. I agree with you but the controllers of the Party don’t agree with us.
Christie might, tho’ I doubt it, win the GOP Iowa caucuses. There’s no way he wins Iowa’s electoral votes. A loud mouthed obnoxious “Outlaw Jersey Whale” is the complete antithesis of the Iowa political psychology.
“…that the demographic that despises President Obama is significantly more open-minded about Hillary Clinton….”
Ah…how you say in Engleesh…? Nope.
Hillary is white and she (or at least her husband) understands Southerners very well and what buttons to push. Notice the last time she ran? Spoke like her Chicago roots in the North and had that drawl she picked up in Arkansas in the South.
It’s worth pointing out, I think, that Democrats prevail nationally in an electoral situation that is impossible to gerrymander, i.e., state borders.
Consider the historic moment:
The Fight for $15 campaign of fast food and retail workers is gaining traction as it becomes clear-cut that food stamps and other government benefits are subsidizing Wal-Mart’s and other corporations’ profits more than they are helping ends meet for the working poor.
That’s an overstatement. Yes, it’s making it easier for those companies to pay so little, but we don’t want to make it sound like that is the main effect of the programs. There are a lot of people that need them, not all are employed, and many of those that are would still not have higher wages without food stamps; they would just be that much more screwed.
and the move to get Walmart to improve working conditions and compensation is the other prong of the $15 min push
If we accept that the Dems will win, why would we support Hillary Clinton? We all know we can do better. Hillary is getting our support mostly because we’re terrified of risking that win. So which is it, do we assume we’re good and push for someone better, or go with the supposedly safe bet?
Well, Booman has argued that Hillary will have unusually long coattails, and I think there is something to that. It would be good to have a candidate that can flip races downticket. That said, I think the right kind of populism can play just fine in some red areas.
One area in which Republicans have been infinitely more productive than Democrats is getting Republicans elected to local/city/state office.
So, you can look at HRC and see a neo-liberal libertarian and wonder why you should vote for her, and be totally justified in that view.
That said, I believe that the first woman presidential candidate, coming on the heels of the first black president, almost ensures that she wins and wins big.
If progressives and liberals are intelligent and don’t throw tantrums that we’re not putting up a Green candidate that has no chance of winning, they can instead start to take back local/city/state governments from the fascists who currently predominate. Especially in red states.
The long game involves winning races you should win, and getting as many good candidates into public office as possible.
If anyone thinks that electing an actual progressive/liberal is possible in 2016, who will end Empire, break the CIA, and cause world peace, is naive.
Either you’re in it to win it, or you’re Purity is just another excuse to accept the status quo.
Yes, this is what drives me nuts about a lot of progressives. They refuse to grasp that trying to engineer change from the top down, starting with the White House, is an exercise in futility.
Who else? Pat Quinn? Rahmbo? I’d vote for Schweitzer but he’ll never make it. Joe Biden? Dick Durbin? Old as he is, I’d vote for Jerry Brown but that ain’t going to happen either. All prominent Democrats are Blue Dogs, tainted by corruption, or both. Their isn’t anyone but Hillary. After saying that, I do recall that in 1991 when he announced, everyone laughed at the idea if Bill Clinton. A major news magazine rated him as ninth of nine.
Sadly Human nature will out here.
IMHO if TarheelDem were to take his perspective down a level I think he’s on the money.
It’s a little trite to say ‘follow the money (AKA power)” but ostensibly it holds more truth than wishful thinking.
as I’ve said before the GOP want a win/power and they are well aware that the key to the “win” is The average Voter not necessarily the average GOPer (aka TPer). Gerrymandering is all about setting what the the ‘average voter‘. ( as my metaphorical daddy used to say ‘ there is more ways to skin a skunk other than shoving your hand up a live one’s ass , grabbing his ears to turn them inside out!)
Clearly the GOP and their backers ( who have their own …not necessarily patriotic…agenda(S) (plural)!
I put it to you the backers don’t care about ‘patriotism’ per se other than a means to an end.
I’d like a $ for every board meeting I’ve been a party in, in which the focus was on making money etc and not the countries'(again plural) interests.
Think about it would the brothers ‘very’ Grim spend their cash so wildly if and secretly if they were neither the beneficiaries or their wealth would suffer?
Cynical? no its simply objective reality.
The GOP, via ALEC and other less structured means will be to maintain power and ‘ideally win’ POTUS .
