Most of the Democrats problems stems from the failure of the President to lead. The Democrats have done more whining than I have been accustomed to from either party. I attribute that to the President's leadership "Style". If you can't get what you want then whine.The power that gerrymandering has brought to Republicans
The inside track on Washington politics.
Julian E. Zelizer is a political historian at Princeton University and a Fellow at New America. His most recent book is “The Fierce Urgency of Now: Lyndon Johnson, Congress, and the Battle for the Great Society.”
The House of Representatives has been a bulwark for conservatism in the age of Obama. Even though Democrats hoped that the 2008 election marked a new era in progressive politics, the predictions were wrong. Just as Southern Democrats and Midwestern Republicans in Congress teamed up against Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, since the 2010 midterm elections rightward House Republicans, secure in their seats, have blocked President Obama on almost all of his legislative agenda. The GOP has turned congressional obstructionism into an art form.
During Obama’s presidency, Republicans retook control of the House in 2010 and increased the size of their majority from 242 to 247. Even if Republicans suffer a landslide defeat in 2016 with Donald Trump at the top of their ticket, most experts predict that they will retain control of the House. Whatever national polls say about Obama or the GOP, Republican lawmakers are relatively safe in their seats. And as long as Republicans have a lock on the House, party polarization will continue in the years to come, since House Republicans will have no reason to compromise with a Democratic president or even more moderate voices within their own party.
How do conservative Republicans maintain so much power in the House, even though Americans reelected a liberal president and polls show that the GOP suffers from high disapproval ratings?
Salon editor David Daley’s punchy, though overstated, new book lays the blame for Republican power in the House on partisan gerrymandering, the byzantine process through which state legislatures draw district lines to favor incumbents from one party. Challenging the claim that increased partisan polarization is a result of voters naturally sorting themselves into red and blue states, Daley argues that a group of operatives in the Republican Party did the sorting for them. The GOP poured money into an unprecedented effort to control governorships and state legislative bodies in 2010 and to then redraw congressional districts so that the party could turn the House into a firewall against the Democrats.
While the term “gerrymander” has been around since the early years of the republic, computer technology and big money have allowed governors and legislatures to perfect the process in ways that have never before been imagined, according to Daley. The same technology that allows Amazon to figure out who buys what in any home on a given block now allows party officials to do the same with elections.
Although his argument might not be as sexy as talking about how money corrupts politics or how the 24-hour news media leaves us all screaming, the success of Republican legislatures and governors at redrawing congressional districts is the reason, he says, House Republican incumbents have increased their power and don’t have to worry about any “wave” election that would shift control to the other party. The result is that House Republicans have become more dug into their opposition to every presidential initiative, playing to their very red districts, and there is nothing but gridlock on Capitol Hill. Bipartisan deals are impossible, and the chances for good governance have disappeared. Indeed, Republicans have been so successful that they have created an unanticipated problem: GOP incumbents now have to worry about primary challenges from tea party Republicans who want to move even further to the right.
Daley takes us through the story of how this all happened. Once Obama was in the White House, a group of wily Republicans doubled down on state and local politics. Chris Jankowski, a tactician for the Republican State Leadership Committee, and his allies came up with an audacious plan to target campaign money toward gaining control of state governments, where reapportionment would take place. The operation, called REDMAP (Redistricting Majority Project), was never a secret. Karl Rove outlined what they planned to do in the Wall Street Journal.
In a local race in Pennsylvania in 2010, Democrat David Levdansky, a 13-term state representative, found himself under assault. He faced a barrage of advertising, financed by national Republican organizations, claiming in misleading television spots and mailers that he had voted to spend $600 million on a library in honor of Arlen Specter, the controversial U.S. senator who had left the Republicans to join the Democrats. This didn’t sit well with constituents in a recession. He paid the price: Republican Rick Saccone narrowly defeated him. “The f---ing Arlen Specter library,” Levdansky recalled after he lost. Once national Republicans flipped his seat, they gained control of the state’s lower chamber.
The first stage of the plan worked beautifully. Republicans won majorities in 10 out of the 15 states that would be redrawing their districts.
