[RD] The Democrats are to Blame for Republican Control of the US

[BvBPL]

Are you upset with the Republican control of the United States? Blame the Democrats.


Democrats outnumber Republicans in the United States with 32% of Americans identifying as Democrat and 23% as Republican. Counting those inclined to vote for a party doesn’t really change anything proportionally with 48% of the population leaning Democrat and 39% Republican.


Given this differential, one wonders why the GOP is the more powerful party in the United States. The Republicans control the House and Senate, 31 of the 50 governorships (62%), and 69 of the 99 state legislatures (69%), far in excess of what the voter affiliation numbers would suggest.


It’s the fault of the Democrats. While more people identify themselves as or align with the Democrats, many fewer of them voter. Half of the some 93 million Americans who were eligible to vote in 2012 but do not were Democrats or leaning to the Democrats versus less than third being or leaning Republican. That’s 46 million votes that the Democrats basically left on the table. That’s 43% of the Democratic leaning population of eligible voters that do not vote. To contrast, 30% of non-voters are Republican or leaning that way did not vote, about 28 million people, 35% of the Republican-leaning constituency.


Stepping up Democratic engagement in the political process by getting merely fifteen percent of Democratic-leaning non-voters to cast a ballot would result in some 7 million more votes being cast. To give you an idea of what that means, Obama’s popular vote margin the 2012 election was less than 5 million votes.


To be successful, Democratic leadership need to refocus its resources away from costly political ads and towards effective get out the vote efforts. Into mid-August, HRC and HRC supporters spent $104 million on ads whereas in 2014, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spent all of $60 million on get out the vote efforts. Getting more people to the polls will be vastly more effective across all contests then shoring up HRC's campaign with glitzy, vapid ads.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Obama and Clinton have run the largest ground games in presidential history.

 

[Leoreth]

Well isn't the problem that Democrats need "get out the vote" efforts in the first place?

The Republican base is just much more enthusiastic slash radicalised. Not sure if that is something to be envied but it's certainly a factor in the imbalance.

 

[metalhead]

Who is to blame for the thoroughly incompetent job Republicans have done governing? Also the Democrats?

 

[BvBPL]

Obama and Clinton have run the largest ground games in presidential history.

It obviously is not working as well as it should. Whether that means it needs to bigger still or requires a change in methodology is an open question.

 

[Kozmos]

Really? I thought it was basically because Republicans gerrymandered the living daylights out of most states.

 

[Evie]

The part where the Republican took advantage of one particular backlash against the democrats (2010 elections) to redraw the congressional map in a way that makes it so the Democrats can win the popular vote in the house by 1.2% , but lose the house by 30-odd seats (2012) probably helps with Republican control of the US too.

That the current senate is made of 2/3rd mid-term senators (2010 and 2014 batches) elected under a Democrat president (which tends, beyond any party participation issue, to favor the party not in power unless the president is really popular) probably also helps.

That the Senate has equal representation by state, granting equal representation to massively populated democratic states and thinly populated republican ones, also also probably helps. It largely neuters the democrats' number advantage.

 

[onejayhawk]

The part where the Republican took advantage of one particular backlash against the democrats (2010 elections) to redraw the congressional map in a way that makes it so the Democrats can win the popular vote in the house by 1.2% , but lose the house by 30-odd seats (2012) probably helps with Republican control of the US too.

That the current senate is made of 2/3rd mid-term senators (2010 and 2014 batches) elected under a Democrat president (which tends, beyond any party participation issue, to favor the party not in power unless the president is really popular) probably also helps.

That the Senate has equal representation by state, granting equal representation to massively populated democratic states and thinly populated republican ones, also also probably helps. It largely neuters the democrats' number advantage.

While none of this is specifically untrue, you exaggerate the effect significantly. That said, watershed elections tend to beget watershed elections, eg 1994 to 2006 to 2014. The pendulum swings both directions. It swings further in midterms because turnout is lighter. Again, that cuts both ways.

J

 

[Evie]

Any of those alone would be insufficient to establish Republican control, but piling those three factors amount to a very significant contribution. So does lack of democrats participation, of course.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I don't know if this thread is intended to needle Democrats, but I for one am happy to blame my fellow Democrats for not getting out to vote.

Get out to vote, Dems! Especially in mid-term elections!

 

[mrt144]

Yeah, it's like the reaction he wants is for people to be like "NO YOU" and we're like "Yeah, we gotta do better."

 

[metalhead]

Don't worry, I have nothing but unbridled contempt for all those people who didn't bother voting in 2010 and 2014, and are now threatening not to vote in the 2016 general because "the system sucks." The system sucks specifically because entitled asswipes don't bother participating in it every year.

 

[Evie]

Hey, I'd have bothered to vote, but despite it being pointed out to you several time that the "leaders of the free world" should be voted on by the free world, you Americans still refuse to let us vote in your elections

Actually, I'd probably have a bigger stake in the result of the US elections than in the result of many local elections here in Canada. So yes, it is very perplexing to me people in the US who decide not to vote in their elections in drove, with participation more terrible than it is here.

(But that doesn't mean it,s the only reason for Democratic misfortune in the current political climate).

