LA Times: GOP triumph tempered by hard problems, now and in 2016

[villager]

<snip>

But even before the votes were counted, some of the GOP's leading strategists had begun to warn that those victories could blind Republicans to hard problems that the 2014 campaign had done almost nothing to solve. The barriers to a Republican victory in a presidential election remain formidable, they said.

"We shouldn't be gloating over the fact of winning red states," said Republican pollster Neil Newhouse, noting that this year's Senate battles mostly took place in reliably conservative states in the South and interior West. "That's not a very high bar."

One-third of the Senate comes up for reelection every two years, and by luck of the draw, the states in this year's batch are disproportionately conservative. Indeed, of the three classes of Senate seats, this year's group has been the least representative of the country over the last few election cycles, according to an analysis of election data by Patrick J. Egan, a political scientist at New York University.

<snip>

Take Milwaukee as an example. The largest city in one of the nation's most closely divided states, its residents, 55% of whom are nonwhite, vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. In the 2012 presidential race, 72% of the city's voting-age citizens showed up to vote. Two years earlier, in the 2010 midterm, only 47% did, according to an analysis by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

Similar swings can be seen in other urban centers in battleground states.

Because the voting preferences of older and younger Americans diverge much more than they used to, and Democrats rely more heavily on the young, the country now has two very different electorates. One shows up during midterms and the other — younger, less white, less conservative and bigger — turns out in presidential years.

<snip>

In both the 2006 and 2010 midterms, polls showed that voters had a clear preference for which party should run the government. By contrast, a Gallup survey released Monday delivered a very different message.

On the eve of the GOP's victory, the poll found that barely 1 in 4 voters thought Republican control of Congress would make the country better. The largest group of voters, 40%, said the country would be "the same regardless of which party controls Congress."

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-election-analysis-20141105-story.html#page=2

[angrychair]

1. Like this matters

not worth the paper it is printed on.

250 House seats.
55 Senate seats.
32 Governor seats.
majority of state legislatures are red.

State elections matter. Midterm elections matter.

Senate Committee chairmanships matter. House super majority matters.
Who gives a shit if we win the White House in 2016. If rethugs manage super majorities in the House and Senate in 2016...who is in the WH doesn't matter.

[standingtall]

3. I can't see a scenario

Where if we win the Presidency the repukes hold a majority in the senate especially not a super majority.

[villager]

4. They won't have a supermajority in the Senate in 2016

They may not even have a majority after that.

Part of the problem, though, has been the sense that who's in the White House doesn't actually matter. This has been due both to Republican sabotage and Democratic acquiescence.

But none of this will last. The only question is how long before it's all sundered, and how much pain it will bring along the way.

[angrychair]

5. I would love to Believe you

Really I would. No matter how dark all of my posts sound. I am a dyed-in-the-wool Dem. I'm one of the most liberal people you will ever meet. I Love PBO. Campaigned for him both times. I mean boots-on-the-ground, door-knocking, phone-banking, full-throated supporter of a strong Democratic party.

This is the worst I have ever seen it. 250 seats in the House. 55 seats in the Senate.

When faced with those numbers, a president is a firewall at best. That person has two choices, either be a veto machine or go along to get along to not come across as an obstructionist.

I want things to be different, I really do. I don't have any ideas. I'm all tapped out. Burned out. Let down. Dem leadership let me down. My brothers and sisters in the Democratic party let me down.
I really hope your right. I don't believe it will be. But I do hope your right.

[villager]

7. If this is the worst you have ever seen it, you must be a lot younger than I

The problem, though, is that our "margin" to make changes, especially relating to environmental unraveling, is running out.

But Democratic majorities are afraid of making those same, inevitable, large-scale changes, too, so rather interesting historical things are going to be forced upon us, in the decades ahead.

The curse of "interesting times," indeed.

[angrychair]

9. Worse in scope

Every now and then, there is a decade that has a special kind of hell in it. I would offer that given the mood and scope of the losses tonight and the congressional lines as they are drawn, we will likely see changes in the next decade that will reshape our nation, with respect to our environment and economic security, that we may never recover from. I don't think it is to far-fetched to foretell the end of the Republic. The ignorance and hate and apathy is stunning in its scope and scale.

[villager]

10. Well, I've thought for awhile that the country will probably break into smaller polities...

...by mid-century, due to that aforementioned environmental unraveling, the economic unraveling that will come with it, the inability to maintain such large-scale "systems" -- like our current Empire -- in perpetuity, etc.

[Suich]

2. Thanks for posting this, villager.

Kinda what I was thinking...

[blkmusclmachine]

6. Pie in the sky time from the LA Times. We. Are. Fucked. As. A. Civilized. Nation.

[villager]

8. Well we may be talking about two different things -- electoral swings and larger "fuckedness"

I mean, from the standpoint of the Empire in its latter days, we were already fucked, with a growing military/corporate state hoovering up all our personal data, the inability to stand against corporations destroying our biosphere, etc.

But Democratic officeholders have proven themselves fairly inept -- to put it generously -- at impeding the rich / malicious /powerful as well, given that they're usually owned by the same interests.

True, the rate and speed of destruction goes a little slower under Democrats.

But that doesn't mean the Times is wrong about electoral swings between the two mainstream parties.