Thank you, (4.00 / 3)

thank you, thank you, for your diligence and for keeping on this topic, and for presenting all those inconvenient facts.

Now is the time for the netroots to take it to the media.  Do it long enough, and loud enough, and credibly enough, and they will catch on.  (And they'll steal your stories and facts and statistics and all that, with no compensation, but hey, you can't have everything, right?)

---

by: joanneleon @ Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 11:22:55 AM CST

Take what to the media - a trophy? (0.00 / 0)

The total demise of any Democratic opposition is what they've all worked for, for years.

Harry Reid and Steny Hoyer have turned the Democratic side of Congress into bunch of castrated pro-war and pro-business eunuchs.

And you know what eunuchs are good for, don't you? To sing pretty for their masters.

Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.

---

by: worldlymother @ Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 12:23:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Agree, but. . . (0.00 / 0)

I agree wholeheartedly that we are not a "center/right" nation, and have not been for quite some time.  And it's obvious the Democratic party is widening its advantage right now.  But I don't like the electoral college map technique of describing our country.  Let's not fool ourselves:  John McCain picked up 46% of the vote in 2008 and I don't see much reason to think the Republicans will get much less than that in '12.  Coloring the states various shades of blue just because Democrats hold a slight edge in polling doesn't tell us very much at all about our country.

---

by: Notorious P.A.T. @ Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 11:26:14 AM CST

Yes And No (4.00 / 1)

Those numerical shifts are real, and quite substantial.  Losing presidential candidate almost always get 45% or more.  That's just the way our country is.  If the Dems can pull themselves out of fuckup mode, they could get up to a truly historic advantage.  But right now, they've got a fairly respectable one.  You seem to be suffering under the exact same illusion that Obama suffers from--the idea that it's normal and natural to have broad agreement on all the major issues, and everyone sing "Kumbayah."  

Well, it's not our fault that we're not like that right now, because we've almost never been that way. The only exception would be the late 1810s and early 1820s when the Federalist Party essentially disintegrated.

Aside from that, it's always been like this, with FDR and the New Deal Democrats defining the outer margins of dominance, and that was only a few percentage points more than what we have today.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 11:45:57 AM CST

[ Parent ]

No (0.00 / 0)

Hehe, I'm not under any illusions, and I don't want to sing with Republicans.  I'm just saying:  outside of presidential elections, there is no reason to color-code the map.  It gives us a false sense of exactly where the country is.  

Sure, the country is shifting our way.  Let's keep that shift going.  In the meanwhile the fact that the country has given Democrats the Congress (2 times in a row at that) and the presidency means we don't need broad agreement to pass our agenda.  I think we're all pretty much in agreement about stuff like this.

Also, FDR's worst electoral performance was better than Obama's.  

---

by: Notorious P.A.T. @ Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 11:56:37 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It's More Than Presidential Elections (4.00 / 2)

Partisan dominance also contributes to electing everyone else on the ballot, as well as controlling redistricting.

Also, FDR's worst electoral performance was better than Obama's.

Quite true.  But, then, FDR wasn't black, either.

Kennedy's a much more appropriate comparison, and Obama did significantly better than JFK.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 12:42:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If it's more than Presidential elections (0.00 / 0)

then we're even more screwed.

Look at these blue states that recently reelected Republican senators who are now obstructing everything.

This blue map is pretty and all, but you're going to tell me Oklahoma, Alabama, Wyoming and Idaho want more government spending? Doubt it...maybe in another year, maybe after another election, but we've chosen our government and many of these states chose obstruction to our agenda.

Our government, specifically the Senate, is purposely designed for the minority to have more power than the voters wanted. They use it to prevent "tyranny of the majority" but instead we get "tyranny of the minority"

Maybe this is more of a hint that even though we can win an election with 53% of the vote, and win a majority in Congress, we need complete control to get what we want...that's how our government is designed...complete control OR compromise.  

---

by: NFR83 @ Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 13:37:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You've Got Good Points, But You're Confused About How They Connect (4.00 / 2)

The short, comment-length version goes something like this:

(1) Party ID shift comes before party loyalty.

(2) Yes, Oklahoma, Alabama, Wyoming and Idaho want more government spending.  Every state in the union wants more government spending.  The General Social Survey tells us that even the 3% of people who self-identify as extreme conservatives want more government spending.

It's only Rush Limbaugh and the M$M hegemony machine that think otherwise.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 13:44:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Then why do they (0.00 / 0)

consistently vote for people who want the opposite of what they want.

They're either too stupid and clueless, or they don't want government spending, at least not in the sense we do.  