With control of many state governments in place, Republicans launched the second phase. Using sophisticated software such as Maptitude, GOP operatives crafted favorable districts filled with conservative white voters, based on the kind of data available to corporations. The book is brimming with fascinating portraits of wunderkinds who integrated micro-targeting, computer mapmaking and gerrymandering. Democrats were clustered into a handful of districts while the rest were packed with conservative voters.
Daley shows how, even when reforms promised to make the redistricting process more public, behind the scenes, crafty operatives did what they wanted.
Titled “Ratf**ked,” a term that came out of the Richard Nixon administration to refer to “a dirty deed done dirt cheap,” Daley’s book provides a blow-by-blow account of how this happened. He draws on investigative reports, interviews and court documents to give readers an eye-opening tour of a process that many Americans never see. Not unlike the legislative process, which is often compared to the ugliness of making sausage, redistricting is an element of democracy that many readers won’t find comforting.
Much of Daley’s book will not come as a surprise. Journalists and scholars have written about this state-based mobilization by the Republican Party since it started.
Nor is Daley the first liberal commentator to point to the political process as the reason conservatism succeeded in a given period. During the 1950s and 1960s, a generation of liberals argued that the seniority-based congressional committee system propped up a coalition of Southern Democrats and Republicans that prevented liberal Democratic presidents from moving their legislation through Congress. Back then, the problem was gerrymandered districts that privileged rural voters over urban voters, a situation that ended with the Supreme Court’s one-man-one-vote decisions between 1962 and 1964. Liberal Sen. Joseph Clark of Pennsylvania blasted his colleagues as the “Sapless Branch” of government.
But was the partisan gerrymandering as powerful as Daley claims?
Sometimes reformers have overestimated the impact that changes in the political process can have. This is a particularly important reminder in the current campaign season, when the demand for reform looms large in the electorate. For example, there is substantial evidence showing that, contrary to conventional wisdom, gerrymandering is not a main source of partisan polarization. This is evident from the fact that the Senate — where districting is irrelevant — has also become more partisan, while in one-district states such as Wyoming and Vermont, we have seen a similar shift to the extremes.
Nor does a focus on how Republicans dominated through gerrymandering explain why Democrats were not able to fight back. This seems to be the pivotal question, especially in recent years when Democrats experienced dramatic victories in the presidential elections. It is not as if Democrats don’t know how to slice and dice the electorate. The most legendary practitioner of the gerrymander in modern times was California Democrat Phillip Burton, who worked with legislators to redraw the districts in his state to solidify the control of his party. “My contribution to modern art,” Burton half-joked.
Daley presents this failure of Democrats to stop the Republican campaign to take control of state legislatures and draw districts that would protect their incumbents as a product of strategic blunders and miscalculations by Democratic leaders. But the problems created by gerrymandering are symptomatic of larger challenges facing the parties. Daley should have looked more deeply into what’s going on with the Democrats as a national organization that caused them to allow Republicans to gain so much power in state politics. Why did Republican ideas gain a stronger hold in the electorates of the states that flipped to the GOP? What did the reconfiguration of campaign finance in the 1970s and 1980s, with business increasingly mobilizing behind the GOP, have to do with the party’s ability to influence races? Why do more voters seem to prefer Republicans in House races, an advantage the GOP has enjoyed since the early 1990s?
History shows that grass-roots partisan mobilization can overcome gerrymandering. In 2006, when gerrymandering was pretty strong, Democrats enjoyed a watershed in the midterm elections. And in 2010, the districts were pretty locked in when Republicans retook control of Congress, as they did in 1994.
Predicting the political impact of reform is also a tricky business. During the 1970s, liberal Democrats blew open the congressional committee system that had been in place for much of the 20th century, only to later see conservative Republicans such as Newt Gingrich thrive.
What Daley makes clear is that ruthless partisan gerrymandering is not good for democracy and makes it that much more difficult to wrestle control of the House away from the GOP.
