SouthernPlanter
Rookie
- Apr 28, 2009
- 19
- 2
- 0
- Banned
- #1
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.
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.
