But with the Daschle Doctrine in vogue again... (0.00 / 0)

  ...we have another slice of experience that these elite decision-makers seem to be forgetting about:

  1. In October 2002, the Democrats gave Bush a blank check on Iraq.

  2. In November 2002, the Democrats got annihilated in the midterms.

  3. In September 2007, the Democrats appear poised to hand over another blank check -- this time with a special coupon also valid in Iran.

  There are differences between 2002 and today. But not the kind of differences that inspire confidence that the outcome's going to work out any better. Bush and the war were popular then; they're unpopular today. The Democrats were a minority then, and had little control over the outcome; they're a majority today, and have much more sway if they desire.

  So I'm more than a little amused by the tone taken by these analyses -- it's almost assumed by these elites that 2008 is going to be a big Democratic year. And the massive counter-example sits there, right in front of them, completely unacknowledged...

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 20:31:21 PM UTC

Note How Badly Folks Misunderstood the Reagan Era (0.00 / 0)

Stimson's book, Public Opinion in America: Moods, Cycles, and Swings is a very eye-opening book.  Not least because of something quite visible in the chart above--the strong progressive trend in attitudes throughout the Reagan Era.  So much for the "Great Communicator" changing American attitudes.

This sort of change is precisely why I've argued for us to field a battleground district poll, and to use it as a cornerstone of a national organizing strategy.

It's the battleground districts where this shift in values will show up most dramatically, and with the greatest poltical impact.  But that impact will be blunted if the Versailles CW continues to smother the facts on the ground--facts which we can help to highlight by the right sort of organizing effort.

In a poll of our own design, we can ask questions specifically designed to pit the Versailles CW against our own view of what's happening in the way of a political realignment.  And we can produce cross-tabs to show precisely how our unique results in asking such questions relate to more commonly-asked questions, such as presidential approval, attitudes toward withdrawl from Iraq, etc.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 21:57:01 PM UTC

Right conclusion -- Wrong reasoning (0.00 / 0)

I agree that Dems are likely to pick up a net 1-5 seats in 2008, but you suggest that this is because "a lot of people have changed their minds" ideologically. Perhaps, but a 2008 Dem landslide would provide no evidence of that. There's always a lot of talk around the progressives blogs to the effect that all states are in play, that the old "swing state" rules don't apply, and that Dems can win anywhere. And yet, if you actually look most of the vulnerable Republican seats are, yes, in either swing or lean Dem states! You've got Oregon, Maine, Colorado, New Hampshire. Virginia is perhaps an exception, but not when the last two governors have been Democrats and the demographics are changing so fast (plus that race hasn't been polled yet and we really don't know if Warner is going to enter). Alaska and Idaho are very special cases due to massive corruption and scandal as opposed to "people changing their minds" ideologically. And frankly, I have yet to see a head-to-head poll that suggests Dems have a chance in either, and suspect I never will, particularly if Stevens and Craig resign rather than runs again.

Same thing, really, last year. Yes there were a couple out-of-left-field wins for Dems in traditionally Repub districts (Indiana and Kansas in particular) but most of the takeovers in 06 were in swing or lean-Dem districts. And most of the districts where we spent a lot and failed were traditionally solid GOP.

You all keep wanting it to be true that focusing on swing areas doesn't make sense anymore. But the case for doing exactly that keeps getting stronger and stronger.

 

---

by: ColoDem @ Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 22:03:01 PM UTC

What? (4.00 / 1)

Just because low-lying areas flood first doesn't mean the water level isn't REALLY rising.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

---

by: Lucas O'Connor @ Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 22:22:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

so? (4.00 / 1)

I agree that Dems are likely to pick up a net 1-5 seats in 2008, but you suggest that this is because "a lot of people have changed their minds" ideologically.  Perhaps, but a 2008 Dem landslide would provide no evidence of that.

Ok, then.  So a landslide means nothing, I guess.  I'm reminded of Tom Edsall's book about the permanent Republican majority which came out right near the 2006 election, and how he reiterated his thesis just after the election.

Heads you win, tails I lose.

---

by: Matt Stoller @ Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 22:39:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're Overlooking A Few Fundamental Facts (0.00 / 0)

The first thing you're overlooking is the historical nature of political realignments.

(A) They typically don't involve shifts of more than 5-10% of the voters (10-20% margins). The House vote shift from 2004 to 2006 was D +7.2%, R - 6.9%.  The margin shifted 14.1%: from R 6.9% (53.3/46.4) to D 7.2% (53.6%/46.4%).  That's right in the middle of the range.

(B) It's not that everyone suddenly changes their political orientation, it's that a significant faction realigns itself, and smaller shifts among other groups support that shift on balance.  In 2006, youth and Latinos both showed significant democraphic shifts.

(C) Realignments typically take at least two consecutives House wave elections, occassionally more.  We're only had one so far.  So naturally, it's too soon to say what this is going to look like.

The second thing you're overlooking is the unusual state of American politics today.  The degree of safe-district gerrymandering--with Democratic voters far more densely packed than Republican voters--makes it particularly difficult to change a lot of seats, compared to the historical norm.

