HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Obama/Dems won the battle...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 12:40 AM

Obama/Dems won the battle but Repubs are winning the war....

Dems sworn in, party for a day.

meanwhile Repubs winning statehouses and legislatures, gerrymandering, planning to overturn winner takes all electoral votes in strongly blue states.

Obama may be the last Dem elected president.

43 replies, 2146 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 43 replies Author Time Post
Reply Obama/Dems won the battle but Repubs are winning the war.... (Original post)
msongs Jan 2013 OP
0rganism Jan 2013 #1
dkf Jan 2013 #2
0rganism Jan 2013 #7
dkf Jan 2013 #11
0rganism Jan 2013 #14
Pretzel_Warrior Jan 2013 #3
0rganism Jan 2013 #10
railsback Jan 2013 #4
0rganism Jan 2013 #8
Dawgs Jan 2013 #30
railsback Jan 2013 #34
Dawgs Jan 2013 #38
Mutiny In Heaven Jan 2013 #41
nyquil_man Jan 2013 #5
treestar Jan 2013 #13
msongs Jan 2013 #6
0rganism Jan 2013 #9
Amonester Jan 2013 #12
0rganism Jan 2013 #16
davidn3600 Jan 2013 #25
Rowdyboy Jan 2013 #15
0rganism Jan 2013 #18
Rowdyboy Jan 2013 #20
trublu992 Jan 2013 #17
0rganism Jan 2013 #19
magical thyme Jan 2013 #35
0rganism Jan 2013 #40
magical thyme Jan 2013 #42
Chathamization Jan 2013 #36
LeftInTX Jan 2013 #21
DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav Jan 2013 #22
Raine Jan 2013 #23
HiPointDem Jan 2013 #24
davidn3600 Jan 2013 #26
HiPointDem Jan 2013 #28
graham4anything Jan 2013 #27
cali Jan 2013 #29
graham4anything Jan 2013 #39
ProSense Jan 2013 #31
LisaLynne Jan 2013 #33
Dawgs Jan 2013 #32
magical thyme Jan 2013 #37
liberal_at_heart Jan 2013 #43

Response to msongs (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 12:50 AM

1. yep, we've been whistling past the graveyard for the past 2 months

i think the next 10 years are going to be exceptionally difficult for Democrats nationally. The house is pretty much out of reach until 2030, and with the new schemes to allocate EVs by congressional district, i don't see us winning many presidencies, either. This is a huge story that we just don't want to hear at DU.

How are we going to win without Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, and Florida?

Our next electoral hope comes when Texas turns blue through demographic shift, possibly by 2024, if their state legislature doesn't adopt a similar EV allocation before then -- and you can bet they will immediately afterwards, if the governor isn't a Democrat too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 12:57 AM

2. No...they aren't in danger of taking over on the national level.

 

Democrats have taken the Republicans main argument away by extending the Bush tax cuts. What else did Republicans have really?

But the Republicans are winning the idea race based on the ideology of minimal taxation insufficient to fund government services on a long term basis. It's odd what has happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:18 AM

7. i don't think you're seeing the threat yet. Here, i'll explain:

Republicans control the legislature and governorships in several upper-midwest states Democrats typically count on to win national elections. They're moving through legislation to allocate EVs based on congressional district. The congressional districts were recently redrawn (due to 2010 being a census year) tipping the balance of congressional delegations to the GOP big-time. In Pennsylvania, for instance, Obama won a majority of the vote in 2012, the Democrats got a majority of total house votes, and Republicans walked away with 13/18 representatives. If this were used in EV apportionment, candidate Obama would have gotten 7 EVs from PA instead of 20 EVs.

