Can Democrats hold their majority?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by SouthernPlanter, Apr 28, 2009.

  1. SouthernPlanter
    Offline

    SouthernPlanter BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    Messages:
    19
    Thanks Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2
    I have quantitative evidence to suggest that Democrats cannot hold their majority, and that the United States is trending toward a long term and eventual Social-Conservative Consensus.

    Let me explain a few terms I have used, to better illustrate how much I have said in my thesis. Consensus refers to the last American consensus, which was the Democratic consensus essentially from 1933-1981. The Consensus saw the Democratic Party coalition include so many interests (partisans) that it had control over the House and often the Senate through-out a substantial majority of those years, if not all of them. This saw the Democratic party progressively alter the United States in a liberal course, toward various social liberal agendas, as well as socialistic agendas, which culminated in first the abandonment of the Democratic Party by Conservatives (to the Republican Party) and second the Reagan Revolution which saw the end of the American consensus, and the public became divided against liberal and conservative.

    The question becomes whither are we trending? I believe I have a convincing argument that the country is trending toward Republican and socially conservative partisanship and that it will be revealed in the next elections, now here's why.

    McCain worked about 84% as hard for each electoral vote he won, or that is to say that Barack Obama worked 118% as hard for each electoral vote he won, that is to say that comparatively, Obama had to work about 71% harder to win the election.

    The amount of electoral votes won is less important in determining data, because the US is a winner-takes-all system. To put into comparison though, Reagan won 44 states twice, and won as many as 49 states. Obama won 28 states, this being as popular as he is purported to be, and following such an unpopular presidency, should be revealing in itself.

    But quantitatively Obama had to work 71% harder than McCain.

    This is significant, if taken across the board, that means that the Democratic Party to compete with the Republican Party has to raise 71% more money, has to win 71% more votes (translates as a margin of about 14 points) and we see this is the case in "leans Democratic states" where states leaning Democratic (such as Nevada) lean Democratic by 12 points but realistically will seat 5 Republican Congressional Members in 2012 out of 6 Congressional Appointments. Democrats tend to have to poll ahead of Republicans by a margin of 5-10 for Democrats to even see a seat as viable and thus put money into the campaign. For this reason, many seats in the South are left unfunded and unopposed, and Republicans win by 99% against marginal 3rd party candidates.

    Republicans play that game too, and there are Democratic seats unchallenged; but on a national level, Republicans simply are in a better position to win more Congressional seats, and to win more Electoral votes.

    Perusing CQPolitics one can find the congressional map which is interactive, and you can see for yourself how many of these Democratic Seats in the House were won by 1% or less margins.

    So most of the current Democratic majority is won by narrow victories.

    The Data I will present at the end, ignores this fact, I counted North Carolina and Florida for Obama even though those states was won by Obama by 0.4% and 2.5% respectively.

    So, because of the distribution of the conservatives and particularly social conservatives through-out the US, what we will see is that Democrats will have to work increasingly hard to keep a majority, and owed to the rigors of "majority" (the failures that mount up during any administration and majority party holding of Congress) the Democrats will have smaller, shorter terms of majorities against Republicans.

    The other way of stating this is the safe Democrats are fewer than the safe Republicans.

    Further evidence that the trend is toward Conservatism comes from the "NEW YORK TIMES PRESIDENT MAP" which has an interactive function that is "voting shifts" and it clearly shows that despite Obama's election the United States is decidedly MORE REPUBLICAN presently, than it was in 2000, 1996, or 1992.

    I do not believe the Democrats can hold a new American Consensus against all of this quantitative evidence to the contrary, rather the Republicans will experience a rebound, and the Democrats will have increasingly difficult times in keeping their majority until a time when the equilibrium is found somewhere to the "Centre-Right" of the spectrum.

    This naturally is the opposite view held by the mainstream media but they really don't know what they are talking about.

    The action of the Democrats in pork-barrel spending suggests that the Democrats view themselves as uncompetitive in the Federal-Electoral system and are trying to 'buy' as much support as they can since they have less and less partisan support.

    I'll post my data as a second post for size concerns.
     
  2. SouthernPlanter
    Offline

    SouthernPlanter BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    Messages:
    19
    Thanks Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2
    The following data represents electoral votes won by each candidate by the votes it took to win each state for that candidate. The errors (omission of territories and D.C.) distort the data in Obama's favor, Obama's work is more than is stated, but the error is marginal and probably amounts to a point or less.

     
  3. Xenophon
    Offline

    Xenophon Gone and forgotten

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2008
    Messages:
    16,705
    Thanks Received:
    3,750
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    In your head
    Ratings:
    +3,751
    Elections hinge on conditions not projections.

    There is no way to say what the future will bring when the next potus election is years away.
     
  4. SouthernPlanter
    Offline

    SouthernPlanter BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    Messages:
    19
    Thanks Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2
    The 5th column. The US Census.

    The US Census also gives the Republicans about a +32 competitive advantage (suggesting that losses from Democratic States would translate as losses of Democratic Congressmen and the gains in Republican States would translate as gains in Republican Congressmen).

