Rory Cooper @rorycooper Under President Obama, Democrats have lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats. That's some legacy.
Ouch. The context for Cooper's tweet is last night's elections, which should come, as Greg Sargent writes, as a "brutal reality check for the Democratic Party" — and one with real consequences for Obamacare and climate change.
For more on the Democratic Party's downballot crisis, read Matt Yglesias's feature on the subject. Political scientist Phil Klinkner has a more optimistic take for Democrats: "There's nothing wrong with the Democrats that losing the presidency probably won't fix," he writes. But Lee Drutman thinks the party's fortunes are darker: In a fascinating analysis, he argues that America is entering "a reinforcing feedback loop of growing inequality and Republican rule."
Because young voters suck ass. They only vote when something sexy is dangled in front of them like a shiny cantankerous socialist running for POTUS. But 90% of elections are not sexy. It's school bonds, city council races, library taxes, judges, treasurers, and the like. It's boring. It's dull. It's not new and exciting and monumental but mundane, perfunctory, and bureaucratic. Young people can't get it up for the banal. To their detriment. That's why Dems lose and will continue to do so in these off season elections
Democrats are absolutely failing on a local level, but let's not pretend gerrymandering hasn't been involved in that shift. I don't know that that will directly translate to the 2016 election, though obviously that's a possibility. Everyone is increasingly dissatisfied and disenchanted so there is definitely a backlash occurring, but the establishment Republican party is suffering from that too, albeit in a different manner.
That said, there is one thing that truly threatens the Democratic party and that is complacency. If you don't show up and vote, you have no right to complain about the results.
Democrats need to figure out how to drive turnout in midterms. It's a huge problem for the party. Part of problem is that like heyjude said, young voters are lazy.
But I think there's more to it than that. Democrats tend to include the minorities, working poor, and urban voters. And what do young people, working poor, minorities, and urban voters have in common? They don't own property. While I think there's a lot of bullshit spewed about how much better home ownership is for America, I do think it's not a completely irrational generalization to say that renters can be more detached from their community than homeowners. Not because they rent, but because the people who rent often (not always, but often) tend to be people who are not planning on putting down permanent roots in that area for whatever reasons. They move around more, either by choice or necessity (e.g. low income people struggling to find good deals, people in graduate school, people saving for their first home, etc). These things make these voters less likely to care about property taxes, bonds, public works projects, etc. Young people often do not have kids, especially those who are renting, so they are less likely to care about schools.
Democrats need to put things on mid-term ballots that renters care about.
My state legislature has 101 democrats and 12 republicans.
I would not say that democrats are struggling on a local level here.
This is another good point.
Republicans are winning in rural areas.
Democrats increasingly are controlling densely populated urban states. And cities. A democrat became mayor of Indianapolis last night for crying out loud. There are fewer and fewer Republicans controlling cities these days. Controlling 75% of the land mass in this country (or whatever the percentage is) stops being impressive when it's where 25% of the country's income is being generated and is being propped up by gerrymandering.
My state legislature has 101 democrats and 12 republicans.
I would not say that democrats are struggling on a local level here.
This is another good point.
Republicans are winning in rural areas.
Democrats increasingly are controlling densely populated urban states. And cities. A democrat became mayor of Indianapolis last night for crying out loud. There are fewer and fewer Republicans controlling cities these days. Controlling 75% of the land mass in this country (or whatever the percentage is) stops being impressive when it's where 25% of the country's income is being generated and is being propped up by gerrymandering.
Indy has always had a mix of D and R mayors - kind of goes back and forth. I think the last R mayor followed a D mayor who followed a few terms of R mayors, like Lugar. And he wasn't terrible - he came out pretty strongly against that bullshit RFRA. I just hope Pence loses next year. Indiana governors were Ds for quite awhile until Daniels was elected.