---

by: NFR83 @ Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 17:41:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm Sorry, I'm Not Sure What You're Saying (4.00 / 1)

But on government spending the data are quite clear.  Support for domestic spending, including the core welfare state functions such as Social Security, health and education, are widespread throughout the electorate, and across the political spectrum.  I've posted the data on this repeatedly over the years, here, at MyDD, and DKos, among other places.


"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 12:59:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

46% (4.00 / 4)

     Yes, but McCain, who was probably the strongest candidate the Republicans could have nominated in 2008, only got 42.7% of the two-party vote outside the thirteen Southern states (the 11 Confederate states plus Kentucky and Oklahoma). Obama's margin in the other 37 states was better than FDR's in every election but 1936. Obama got 57% of the two-party vote in the West, 56% in the Great Lakes/Upper Mississippi region (OH, IN, MI, IL, WI, MN, IA and MO) and 60% in the Northeast.
    The 37 non-Southern states currently have 50 Democratic senators (including Franken), and 22 Republicans, plus Sanders and Lieberman. This is the first time since the New Deal that Democrats from outside the South hold a majority in the Senate. And those 37 states elected 195 Democrats and only 98 Republicans to the House in November.
    In summary, the 37 non Southern states gave 57.3% of the two-party vote to the Democratic candidate in the presidential election, along with 66.6% of their House seats. And in the last three elections, including the Republican year of 2004, they chose the Democratic Senate candidate 67.6% of the time.

---

by: Ron Thompson @ Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 12:47:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Very Good Points (4.00 / 1)

The maps and charts from these two diaries indicate that even the South isn't safe for the GOP, but they should not distract us from the GOP's incredible weakness outside the South.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 13:19:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This and that (4.00 / 3)

Some of the "top" states are interesting near-exceptions.

Note the "favorite son" factor that helped to push Texas firmly into the Repub ranks. That should dissipate somewhat now.

In fact, if the Repubs give up as much ground in Texas over the next few elections as the Democrats gave up in Arkansas post-Clinton, we could easily pick up 36 EVs in 2012.

Perhaps Arkansas was simply reverting to a Southern-state mean, joining its Dixiecrat sister states by voting racist-Reaganite-Repub once the Bill Clinton factor was gone.

But not to give up on Dixie in the 21st Century. That Repub trend in Louisiana was no doubt aided and abetted by Katrina, but more serious damage may have been done from within. A Democratic Congresscritter switched parties, when he didn't really need to do so. A newly elected Democratic Congressman lost his relection bid, sabotaged by another Dem who split the vote by running as an independent, when the only reason to do that was racial. A statewide Democratic office holder was seduced by Karl Rove into running against as a Repub an incumbent Dem Senator. And the well-publicized antics of Dollar Bill Jefferson hurt us badly. Past and gone.

And Alabama. The most prominent Democrat in the state was railroaded into prison on corruption charges, which apparently some voters still think were true. If justice were done to Seigelman even now, some years tardy, that could help restore our image in the state.

A terrific showing in Wyoming -- who woulda knowed? We knew things shifted strongly our way in Colorado and New Mexico, and to a lesser extent in most of the Mountain West. But Wyoming? Wonder what would have happened if that state had got as much attention from the top of the ticket as neighboring Montana?

The map also shows nice trends in the upper Great Plains band of states, even Kansas.

Absolutely agree that this research supports the 50-state strategy. If the national Democratic party really does morph into the committee to re-elect President Obama, then it falls all the more on the netroots and other allies of the Democrats to support candidates in the less-favored or overlooked states. The payoff will be worth it again.

---

by: Woody @ Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 12:39:04 PM CST

A matter of timing? (4.00 / 1)

Thanks, Paul. As always, I appreciate the analysis. It's what OpenLeft does best. People who actually know things, and are willing to do the work it requires to share them with others are in short supply these days, and I'm grateful for the concentration of them here.

The realignment which gave us 2006 and 2008 is real enough; I agree with you and Chris about that. So far, though, it seems to be more a matter of sentiment than conviction, and therefore likely to be much softer than it appears. Sentiment always precedes both conviction and policy, as we can see in the difference between Obama the candidate and Obama in office, but I fear that the gap has gotten much larger than it was in the Thirties.

By the time that the people as a whole understand what it is, exactly, that's wrong with conservatism, and why it's largely responsible for their pain, and what should really be done about it, they'll already have been subjected to a deluge of the usual swill from the media, a torrent of bold words from the President which lead to nothing palpable, and expressed disgruntlement of all kinds, from ours to Rush Limbaugh's. What will they make of it?

