I have a weird feeling today as I look over the election results from last night. What I am seeing looks pretty much exactly like what I hoped the results would look like a year ago. I didn’t consistently predict such a positive outcome, although I may have once or twice succumbed to some irrational exuberance when Trump was at particularly low points in his campaign. But what I did is paint best-case scenarios. In my mind, the best case was that Republican support would crater among college-educated folks, white professionals, and minority and immigrant communities. Yet, Clinton would hold much of the white working class, particularly women and those with a long history of supporting the Clinton political dynasty. In other words, Clinton would make big gains while suffering correspondingly modest losses during a realignment of the electorate.
Since I live in the Pennsylvania suburbs and know this state the best, when the returns started to come in I had certain markers I was looking for to indicate for me if a best case scenario was playing out. And, initially, those markers looked good but not great. Clinton’s margins in the big cities were where they needed to be, and her performance in the suburbs was significantly better than Obama’s had been in either of his successful elections. The first problem I saw, though, was that Trump hadn’t totally collapsed in the suburbs the way I thought he should have. He was getting an inexplicable number of votes considering the expressed sentiment of the people I live and work with. Long before the absolutely devastating numbers came in from the rural parts of the state, I knew that the best case scenario wasn’t going to happen. It has hard to fault Clinton for what looked like an outstanding performance in the suburbs, but the fact that it hadn’t been even stronger cost her the state and its critical electoral votes.
Another way of putting this is that a realignment had indeed happened, just as I had envisioned, but it had been larger in the rural areas than I had considered possible even in a worst case scenario, and this had more than wiped out her gains among college educated, well-to-do white professionals. As I began to analyze what happened in other states, the same general pattern repeated itself. Another thing that became clear is that even in the districts where Republican support had cratered, it had been worse for Trump than for the downticket candidates. Clinton did not have coattails.
There are some mixed signals from last night. While the Democrats picked up a few seats in the New Jersey legislature, we didn’t see anything remotely like the tsunami that swept out Virginia’s Republican lawmakers. Still, the general impression I get is that the Republicans finally suffered the suburban, white professional collapse I hoped for last November.
Here in the Philly suburbs, the realignment definitely came, and it came with historic force. Nowhere was that clearer than in Chester and Delaware Counties. In Chester County, the Democrats won races for four so-called “row office” positions. There was a general massacre of Republican officeholders throughout the county, extending even to magisterial district judges. For perspective, since Chester County was incorporated in the 18th century, no Democrat had ever been elected to any of the nine row office positions.
In Delaware County, the Democrats won two county Council seats and took all three of the row offices that were on the ballot. Amazingly, this is the first time in history that any Democrat has won a competitive countywide election there.
These results for the local GOP are equivalent to what happened to the Democratic Party in the South over the last couple of decades.
I can’t say why exactly these results were delayed by a year. I could blame James Comey or Russian interference or reach for some other easy explanation, but my best guess is that it can best be explained by three interrelated factors. Since the Philly suburbs are historically strong Republicans bastions, there are a lot of voters here who spent the 1990’s railing against the Clintons. Hillary was a tough sell for these folks, and they were still more sympathetic to Republican candidates in downticket races. Secondly, they had no indication that Pennsylvania was actually competitive, so they thought they could vote for Trump or against Clinton without any consequences. Thirdly, some people needed to see Trump in action, as an actual president, before they could be convinced of how unfit he is for the job.
As for the other parts of the state, it looks like Trump may have maxed out in 2016. To whatever degree he’s retained his support, he certainly hasn’t improved on it. And so the realignment that began last year has proceeded, but now has moved against the GOP.
Something similar happened in Virginia last night. The state’s demographics were more favorable to the Democrats to begin with, which is why Clinton won there even while losing in Pennsylvania. But a total collapse in the suburbs and among the well educated and white professional classes was not matched by any increased strength in Trump’s strongholds. The result was that a state that took all night to call on election night last year was called in barely over an hour this time around. And Republican lawmakers who weren’t even considered vulnerable fell like bowling pins.
Congressional Republicans must be terrified by these results, and with good reason, but Trump might be a little less worried. His strongholds held fairly steady which means he still has hope of carrying states with more favorable demographics than Virginia. Considering the narrowness of his victory in the Keystone State, Pennsylvania might not be one of them, but it remains to be seen if he can swing the pendulum back in his direction before (or if) he faces the electorate again. To truly assure Trump’s defeat, the Democrats still need to get their rural losses under control. That might be easier to accomplish in areas that aren’t in the heart of Robert E. Lee’s Confederacy or in coal country. Regular small-town America in places like Ohio, Iowa and Wisconsin could move back in the Democrats’ direction if they hear a message that resonates.
