Strategist: Democrat Party in Decline

[Cuyo]

The last I looked, the Democratic party gained two seats in the Senate and 10 seats in the House in the last election, and Obama was re-elected.

Bu-bu-but... That's weird... PoliticalHack said the 'Democrat' party was in terminal decline...

 

[Billy000]

I find this laughable. Both parties are in decline. To single out democrats and ignore the obvious decay in the republican party is just nauseating.

I think you could make the argument that neither one is in decline necessarily. I think what we are seeing is a lack of faith in contemporary politics by the American people. Both parties have the opportunity to rebound. Right now its just a slump in general. Until one or both parties gets another '08 Obama candidate, things are going to stay as they are.

Laugh away but that does not make things any less true.

Both parties are NOT declining. Such a supposition would REQUIRE that third party groups were coming in and taking up that vacuum. I don’t think there is anything to show that third parties are gaining any more voters let alone higher numbers in office. I would actually venture a guess that they are losing more than gaining.

In that manner, the national parties are in a direct relationship with their power. When one decreases the other increases, no matter how much we may want both to simply crumble already.

What I see happening is simple division. Republicans are taking local elections and democrats are taking national ones.

There's probably truth to what you're saying. However, I think it is also reasonable to venture that a third party isn't being embraced simply because Americans do not know anything about third party candidates. The media certainly doesn't shine any light on them. People also don't like that kind of change.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yeah only republicans do it...jesus youre a moron

It's a mathematical fact.

A million more voters supported Democrats over Republicans in the last Congressional election yet Republicans won the House by a wide margin

Gerrymandering at its finest

Perhaps you could back that up.

Note that a vote for Obama does not show a vote that supports ‘democrats’ as not everyone votes like a political mindless hack. Many vote for some dems and some pubs.

 

[FA_Q2]

I find this laughable. Both parties are in decline. To single out democrats and ignore the obvious decay in the republican party is just nauseating.

I think you could make the argument that neither one is in decline necessarily. I think what we are seeing is a lack of faith in contemporary politics by the American people. Both parties have the opportunity to rebound. Right now its just a slump in general. Until one or both parties gets another '08 Obama candidate, things are going to stay as they are.

Laugh away but that does not make things any less true.

Both parties are NOT declining. Such a supposition would REQUIRE that third party groups were coming in and taking up that vacuum. I don’t think there is anything to show that third parties are gaining any more voters let alone higher numbers in office. I would actually venture a guess that they are losing more than gaining.

In that manner, the national parties are in a direct relationship with their power. When one decreases the other increases, no matter how much we may want both to simply crumble already.

What I see happening is simple division. Republicans are taking local elections and democrats are taking national ones.

There's probably truth to what you're saying. However, I think it is also reasonable to venture that a third party isn't being embraced simply because Americans do not know anything about third party candidates. The media certainly doesn't shine any light on them. People also don't like that kind of change.

Why we third parties are not gaining support was beside the point though. The simple reality is that they are not and ergo, both parties are not losing. One must make the gains that the other loses. The media is part of that but I believe that the media is merely a reflection of the people – they report as their audience wishes them to or they would go out of business. This, unfortunately, creates an enigma though. No one wants to really watch third party candidates as they are focused on the republicans and democrats but without exposure, no one is ever going to get interested.

There is also the power that the 2 parties use in order to maintain the current situation. They don’t want more competition than they already have.

I think that much of the problem that that we face though can be attributed to the way that people have become so divided. There is no real focus on the candidate themselves but rather the opposition. IOW, we are going to vote for Obama because there is no way that we can vote for Romney or vice versa. Essentially, no one really casts a vote FOR anyone anymore. They are too busy casting votes AGAINST the other side. When that is the case, people are simply going to default to the ‘other’ party because that is the easiest way to ensure the ‘evil’ and horrible candidate never gets into office.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

If it weren't for GOP gerrymandering, Democrats would have a permanent majority in the House of Representatives.

Yeah only republicans do it...jesus youre a moron

It's a mathematical fact.

I'm 100% sure my Democratic congresswomen only has her seat and continues to hold her seat because it was gerrymandered. In fact, she'd be quite happy to give you a history lesson on Gerry Mandering.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Strategist: Democrat Party in Decline

Fortunately there’s no such thing as a ‘Democrat Party.’

 

[Billy000]

Laugh away but that does not make things any less true.

Both parties are NOT declining. Such a supposition would REQUIRE that third party groups were coming in and taking up that vacuum. I don’t think there is anything to show that third parties are gaining any more voters let alone higher numbers in office. I would actually venture a guess that they are losing more than gaining.

