SUK ZONE: it's all a pointless exercise and you're just screaming into the void

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > SUK ZONE: it's all a pointless exercise and you're just screaming into the void

«‹›2498 »

The Muppets On PCP: Nov 13, 2016; by Fluffdaddy

http://www.governing.com/blogs/politics/gov-democrat-howard-deans-fifty-state-strategy.html

quote:

Before we crunch the numbers, we should note that the patterns below can't be linked exclusively to Dean's 50-state project. After all, the Democrats experienced two of their strongest election cycles during that time. They benefited from a strong congressional tailwind in 2006 and a winning presidential candidacy in 2008. Meanwhile, the numbers began to turn negative during the midterm election of 2010, a Republican rout.

That said, the patterns are suggestive. In the 20 states we looked at -- those that have voted solidly Republican in recent presidential races -- Democratic candidates chalked up modest successes, despite the difficult political terrain. Then, after the project stopped, Democratic success rates cratered.

The 20 states we looked at are Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming. We excluded any state that has voted Democratic in recent presidential contests or was considered potentially competitive for the Democrats, even if the state ultimately sided with the GOP (such as Arizona and Missouri).

Here's how the Democrats fared in the reddest of red states between January 2005 and January 2009, the period when the 50-state project was in operation:

State House seats: Net gain of 39 seats, a 2 percent increase of all seats in the states analyzed

State Senate seats: Net loss of two seats

Governorships: Net loss of one

Attorney generalships: Net gain of one (elected seats only)

U.S. House seats: Net gain of three seats

U.S. Senate seats: Net gain of one seat

Presidential performance: In 15 of the 20 states, the Democratic nominee saw an increase in vote share between 2004 and 2008. In three other states, the vote share remained constant. It dropped in only two states.

"Where we really made a big difference was in states like Nebraska, where Obama won an electoral vote in 2008," Dean said. "He had a real party to work with."

Overall, Democrats either improved their results in the reddest states between 2005 and 2009 or, at worst, suffered only minor setbacks, which, given the obstacles the party faced in these solidly Republican states, was almost a victory in its own right.

Now let's compare this record to the one between January 2009 and January 2013.

State House seats: Net loss of 249 seats, a decrease of 13 percent of the existing seats in those states

State Senate seats: Net loss of 84 seats, a decrease of 12 percent

Governorships: A decrease by half, from eight governors to four

Attorney generalships: A drop by two-thirds in elected AGs, from nine to three

U.S. House seats: A 40 percent drop, from 44 seats to 26

U.S. Senate seats: A drop from 11 seats to 8. (It could drop further by 2014: Of those eight remaining seats, three senators are retiring and another three face tough reelection contests.)

Presidential performance: Only two of the 20 states (Alaska and Mississippi) saw higher support for Obama in 2012 than in 2008. In most of the 20 solidly red states, Obama's 2012 vote fell back roughly to John Kerry's level from 2004.

Altogether, these post-2009 declines are, to put it bluntly, pretty catastrophic. In these 20 solidly red states, the Democrats controlled 13 legislative chambers in 2005, a number that fell to just three in 2013. Of the 40 chambers in these states, only two experienced a net gain of Democratic seats between 2005 and 2013; in the other 38, the Democrats lost ground.

And because state legislative seats and lower statewide offices provide the "bench" for future runs for governor and Congress, these developments could prompt a self-perpetuating death spiral for the party in these states.

# ? Jan 2, 2017 19:57

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 27, 2024 02:35

MizPiz: May 29, 2013; by Athanatos

Concerned Citizen posted:

if you don't know poo poo about how campaign financing or state parties work, why do you keep posting about it like it's your job. i literally do not understand how you are totally incapable of understanding that state parties do not elect downballot tickets, or that our downballot ticket was far better financed than the GOP this year

Source?

# ? Jan 2, 2017 19:59

fits my needs: Jan 1, 2011; Grimey Drawer

I for one, am glad that Canada's genocide is getting the attention it deserves.

# ? Jan 2, 2017 20:09

Grondoth: Feb 18, 2011

First Things First: Democrats own up to how much they hosed up. This means stop defending the DNC, stop defending Clinton, stop defending the brilliant strategy of "not needing to win anything." Cause if we don't own up, we can't fix it. If we don't realize how lovely our strategy is, we'll stumble into it again and again.