And all that happened in Virginia on the nastiness day of the fall, cold and rainy.
Go Virginia
Congressional Republicans must be terrified by these results, and with good reason, but Trump might be a little less worried. His strongholds held fairly steady which means he still has hope of carrying states with more favorable demographics than Virginia.
Do you know what statewide turnout was? It was around 30% in my neck of the woods. What was turnout for VA? How did VA’s turnout contrast with 2013? NJ was never going to swing, meaning legislature, that much given it’s unique set of circumstances.
From nj.com:
“Virginia’s turnout was 47 percent. It was the highest in 20 years for a gubernatorial race, five percentage points and 10 percentage points higher than the last two races, respectively, according to the Washington Post.”
According the Virginia Department of Elections website, the turnout in 2013 was 43%.
That has to tell us something. Something we can act on next time around. Same as it always was.
They talked about turnout on MSNBC last night. Turnout up slightly in the rural areas of VA, south and southwest notably. Turnout up a lot in the blue areas, especially DC suburbs.
Right. And if Trump hadn’t been in DC and Gillespie run a standard, middle of the road GOP campaign, the turn out would have been less and Gillespie would have won. Instead of thinking its the beginning of realignment, think about message and messenger. As I have said before, Northam’s bio was perfect for middle of road GOP voter. Why didn’t work in rural areas?
R
Oops, now you’ve outed me. I’m not sure if I’m a “middle of the road, moderate Republican,” or a “middle of the road, moderate Democrat.” I may have just put myself on the Booman Tribune blacklist.
In any case, there are still true Moderate Republicans out there in Real America. I’ve met them. They exist. We spend most of our time drinking heavily and talking about Ike Eisenhower and Jerry Ford. We also talk about dodo birds and California Condors, our closest biological relatives.
We think Barack Obama served his country as President with dignity and grace, even when we disagreed with his decisions, and we fear for the future of the US without a healthy two-party system. When one party is full of raving lunatics, the center cannot hold.
Some refused to vote in 2016, but most of us voted for Mrs. Clinton, because she was a sane human being who could be trusted to not destroy the Republic… unlike most of the “great minds” in the Republican Party. In fact, many of us usually vote for Democrats, but we just don’t quite feel at home in the party.
When John Kasich is considered a moderate, you know your old party is fucked…
It’s good to have you here with us, AT.
Sounds like a full blown libtard to me.
Stick around and keep contributing, friend; there’s a core of Frog Ponders who value you and your viewpoint.
I think the biggest concern will be what jobs will remain in US for the future generations.
I hope the next national voice(s) for Democrats will be able to formulate a cogent vision of that, and be able to message it in simple terms.
But I think you are overly invested in the monopoly message. The biggest monopoly in the country right now is Amazon and rural folks LOVE Amazon. It has given them quick access to goods that they used to have to travel to the city to get. Go after Amazon and rural voters will not be happy.
That said there are messages that will resonate with rural voters
Must expand on your #1. It’s all about local control of natural resources. The GOP will sell off the state/federal forest to a corp. and leave the locals to deal with the mud slides. The GOP will sell off the ground water to a corp. to put in plastic bottles and leave them nothing to drink. The GOP will give the state power to allow fracking anywhere the oil co. wants. No regulations and taking away the local gov ability to regulate means you could be next to live down wind of the coal fired plant, the pig farm, or using your tax dollars to pay for a charter school with a 10% graduation rate.
I think you are right about Amazon. My in laws in rural Ohio even sent us details of what they want for the kids at Christmas from Amazon. My daughter in law who is very pregnant sent the details of a baby seat she wanted from Amazon at her baby shower. I ordered it on line and a day or so later it appeared at the front door. Tough to beat that and maybe a trap if you try. But, still, there is something to it. We need a way to talk about it without scaring people away.
But how is that?
I believe a majority would agree with the Washington Monthly position on monopolies being a drag on prosperity. But people LOVE Amazon, they LOVE Home Depot.
It certainly creates cognitive dissonance for me. Booman writes one of his polemics on it and I go ‘ya, he’s right’, but then I think about Amazon and Home Depot and go ‘over my dead body’.