The math has been done, and it ain't pretty. If the states that are currently considering reapportionment had passed it through in 2011 we would have inaugurated president Romney yesterday.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 0rganism (Reply #7)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:36 AM

11. They came up way short...it was a shellacking.

 

I'm still skeptical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:46 AM

14. state governments decide how to allocate their EVs

Even with that "shellacking", the GOP still controls state government in 6 states. We count on WI, MI, and PA being in our column, and lately FL, VA and OH have been swinging our way (which is why president Obama's EV margin was so big). Once those EVs are broken up by district, the presidential election looks a lot more like the house election.

Didja notice, during last November's "shellacking", Democrats got a majority of house votes nationally, by a big margin, and look who controls it now.

If the Republicans get to do to the presidential elections what they've already done to the house elections, it'll be a loooong time before you see another Democratic president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 12:58 AM

3. Oh give me a break. I don't buy that at all.

 

Redistricting has hurt, but GOP is going to get tired of losing elections (which they will continue to do with current crop of ideas) and we will only get thi GE done by compromise with divided government--the way founders intended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pretzel_Warrior (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:35 AM

10. gerrymandered districts->tainted EV allocation, get it?

redistricting has only begun to hurt. The shitty tea-party legislatures redrew the districts to establish longevity, so it'll be a long time before those seats flip. Meanwhile, if they have Republican governors, they can vote to allocate their EVs by congressional district.

This is an electoral catastrophe. Try this exercise: go to one of the many national election map sites and try to come up with scenarios where a Democrat can win the presidency without 2/3 of the votes from the following states: WI, MI, OH, VA, FL, PA.

Hint: if the states that can and probably will pass EV reapportionment laws in the next 3 years had done so prior to this election, Obama would have lost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:01 AM

4. Well, seeing how every Republican plan fails

 

So will this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to railsback (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:21 AM

8. the question is, how much damage can they do along the way?

e.g. Bush II and his failplans for Iraq

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to railsback (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 09:15 AM

30. Actually, it worked quite well.

They still have the House by a large margin after getting fewer votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dawgs (Reply #30)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 12:55 PM

34. The fact that even after jerry rigging districts, they STILL lost seats

 

only means that no, it will NOT work. Demographics change, even in Red districts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to railsback (Reply #34)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:46 PM

38. Losing seats doesn't mean shit if you still control the House.

Which is exactly what jerrying did for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dawgs (Reply #30)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 06:55 PM

41. It was hardly a crushing victory.

An 8 seat pick up on a 1.2% margin isn't anything too horrible. 1980 saw the D majority slashed by 34 despite winning by 2.7%. '82ís almost 12% D win heralded an increase of just 26.

Slimy as they are, I think prognostications of perpetual Republican rule will fall flat. The real battle is stopping the credulous from buying their bullshit every 2-4 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:01 AM

5. Gerrymandering is a stopgap measure.

It assumes that voters will always vote the way they've voted before.

A 55-45 Republican district is a helluva lot easier to flip than an 80-20 Democratic district.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nyquil_man (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:45 AM

13. good point, gerrymandering is a poor second

to actually winning the vote.

The very fact they have to make these efforts shows they know they are losing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:03 AM

6. if u live in a blue state where repubs control the legislature you better get busy and

make sure your repub legislature cannot reapportion electoral votes because

THEY HAVE EVERY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DO SO

as that is all up to states to decide, according to the US Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #6)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:25 AM

9. Bottom line: WE CAN'T WIN THE PRESIDENCY WITHOUT ELECTORAL VOTES!

There are several folks posting in this thread who seem eager to discount a very real threat for no good reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:43 AM

12. Can they be stopped by legal means?

I mean, brought before judges?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amonester (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 02:04 AM

16. might be some judicial recourse in VA and FL

Their status as former confederate states opens their redistricting practices up to additional scrutiny that might conceivably be applied to plans for national elections. Strangely enough, our chances of legal review are probably better there than in our "safe labor strongholds" of the upper midwest.