# ? Jan 2, 2017 20:19

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

Grondoth posted:

First Things First: Democrats own up to how much they hosed up. This means stop defending the DNC, stop defending Clinton, stop defending the brilliant strategy of "not needing to win anything." Cause if we don't own up, we can't fix it. If we don't realize how lovely our strategy is, we'll stumble into it again and again.

Hillary campaign was a success since she raised more money than Trump and won the popular vote.

# ? Jan 2, 2017 20:24

HorseRenoir: Dec 25, 2011; Pillbug

"bernie would have won" is the leftist equivalent of "but hillary won the popular vote"

# ? Jan 2, 2017 20:25

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

HorseRenoir posted:

"bernie would have won" is the leftist equivalent of "but hillary won the popular vote"

Yes, but Bernie would've won.

# ? Jan 2, 2017 20:31

HorseRenoir: Dec 25, 2011; Pillbug

Aurubin posted:

Yes, but Bernie would've won.

bernie sanders lost to hillary rodham clinton lamo

# ? Jan 2, 2017 20:40

Nameless_Steve: Oct 18, 2010; by Pragmatica

Donna Brazile also played a central part in two elections where Dems won the popular vote and lost the EV.

This time, she couldn't have hosed things up worse: refusing to learn her lesson from '00, she was worried about the "PR nightmare" of losing the popular vote and winning the EV, so she poured resources into increasing turnout in NoLa and Chicago while Michigan and Wisconsin starved.
Time to retire, Donna.

# ? Jan 2, 2017 20:42

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

HorseRenoir posted:

bernie sanders lost to hillary rodham clinton lamo

Alternatively, he beat Jim Webb. Chafee lost all by himself.

# ? Jan 2, 2017 20:42

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Aurubin posted:

Yes, but Bernie would've won.

# ? Jan 2, 2017 20:43

logikv9: Mar 5, 2009; Ham Wrangler

Nameless_Steve posted:

Donna Brazile also played a central part in two elections where Dems won the popular vote and lost the EV.

This time, she couldn't have hosed things up worse: refusing to learn her lesson from '00, she was worried about the "PR nightmare" of losing the popular vote and winning the EV, so she poured resources into increasing turnout in NoLa and Chicago while Michigan and Wisconsin starved.
Time to retire, Donna.

Good news

# ? Jan 2, 2017 20:44

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Aurubin posted:

Yes, but Bernie would've won.

# ? Jan 2, 2017 20:44

loquacius: Oct 21, 2008

Nerses IV posted:

Jesus what did you do man

That's the weirdest part, I have no idea

HorseRenoir posted:

"bernie would have won" is the leftist equivalent of "but hillary won the popular vote"

technically correct, doesn't accomplish much, but makes you feel better saying it

yup checks out

# ? Jan 2, 2017 20:45

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

Nameless_Steve posted:

Donna Brazile also played a central part in two elections where Dems won the popular vote and lost the EV.

This time, she couldn't have hosed things up worse: refusing to learn her lesson from '00, she was worried about the "PR nightmare" of losing the popular vote and winning the EV, so she poured resources into increasing turnout in NoLa and Chicago while Michigan and Wisconsin starved.
Time to retire, Donna.

Unfortunately in the DNC Pablo and Zach are the exception not the norm.

# ? Jan 2, 2017 20:46

Grondoth: Feb 18, 2011

HorseRenoir posted:

"bernie would have won" is the leftist equivalent of "but hillary won the popular vote"

Sort of. Both of them are messages of hope; one says "yeah but more people voted for Clinton" the other says "we HAD a candidate that would win." However, one implicitly wants things to stay the way they are in the Democratic party. Hillary didn't lose, she won! It's the electoral college, it's how we do elections, it's that people out of the big cities count for too much. The other demands change from within: the party nominated a loser, there's power and momentum in the Bernie wing, if the Democrats align themselves with these forces they can win because they could've won.