I actually don't think Ds are in crisis. It's the same old story about turnout and unfortunately voters seem to love learning the hard way that voting matters. Indiana, Pence and the RFRA are a good example. He thought he had a lot of support because he won easily but turnout was super low and people were all meh about voting. My guess is turnout will be big when he's up for reelection in response and he will hopefully be sent into obscurity where he belongs. But it's a lot harder to get that response with lower level elections because it has to be really egregious for enough people to care to overcome an incumbent. I think with president, and governor, they are more the face of the fuck up and people are more likely to show up to vote against them.
One thing which I feel, from a personal perspective, is that both parties and their supporters fail infamously at approaching undecided voters with effective enticements.
The vitriolic spatting and lobbing of insults across the aisle with blanket statements about stupidity, ignorance, and boiling one person's entire voting stance to one singular issue - when it is rarely ever that simple - is making zero progress. Zero. It might make folks feel all dandy in the moment, but doesn't swing the pendulum.
There's this constant assumption that, "Well, duh, if you were smart, you'd vote with our side! Eventually you'll see!" NO. You need to meet me where I'm at, understand where I've been, and talk with me about where I need to go.
My state legislature has 101 democrats and 12 republicans.
I would not say that democrats are struggling on a local level here.
This is another good point.
Republicans are winning in rural areas.
Democrats increasingly are controlling densely populated urban states. And cities. A democrat became mayor of Indianapolis last night for crying out loud. There are fewer and fewer Republicans controlling cities these days. Controlling 75% of the land mass in this country (or whatever the percentage is) stops being impressive when it's where 25% of the country's income is being generated and is being propped up by gerrymandering.
Having worked for a local government, we talked a lot about how voters are self selecting by where they live. More progressive voters tend to live in Towns/ cities while conservative voters live in the county and rural areas. We have a very progressive city council, where even the conservative republican mayor was the one to introduce a non-discrimination ordinance.
I will also point to the local conservative county commission, who refused to put a pollo g place on the university campus because "it was too hard to schedule." WHAT?!
One thing which I feel, from a personal perspective, which both parties and their supporters fail infamously at is approaching undecided voters with effective enticements.
The vitriolic spatting and lobbing of insults across the aisle with blanket statements about stupidity, ignorance, and boiling one person's entire voting stance to one singular issue - when it is rarely ever that simple - is making zero progress. Zero. It might make folks feel all dandy in the moment, but doesn't swing the pendulum.
There's this constant assumption that, "Well, duh, if you were smart, you'd vote with our side! Eventually you'll see!" NO. You need to meet me where I'm at, understand where I've been, and talk with me about where I need to go.
Except the data collected by political scientists shows that true independents are, as a group, low-information voters. Look at the 2012 midterm - if you couldn't decide between Romney and Obama pretty early on, it's likely because you didn't know where you stood on issues, didn't know where they stood on issues, or both.
If you live in Wisconsin and were undecided on Scott Walker in 2014, it's because you weren't paying attention.
True independents are a very small part of the electorate. They are low information voters. And they tend not to vote.
Turnout is the key, and voter enthusiasm that spurred turnout is how Obama won both years.
Post by tacosforlife on Nov 4, 2015 21:43:19 GMT -5
And I think Wisconsin is a prime example of these issues. The state hasn't gone for a Republican in a presidential election since 1984. But it's gone insane with (disastrous) conservative state officials and policies in the last 5 years.
The rural/urban divide is so real. And so is gerrymandering. I'll have to pull the maps for Ohio tomorrow from my computer.
On a local level for me, we choose between democrats, extreme left democrats, and socialists. There's a Republican group that tries to promote Republican leadership in the city and it has two members. Two. Drive 15 miles west and you are in Republican country. But there are only 20,000 of the Republicans and 50,000 Democrats. You better believe they figured out a way to gerrymander around that.
Every time this topic comes up, I wonder about people working multiple jobs. Each employer should be giving time off during poll hours, but if you have multiple jobs then you may not have time to travel to the polling place, vote, and make it to your next job on time.