I'm not afraid of being a soldier in the war over what things mean, but I am afraid of shortcuts. If we're stalwart, we can in time face down the already discredited right-wing propaganda, and the nest-feathering drivel from the media taste and opinion makers, but I wonder if we have that time. Right now the people are pissed at Washington, and put their fingers in their ears when Meet the Press comes on, and wonder if they can fit the wife and both kids into Mom's spare room while they're off looking for work in Alaska. Another year of dithering from Washington, and I fear they won't have the patience to listen to what anyone says.

The last thing anyone should want is a devolution into street battles between left-wing and right-wing thugs, with the National Guard looking on in bewilderment from their positions outside government offices and TV stations, but if the sentiment reflected in your charts above, and in the graph in the previous thread aren't translated into effective policy pretty soon, we may indeed be facing something like that. It can't happen here is, at this late date, pretty thin gruel.

---

by: William Timberman @ Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 13:01:18 PM CST

And Obama has to know about this danger (4.00 / 1)

He is too smart not to. In his 60 Minutes interview he said that the American people expect him simply to be trying things. If simply getting a stimulus through is this hard, and 80% of Republicans exhibit both stunning lack of understanding and no desire to understand because their desire is for him to fail, he has to be asking himself how he can get his big programs through. Al Franken taking his seat will help marginally. Also having better-designed programs that he can clearly sell will help.  

"Here's a song about blind faith. That's always a dangerous thing, whether it's in your girlfriend--or if it's in your government." Bruce Springsteen, quoted in Glory Days (Born in the USA tour??)  

---

by: 4jkb4ia @ Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 13:15:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Public mood (4.00 / 1)

Gallup, via Nate.

31% of those polled said they were following the stimulus very closely. There is a wide margin of Democrats favoring the bill being passed as is vs. Republicans favoring the bill being passed with major changes. Most of those polled did not believe that the bill would have any major effect this year. So this evidence shows that this Democratic "sentiment" translates into a desire to believe in Obama and have him accomplish something.  

"Here's a song about blind faith. That's always a dangerous thing, whether it's in your girlfriend--or if it's in your government." Bruce Springsteen, quoted in Glory Days (Born in the USA tour??)  

---

by: 4jkb4ia @ Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 13:25:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

since we are repeating.... (4.00 / 1)

party affiliation is not a complete measure of ideology. even within parties vast differences exist on issues such as same-sex marriage, affirmative action, war/peace, etc.

why did a red-state democrat and blue-state republicans control the passage of the stimulus in the senate? probably because (drum roll) it's a center-right nation.

if this weren't the case, we'd see more outrage beyond just hating bush and republicans and a tiny collection of social issues were democrats can actually claim the moral high ground. we'd be able to turn the microscope to democrats, including obama, more often, rather than defending them even when their behavior contradicts our advocacy.  i see a "democratic" party revolution, not a leftist revolution. there is a difference.  

---

by: damitajo1 @ Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 13:18:12 PM CST

Yes, Let's Repeat (0.00 / 0)

From the immediate aftermath of the 2004 election:

Conservatism Is Our Enemy

by Chris Bowers, Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 04:18:51 PM EST

In all of my post-election analysis, when all of the tactical ideas are put aside, I keep coming back to a single, basic idea: conservatives are the enemy, and conservatism as an ideology is our main roadblock to electoral success.

We have long since left the era when the two parties could accurately be considered regional and ethnic coalitions rather than ideological coalitions. There are no longer any more conservative Democrats than there are liberal Republicans. A few of each kind manage to hang on, but the ideological vote in this election was clear:

	     Bush  Kerry  Margin

Conservative  84    15	 69

Liberal       13    85	 72

For that matter, the ideological vote was also clear in 2000:

	     Bush   Gore   Margin

Conservative  81     17      64

Liberal       13     80      67

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 13:29:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

We have the opportunity (4.00 / 1)

to make this a progressive nation, but it takes time...it took the conservatives decades. Republicans won elections during that timeframe, conservatives didn't.

It took them decades to rid their parties of their Rockefellers, Javitzs, Rhodes, Scrantons, Fords, etc.  

---

by: NFR83 @ Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 14:35:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well, conservatives would argue (0.00 / 0)

that this is only because Dems have moved to the right, so while it might be a "blue" country politically, ideologically it's still center-right, so there.

And, actually, in some ways, they wouldn't be entirely wrong, in the sense that lots of voters still buy into RW memes and lies about how tax cuts are better than spending increases, Dems are are about taxing and spending, social security needs to be fixed, etc.

Perhaps a majority no longer believe this, but I'm guessing that the percentage who do is larger than the percentage of GOP voters.