The GOP will not simply accept irrelevances ( lack of power) they will up the ante on Gerrymandering while they more the party back to the middle(ish).
PS Omitted to point out that average voter has moved to the right.
I.e. the Moderate Republicans (tricky Dicky type… look at his record ) are now functionally centre/right Dems.
Old time Lincolnesque Republicans.
The truth is several 60’s songs and even the bible note that “Cycles.”
However like ACC ( AGW if you must ) the problems begin when the swings become extreme. Humanity homo sapiens aren’t designed for extremes be that philosophic/ socially or physically.
They haven’t moved to the right. They’ve just been manipulated by right wing messaging. There is a difference. You ask the average voter specific questions about issues, they’re freaking socialists. All over this country. But the GOP have become masters at demonizing language and people and hiding policy.
You can’t lead people where they don’t want to go.
People vote their prejudices until their wallet simply can’t afford it at all, then they vote economics. And the economics have to not only be bad but trending worse.
Republican messaging works because the voters are receptive to it.
What people want for themselves is liberal socialsim. What they want for others in punitive austerity.
They don’t trust people who promise them their wish (hardly ever happens) but they do trust people who promise to hurt their ‘enemies’ because many of them perceive themselves having been hurt by the government and that makes a certain sense to them.
So am I, as your typical voter, going to vote for the person who says their policies will reach full employment and restore economic equity vs someone who says (in code per Lee Atwater) that they’ll screw over the blahs, the gays, the sluts, and those undeserving union featherbedders, too? Unfortunately for about 47% of the voters in a presidential election cycle and the majority in the off years the answer is – let’s screw over those blahs, gays, sluts, and fire those air traffic controllers again – that was f**king awesome!
then they vote economics…
Huh? since when?
they don’t do this in Kansas; in fact author Tom Frank wrote a book What’s the Matter with Kansas? detailing just how stupid and obstinate right wing voters who only care about cultural/social issues really are. I don’t see them voting their wallets there– or in the other numerous red states chocked full of Duck Dynasty fans.
Frank’s book is highly recommended reading. also read his The Wrecking Crew.
Wasn’t Frank’s point that the Democratic voters stopped voting Democratic when the party stopped doing things to benefit those voters? I’m telling you. A $15/hr minimum wage would be huge. I dare anyone to run a statewide message with that. It would win huge. The hardest part would be getting the idiot Democratic “elites” on board with it.
Thank you for your comment people,
Unfortunately it would appear that some don’t understand that the average voter doesn’t exist.
Elections are decided on individual’s “hot buttons” those hot buttons vary from person to person.
People will vote on simple issues not over all agreement with a philosophy or a platform in its entirety.
E.g. people are manipulated by their emotions/wants every day it’s called consumerism. We buy brands because of convenience, conditioning and comfort (zone).
You are out on the road and hungry do you stop at MacDonalds or the hamburger or vegetarian shop just up the road? sadly the same principal works with politics.
Ask a say a gay person if they would vote for the Dems if the official policy would be to accelerate most facets of social equity but not Gay rights; and the GOP were to ok Gay rights but kept everything as it is?
People will vote for anything that sounds or is good Providing they gain or they don’t lose anythingincluding benefits real or imagined effecting them.
This is why/how negative ads work better than positive ones.
People aren’t naturally Socialist they are animals see Jean Cocteau’s book “Le enfantes miserables”, Golding’s “lord of the flies” et al.
People are basically selfish and see what they want to see and ignore the rest.
Who would eat at macD’s if it weren’t for that?
Why do you think the USA in particular believes it is the best nation in the world? see the 3 ‘c’s above.
Yes the same applies to everyone is a sliding scale.
e.g.’Insanity’ is a created term ( legal absolute) we are all simply variation on a theme (varying degrees of what is accepted as sane.
I maybe a good father/citizen in some facets but I, as everyone have my darker side only mine is different to yours . As an ex executive I’m sure that view I’m a good or rational person isn’t universal amongst the people I had to sack.
If a democratic presidential candidate goes to Kentucky and says, in plain english, “If I don’t win you’ll lose Kynect (obamacare)”, it’s game over.
Or they might say “Keep the gubbermint out of my Kynect care”
It’s even money at best.
they’ll certainly try that, as we know
Would Republicans benefit from switching away from the Electoral College and towards the popular vote determining the presidency? Is the Democratic advantage in the Electoral College strong enough that someone whose main priority is for a Democrat to be in the White House should oppose a movement to decide the presidency by popular vote?