Early voting is an option, but here most of it is during normal business hours, so if you are struggling to get enough money to then you might not have the energy to prioritize voting. Add in the difficulty of finding the right polling place you may just decide it is not worth the effort.
For me the polls were difficult to find. I had one person call the main office and was still given the wrong location. I think we just went to every poll until we found our names.
Because young voters suck ass. They only vote when something sexy is dangled in front of them like a shiny cantankerous socialist running for POTUS. But 90% of elections are not sexy. It's school bonds, city council races, library taxes, judges, treasurers, and the like. It's boring. It's dull. It's not new and exciting and monumental but mundane, perfunctory, and bureaucratic. Young people can't get it up for the banal. To their detriment. That's why Dems lose and will continue to do so in these off season elections
Young people have to know when those votes take place.
I usually don't even hear about local elections until they are passed.
Because young voters suck ass. They only vote when something sexy is dangled in front of them like a shiny cantankerous socialist running for POTUS. But 90% of elections are not sexy. It's school bonds, city council races, library taxes, judges, treasurers, and the like. It's boring. It's dull. It's not new and exciting and monumental but mundane, perfunctory, and bureaucratic. Young people can't get it up for the banal. To their detriment. That's why Dems lose and will continue to do so in these off season elections
This is a big problem though. These are the elections that truly effect the most people on an every day basis. If you want a more equal, level playing field, you have to vote in these types of elections. Otherwise, we're just talking about building a better society in the abstract. It's all hot air. Sanders can pontificate all he wants about how he will change the country when he is elected POTUS but many of the changes he wants to implement will not happen if most people don't vote in their local and state elections. For one thing, he will need the willpower of Congress on his side.
I want to start a non partisan non profit that gets out the vote for local elections.
ETA: last year when I was trying to figure out what to do with my life, this was the thing that I kept coming back to. I've also become really passionate about public education (I can make an excellent argument for why a strong free, public education is actually something conservatives should support because it would actually give some weight to the bootstraps argument and it's the most bang for your buck ROI wise lol). But I think something like voter turnout and local elections could also effect change in public education so I could kind of combine two things I'm passionate about with a get out the vote operation.
I want to start a non partisan non profit that gets out the vote for local elections.
And actually I wish that after he's out of office President Obama would get involved in something like this. His get out the vote operation has been excellent during each election and I think he (well, his people) would have some good insight.
I don't think we would see low turnout if we could figure out a way to get voting online. Obviously that has all the markings of potential disaster, but I would challenge the youths to figure it out.
I want to start a non partisan non profit that gets out the vote for local elections.
And actually I wish that after he's out of office President Obama would get involved in something like this. His get out the vote operation has been excellent during each election and I think he (well, his people) would have some good insight.
I will volunteer to manage the digital marketing. Not kidding.
I've long wanted to do more to raise the awareness that voting is SPECIAL. It's our voice and absolutely every able-minded voter should participate. And it shouldn't be partisan in any way, shape, or form. At the end of the day and when we die, we'll all be human beings who could have made change happened.
Post by tacosforlife on Nov 5, 2015 8:29:56 GMT -5
One of the problems with local election coverage is the decline of the good local newspaper. There are some blogs that have picked up the slack, but not every place has that. Now that a handful of companies own most major news organizations, reporting on local races is pretty abysmal. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel just got purchased by Gannett (you know, of USA Today brilliance). I weep for the future of my city's news coverage.
Local elections are H's big moaning point. He will go on for way too long about how for the vast majority of people the person who is actually sitting in the White House doesn't have a lot to do with day to day life and doesn't really change all that much. Whereas the schmuck on the school board/city council/sheriff/whathaveyou can really make your life miserable.
Post by Velar Fricative on Nov 5, 2015 8:35:58 GMT -5
People have to turn out to vote, and they have to be ALLOWED to vote.