As Chris noted last year at MyDD:

Schaller on Retaking the House

by Chris Bowers, Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 06:01:24 PM EST
Over at the Gadflyer, Tom Schaller has a really great post about Democratic opportunities and retaking the House in 2006. Among other things, he shows pretty convincing evidence that the vast majority of pickup chances for Democrats in 2006 come from outside the south and the west, and are instead clustered in the northeast and the Midwest. That may sound counter-intuitive to many here, since Democrats are already doing better outside of the south than they are elsewhere, but the information he provides is very difficult to argue with. Check it out.

Also, Schaller reveals just how badly Democrats are hurt by existing gerrymanders:

What's interesting is that Republicans have won the presidency by narrow margins the last two times (actually once; having won it by a negative margin in 2000), but there are more districts with a Republican PVI [Partisan Voting Index] because many Democrats--including almost all Congressional Black Caucus and Hispanic Caucus members--are elected from what you might call too-safe districts. That is, they are gerrymandered so as to "pack" far more Democrats into them than needed, thereby diluting the overall power of Democrats elsewhere. The most Republican district in the country belongs to Congressman Chris Cannon of Utah, with a PVI of +26.2R . Amazingly, there are 31 Democratic districts with a PVI of 26.2D or greater. That's a lot of wasted Democratic votes.

The safest Republican seat still in the house is still less safe than thirty-one Democratic seats. Good lord. Existing congressional district maps, especially in states such as Pennsylvania and Michigan where Republicans had the trifecta in 2000, are a major impediment to Democrats taking back the House.

This strongly indicates a floor supporting the Reps which the Dems could potentially rip out come 2012, if they somehow magically manage to get a clue between now and then.

Regardless of what happens then, however, it shows that the current district maps serve to significantly diminish the visible results in the House of any significant realignment.  Therefore, it is utterly erroneous to use the House makeup to argue against a partisan or ideological realignment.

As for the Senate, here the major factors are more complicated, but again they predominate in the direction of mitigating against change in the Dems direction.  Incumbency, media, money, and voter mobilization are all factors.  The muting effect seen in the House has some negative effect, as does the incredibly hostile media environment we face.

Still, neither Virginia nor Montana were supposed to be close last time, much less go Democratic.  So you have to be engaged in revisionist history right now to deny that something's going on already, without even waiting for next year.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 23:21:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Northeast shift (0.00 / 0)

One of the oddities in the Northeast, at least, is that gerrymandering in Pennsylvania produced a map where Republicans lost four seats but still look to be on the defensive.

My favorite stat from the last election is that 42 House Democrats in the Northeast won with at least 70% of the vote; no House Republicans in the Northeast managed to win 70% of the vote.  None.  In a region where Democrats picked up 11 seats last year, most of the low hanging fruit belongs to the Republicans (16 of 24 under 60%).

Meanwhile Democrats in states like Michigan (9 of 15 seats are Republican), Ohio (11 of 18 are Republican), and even Illinois (9 of 19 are Republican) seem set up to explode through the roof at some point in time.  By packing lots of 55% to 60% districts, Republicans gave themselves a 12 yer run in the House but really exposed a lot of their seats should the model shift towards the high end of the Democratic spectrum.  If that preference scenario is correct, we are once again at the high end of a 50 year pattern.  And that could pay off again.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 07:42:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Gotta love your quote Matt! (0.00 / 0)

Humans just like to think that if something happened yesterday and the day before yesterday and the day before that, it's going to happen again tomorrow.

  --A.Citizen at almost every D/L, Oakland meeting

And whatya know? There they are in the comments still expecting tomorrow to be like today...

Amazing, ain't it!

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 22:19:27 PM UTC

Any idea (0.00 / 0)

how professor Stimson made that graph.

---

by: Jack @ Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 00:51:11 AM UTC

It's Fully Explained In His Book (0.00 / 0)

PublicOpinion in America: Moods, Cycles, and Swings, 2nd Ed.

Long story short, he's constructed a database of public opinion data series, primarily from the Generally Social Survey.  He then analyzes this series into principle components, and finds two dimensions.  The first,strongest and most coherent dimension is what he calls "policy mood," and that's what he's tracking here.

You can find the underlying data in a spreadsheet on his website here, just click on the "datafiles" tab, it's the first file listed on the page it brings up.


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 01:51:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Liberal = Promoting Equality and Economic Security? (0.00 / 0)

It seems that by liberal he means promoting equality and economic security for everyone.

I found this quote in another paper that summarized Stimon's earlier book which gives some indication of what Stimson means by "liberal":

...(see Stimson 1991 for an explanation of his methods and the significance of public mood). He has discovered that there is such a thing as a global mood, cutting across policy areas. At different times, this mood becomes more or less liberal, that is to say, more or less supportive of an increased government role for promoting equality and security in American society, generally through some form of redistribution. In Stimson's measure of policy mood, higher scores correspond to a preference for liberal policies.

---

by: RandomNonviolence @ Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 02:18:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]