I think our best chances elsewhere are with forced referendums and ballot measures. Exposing the new election laws to a plebiscite will work in states that allow citizen initiatives. We will have to organize our widdle hearts out to win it though. Furthermore, there's the problem of timing -- they can pass the laws close enough to the election that a signature drive will be difficult. Unless the states allow constitutional amendment by citizen vote, there are ways the GOP can time it to pass and re-pass the laws such that they get their reapportionment when it counts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amonester (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 04:28 AM

25. Two states already divide up their electoral votes...the courts have no say in it

Nebraska and Maine divide their EVs up by congressional district.

So that's 100% legal. Article II, Section I states that each state's legislature can decide how the electors are chosen for the electoral college.

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:


Voting Rights Act is meaningless in this instance since the Constitution supersedes it. You actually do not have a right to vote for President of the United States. If you search that document, you won't find it anywhere. It's your state's laws that tie it's electoral votes to your vote. In America, we vote for President by proxy. He is not directly elected by the people, he's elected by the states...or more specifically he's elected by the electoral college.

The only real possible legal challenge I can imagine would maybe be concerning the ban on pacts. The Constitution forbids states from entering into pacts with each other....unless it has approval of congress. The motive here is to prevent states from conspiring against each other. Maybe you can make the argument that the GOP has a organized effort to string enough states together to rig the electoral college. Maybe you can claim that's a pact or a conspiracy. But that kind of challenge would end up in the Supreme Court, and who knows how that would turn out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:48 AM

15. If we sit back and adopt that attitude, then absolutely yes.....

But we won't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rowdyboy (Reply #15)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 02:18 AM

18. How do you see things playing out?

Just as a hypothetical starter, let's say PA passes reapportionment legislation in May. WI and MI are poised to follow within 4 weeks. What then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 0rganism (Reply #18)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 02:27 AM

20. Raising holy hell is a good start....education matters,,,,if these states are allowed to bail on

the system with no penalty then we deserve to lose. Someone I expect Democrats to react with a bit more passion.I expect i'll be right but we;ll see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 02:16 AM

17. We've got a 2014 election coming most repub govenors are vulnerable if we can elect dems we reverse

a lot what's been done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trublu992 (Reply #17)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 02:25 AM

19. nope - reversal would require legislative action

To reverse such laws we'd have to win legislatures. This will be extremely difficult due to state-level redistricting -- the teabaggers saw to that when they got elected in a census year.

About the best i could see a Democratic governor or DA doing on their own would be a lackluster defense of the laws should they come up for judicial review.

However, if past is predicate, we may have a tough time winning governorships again in 2014. In 2010 the freak out was "Obama's gonna take your medicare". Now it's "Obama's gonna take your guns". A well-motivated minority can be quite powerful in off-year elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 0rganism (Reply #19)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:08 PM

35. Dems already won the legislature in Maine

Next year, Teabagger Gov. 38% will be replaced either by a dem or a dem turned indie (read here yesterday that Cutler may run again).

We've already replaced one of our GOP twin sisters with a left-leaning indie. The other twin will give it up sooner or later

In the meantime, gerrymandering efforts here failed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magical thyme (Reply #35)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 06:41 PM

40. Maine has a long-standing tradition of dividing its EVs

I don't see that changing. Still, good job getting your legislature back. Remember to keep it in 2014.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 0rganism (Reply #40)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 07:06 PM

42. yeah, Mitten's made a last minute attempt to get Northern Maine's single EV

FAIL. And they tried to gerrymander to cause Michaud to lose his seat, and go after Chellie's too. FAIL and FAIL.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 0rganism (Reply #19)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:24 PM

36. Difficult, not impossible

State legislators often win or lose by a few thousand votes. Also, my experience is that local politics can be less partisan than national politics (of course, they can also be more so). I don't think it would be impossible to take back some of these state legislatures, but people would have to start focusing much more on their local politics instead of some tabloid national politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 02:47 AM

21. I see it as a real threat

However, it could backlash horribly on the Republicans. It could scar them for a long time. No one will respect that Republican president. It would be 10 times worse than Bush.