.
It does for me too. That’s why I think we need a really good message. I feel the same way, monopoly has to be addressed. Just show me how. But don’t take away my goodies.
Heh.
Yep, ‘monopoly has to be addressed. Just show me how. But don’t take away my goodies.’
Now we know how the world shown in the movie ‘Rollerball’ came into being. Nobody wanted to lose their goodies, and then there they were.
Not the remade Rollerball, which sucked. The original Rollerball, with James Caan.
.
.
Democrats definitely need a message that might resonate in the rust belt. Thanks for consistently beating that drum. With the help of you and a few others, that message finally seems to be penetrating the consciousness of party leaders.
As for last night, I think the biggest factor is that a whole slew of voters all across the political spectrum are thirsting for authenticity. They care less about left vs right than real vs fake. Trump managed to convince a sizeable number of idiots that he was for real. A nasty SOB for sure, but at least authentic. Now that he’s been in office for a while, many of his former supporters are seeing he’s no less full of shit than the politicians who came before him. In fact, he’s far more full of shit than anyone else because the only thing he cares about is himself.
Hillary had accrued to herself over many years a reputation for being a phony. This was partly due to unflattering propaganda but she did not help herself along the way. Unlike her husband, she’s politically tone deaf (as her recent book makes clear if it wasn’t completely clear 20 years ago).
Gillespie’s reputation as an insider was no better than Hillary’s. His transparent effort to suck up to Trump voters was transparent to anyone who watched him for thirty seconds. Thus, depressed turnout in Trump strongholds. At the same time Trump himself generated huge turnout among Democrats.
So, yes, Republicans are shitting themselves this morning because 2018 promises to be quite similar. Is there a realignment? Yes, probably, a very slow moving one. But I don’t see last night’s results as evidence of it so much as evidence of the sorts of trends one sees with out-year elections magnified by the ineptitude and transparent mendacity of Donald Trump and his crew.
“Colored people are inherently inferior, and those damned illegals should all be deported” will definitely resonate, but it’s hard to see Democrats running on it….
Not at all what I was suggesting.
Clearly not, but he can’t imagine that any other message might resonate in the rust belt. Because that suggestion implies that our party could’ve done better in the recent past, which is anathema.
For me, I don’t think we need a message so much as a story. And through that story, we need to convince voters that we hate the same people they do.
If we’re talking plutocrats and billionaires I’m on board.
You’re on board!
(Also not fond of fascists.)
We desperately need someone who can tell that story.
Nice comment.
.
Be careful putting too much on “voters all across the political spectrum” Northam lost in a majority of counties. Some places 3 to 1. These are rural , conservative counties with low populations. He did win in more urban/educated/economically active areas.
Which was the HRC 2016 strategy. Fortunately, VA doesn’t have an Electoral College.
Before talk of “realignment” is thrown around, in any sense, Lets see Action (hey, the name of one my favorite songs!) in those rural counties and states.
R
You misread me. I wasn’t asserting that Northam was a particularly good candidate who appealed to people as sincere. Only that the sheen is off the rose for Herr Trump, that his voters have lost enthusiasm because he’s not who he said he was and they weren’t inclined to believe a faker like Gillespe was anything but a Washington pol.
Meanwhile, on our side, enthusiasm was through the roof. Lots of folks who didn’t believe Trump could win, who stayed home last year or cast a protest ballot, have woken up. There’s a fever on our side, the kind that gives rise to a political wave.
Suppress turnout on their side, stoke it on ours, and this is what you get. Wins up and down ballot by larger margins than anyone expected.
Sure, there are still those who vote Republican. Most of the electorate is fairly stable. Elections are won and lost in the margins.
I thought the win would depend on GoTV for Dem and depressed GOP turn out. I haven’t crunched the #s but would be curious as to how many votes came from Independents and GOPers in suburbs and if they made the difference over the numbers in the rural areas.
Because we can’t rely on a dufus as head of GOP for getting out and enthusing the Dem voters. Have to have a Democratic candidate that gets the crowds out and has a message for rural voters.
Northam’s bio is tailor made for those voters but still did horribly there. The state and national party has to come up with a message for all, not the “elites” in urban areas and surrounding counties.
R
Northam lost his home area.