In that manner, the national parties are in a direct relationship with their power. When one decreases the other increases, no matter how much we may want both to simply crumble already.

What I see happening is simple division. Republicans are taking local elections and democrats are taking national ones.

There's probably truth to what you're saying. However, I think it is also reasonable to venture that a third party isn't being embraced simply because Americans do not know anything about third party candidates. The media certainly doesn't shine any light on them. People also don't like that kind of change.

Why we third parties are not gaining support was beside the point though. The simple reality is that they are not and ergo, both parties are not losing. One must make the gains that the other loses. The media is part of that but I believe that the media is merely a reflection of the people – they report as their audience wishes them to or they would go out of business. This, unfortunately, creates an enigma though. No one wants to really watch third party candidates as they are focused on the republicans and democrats but without exposure, no one is ever going to get interested.

There is also the power that the 2 parties use in order to maintain the current situation. They don’t want more competition than they already have.

I think that much of the problem that that we face though can be attributed to the way that people have become so divided. There is no real focus on the candidate themselves but rather the opposition. IOW, we are going to vote for Obama because there is no way that we can vote for Romney or vice versa. Essentially, no one really casts a vote FOR anyone anymore. They are too busy casting votes AGAINST the other side. When that is the case, people are simply going to default to the ‘other’ party because that is the easiest way to ensure the ‘evil’ and horrible candidate never gets into office.

But if people are casting votes for the sake of bringing down the opposing candidate, couldn't that still signify a decline? Not in the sense of loss of numbers for the parties, but in the sense of disenchantment? A decline in the integrity of what they stand for.

I get what you are saying though. Focusing on the numbers would be an important perspective.

 

[Trajan]

Sometimes events occur, as they say, 'when you least expect it....."
That is the truth that Democrat analyst Doug Sosnik speaks to his party....

Democratic strategist: Party 'in decline'

1. “Since Obama was elected President, the Democrats have lost nine governorships, 56 members of the House and two Senate seats,” Doug Sosnik, the political director in Bill Clinton’s White House, writes in a new memo..... , the Democratic Party’s favorability rating has declined by 15 points since Obama took power. A Pew Research Center survey this January showed that the Democratic Party was viewed favorably by 47 percent of Americans, down from 62 percent in Jan. 2009.


2. Obama neither directly campaigned nor raised money for down-ticket Democrats last year. The post-election creation of Organizing for Action to push his own agenda has upset party regulars because it makes the Democratic National Committee less relevant than ever, squeezes fundraising for other Democratic groups and emphasizes issues that put moderates in a bind.

3. “Obama not only got elected by running against the party establishment, but he has governed as a President who does not emphasize his party label,” writes Sosnik.






4. Sosnik outlines several challenges facing his own party:

• Obama’s personal popularity does not easily translate for other candidates. The president is not building the Democratic Party’s institutional apparatus in a way that it will thrive when he’s gone.

• The losses in the 2010 midterms gave Republicans control of the redistricting process, which will be in effect until after the 2020 census. This gives the GOP a structural advantage in keeping the House.

• Millennials, born 1981 to 1994, and Generation X’ers, born 1965 to 1980, are voting Democratic, but a plurality identify themselves as independents — which makes them less reliable.

• Democrats cannot count on the same level of African-American turnout without Obama at the top of the ticket. Sosnik cites new analysis showing that in 2012 for the first time ever eligible black voters turned out a higher rate than whites.





5. While Republicans have a serious Hispanic problem, Sosnik explains, “younger Hispanics feel less of an allegiance to the Democratic Party than their elders.” Only 50 percent of Hispanic voters aged 18-34 identify themselves as Democrats, according to Gallup, compared to 59 percent of Hispanic voters 55 or older.

6. If Hillary Clinton does not run, Sosnik fears that Democrats will be left with a thin bench of top-flight presidential contenders in 2016.

7. Looking to 2014, Democratic base groups also tend to turn out at lower rates for midterms than presidential elections.

8. In terms of actual policy making, Sosnik believes that it will be “almost impossible” for Obama to effectively engage Congress.

9. ... the fact that he didn’t set out a clear policy agenda for a second term left him without a clear mandate to govern over a politically divided Congress....

10. “Furthermore,” he writes, “there’s not a single member of either party who fears paying a political price for not falling in line with the President, making it even more difficult to get members to cast difficult votes.”
Read more: Democratic strategist: Party 'in decline' - POLITICO.com






First, the socialist/communists took over the Democrat Party..