Americans want their vote to count. I think the public would feel betrayed.
I know that Dems felt betrayed with Bush/Gore, but the public understood that the race was close. And what happened with Bush/Gore was ballot counting/recounting.

With the EV proposals, it is obvious blatant election rigging - before the election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 04:00 AM

22. All Obama has to do is start a program to get America working again. He does this and the Dems will

 

get the votes. Right now people want jobs first and foremost. He can be a hero. It's up to him. If not the Repubs will run all over us in the next election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 04:14 AM

23. IMO it's the other way around. Repugs win a battle (gerrymander an election) now and then but

in the end they will lose the entire war and we win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 04:15 AM

24. kr. and the other thing is state & local policy -- which is noticeably going rightward. that's

 

likely to have serious repercussions especially if/as more cities/localities/states have financial problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #24)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 04:55 AM

26. Which is actually in line with typical election patterns

The president's party tends to lose power in the states during mid-terms.

Of course there has been exceptions here and there. So it's not set in stone. These are just tendencies that tend to repeat themselves through our history. Why? I think mainly because the opposition tends to be more motivated in non-presidential elections. People who are angry with the president are more likely to vote than people who are happy with him. It's basic psychology at work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #26)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 05:04 AM

28. i'd disagree. what i am seeing where i live is a longer-term trend, & it's backed by grassroots

 

organizing at the local level by the forces of the far right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 05:03 AM

27. I disagree with all of this. Hillary45 already has it clinched.Constant don't remain Constant

 

these are the same downer type things as the theft memes which just look to depress the vote.

In actuality, the electoral vote change is totally wrong.
Because it is looked at straight on 2012 and would not be applicable to a different race

for instance

let's say Jeb picks Christie as VP in 2016 to run against Hillary45.
Let's say that leads to Jeb winning PA.
Well, instead of Jeb winning 100% of PA, he will lose 1/3 of the electoral votes or more

and again, this constant, is just not applicable

because there are movements when the constants change in each statistical direction,
and constant don't remain constant

long as there is no 3rd party idiot with lies like Traitor Nader used to toss an election to republicans like Nader so willingly and laugingly did in 2000(it was nader in Nov.2000, not the scotus 2nd part of their ruling in Dec.2000 that caused Gore to lose
(see stats of total # of voters, 2000,2004,2008,2012. Nader surpressed the vote far more than any other factor. 10 million LESS votes than in any modern election.
Had Gore used Bill Clinton, he would have won 4 other states besides Florida.

and there was NO theft in 2004, just a horrible run campaign that allowed unanswered for 6 weeks a major slur, and not enough voters.
(especially the VP pick of Edwards, what a joke).

When ALL of the parties base comes out to vote, there are landslides.

I believe this change of electoral is just a red herring.
AT NO TIME should Democratic people want to now change the electoral vote,which is what this red herring is wanted.

Again, constant in raw statistical number analysis, DOES NOT HAPPEN.
because for every change, there is a second change somewhere else overruling the first change. It is not static.

and 2016 will not be 2012.
Unless a shitty candidate is picked who is not vetted and cannot win of course.

Which is what jeb would love.

Had Nader not told 10 million voters to stay home in 2000, had Gore not told Bill Clinton to stay home in 2000, the democratic party would have won a landslide

3rdpartyites would love Jeb to win, just like Nader loved W winning.(and just like republicans financed Nader to repress the vote, whether the BigEgotist knew it or not). Just like Perot endorsed W in 2000 and 2004, making his run in 1992 just personal against 41, but not political.
He truly wanted to even a personal score with 41 and did.Where it political, he would not have endorsed his son(and I am sure in 2016 he will endorse Jeb).

all the other is scare tactics.