I'm still seething over jln's experience on Election Day. Enough with the voter fraud myths and disenfranchisement. Apparently it's okay to hinder one's constitutional right to vote but it's not okay to hinder one's constitutional right to bear arms. Everyone deserves a voice.
Young people have to know when those votes take place.
I usually don't even hear about local elections until they are passed.
I think with yard signs, news and the fact that it's November, there are plenty of hints. People need to take some responsibility on this.
Yes, now makes sense, the pp mentioned school boards, city council, etc. In my area a lot of the time those things happen in April? May? I'm not even sure most of the time.
ETA: And one can say that people need to take responsibility, but if it isn't working for 90% of the population, maybe something else needs to be tried.
Post by tacosforlife on Nov 5, 2015 8:44:45 GMT -5
It's hard for me not to get a little conspiracy theorist on certain groups wanting an ill-informed electorate. In many areas, public broadcasting has the best local news coverage. Yet certain groups continually want to slash public broadcasting funds.
I don't think we would see low turnout if we could figure out a way to get voting online. Obviously that has all the markings of potential disaster, but I would challenge the youths to figure it out.
voting app! lol.
Maybe we could combine two pet causes - Ds push to get out the vote and make it more accessible and Rs love for voter ID/voter fraud. Make the login your fingerprint on a smartphone, which seems much more difficult to get around than say a photo ID.
Voter turnout is a huge issue in this country and we need to find a way to fix that. We are so fortunate to have a say in our government, to have a voice. People often feel like their vote doesn't matter, so why bother, but that's not true at all.
I do think, though, that limited hours and needing a "valid reason" for a mail in absentee ballot are disenfranchising a lot of people. It seems like the people most in need of accommodations can't get them. Those who work 12 hour shifts with a few minutes of getting dressed/undressed on the other end and a short commute and suddenly you can't get there, those who are shuffling between three part time jobs and maybe school as well may not be able to get to their polling station easily or at all during those hours. I know a lot of people whose work situations won't accommodate voting no matter how badly they want them to. And a disproportionate number are people who are poor and can't risk losing their job over getting to the polls. Or if you get sent on a business trip over election day within 30 days of the election and can't request an absentee ballot or have a long commute that has you out of town for the entire voting window (very very common in my town, and something H has to navigate; thankfully he is in a white collar job where nobody batted an eyelash at him leaving work a little early Tuesday).
I dont bother voting in local elections. I mean, in the general, every 3 votes for a D was the equivalent of 1 vote for an R due to gerrymandering - hence NC voting across the board red, and also voting for Obama.
Which means:
a) there are a lot of Obama loving republicans in NC or
b) gerrymandering has made voting on anything other than the Pres a total waste of time.
So Im not sure its fair to bemoan voters not turning out at mid terms etc. I also don't try to make my car fly or sing soprano. Some things are simply not worth the effort as the conclusion is forgone.
California has one of the EASIEST ways to vote. A few weeks before ANY election a ballot shows up in my mailbox. I think about it. Mail it back. Or drop it off at any polling place. Done! I voted! I can't think of a simpler process.
But guess what? Our voter participation rates are still ABYSMAL! And guess what? The young people by and large don't give a shit about the non sexy elections (read; MOST of them).
Which is OF COURSE a huge problem!!
I don't think we need to manufacture issues for the young and less politically influenced to care about. I think people need to realize that voting is a duty, it won't always go the way you want, and there is more to making a society tick than marijuana or gay marriage or a shiny new socialist!
I don't think we would see low turnout if we could figure out a way to get voting online. Obviously that has all the markings of potential disaster, but I would challenge the youths to figure it out.
voting app! lol.
Maybe we could combine two pet causes - Ds push to get out the vote and make it more accessible and Rs love for voter ID/voter fraud. Make the login your fingerprint on a smartphone, which seems much more difficult to get around than say a photo ID.