Essentially, one blames the outside while the other blames the inside. One narrative says "it's because of the way things are set up" while the other says "it's because we nominated the wrong candidate." Bernie would've won is healthy, it provides a clear direction for the self and party. "Hillary won the popular vote" is unhealthy. It sets you against systems that are outside of your immediate control and embitters you to the whole process. It re-enforces the terrible Democratic narrative that only some places in the country really matter, and makes you mad at the places that 1: you need to win over and 2: we actually want to help.

# ? Jan 2, 2017 20:49

loquacius: Oct 21, 2008

^^^ this, one mantra says "we should take this course of action" and the other says "here's why we don't have to do anything at all *fiddles while Rome burns*"

I recant my last post, my excuse is that I'm tired and hung over

# ? Jan 2, 2017 20:52

sexpig by night: Sep 8, 2011; by Azathoth

another big difference is 'hillary won the popular vote' is a true fact that means nothing and 'bernie would have won' is a fanfic idea that means nothing

# ? Jan 2, 2017 20:58

anime was right: Jun 27, 2008; death is certain
keep yr cool

Tatum Girlparts posted:

another big difference is 'hillary won the popular vote' is a true fact that means nothing and 'bernie would have won' is a fanfic idea that means nothing

she lost and bernie would have won tho

# ? Jan 2, 2017 20:59

docbeard: Jul 19, 2011

Grondoth posted:

Sort of. Both of them are messages of hope; one says "yeah but more people voted for Clinton" the other says "we HAD a candidate that would win." However, one implicitly wants things to stay the way they are in the Democratic party. Hillary didn't lose, she won! It's the electoral college, it's how we do elections, it's that people out of the big cities count for too much. The other demands change from within: the party nominated a loser, there's power and momentum in the Bernie wing, if the Democrats align themselves with these forces they can win because they could've won.

Essentially, one blames the outside while the other blames the inside. One narrative says "it's because of the way things are set up" while the other says "it's because we nominated the wrong candidate." Bernie would've won is healthy, it provides a clear direction for the self and party. "Hillary won the popular vote" is unhealthy. It sets you against systems that are outside of your immediate control and embitters you to the whole process. It re-enforces the terrible Democratic narrative that only some places in the country really matter, and makes you mad at the places that 1: you need to win over and 2: we actually want to help.

That's an extremely generous assessment of what really comes across as a bunch of (deserved) bitterness toward Hillary.

I mean, I want to think you're right about this. But I don't really believe that 90% of the people who are shouting BERNIE WOULD HAVE WON are really shouting GO TEAM.

# ? Jan 2, 2017 20:59

docbeard: Jul 19, 2011

Also, Bernie might not have won.

# ? Jan 2, 2017 21:00

Lord of Pie: Mar 2, 2007

"Hillary tried and failed to play mind games with a mentally ill circus peanut" is also a fact

# ? Jan 2, 2017 21:00

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

anime was right posted:

she lost and bernie would have won tho

Bernie would have campaigned in Wisconsin

# ? Jan 2, 2017 21:01

docbeard: Jul 19, 2011

etalian posted:

Bernie would have campaigned in Wisconsin

This I cannot possibly argue with.

# ? Jan 2, 2017 21:01

docbeard: Jul 19, 2011

"Bernie Would Have Tried"

# ? Jan 2, 2017 21:01

logikv9: Mar 5, 2009; Ham Wrangler

Doesn't matter because he didn't prevail at the first bottleneck

Dean would've won but you don't see me yelling at Kerry about it

# ? Jan 2, 2017 21:02

fits my needs: Jan 1, 2011; Grimey Drawer

I think, Obama should run in 2020 and prove he can beat Trump!

# ? Jan 2, 2017 21:02

logikv9: Mar 5, 2009; Ham Wrangler

fits my needs posted:

I think, Obama should run in 2020 and prove he can beat Trump!

This but Malik Obama

# ? Jan 2, 2017 21:02

docbeard: Jul 19, 2011

fits my needs posted:

I think, Obama should run in 2020 and prove he can beat Trump!