Democrats should read this book. Political parties still have to build their national power from the bottom up. Without the Democrats investing resources in the nitty-gritty of state politics, if Hillary Clinton is able to win the presidency in November, she will probably face a Republican House that is hell-bent on stopping her and unlikely to give her any significant domestic victories.
Politics, Politics, Politics
- Thread starter falcondfw69
- Start date
Most of the Democrats problems stems from the failure of the President to lead. The Democrats have done more whining than I have been accustomed to from either party. I attribute that to the President's leadership "Style". If you can't get what you want then whine.
we have had this same conversation before you have used the exact same statement so just go back and read my comment on it... what's with all you right wingers today ... just come here to argue about something... if you can't find something new... limited thinking... you are willing to just rehash the old stuff
You go on a length about the evils the Republicans have perpetrated. And you repeated the great Republican conspiracy against the president. I have been in the business work most of my a good part of it in upper management. I have seen some amazing leaders and our president isn't one of them. A truly great leader will bend people to his/her will and will usually get people to think that it was their idea. Maybe the Republican are the Party of No but the Democrats have become the Party of Whine. The national debt had nearly doubled under the President's watch and the only ones that really have any better life are people like me. The principal economic policy from both sides for the last 50 years is to get their respective administrations through their term and dump the ******* on who follows. The problem is there isn't anymore Peter's to rob to pay Paul. By 2000 the economy was pretty well screwed but it could have been saved if someone had actually understood the problem. It was bad enough under Bush but when President Obama got elected everything he did made a bad situation worse. Neither party has a viable plan to save the economy. Things would tank fastest under Sanders, it would last a bit longer under Clinton, and the longest under whoever the Republican field, I expect to start seeing government defaults no later than 2025 if there is either a Democrat or a Republican is in the White House. The Libertarians do have a viable plan and the time is ripe for a third party.
The debate would be much better if you could come up with some material other than the standard liberal agenda
again... that was in your statement a few days ago... go back and read my same response..... lack of any new discussion just argue same subject
your post on Jun11
torpe if you can't remember your post and conversations any better than that one would certainly have to wonder about your recollection of facts!
these people just "quicker" than some and realize trickle down doesn't work and people won't buy it.... so they are turning tail and running!
The list of officials quitting the Republican Party keeps growing
Two weeks ago, an Iowa state senator who’s had a lengthy career in public service as a Republican announced he just couldn’t take it anymore: citing Donald Trump as a contributing factor, the lawmaker quit the GOP and changed his voter registration to “no party.”
A few days later, the Republican mayor of Hackensack, New Jersey, announced he too is giving up on the GOP, and he was joined by his deputy mayor. Both mentioned Trump in their statements and both switched their registration to “independent.”
Over the weekend, the Charleston Gazette-Mail in West Virginia reported on another joining the club.
Charleston Mayor Danny Jones, who has been a Republican for 45 years and has been elected mayor four times as a Republican, has left the party.
Jones announced Friday that he has switched his party registration to “unaffiliated.” He pointed to multiple factors, specifically the social conservative bent of the West Virginia House of Delegates and the rise of Donald Trump as the party’s presidential nominee.
In addition to his opposition to Trump’s candidacy, Jones noted the “obsession” among West Virginia Republicans to allow private-sector discrimination again LGBT Americans as one of the reasons he’s walking away from the party.
Jones, the mayor of West Virginia’s largest city, added, “I plan to complete my current term, and have no plans to run for any office ever again. I am not trying to pick a fight with anyone.”
It’s important, of course, not to overstate matters based on a handful of examples. Four local officials do not necessarily a trend make.
But every time I read about someone like Danny Jones, I wonder how many other Danny Joneses there are out there: Americans who’ve long considered themselves Republicans, who remember what the GOP was like before its radicalization, and who may be tempted to give up on the party in light of Trump’s nomination and antics.
It’s just not common for elected officials to abandon their party in an election year. The fact that these folks have abandoned the GOP this year probably isn’t a good sign.