So I think that politically, we're definitely and obviously a blue nation--pretty deep blue, by now--but ideologically, we're still more in the light purple to light blue region.

Does this or a comparable poll have breakdowns by ideological affiliation, either in the aggregate conservative/liberal spectrum, or by issue?

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

---

by: kovie @ Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 16:46:12 PM CST

Long Story Short (4.00 / 1)

Dem politicians have bought into a lot of rightwing memes.  Look at Obama's appointees and you'll see all the proof you need of that.

But the values of the voters? Now, that's a different thing entirely!  Even the GOP had to ditch the youthful segregationist in favor of the black dude.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 16:54:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well, it depends (0.00 / 0)

In terms of most specific issues, a majority of voters prefer the left-leaning take, e.g. pro abortion and gay rights, pro environmentalism, pro civil liberties, pro education spending, pro universal health, anti torture and warrantless wiretaps, etc. It might not be a huge majority, but it's a majority in all the recent polls I've seen.

But in terms of more fundamental frames and memes that are divorced from specific issues, what I've seen indicates that a not insignicant percentage of these same voters are susceptible to RW frames and memes, if presented in certain ways.

This would, I think, explain why the establishment media (other than Fox) continues to feature more conservatives than liberals, and push so many conservative memes (e.g. "wasteful spending", "non-stimulative spending", "tax relief", "social security is going broke").

Obviously, part of this is because the media sides with and wants to push these people and memes. But I'm sure that its market research shows that a lot of Dem-voting viewers are susceptible to such propagandizing, which indicates that not all Dem voters are ideologically liberal, and some actually still lean conservative.

Bottom line: we have their votes, for now, but we don't yet have their hearts and minds. That will take a lot longer, and effective liberal policy and messaging--and lots of battles with the right and its media enablers and promoters.

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

---

by: kovie @ Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 17:16:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

There's A Disconnect (4.00 / 1)

The values of the people are generally liberal.  But the memes of the political elite reflect 40 years of hegemonic warfare on the right and nothing comparable on the left.  Thus the elite are fundamentally out of touch with the people.

What's lacking here is that Obama--like many other Dems, is still talking a language that's at odds with what the people expect from him.  Worse still, he's engaging in policy that's either directly derived from that language or else heavily influenced by it.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 13:03:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I agree (0.00 / 0)

I'm just saying that these memes have successfully pervaded the consciousness and subconsciousness of even many people whose stance on specific issues tends to lean liberal and who tend to vote Democratic.

E.g. people who claim to be against torture, Iraq, etc., and for abortion and gay rights, but who then end up parroting RW memes about how sometimes perhaps torture is necessary, or get very uncomfortable when people bring such topics up in a conversation, etc.

On the issues, and now electorally, the public is clearly left-leaning now. But on a more "fuzzy" underlying level, where issues are filtered before being processed and decided upon, I believe that the majority of the public has bought into at least a portion of these memes and framings. I see it all the time, in subtle but obvious ways (to me at least).

And it's on this level that we need to battle the right, because if we don't, and concede it to them, the preconditions for its return to power and popularity will remain intact.

Which I think, in more sophisticated manner of course, is one of the main things that you're been arguing here, no?

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

---

by: kovie @ Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 19:53:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Support the National Popular Vote bill (0.00 / 0)

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes-that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.

The bill is currently endorsed by 1,246 state legislators - 460 sponsors (in 48 states) and an additional 786 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

The National Popular Vote bill has been endorsed by the New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Hartford Courant, Miami Herald, Sarasota Herald Tribune, Sacramento Bee, The Tennessean, Fayetteville Observer, Anderson Herald Bulletin, Wichita Falls Times, The Columbian, and other newspapers.  The bill has been endorsed by Common Cause, Fair Vote, and numerous other organizations.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in Arkansas (80%), California (70%), Colorado (68%), Connecticut (73%), Delaware (75%), Kentucky (80%), Maine (71%), Massachusetts (73%), Michigan (73%), Mississippi (77%), Missouri (70%), New Hampshire (69%), Nebraska (74%), Nevada (72%), New Mexico (76%), New York (79%), North Carolina (74%), Ohio (70%), Pennsylvania (78%), Rhode Island (74%), Vermont (75%), Virginia (74%), Washington (77%), and Wisconsin (71%).

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 22 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes - 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote...  

---

by: mvymvy @ Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 18:55:42 PM CST

As Things Stand Rigth Now (0.00 / 0)

I don't think we'll get in time for 2012, unless things get really cranked up. But we should definitely have it by 2016.

Now, if only the Senate were as easy to fix.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 22:57:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]