 

[mrt144]

Hey, I'd have bothered to vote, but despite it being pointed out to you several time that the "leaders of the free world" should be voted on by the free world, you Americans still refuse to let us vote in your elections

Actually, I'd probably have a bigger stake in the result of the US elections than in the result of many local elections here in Canada. So yes, it is very perplexing to me people in the US who decide not to vote in their elections in drove, with participation more terrible than it is here.

(But that doesn't mean it,s the only reason for Democratic misfortune in the current political climate).

Dude, move here. I'd love to have more people that want to share their experiences and insight voice their opinions. We are dreadfully in need of new blood in this country. Bring on the immigrants!

Edit: Oh, you're canadian. STFU and enjoy your life.

 

[Evie]

Oh, I do enjoy it. But still, being a mouse in bed with an elephant, you do wish you had more say in which way it tosses through the night.

 

[mrt144]

Oh, I do enjoy it. But still, being a mouse in bed with an elephant, you do wish you had more say in which way it tosses through the night.

Learn to play proper gridiron football, then we'll talk.

 

[Bootstoots]

This is precisely why the Democrats need to lose this presidential election. If they were to lose, then Trump will be such a disaster that the Democrats will be very likely get the wave election they need in 2020, and they'd also minimize the damage to the Senate and likely retake the House despite the gerrymandering in 2018. As it is, they're basically going to fight 2012 all over again with an weaker candidate in 2020, which is a census year. The Republicans will retain control over the majority of state legislatures and gerrymander another Rep advantage. If they run someone who isn't as unlikable as Trump or Cruz, they could easily get the presidency along with both houses and most state legislatures complete with redistricting privileges. It will take until about 2030, by my crude reckoning, before the demographics will so favor the Democrats that they'll be able to reliably win the House no matter how gerrymandered the districts are, assuming that the Republicans continue being lily-white and the Democrats continue winning most minority votes, i.e. no major realignment happens.

A Clinton win means more gridlock, roughly the same as at present. A Trump win means that we go through an extremely risky phase with no real upside, and a more hostile SC. But if we pop out of it intact in four years, the Democrats will dominate pretty much forever until the entire party system changes to something totally unlike the present. President Trump's erratic behavior and denouncement by large sections of the Republican Party could easily put enough strain on the party to break it apart entirely; whereas in opposition they can continue being crazy and just obstructing everything as they presently do. Still though, President Trump would be a hell of a gamble.

 

[Evie]

That sounds like a fairly gigantic "If".

Safer plan would be to push state constitution amendment/law change through referendum at the state level to take redistricting out of legislative hands and into at least nominally non-partisan bodies.

 

[mrt144]

This is precisely why the Democrats need to lose this presidential election. If they were to lose, then Trump will be such a disaster that the Democrats will be very likely get the wave election they need in 2020, and they'd also minimize the damage to the Senate and likely retake the House despite the gerrymandering in 2018. As it is, they're basically going to fight 2012 all over again with an weaker candidate in 2020, which is a census year. The Republicans will retain control over the majority of state legislatures and gerrymander another Rep advantage. If they run someone who isn't as unlikable as Trump or Cruz, they could easily get the presidency along with both houses and most state legislatures complete with redistricting privileges. It will take until about 2030, by my crude reckoning, before the demographics will so favor the Democrats that they'll be able to reliably win the House no matter how gerrymandered the districts are, assuming that the Republicans continue being lily-white and the Democrats continue winning most minority votes, i.e. no major realignment happens.

A Clinton win means more gridlock, roughly the same as at present. A Trump win means that we go through an extremely risky phase with no real upside, and a more hostile SC. But if we pop out of it intact in four years, the Democrats will dominate pretty much forever until the entire party system changes to something totally unlike the present. President Trump's erratic behavior and denouncement by large sections of the Republican Party could easily put enough strain on the party to break it apart entirely; whereas in opposition they can continue being crazy and just obstructing everything as they presently do. Still though, President Trump would be a hell of a gamble.

What are you, Xanatos?

 

[Bootstoots]

I don't mean that it would be safe. A fairly large proportion of all possible futures where Trump ends up president end up going very wrong. That's what I mean by risky. When someone says something is risky, they mean that people die or get seriously injured a non-trivial proportion of the time, but that there is also a large variance. Scaled up to a US presidency, that means that the expected death toll of Trump becoming president (compared to a Clinton win) is on the order of hundreds of thousands to single millions of deaths, but with large 5-95% error bars ranging from negative hundreds of thousands (Clinton starts an Iraq-scale war that Trump would avoid) to positive low tens of millions (Trump starts a large war on a whim). The median outcome is in my best guesstimate pretty close to 0, while the mean is in Clinton's favor on the order of ~500,000 excess deaths*.

All things considered, I'd rather Clinton wins. But I can definitely see the advantages along with very large risks of a Trump win. I think it has a negative expected value compared to a Clinton win, so I would rather she win.

For some reason, people seem to think in terms of moral denunciation and can't go beyond that. I prefer to take the longer and more statistical view.

*edit: And here I consider only immediate deaths in the 4 years following the election. I have no idea how the longer-term dynamics would work, except that in most Trump presidencies, the Democrats regain the House reliably from 2018, whereas Clinton wins don't get them the House until ~2030. I know a lot of people are going to claim to be/actually be offended by utilitarian thinking like this, but it's done a (little less explicitly) all the time by US presidents. This is the sort of thinking you have to engage in when you are the global hegemon.