He lost his childhood county Accomack. But won the more populous Northhampton Co as well as all the area around the mouth of the Chesapeake, with its large populations. That was the area he won for Va Senate and is political base.
R
He was not the strongest of best candidate for these times. Too much the old party guy. We’re lucky the R’s didn’t have anyone who could hit those notes any better than our guy.
But he won, that makes him the best candidate for this time and place, by definition. ‘Luck’? He won.
.
Hard to argue a win. Was he best? Best at what? I’ve said his bio is great for normal times Va. Trump times? A contrast.
Normal times Va would have liked Northam but enough to win? Who knows.
R
Depressing turnout in Trump strongholds? Gillespie got more votes than any R in the history of Virginia.
R turnout was high. Dem turnout was insane.
2016 Democrats: “Trump is really as bad as we say he is.”
2017 Suburban Republicans and Independents: “Hey, Trump really is as bad as liberal said he was. Why didn’t anyone tell us what they told us?”
It certainly may be the case that this reflects, in part, a realization on the part of voters, especially suburban voters, that Trump really is as bad as democrats said he would be.
But I wonder if this reasoning might extend to the republican party as a whole. After all, in 2016, the Rs were able to obfuscate the fact that their health care plan was to throw people off the rolls in order to give rich people a tax cut. That point was rather cleared up in the past year. And the R tax plan is so retrograde that it makes them seem like cartoon villains (raise taxes on teachers, universities, families with Alzheimer’s parents, and a good chunk of the middle class, to ensure that corporations get a tax cut, and billionaires can pass on wealth to their heirs tax free).
++ for this. If anything, congressional repubs have been WORSE than Trump on policy with potential impact on us white folk in suburban Philly. The long saga of OCare repeal surely a) enveloped the GOP in the stench of failure and b) made it crystal clear what a bunch of liars and policy frauds they are. That’s what’s starting to make folks press the straight ticket button at the top of the machine, finally.
So Fuck yea, DelCo. Finally we got Dems the countywide offices, after two election cycles with registered Dem majorities. Its disgust with the Republican brand, + finally off-cycle Dem turnout, that’s made that happen.
That is an interesting article you referenced about monopoly by Gilad Edelman. The Bork focus on price sounds good but it also works to hold down wages while, in the end, allowing the monopolist to raise prices for themselves. But as noted above companies like Amazon and Walmart are very popular. That they hold down wages is no mystery but it is believed their prices are the best. That could be true except there is no competition to prove it or compare it to and meanwhile they keep getting bigger. And the top managers and shareholders get richer.
And it is also true that in the past nine years there has been an acceleration of consolidations.
We need a way to talk about this without falling into a trap about well liked companies. I would start talking about wages being held down and limiting small business opportunities. But that will be challenged on the specifics.
But I can. Booman, with the utmost respect, you’re making this much too complicated. As I’ve been saying here repeatedly the only explanation is Hillary Clinton and the multi-million dollar, decades-long state-of-the-art advertising/PR/propaganda campaign to make her toxic to voters.
It would have been slightly harder for her, if there wasn’t such a long runway with her husband, allowing an amalgamated Emmanuel Goldstein scare image to be built around “the Clintons” (and all they “stand for,” legitimately or not).
I’m not saying those other factors aren’t real. I’m not saying Hillary isn’t/wasn’t problematic. (George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan were every inch as problematic.) I’m saying, for anyone who’s confused about why 2016 didn’t come out right — why, despite all the math it doesn’t look like 2017 — that’s the reason. That’s the only reason.
I don’t know how much more clearly it needs to be demonstrated. Now that she’s out of the picture, the results snap back to normal. Nobody should be confused by this, especially now.
I think it’s simple too, but for a different reason. I see it as a matter of people thirsting for authenticity in politics. Trump was able to convince enough rubes that he wasn’t a politician at all and would clean up government. Now they’re seeing the reality and if they’ve not entirely abandoned him, their enthusiasm is greatly depressed while ours is stoked to 113.
Of course that ties into Hillary’s deficiencies. She was handicapped in part by having been around forever, in part by having developed a reputation as craven (partly earned, partly inflicted). Even so, it was desperately close. I’m sure Biden could have had the chops and hit the right notes to hold off the apocalypse. He certainly wouldn’t have taken crap from Trump without pushing right back in a way that would have struck many as sincere. Perhaps Sanders could have done it too. He certainly had those who thought him a savior.
Biden? Any reason I should think he would have done better in 16 than he did in 88 and 08?
No.
Unless you are a disciple of magical thinking.
My unicorn resents that statement
Biden’s a much more compelling politician than Clinton or Kaine. Plus he knows how to appeal to working class folks. He would have never made tone deaf comments like calling Trump supporters “deplorables.”
I’d have been happy with Clinton as president. I supported her. In many ways, I thought she was the right person for the job at this time. She’s incredibly bright and her mind is ever alert and nimble. But getting elected is another matter. She lacks the common touch and is a terrible campaigner.
Biden’s not as sharp as Clinton but he’s way more charismatic. He knows how to connect with people. And he would have been much more effective as a counter puncher. He was great on the campaign trail in “08 and “12. His obvious pleasure in talking to people comes through loud and clear, just as it did for Bill. Hillary lacks that common touch.
I agree. And in reference to Maureen’s question above. Since 2008 Biden has become beloved “Uncle Joe” who washes his Trans Am shirtless on the White House driveway. (https://politics.theonion.com/shirtless-biden-washes-trans-am-in-white-house-driveway-1819570732)
Oh and he was Vice-President of the United States for 8 years. So he would not be the same candidate as he was in ’88 and ’08.
Thats said, I think his time has passed.
Clinton did not ‘call[] Trump supporters “deplorables.”‘
You evidently require the same factual correction as ag.
You really should quit doing rightwing propagandists’ dirty work for them.
No, I’m sorry but I won’t give an inch on the Hillary smear campaign. We’ve been up against this
for decades. Her “built in” deficiencies are trivial compared to Reagan, Bush, Bush or (especially) Trump. As I wrote here yesterday, the same amount of money, effort and technical expertise that goes into convincing Americans to drink Coca-Cola, went into convincing them to dislike and distrust her. Take that away and it’s an entirely different ball game.
The “authenticity” argument you make here and above/below is interesting and warrants a longer response. But in terms of any discussion of Hillary’s “built-in negatives,” I won’t budge. It’s propaganda, full stop. A nation that will elect George W. Bush will easily elect Hillary Clinton — the difference is the propaganda apparatus turned in opposite directions on the two candidates. That’s (as I keep saying) the only difference.
A nation that will elect Richard M. Nixon (twice), Ronald W. Reagan (twice), and G.W. Bush (twice) will easily elect Hillary Clinton.
FTFY
If only we can figure out what is different about Hillary (other than the fact that the above men were all immoral assholes) than the above. Perhaps it’s the lack of dong.
“Did I stutter?” (as the kids used to say). It’s the smear campaign. It’s Maureen Dowd; it’s Cokie Roberts; it’s David Broder; it’s Koch money.
Look at that Time cover above and imagine the same treatment being given to — off the top of my head — the Texas Air National Guard scandal; Arbusto; George H. W. Bush’s rôle in Iran/Contra; Diebold voting machines; even running pictures of Bush as a Yale cheerleader would have made a difference (rather than propping up his utterly fraudulent Crawford TX “I’m a cowboy and man of the people” cosplay).
I don’t know why everyone’s watering down this essential point…finding ways to mediate it. It’s the entire election; it’s the only reason Trump’s in the White House. (Even the brilliant Coates points about race take a back seat.)
Clearly the snark font on my machine is busted. I obviously agree on the smear point, not only from the right but also the left, as evidenced at this very blog.
Apologies. I misunderstood.
No worries, brah.
Think the N VA and St Petersburg FL higher than usual voter turnout maybe due to the military turning against the donald. Those areas are full of retired and active duty military. You cannot be a successful President by disrespecting Gold Star families.
I’d like to know if that were true, as it’d give me comfort that the military wouldn’t have T’s back if he tried to go full metal dictator.
Maybe I live in a fantasy land, but I cannot believe the average military person supports him. I meet plenty of marines and they are hard core when it comes to their job.
No way they accept him going after those families. They are tight, and they knew he wasn’t making those calls, they knew he was lying when he said he was making those calls. And they know Trump sending letters by special delivery months late is disrespectful.
They are serious about that stuff.
.
Last year they did, definitely in VA. I have not seen any polling this year.
My dad felt the same way and then all his neighbors put up obnoxiously large Trumps signs for size of their yards. Some put up 2-3 signs. This was in the Hampton Roads area.
I feel like some of Northam’s winning margin increase over Clinton’s last year had to be some buyer’s remorse from military personnel and their families, but I have not seen any polling confirming it.
U.S. veterans, who broadly supported Donald Trump in the 2016 election, have remained positive about the job he is doing as president. In April, 54% of those who have served in the military approved of his job performance. Trump’s job approval among the overall public was just 39%, according to the same survey, which was conducted using Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/26/u-s-veterans-are-generally-supportive-of-trump/
An analysis of Gallup polling data comparing the first 100 days of Trump’s presidency to the month of May shows that Trump’s job approval in military counties dropped sharply in the last month — from an average 51 percent approval and 41 percent disapproval in the first 100 days to 43 percent approval and 52 percent disapproval for May.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/26/u-s-veterans-are-generally-supportive-of-trump/
Not apples to apples, but most recent polling I could find related to military opinion on Trump.
Home for me, most of the year, is the Northern Virginia suburbs.
When a woman with an immigrant story, a bit of a Spanish accent, and no political experience began knocking on our door, I said, “Nice lady, but she doesn’t have a chance.” She was running for state delegate.
Our sitting delegate is a conservative R who has ingratiated himself with all of the wingnut interest groups. The demographics of the district were changing, but I assumed the Republican propaganda machine would scare white suburban voters into reelecting this dinosaur.
However, that young lady, and her volunteers, kept knocking at our door, and the state/national Democratic apparatus gave her the financial support she needed to hit back hard against the propaganda.
Last night, she won! The pattern was the same in neighboring districts.
The middle class, professional folks in my area put great value on competence and managerial skill. Increasingly, the Republicans are viewed as ideologues who put their extremism ahead of practical solutions. Anti-gay marriage and bathroom bills are good wedge issues in the rural areas, but here folks are focused on schools, transportation, and quality of life.
The Democrats, in contrast, presented themselves as technocrats, as problem-solvers who put good governance ahead of ideology.
I hope our new Democratic legislators can build bridges to moderate Republicans in the state legislature, in order to demonstrate the competence the voters are seeking.
Never gonna win elections with that message.
Something about liquidating the kulaks and expropriating the expropriators would resonate much more. Fire up the voters…
I don’t know if you’re being ironic, or if you’re serious. Sorry, I’m a little tone-deaf.
Either way, I do understand that my analysis may be flawed, and/or that my experience here may not be applicable to other areas. As our district skews younger, more professional, and with more immigrants, the cool, managerial, technocratic approach has worked.
I do understand that this formula probably can’t work in rural areas. I guess the anti-monopoly, pro-worker ideas of Booman and others are worth a try. However, I think the divide on social issues makes this a very heavy lift for Democrats.
On the other hand, if the Dems can strip away one more “ring” of exurbs around DC/Richmond/Hampton Roads, they will have a majority in the legislature. That might be doable with a more centrist/technocratic approach. Maybe? I dunno.
The really good news is that the Democrats seem serious about creating a “bench” of future stars in this state. They need to contest the Republicans in every county and city, in every race, just to build their bench.
With Davis, it’s best to assume he’s being ironic, except when he’s not. Pretty sure this is a “yes, ironic.”
But not wrong.
It’s a rare gift.
.
Each blog needs its own Jonathan Swift, Will Rogers, or Andy Borowitz. We’ve got ours. Never know what modest proposal Davis will have for us next. I come here for the popcorn on those occasions.
link
“But a total collapse in the suburbs and among the well educated and white professional classes was not matched by any increased strength in Trump’s strongholds. The result was that a state that took all night to call on election night last year was called in barely over an hour this time around. And Republican lawmakers who weren’t even considered vulnerable fell like bowling pins. “
Still seeing a rural/urban-suburban split between parties. Doesn’t mean much in state wide where numbers matter. But on a national level, with Electoral College, it does matter. Northam had limited results in those counties not benefiting from VA economic success. His speech mentioned that, but with only single term office and hostile legislature, will be tough for Democratic Party to make an impression there.
Same on national level. Will need a candidate who can appeal in Iowa, Indiana, etc…
Ridge
In my rural community the “let’s get along” slate won every contest with 2/3s to 3/4s of the votes cast. We threw the bums out. People are sick of the nastiness, corruption and selfishness they have recently seen in both local and national elected officials. The anger and disgust appears to have driven high turnout.
ummmm….its actually quite a bit worse for the R’s than meets the eye.