Barack Obama won the Electoral College and Popular Vote twice.
It’s a moot question, since congress is NOT going to change the present electoral system.
forget it.
since it requires an amendment to the Constitution, I’m thinking it will take some doing
I can more or less GUARANTEE you this will not happen.
An amendment that awards EV votes based on Congressional bounds would be a ABSOLUTE DISASTER for anyone not a Republican.
Assuming that the senatorial votes are awarded by overall vote winners in a given state, all you have to do is look at the house in 2013 to determine who would have been president now under such a scheme:
R House votes: 234
R Senatorial votes: 46: Republicans: 46 +234 Romney is President.
This, of course, assumes that I counted the damn R states correctly for the Senatorial votes.
Here’s the thing. There’s one electoral vote per congressional district. If the House margin isn’t exactly identical to the Electoral College result, then the districts are unfairly drawn.
It would be grossly unfair to go to a popular vote for the executive without also locking the house percentage to the popular vote.
For example, CA has 55 districts and 55 EVs. Let’s say the total vote is 55% democratic. 55% of the congressional delegates would have to be democratic, so you’d take the vote in each district and take the 55% that voted most democratic (even if the democrat lost) and give those seats to the dems. This would actually help the GOP greatly in CA, but overall, it would make the house look like Obama’s EV totals.
Wait – it wouldn’t make it look like Obama’s EV totals – it would instead match his popular vote total.
remember 2 of each state’s electoral votes come from the 2 Senators
Here we go again— It’s ALL about “winning” POTUS elections, when the reality is we are not winning anything at all in terms of progressive new legislation.
“Sorry”, I’m not interested in running over to Red State to GLOAT.. “Heyyy!! Look at me, we won, we won!!! Nah nah nah nah boo boo!!”
and really bad form to bring up pot legalization at the state level as some sort of feeble sign we’re making progress– given what is going on in Michigan.
In Michigan (Yes, this is the state that throws the Hash Bash every April 1 in Ann Arbor), we the voters passed a medical marijuana referendum back in 2008.
Today, there is not ONE dispensary open.
????
Nearly SIX years after passing this referendum, NO dispensaries open.
I couldn’t bear to sit thru Governor Snyder’s recent “state of the state” address.. I think it was last Thursday– partly due to the fact his hideous voice sounds like a 12 year old boy who somehow didn’t make it thru puberty.
I’ll look up the text, but I doubt much was said about medical marijuana.
I can easily see this insane foot-dragging happening in other states where maybe a referendum gets passed; whether it’s for medical pot or full legalization/
so let’s dispense with the nonsensical notion “good things are happening at the state level”.
So you spit on the accomplishments of the 111th Congress? You are unaware of the great progress made in California and other States?
The losses in Michigan and elsewhere are devastating, and I agree Snyder is oligarch-serving scum, but you’re far from accurate in claiming “we are not winning anything at all in terms of progressive new legislation.”
The Presidency is extremely important. The POTUS controls the filling of open seats in the Federal judiciary, the executions of its Agencies, and holds certain veto power over our currently polarized Congress. Examples of the importance of these things are the recent court ruling which tossed out Pennsylvania’s voter ID laws, and the immoveable backstop provided to the ACA by Obama’s re-election. Obamacare will be given a chance to succeed in States like California which implement it in good faith.
It’s possible to acknowledge these things while also recognizing your points about radical Republican rule in many States.
I’ve said it before but…winning the presidency isn’t what it used to be. Although I think most people in the GOP would like to win the presidency, and certainly the base still sees it as extremely important, it’s pretty clear that winning the presidency is, at this point, counterproductive for the GOP.
Governing is hard. Particularly when all the energy in your party is opposed to the very notion of governing. Owning the economic disaster you’re gleefully inflicting on the country is hard. Why go to all the trouble of presidenting when you can have record corporate profits, soaring inequality, and unprecedented corporate influence with a Democratic president? You can obstruct any real progress on the federal level, and let a million Kochistans bloom at the state and local level. The base is permanently energized because a socialist dictator is in the White House. There is no need to do the hard work of governing, which the party is incapable of anyway. They can focus all their energy on rhetoric and fundraising. Ratings stay high for reactionary media. It’s a win-win.