    This +32 switch, coming at a time when Democrats will be highly unpopular (2012), mixed with the steady shift of partisan favorship due to the rigors of administration and majority, and taking into account the fact that Democrats are already having to kick it into the highest gear....

    Republicans worked 84%

    Democrats worked 118%

    In 2008...

    All this suggests, honestly, to me, that the Democratic Party is facing collapse by 2012 and that by 2012 a new American consensus shaped around the Republican Party will emerge.
     
  5. Toro
    Offline

    Toro Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    50,768
    Thanks Received:
    11,056
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    The Big Bend via Riderville
    Ratings:
    +25,103
    As long as the Small Tent Republicans require a litmus test to run for the party, the answer is "yes," quite easily in fact. There simply are not enough social conservatives to win broad elections.
     
  6. SouthernPlanter
    Offline

    SouthernPlanter BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    Messages:
    19
    Thanks Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2
    Actually there is. No on in 1856 would have suggested that the South could have elected another President in 1860. The South knew it was impossible as did the North, because of the obvious partisan differences between those regions, and the disparities of their electoral apportionments.

    The result was the South's departure from the Democratic Party to form their own Southern Democrat candidacy as a show of positioning; because the Northern Democrats were pushing too hard against Slavery and was seen as impotent to the Republicans by 1858.

    While many things do go into influencing elections; no one would say that California would vote for a Republican President in 2012 for the same reasons I have stated that the Democratic Party is incapable of holding what ground they've taken.

    The quantitative evidence simply stands against it.

    The Democratic Party will fall in the next few election cycles.
     
  7. Xenophon
    Offline

    Xenophon Gone and forgotten

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2008
    Messages:
    16,705
    Thanks Received:
    3,750
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    In your head
    Ratings:
    +3,751
    Of course they could, and on the other hand, they may not.
     
  8. SouthernPlanter
    Offline

    SouthernPlanter BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    Messages:
    19
    Thanks Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2
    Really? Is that why the Republicans only had to put out 81% effort and the Democrats had to put out 118% effort to win the votes they did?

    To put it into a numerical perspective; the Democrats required:

    50,000,000 votes to win 68% of the Electoral votes.

    Republicans required:

    20,000,000 votes to win 32% of the Electoral votes.

    That means 28% of Republicans won 32% of the Electoral votes in arguably the worst election climate.

    Do you not understand that this means that the Republicans are better geographically positioned to win Federal Electoral Votes?
     
  9. SouthernPlanter
    Offline

    SouthernPlanter BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    Messages:
    19
    Thanks Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2
    If the Democratic Party may not collapse, then explain the Democratic behavior as of late. Massive spending to pump Federal Money into Blue States. Massive spending to give Democratic donates huge government contracts.

    Do you think this is because of ideological fallibility? Or would you hedge the bet that the Democratic Party has run the statistics and know that they are in an inferior position geographically and fighting against a growing trend of conservative realignment?

    They need propaganda and to get it they need to dole out the money to their constituents directly; not simply a fair handout of tax breaks to everyone.

    To compare, when Bush was elected as a "Uniter" not a "Divider" in 2000, Karl Rove looked at the statistics and realized that the Republican Party could not reach out to the moderates because it lost more Republicans to libertarians and apathy than it gained in moderates or conservative Democrats.

    Consequently an even more partisan election in 2004 saw Bush win by a clear victory against Kerry, even though the Republicans had fewer moderates voting for them.

    In 2008, McCain did not even try to excite partisanship, and the result was large Republican apathy, and many Republican states at least Presidentially, lost to Obama by a VERY narrow margin which I did not take into account.

    So Obama had to work even HARDER for the safe votes he won; and saw gains in some Southern and Western states pretty much by miracle.
     
  10. Toro
    Offline

    Toro Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    50,768
    Thanks Received:
    11,056
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    The Big Bend via Riderville
    Ratings:
    +25,103
    You do not clearly state your quantitative conclusions clearly. For example, what do you mean that McCain had to work 84% as hard for each electoral vote? Can you give evidence that Obama had to work 71% harder? And what do you mean by that? You just state it as fact and offer no evidence.

    You also make assumptions that are logical fallacies, or at least you appear to because you do not explain clearly. For example, you say that Obama has to raise 71% more money. Your assumption is that there is a linear relationship between money and votes. This is not the case. For example, in the 2006 elections, Barron's did an analysis of the money spent on Congressional races and found that Republicans had outraised the Democrats. Based on this, Barron's predicted that the GOP would win 220-230 seats. We know what happened.

    You are also ignoring the fact that the fewest amount of Americans consider themselves Republicans - I believe the number is 21% - in the history of polling.

    Of course, anything can happen in politics, and four years is an eternity. However, the hardcore base of the Republican party is driving moderates and centrists away. You cannot win national elections solely with your political base. A party needs a broader appeal. And now, the Republicans are engaged in fratricide and making the party less broad to satisfy the strident ideologues rather than to win elections.
     

Share This Page