I reckon we won't have a Constitution by then anyway, so why the gently caress not

# ? Jan 2, 2017 21:02

docbeard: Jul 19, 2011

logikv9 posted:

This but Malik Obama

...also yes

# ? Jan 2, 2017 21:03

Baloogan: Dec 5, 2004; Fun Shoe

I don't know if bernie would have won, but if he got the nomination and LOST the SCREECHING FROM THE HILL FOLK would be utterly unbearable

# ? Jan 2, 2017 21:03

Fiction: Apr 28, 2011

Lord of Pie posted:

"Hillary tried and failed to play mind games with a mentally ill circus peanut" is also a fact

dont doxx early 2018 me

# ? Jan 2, 2017 21:03

Lord of Pie: Mar 2, 2007

logikv9 posted:

Doesn't matter because he didn't prevail at the first bottleneck

Dean would've won but you don't see me yelling at Kerry about it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXKn3ZmxEfs

# ? Jan 2, 2017 21:04

logikv9: Mar 5, 2009; Ham Wrangler

Lord of Pie posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXKn3ZmxEfs

Aw yeah that hits the spot

# ? Jan 2, 2017 21:04

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

Baloogan posted:

I don't know if bernie would have won, but if he got the nomination and LOST the SCREECHING FROM THE HILL FOLK would be utterly unbearable

I'm glad he didn't get the VP pick, so he would not be associated with her failed very sad campaign in any way.

Instead she went with bland Stepdad for her VP pick

# ? Jan 2, 2017 21:05

fits my needs: Jan 1, 2011; Grimey Drawer

Actually, after watching O.J. Simpson: Made in America last night, I think O.J. should run in 2020. He has a chance to get released this year!

# ? Jan 2, 2017 21:06

Baloogan: Dec 5, 2004; Fun Shoe

ill tell ya i knew absolutely knew for certain that kanye wasn't going to be vp

beyond a shadow of a doubt.

# ? Jan 2, 2017 21:08

sexpig by night: Sep 8, 2011; by Azathoth

logikv9 posted:

Doesn't matter because he didn't prevail at the first bottleneck

Dean would've won but you don't see me yelling at Kerry about it

pretty much, every race has someone on the losing side you can make a case for having a better shot than the loser did. It literally means nothing because all you're actually saying is 'I like this person more, and assume everyone else does too'. Dean would have probably won, Newt probably would have had a better run against 2012 Obama, in fairness I don't think Jesus himself could save the Republicans from a loss in 08 but pretty much all around these cases exist.

# ? Jan 2, 2017 21:08

Grondoth: Feb 18, 2011

docbeard posted:

That's an extremely generous assessment of what really comes across as a bunch of (deserved) bitterness toward Hillary.

I mean, I want to think you're right about this. But I don't really believe that 90% of the people who are shouting BERNIE WOULD HAVE WON are really shouting GO TEAM.

Well, yeah. But "Bernie Would Have Won" provides a real path forward compared to "Hillary Won The Popular Vote." If you internalize one of these phrases, the actions one demands and the feelings it engenders are far more positive than the other.

We SHOULD be bitter at the Clinton wing, at Hillary's Campaign, at the DNC's strategy over the last few years. Not only cause it sucked, but because that is something that can be targeted and improved. Being bitter at the electoral college and at voters is way way less useful. Changing the constitution is completely out of the left's reach for the foreseeable future. Getting mad at people who didn't vote for your candidate is less than useless, because you're mad at the exact people you need to be reaching out to(not I said didn't vote for, not vote against, so if someone says WAHT WE NEED TO COURT RACISTS NOW there's a very clear distinction).

I'm not saying one is an enlightened phrase uttered from mountaintop sages, I'm saying that one can help us while the other hurts us.

Grondoth has issued a correction as of 21:24 on Jan 2, 2017

# ? Jan 2, 2017 21:09

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 27, 2024 02:35

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

Tatum Girlparts posted:

pretty much, every race has someone on the losing side you can make a case for having a better shot than the loser did. It literally means nothing because all you're actually saying is 'I like this person more, and assume everyone else does too'. Dean would have probably won, Newt probably would have had a better run against 2012 Obama, in fairness I don't think Jesus himself could save the Republicans from a loss in 08 but pretty much all around these cases exist.

I don't know that I agree with this point.

# ? Jan 2, 2017 21:10

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > SUK ZONE: it's all a pointless exercise and you're just screaming into the void

«‹›2498 »