Source? (4.00 / 1)

What's the source of these numbers? Are they based on total votes nationwide, or averages of party percentages across districts? And how can the third-party vote be so high (6% in some years) -- what parties are those?

---

by: KCinDC @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 10:30:21 AM CST

This Comes From Wikipedia (0.00 / 0)

They have popular vote totals going back as far as 1942.  But the original source is the Clerk of the House's Election Statistics page, which has info going back to 1920 in PDF, and from 1992 in HTML.

I suggest taking a look at the a sample year if you're dubious.  The HTML files you open onto are by state, with a breakdown for each of the federal offices.  But there's also a link to a "recapitulation" page that has totals for all the states in one table, along with a total at the bottom.  You can answer all your questions directly.

"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 @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 11:39:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

very indirect "evidence" (4.00 / 1)

It is very difficult to prove the ideological content of the nation by looking at one data set - especially one that does not poll the ideology of the nation itself!  Looking at whether Republicans have dominated House elections does not say much.  It might offer some proof - especially when it shows that Republicans have dominated the House.  But unless we know more about the ideology of the Republicans in the House the results do not say much.  

Here are some complications.

1. The number of seats depends upon the number of  districts, the location of the districts and the racial composition of those districts.

2. Republican and Democrat are imperfect measures of ideology.  There are conservative Democrats and moderate-to-liberal Republicans.

3. Republicans have not always been the base party for the Religious Right.  IN fact, the Democrats used to be the party of religious southerners.  

4. Studies show that only a tiny portion of Americans will identify themselves as "liberals," while tons of them will self-identify as conservative, very conservative, and moderate.

5. The racial demographics of this election are pretty much the same as all of the others: Obama lost the white vote, and he won by splitting whites in most -- but certainly not all -- blue states and combining those votes with almost all the votes of persons of color.  That does not sound like a leftist nation to me.

6. Saying the nation is leftist insults communities who - despite this supposed leftist status - continue to suffer subordination.

I'd rather call it what it is and keep fighting.  The fact that the country is center-right does not mean you cannot accomplish positive reform.  It simply means that we have to devise strategies for change carefully.  Obama seems to know this. Just look at his staff picks so far -- and the composition of his transition team.  I'm having 1992 flashbacks.  

---

by: damitajo1 @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 11:52:13 AM CST

Well, Yes And No (0.00 / 0)

Any one data set is limited in what it can tell you. True!

But science teaches us that nature whispers "yes", but shouts "NO!"  And that is why the above series is, I think, sufficient to reject the notion of a center-right nation.  It doesn't mean we're a leftist nation, and I would never argue that. That would be looking for a "yes" that isn't there.

Much of what you've written is true in a larger sense, but misses the point I made about this being a disucssion within the confines of party politics, whereas you are talking about politics beyond those confines.

I certainly agree that it's vital not to forget the larger framework.  Indeed, that's the place that I'm coming from in the first place.  But the whole purpose of the center right narrative is precisely to deliver a pre-emptive strike against ever getting to the point where the issues, perspectives and priorities involved in that larger framework come to fore.

That's why I think it's vitally important to smack down that narrative, hard.  If we don't do that, we will always be struggling just to find our way into the conversation through whatever tiny cracks we can find.

"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 @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 12:35:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The components of a realignment (4.00 / 1)

In one sense, we may be returning to the postwar norm, exemplified by the period from 1952 to 1994, when Democrats won more than 50 percent of the vote in every House election. Democrats have won more than two-thirds of House elections since 1942.

Of course, Democrats have not always been synonymous with the center-left, what with the Southern Democrats. This truly is now a center-left party and the Republicans truly a right-wing, not even so much a center-right, party. That's why the theme of a center-right nation is even more misleading than usual.  

Regarding that, if a realignment is distinguished by a changed party system, what are the components or foundations of that? I'd hazard the following: (1) a demographic shift; (2) an ideological shift; (3) a shift in how government meets the needs of the people/country, based on new social-economic conditions; (4) an organizational shift in party capability.

The demographic shift has been charted by Ruy Teixeira and John Judis: rising minority population, shift of young people to Democrats, declining salience of the white, Christian majority. The same thing happened with the New Deal, when urban working-class immigrants were incorporated into the Democratic Party. The New Deal coalition was characterized by diversity, under the theme of we're all in this together as Americans, similar to what Obama is trying to do/has done.

The ideological shift is a rejection of the Republican ideology: Americanism based on the majority demographic, free markets (but restrictive cultural policies),  government as the problem, Americanism against the world.
In a global world, in a diverse America, in a country that needs government to be effective, none of that is any longer viable. That's the solid reality-based foundation for a realignment.

The New Deal forged a changed way of governing that tied people's fates to government policies, through Social Security, union contracts, and tax and spend infrastructure, defense contracts, etc. Another take on this is progressive feedback loops. An enduring realignment now will have to do the same thing, but it will have to do so in a world where the U.S. is no longer number one and will have to cooperate with the rest of the world. "We're all in this together" will have to be extended globally, in other words, to be effective domestically.

Open Left has charted some of the elements of changed party and movement capacities: the Internet, the small donor revolution, progressive infrastructure. The same thing happened under Roosevelt, with the use of radio and union political involvement, among other factors.

A realignment only occurs if it is consolidated. What we can say now, with confidence, is that the potential is there for an enduring realignment. Beyond whether there is a realignment or not, the more urgent question is what are the components of an enduring realignment, and how do we build them.  

 

---

by: johnraymond @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 12:02:12 PM CST

Good Points (0.00 / 0)

Particularly about how the elements of a realignment fit together.

The only quibble I would have is that I think the 1932 realignment was a really successful one, and therefore a very good model for us, but it should not be taken as typical.  I think the 1896 also qualifies, but it didn't produce nearly the degree of coherence that 1932 did.  This is why I argue that realignment has already happened--or at least begun.  We are realigning away from what went before.  This is only the gateway to what really matters, of course--what we are realign to.

At this level of abstraction, I suppose there's not a heck of a lot of difference between what you're saying and what I am.  But I tend to think that differences will show up in concrete form, if we think about it, or just wait awhile.  We shall see.

"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 @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 12:22:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Correction (0.00 / 0)

I meant to say the Democrats won House elections from 1954 to 1990 with over 50 percent of the vote.  

---

by: johnraymond @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 12:04:32 PM CST