The list of officials quitting the Republican Party keeps growing
Two weeks ago, an Iowa state senator who’s had a lengthy career in public service as a Republican announced he just couldn’t take it anymore: citing Donald Trump as a contributing factor, the lawmaker quit the GOP and changed his voter registration to “no party.”
A few days later, the Republican mayor of Hackensack, New Jersey, announced he too is giving up on the GOP, and he was joined by his deputy mayor. Both mentioned Trump in their statements and both switched their registration to “independent.”
Over the weekend, the Charleston Gazette-Mail in West Virginia reported on another joining the club.
Charleston Mayor Danny Jones, who has been a Republican for 45 years and has been elected mayor four times as a Republican, has left the party.
Jones announced Friday that he has switched his party registration to “unaffiliated.” He pointed to multiple factors, specifically the social conservative bent of the West Virginia House of Delegates and the rise of Donald Trump as the party’s presidential nominee.
In addition to his opposition to Trump’s candidacy, Jones noted the “obsession” among West Virginia Republicans to allow private-sector discrimination again LGBT Americans as one of the reasons he’s walking away from the party.
Jones, the mayor of West Virginia’s largest city, added, “I plan to complete my current term, and have no plans to run for any office ever again. I am not trying to pick a fight with anyone.”
It’s important, of course, not to overstate matters based on a handful of examples. Four local officials do not necessarily a trend make.
But every time I read about someone like Danny Jones, I wonder how many other Danny Joneses there are out there: Americans who’ve long considered themselves Republicans, who remember what the GOP was like before its radicalization, and who may be tempted to give up on the party in light of Trump’s nomination and antics.
It’s just not common for elected officials to abandon their party in an election year. The fact that these folks have abandoned the GOP this year probably isn’t a good sign.
It's still true and you haven't really offered much to refute my point.
It would be nice if you had at least a basic understanding of economics. Our current mess was created not by Reagan's policies but by Alan Greenspan's reaction to the 1987 crash and the Fed's subsequent meddling. The current Fed policy of Quantitative Easing has made more rich people richer than anything Reagan ever did. Why do you think Warren Buffet is such an Obama fan?
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016...nd-greed-pharma-keeps-raising-*******-prices/
This guy even looks like a slime ball
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34320413
If 49 people die because they can no longer afford their medications I wonder if there will be any outcry to impose restrictions on Big Pharma. (I'm betting not)
This guy even looks like a slime ball
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34320413
If 49 people die because they can no longer afford their medications I wonder if there will be any outcry to impose restrictions on Big Pharma. (I'm betting not)
that's why you are a republican and I am a Democrat... and we will never agree on the solution for this... maybe that's why someone started this board.... BUT if your opinion was so good the republican party would NOT be in the shape it is... people see your position just does not help the majority of americans!
been going on for years... way before the ACA.... surely you remember the "donut hole"...sad but it is a fact people die here for lack of medication or being able to afford a Dr. and it's just not right for a nation like this to be in that position... but then the republican belief is ... if you can afford it you get it..... I suppose it just more of their plan to do away with people who don't have their same beliefs ... let them die!
Democratic party isn't doing so great, they just have better PR
Our current President says the U.S. Constitution is "deeply flawed" Probably because it doesn't give him unlimited power
Last edited:
Hell lets look at PPACA now. Any reduction in rates appears to be short term and more connected to a sluggish economy than anything PPACA has done. Rate increases this year seem well in line to cost increases in years past. Over half of the highly touted state exchanges have folded. One of the largest insurers has bailed. The majority of the newly covered are covered by Medicaid. The whole mess is held up with a non sustainable level of subsidies that eat up about a quarter of the annual budget and drive the country deeper in debt
What to Hell makes you think I am a Republican? I find them only a little less fucked up than the Democrats
oh hell no you guys are running a master PR man.... able to pull in the gullible and hide his... "achievements"
what has this to do with the topic?.... since when does anyone in your party care about budgets..... only when there is a dem in the white house!... otherwise just spend start wars and etc... with no money nor any care for a budget.... records show that!
with the two party system and an occasional odd party... that makes you a republican.... unless you don't vote... then your opinions really don't count!