BTW, with Hillary45 as nominee, the Dems will win red states like Texas, like Arkansas, like Tenn. like Kentucky. Like Georgia. Like South Carolina.

for every constant that is moved, another one moves with it
it is not just one constant, and everything else stagment.

life and politics don't work like this

and the loud republican noise for this, is a red herring to get dems to change to a different system because they can't win this.

It really irritates me to think the single greatest player in the political game, President Obama and his single greatest team, would have people thinking they would have lost 2012 to this.
NO THEY WOULD NOT HAVE. They would have played a different set of cards and won the same amount.

don't fall for it, because Jeb would surely love it if the Dems fell into this trap.

(and in the past, everytime the repubs tried to game the system, it failed.
Look at the only 2 term law after FDR. Who lost there? The repubs, as Ike and Reagan easily would have own a 3rd term.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #27)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 05:51 AM

29. although I don't think that repubs are winning as the OP claims

your post is just ridiculous speculation based on nothing whatsofuckingever

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #29)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 04:52 PM

39. no, you are wrong

 

and cursing is rude.

but constants are not applicable when looking at statistical analysis because
one constant in the OP example is not what happens in real life

if constant E changes, then constant F-z also would change as would constant A-d

thereby negating the entire OP thought about the electoral vote

or in simple country music terms
as willie nelson sang

"still is still moving to me"

meaning still doesn't remain still

just because there is no wind, does not mean the earth stops spinning

it is simple Spockian logic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 09:18 AM

31. Disagree

and everyone should read this.

President of the Whole Country
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022237431

The fact is that the Republicans strategy has been exposed, and they are being rejected. Look at Scott in Florida and LePage in Maine. Their approval ratings are abysmal.

Republicans may lose the House in 2014.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #31)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 09:25 AM

33. I agree.

People are talking about this. They see what's going on, which is amazing. I mean, it shouldn't be amazing, but it is.

Americans and humans in general don't like cheaters and this stuff sure looks like cheating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 09:21 AM

32. Can't be. Almost weekly I see a post telling me that the Dems only problem is the South.

At the same time I'm seeing news reports about how GOP Governors in Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, etc are destroying the states they run.

Or, how about the fact that Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan are all run by Republicans.

And then I hear about how the Democrats won big in November. What a joke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:45 PM

37. a (surprisingly) thoughtful freeper doesn't agree with you...

To: apillar
They seem to conveniently forget the fact that Republicans won the House of Representatives (the peoples house)
True, but we only held the House because of clever gerrymandering. The sad fact is 1.3 million more Americans actually voted for a Democrat House.

and Republicans control the vast majority of state legislatures and Governorships.

Yes, we've done very well at this level recently. We've definitely had a crop of excellent gubernatorial candidates. On the state legislative level it seems that the less media coverage on a race, the better we do. I think that makes sense. When the mainstream media highlight a race it is almost always to the Democrats benefit - sometimes overwhelmingly.


Gerrymandering won't work as the majority of the country comes out of its coma. Demographics will undo some of it. Rightwingnuttery candidates will undo some of it. And GOPers like Christie and Christ will undo some of it.

And I take his last to mean that when the media actually gets some facts out there, people wake up and smell the coffee.

The last time we had a dem president, too many people were partying too hard to see the shit headed our way. This time, we are barely recovering from very hard times courtesy of the GOP and 1%. I'm feeling increasingly confident of a 3rd Obama term, whether it be Pres. Warren or Clinton or Biden, as well as much more success for President Obama now that he is freed from another election. I suspect he has spent his last 4 years sussing out the enemy and the last 2 laying land mines. He'll have many, many tricks up his sleeve to get this ship turned around once and for all, be able to get us back on track and for a good long time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 07:10 PM

43. they are also preparing for the debt ceiling fight

Victory is nice, but we cannot underestimate the republicans. They have not given up. In fact, they are probably scheming up new ways to intimidate, manipulate, and cheat to get what they want. We know what they are capable of. We must remain vigilant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread