Why the Democrats Keep Losing -- With Freeptard Commentary

[Cats Against Frist]

Somebody posted this article over at that place where latent homosexuals and guys who order mail-order brides hang out:

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2005/06/why_the_democrats_will_keep_losing.html

Since the 2004 elections, many have been debating "why Kerry lost," and more broadly "why the Democrats have been losing ground." Much of the debate has focused on the never-ending seesaw of "swing voters vs. base voters," or cultural/religious/"What's the Matter with Kansas?" issues, even George Lakoff-type "reframing" of key concepts and themes.

But what has been completely missing from the conversation is the fact that even when the Democrats win more votes, they don't necessarily win more seats. That's true in the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House, and the Electoral College. That's because there is a structural disadvantage for Democrats resulting from regional partisan demographics in red versus blue America that now are strongly embedded into our fundamental electoral institutions. This unfair structural disadvantage makes it more difficult for Democrats to win than Republicans. It's like having a foot race in which one side begins 10 meters in front of the other, election after election.




It's an interesting article -- but, my brain being fried, and all, from a long day of following a 3 year old around, I'm trying to decide if this article is the end-all, be-all of this argument.

Is there institutional/Constitutional bias against the Dems?

The Shriveled Penis Club seems to think not:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1421591/posts?q=1&&page=1#1

You have to sift through half the post, before you come to anything that even resembles a potential argument, from a sentient human being -- save one voice of reason that squeaks by, completely ignored by the Rushbots.

Anyway -- for people who are better than I am at deciphering statistics, numbers, etc. -- is the article accurate? Are we really at a built-in disadvantage?

I guess I'm looking at it from the point that all the freeper arguments are moot -- no matter how or why you try to paint it, it seems that Democratic voters are receiving less representation. Why, of course, IS important -- but in light of them attempting to get rid of the filibuster, so they can make this a totalitarian nation, and all their crowing about how Loony Mammon Smoke-Machine Jesus rules 'Murica -- I think it's funny that they're STILL -- the minority? Or are they?

[snowbear]

1. The funny thing is.... they're not really losing... ;)

[Cats Against Frist]

2. Touche

I'm well aware of the questionable circumstances surrounding the election. I guess I'd just like to pose the question outside of that.

Not that that question isn't important.

[AX10]

3. We need to get that sent out ot the public.

[Internut]

4. The article is correct in what it says, of course,

but unless the Democratic party is willing to push for amending the Constitution to get rid of the "two Senators per State" rule, there is absolutely nothing that can be done about the Senate. As the article correctly points out, only fancy gerrymandering of House districts will get rid of the Republicans' advantage there. That will be exceedingly hard to do in any state that is red or purple, and its effectiveness would be diminished in blue states anyway.

The only thing that may be possible to do is to pass the State laws that would apportion Presidential Electors for the state proportionately to the vote, but this has to be done simultaneously in most states since, if it is done only in bluish states, it will spell electoral disaster for Democratic party.

In summary - yes, the article is right, but, since nothing much can be done about the underlying causes, that's the reason it is not discussed much in preparing for future elections.

[Yupster]

9. In the senate

the advantage is greatly with the smaller states who get two votes just like the larger states do.

Since Democratic strength resides in cities, which are mostly in bigger population states, that puts them at a disadvantage in the senate.

Since each state gets an electoral vote for each senator, again that means smaller population states are overrepresented in the electoral college.

So, it is an obvious truth that all things being equal, Republicans will start out with an advantage in the electoral college and in the senate.

In the House there are two things working.

First, it's the concentration of voters. You don't want to win your diestricts with 90 % of the vote because that's wasting votes that could have gone to winning another district. Much more than Republicans, Democratic support is concentrated in overwhelming numbers of voters in small areas. We all know in every election that in many states while we watch the returns come in, Republicans win county after county with a 60-40 split, and then we all wait for the one big county in the inner city to come in and vote 90-10 % Democratic.

Therefore, it's only natural that the Republicans will have an advantage when the lines are drawn because it will be normal to draw the inner city district intact, the Democratic candidate will win it by 90 % but the Republicans will win three other districts 60-40.

This disadvantage had been historically combated by the Democratic controll of most state legislatures who would gerrymander the districts to split out the city vote into neighboring districts. For instance, all through the nineties in Texas every two years more voters voted for Republican House candidates than Democratic ones, yet Democrats kept a 17-13 advantage in the House delegation because the state legislature was Democratic and drew the districts.

Startng in the Eighties, the Republicans made a concerted effort to win state legislature seats throughout the country, and they've had good success at this especially in the south.

The gerrymandering that Democratic legislatures used to use to combat the Republicans natural electoral advantages are no longer so effective and in many states (like Texas) are now being used the other way.

So, in summary, yes Geography and the Constitution give the Republicans certain natural electoral advantages, but not so great that they cannot be overcome in the general ebb and flow of politics.

[Cats Against Frist]

11. I know this might seem like an un-related question:

but why are the freepers such fucking asshats?

They can't even admit, in their thread that there's an advantage -- even if it's small, on their part. They keep making these excuses, from ad hominem insults, to harsh criticism of the Democratic Party, to attempted statistical analyses that mean nothing.

But the truth is, I guess, it doesn't matter where the hell the people are AT, geographically. If 51 percent of the vote goes to the Democracts and 49 the Republicans, but the pukes still come out with an extra handful of Senate seats -- while it could be argued the Democrats should have MORE if they appealed to more people -- it's still underrepresentation.

So they say, "duh...republic...duh...urban...duh...founders...duh," but they seem to not care that the outcome, however Constitutional, STILL OVERREPRESENTS the small-population red states. It's like inviting your blind uncle over to play video cames, and then bragging, because you beat him. And then, further, trying to stop the fillibuster is like making your blind uncle play with one hand tied behind his back.

What a bunch of fucking asshats. In a world where the majority of people had brainstems, this would be rectified, somehow.

[Initech]

5. I like what this one Freeper wrote

"This whole article could be reduced to 8 words:

"Americans don't buy their line of BS anymore""

Hmmmmmmm... the same could be said about THEIR line of thinking!

[justgamma]

6. Could it have something to do with gerrymandering? n/t

[Internut]

7. If you read the article, you will see that

they say that Republicans have an advantage over Democrats without gerrymandering. In fact, they suggest that gerrymandering is a way to remove that advantage.

[Guaranteed]

8. Yes, the Senate gives the repukes a serious advantage.

Wyoming has a million people in it, out of a country with 300 million. They get two Senators out of 100. Same with the rest of the rural states. That's certainly an advantage for the Repukes.

Plus, it depends on the way things have been gerrymandered. Nowadays my guess is the Repukes have a serious advantage there, too, so the House is tilted in their favor.

[KingFlorez]

10. Reply

I'm not convinced that structure is the problem, since we controlled the House and The Senate for 40 years and have won numerous presidential elections. I think that we lost in 2004, for one because of the voting machines and two, because we as Democrats pulled a "Me Too" sort of campaign, sort of agreeing with the Repugs on certain issues to appease voters. Thats what has kept the Tories out of power in the UK. That alieanated our base and kept alot of people home on election day, because they saw no reason to vote for us if we we're just repeating the Republican line.

[Writer]

12. Why do the Democrats "keep losing?" Simple...

they weren't in power when the terrorists struck. The GOP has been waving the bloody shirt of 9/11 ever since, accusing Democrats of siding with the enemy.

There is only so much the Dems can do after being handed such a crappy hand.

[Lexingtonian]

13. I don't really buy it

If you look at it as a whole, states with about 11 electoral votes break even. Larger states get lesser representation per resident, smaller ones more. When I compare the lists of states, I don't see much of an advantage. Or rather, enough to gripe about.

Arguably there is a Democratic advantage now. Kerry could have tied in the electoral college with ~60,000 votes distributed over Iowa, New Mexico, and Nevada. Kerry could have won it with ~130,000 more votes in Ohio. Bush's ~3 million vote margin would have been for naught.

The truth is that there's a hard 'cultural' divide that Democrats have been running up against. Conservatives have had the structural advantages to make Red swing states harder for Democrats than Liberals can make Blue swing states hard for Republicans.

There has been 'white flight' and migration from partisanly secured places like California and Texas and Utah into the relatively thinly Mountain West that has kept states that would otherwise be swing states now Republican. There's even a fairly deliberate effort- Republicans have done a lot to achieve conservative white migration to places with growing nonwhite populations, e.g. Florida and Colorado and Arizona and Nevada. It's done by doing stuff like moving defense industry factories from Blue to Red States, or industries that employ lots of e.g. Mormons (like the Las Vegas casino industry). At this point the national electoral map has a roughly 3-5% partisan 'bump' between Red and Blue swing states that constitutes a Republican advantage. Look at Kerry's and Gore's campaigns- the primaries had to be run to win electorates like California's and Maryland's. The general election campaigns had to be run to win electorates like Florida's and Ohio's, with the Southwest sadly not in a political condition to bet a Democratic campaign on yet or claim a mandate from even if it was won there.

That's just how it is. There is a cultural-political 'fortress'. And Republicans are finding the country around the fortress increasingly difficult to dominate. It used to be, in say 1992 or 1995, that they were angry- because Liberals were actually showing strength in numbers and fights ended up being real tests of strength, even though Liberals lost them, rather than routs and conservative Democrats being quick to fold. In the ten years since, the fights have become more and more even. It's roughly the pattern of the warfare of the Civil War- Southern experience and skill and escalation was dominant at the beginning of that war and they engaged in denial that it would ever be otherwise, but Northerners came to match them, endured a horrible period of mutual physical attrition, and then overpowered them bit by bit.

The feeling of minority is real. Democrats are presently the human messengers and promoters of the interests of the Modern world, are a numerical minority, and can be avoided and pushed back to a large extent- still. But the rest of the Modern condition and the painful transitional phenomena creep in everywhere- the economic competition, the change in mores, the change in expectations, the endangerment of the entitlements and and guarantees. The most famous book about Modernity has the title "All That Is Solid Melts Into Air"- and that is very literally what they feel. It's what traditionalists and conservatives worldwide feel. And the result is that they panic and cling to things that seem to them to guarantee them safety, a place in society, and therapy from the way the world is renegotiating their life choices and hopes and desires without leaving them a real sense of control. They watch each other- even the strongest of the conservatives- get buffetted and pulled under by the Changes, the inability to be masters of much or any of their destiny, and it frightens them. Not just that, but everyone around them seems to be trying to negotiate a separate peace with Modernity or losing his/her fight to various forms of slow psychological or spiritual or physical suicide. Tossing aside the Old Ways in substance while pretending to conform to them, or conforming to them and failing in the world.