Near as I can figure (ballotopedia) in 2015, 71 of the Va delegate races were uncontested: 22D and 49R.
This year 33 races were uncontested: 23D and 10R.
Further, while the UnContested=>Contested races were pretty much clear wins for the R’s, the number of votes FOR the R’s was approximately the same as 2015 (with a few exceptions). Not a good sign with the opposition getting experienced in how to run a campaign.
Well, if one is going to talk of “realignment” I guess one must also conclude that Der Trumper and his open racism and dreams of ethnic cleansing have suffered some level of backlash. For this thanks obviously are due to the people of Virginia, who may have delivered an historic election–and this in a state horrifically gerrymandered by the anti-democratic Repub party, as well as against what must have been a torrent of Citizens United money in the various state legislative districts. It is quite frankly a remarkable result given the unfair playing field erected by Repubs and their “justices”.
It might even be the sort of thing to give Ryan and McConnell pause to wonder whether there is some possibility of voters holding their criminal party in DC accountable in a meaningful way. They clearly are currently committed to their abusive, wholly unnecessary tax cut scheme to pay back their plutocrat/CEO mega-donors, but perhaps they will see a need to transfer more of the cuts to the ordinary schmoe–which will require more (hidden) cuts to social programs. Will they also see a need to tack to the center on a couple token issues and work on something like the Dream Act as a way to get back in the good graces the restless suburbanites?—which will cause problems for the ethnic cleansing dream motivating the real Repub base. Those damn wedges!
Even the worst cynic likely must grant that things probably got a little harder for the criminal Repub party after last night, although given the rigged federal playing field I’ll never believe a posited “realignment” until it actually comes to pass. The last one lasted exactly four years, 2006-2010. Repubs, of course, simply cannot legislate for the common good and their illegitimate shit-for-brains Strongman is perhaps now raising eyebrows in white suburbia. Those deficiencies would destroy a party in a serious nation and democracy, but are just a drag on operations in the US.
We don’t have to “solve” the rural voter problem to win the House or the Presidency. The Senate, maybe, but remember almost all states are majority non-rural – by the Census definition all but Maine, Mississippi, Vermont, and West Virginia.
Reaching the rural population might be well worth it, but it’s not a necessity. I’m not sure the anti-monopoly tactic is the ticket, because even in rural areas farm employment is a distinct minority.
538 says that in VA, Democrats matched the partisan leans of their districts without regard for incumbency. The natural partisan lean suggests 50/50 split for chamber of delegates so the Dem advantage erased incumbency advantage.
Do they take into account gerrymandering? The House of Delegates were gerrymandered in 2011.
Redistricting in Virginia has been a controversial topic due to allegations of gerrymandering. In the 2017 Virginia General Assembly, all of the redistricting reform bills were killed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistricting_in_Virginia
Sorry, the districts refers to the congressional districts.
The partisan lean is established via determining how the district voted relative to the national average in the last 2 presidential elections with the most recent weighted 75% (2016) and previous weighted 25% (2012). In as much as the Virginia Congressional districts are gerrymandered, you wouldn’t be able to not take that into account.
Also updated numbers since my previous comment show Democrats beat the partisan lean of the congressional districts by 3 points on average.
https:/fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-2017-elections-suggest-incumbency-wont-save-republicans-in-
2018
I guess you are referring to this article?
The problem is I don’t know if you can use Presidential years to get the correct partisan lean for off year elections.
In 2009 (R) Bob McDonnell won with 58.6% of the vote and the Republicans won 59 seats in the House of Delegates.
After the gerrymandering of 2011, the Republicans got 66 seats. In 2013, after (D) Terry McAuliffe got 47.8% and (R) Ken Cuccinelli got only 45.2% of the vote the Republicans got 67 seats. I think some of these seats are at least like 2-3 pts more Republican than they are listed.
https:/en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_gubernatorial_election,_2009
https:
/en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_House_of_Delegates
Look at the number of uncontested seats. Its a clear indicator of gerrymandering. Why bother to run for a seat if (all else being equal) its baked in?
So here’s a live monopoly case. ATT wants to buy Time Warner. The government wants ATT to sell off CNN or Direct Tv. But they will fight it. Trump apparently dislikes CNN. So we could have two cable companies one owned by Comcast and another by ATT. Nice. But sad. Media monopolies.
Yes!
Another might be city wide WiFi. And internet access in rural areas. That breaks up telecom monopolies.
.