11. Creation of the Progressive Caucus is credited to Bernie Sanders. The groups in the radical network include a) the Congressional Progressive Caucus, b) the Congressional Black Caucus, c) the Populist Caucus, and the d) Progressive Democrats of America.

a. Allied with the above is ACORN, SEIU, and the Institute for Policy Studies

b. And, indirectly, the Center for American Progress and the Apollo Alliance.
Aaron Klein, "Red Army"

.....but even that wasn't extreme enough for them....



Interesting....the folks talking about a third party didn't recognize that we have one now.....
the Obama Fanatics Party.

"The liberal project began to fail when it began to lie." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan in 1991.

 

[boedicca]

And yet they continue to double and triple down on the lies.

 

[Trajan]

Yeah only republicans do it...jesus youre a moron

It's a mathematical fact.

A million more voters supported Democrats over Republicans in the last Congressional election yet Republicans won the House by a wide margin

Gerrymandering at its finest

as its been said, it works both ways, don't whine.........when you win state houses/senates back, it will be your turn, again...

 

[velvtacheeze]

In decline? What idiot wrote that?

Only a putz would come to such a conclusion.

The GOP has greying, dying old people to thank for whatever power they still have. They won't be around much longer. Good riddance.

 

[FA_Q2]

But if people are casting votes for the sake of bringing down the opposing candidate, couldn't that still signify a decline? Not in the sense of loss of numbers for the parties, but in the sense of disenchantment? A decline in the integrity of what they stand for.

I get what you are saying though. Focusing on the numbers would be an important perspective.

Hmmm….

I think that we are looking at this in 2 different angles. I am going to characterize what I think your position is in the following statements so correct me if I am wrong.

I look at this and see that in general, the POWER of each party has not declined. As a matter of fact, I think that it has been getting somewhat stronger. I characterize it this way because they are still winning seats and still getting votes. Third parties are virtually never heard of and it always mcomes down to the democrat or the republican. People still fervently vote for their chosen partisan position.

I think that you are looking at this and seeing the parties decline because the voters no longer trust their chosen party or even agree with much of what that party does. Most liberals are unhappy with Obama and the majority of republicans can’t stand Bush at all. They no longer vote for the party they are a part of but against the other party.

Both sentiments are true. The parties are in decline if you are speaking about positions and stances. They no longer have any real convictions other than pushing a similar corporate and governmental control agenda. They are as powerful as ever in real terms though.

I think that one thing is becoming clearer though with modern division in politics. The vote against the other party is FAR more powerful and useful to the parties than a vote FOR what they actually stand for. If you have a base that votes for you, there are core values that you must share and positions that you need to progress for your constituents. When the people vote against your opponent, what you stand for and do in office is irrelevant. All that matters is you (do not want to eat the poor with Grey Poupon) / (are not a Muslim extremist bent on the destruction of America) – pick your lie. In that context, fervent fear of the other side is FAR more powerful than actual support. As long as you can feed your followers with a constant stream of hatred and lies you will have votes. Far easier than actually supporting, and having to accomplish, real objectives for your voters.

 

[rightwinger]

Yeah only republicans do it...jesus youre a moron

It's a mathematical fact.

I'm 100% sure my Democratic congresswomen only has her seat and continues to hold her seat because it was gerrymandered. In fact, she'd be quite happy to give you a history lesson on Gerry Mandering.

That is exactly how Gerrymandering works. You give Democrats some automatic seats so that you are ensured to get more seats

Suppose you get to assign three districts of 100,000 people

The first district has 90,000 Democrats and 10,000 Republicans: Democratic District

The second district has 60,000 Republicans and 40,000 Democrats: Republican District

The third district has 60,000 Republicans and 40,000 Democrats: Republican District

Republicans control two of the three districts even though they are a minority by 170,000 to 130,000

 

[Trajan]

It's a mathematical fact.

I'm 100% sure my Democratic congresswomen only has her seat and continues to hold her seat because it was gerrymandered. In fact, she'd be quite happy to give you a history lesson on Gerry Mandering.

That is exactly how Gerrymandering works. You give Democrats some automatic seats so that you are ensured to get more seats

Suppose you get to assign three districts of 100,000 people

The first district has 90,000 Democrats and 10,000 Republicans: Democratic District

The second district has 60,000 Republicans and 40,000 Democrats: Republican District

The third district has 60,000 Republicans and 40,000 Democrats: Republican District

Republicans control two of the three districts even though they are a minority by 170,000 to 130,000

what a travesty....

 

[boedicca]

It's a mathematical fact.

A million more voters supported Democrats over Republicans in the last Congressional election yet Republicans won the House by a wide margin

Gerrymandering at its finest

as its been said, it works both ways, don't whine.........when you win state houses/senates back, it will be your turn, again...

RW doesn't grok the concept of a Federal Republic.