Following up on John’s post this morning, there is a structural reason for conservative Dems to bray so loudly. They are needed for a majority in a way that the looniest of Tea Baggers are not essential for a Republican House majority.
The Cook Political Report from April 2013 ran their Partisan Voting Index numbers. The Cook PVI tries to give a sense of how a district performs in a neutral environment. It averages the deviation of the district’s Presidential vote from national partisan trends over the past two cycles. A district that voted 53-46 for Obama in 2008 and then went 51-47 voted precisely as the nation did, so it would have no partisan swing. A district that voted 51-49 Obama in both cycles would be an R+3 or an R+4 district meaning it leans 3 or 4 points more Republican than the nation as a whole. And here is the bad, structural news:
In 1998, the median district was Washington’s 8th CD, then held by suburban Seattle GOP Rep. Jennifer Dunn, which was one point more Republican than the national average.
Between 2008 and 2012, the median district was Wisconsin’s 1st CD, held by none other than Rep. Paul Ryan, with a PVI score of R+2. Today, the median district is that of Washington GOP Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, whose 3rd CD also has a PVI score of R+2. As the Democratic vote has become even more concentrated since the mid-1990s and Republicans have used the redistricting process to shore up their own seats, the “median district” has crept rightward by nearly two points since 1998.
Throw in aggressive gerrymandering of the Great Lakes states, and the Democratic majority has to include quite a few seats that naturally lean Republican. Those seats can be gained by liberals in a Johnson v. Goldwater or Nixon v. McGovern landslides OR by running conservative(ish) Democrats against the batshit insane in normal years.
This results in two questions from my point of view. The first is what Democrats are opportunity cost democrats from a liberal perspective in that they hold D+7 or D+10 seats but vote like they hold R+3 seats. Those are the primary targets. The second question is for the candidates and incumbents in rouge and red seats who are needed for a potential majority, what are the hard lines that strictly define Democrats as an identity versus things where reasonable people disagree within the party. And that space is wide.
Belafon
If you don’t have a Daily Kos account, I would like to turn this into a post their when I get home. If nothing else, it’ll be a great litmus test of those who can read the numbers and those who see the numbers but refuse to get any meaning out of them.
Betty Cracker
Excellent observations and two great questions. I think we’ve had some success shoving the Overton Window leftward on some Democratic identity factors related to your second question, most notably marriage equality. It gives me hope that we can make inroads on other issues.
NotMax
2020 census will be here in the blink of an eye, and glad to read that Dems have recognized the urgency and necessity of planning in advance of redistricting.
JPL
@NotMax: Maybe at that point, Koch and his cronies won’t be tempted to buy local elections.
Mnemosyne (iPhone)
I think that what Kay has been screaming into the wind about for months is very relevant here: Democrats need to be emphasizing economic security, not how “business-friendly” they are. They need to talk about the minimum wage, consumer protections, worker protections — you know, all that stuff Elizabeth Warren is always talking about. People respond to that far more than they respond to calls for even more deregulation, or to scolding people for being out of work.
Minimum wage laws are passing in red states like Arkansas, Nebraska, and West Virginia. Where are the minimum wage-supporting Democrats right now?
boatboy_srq
@Betty Cracker: Agreed. Especially with RM’s first scenario (the D+7-10 district represented by an R+3 critter). However unlikely it may be to get a real progressive in a genuine R+3 district, can’t we at least get a few more in the high D-plus ones?
Jeremy
The democrats have to make winning the 2016 and 2018 elections a high priority. 2020 will be important as well but in order to turn the tide the next two elections will be really important. Winning more governor’s races will be key and from there you can work on the districts.
Bill Murray
Is this “those seats can be gained by liberals in a Johnson v. Goldwater or Nixon v. McGovern landslides OR by running conservative(ish) Democrats against the batshit insane in normal years.” a true statement? No facts are given and it certainly did not used to be true. Organization and effort can overcome some level of deficit. Of course, the national party is not big on helping state and local parties when the national party has decided they can’t win.
Jeremy
@Mnemosyne (iPhone): The majority of Democrats are talking about it but not enough. It seems like it’s been the WH and a couple of high profile democrats and the rest of the party is sitting around expecting the WH to do all of the work. Also I think we can’t leave out the elephant in the room: Race. The majority of working class white people love those ideas but if they think people of color are going to benefit as well then they have a problem. That’s why I think the changing demographics are really the only hope this country has left.
Anonymous At Work
The problem with the Blue Dog strategy is that they are the first to get hosed. Democrats score biggest with one of two factors: either running 435 candidates and playing on discontent with Republicans OR running big as Democrats that improves “brand recognition”. Blue Dog strategies ignore the first point to focus on “profitable” districts where candidates wouldn’t need much party funding, and typically trying to coat-tail Republicans on the second point.
It’d be one thing if the Blue Dogs’ strategies ever worked and simply produced an unreliable Democrat in Congress, but the strategies have never worked since 1964. And you know what the definition of insanity is?
Samuel Knight
This is great analysis IF people vote according to an ideological scale. But they don’t.
Most people do NOT have a coherent ideology, nor do they pay much attention to the tos and fros.
They’ll generally vote by gut feel that this candidate will fight for them.
And that’s the key issue – not to change votes but get your people to vote and make the other sides’ feel that it isn’t worth it.
Take a look at one of the most celebrated right wingers Paul Ryan a few years ago occupying the median seat.
Sorry the Blue Dog strategy never really worked all that well and will definitely not work now.
Linnaeus
You can really see the gerrymandering in my ancestral state of Michigan. Of Michigan’s 14 congressional districts, 9 are represented by Republicans, 5 by Democrats. The district with the highest Republican PVI is MI-02, with a PVI of R+7, which is not surprising given that the district is located on the west side of the state which has long been a conservative part of Michigan and it’s now where the Michigan GOP’s center of political gravity is. The district with the highest Democratic PVI is MI-13, with a PVI of D+34 (this district covers much of Detroit and some of its western suburbs). The district with the lowest Democratic PVI is MI-09, with a PVI of D+6. Only 2 districts represented by Republicans have a PVI equal to or greater than that, including MI-02, the most Republican district in the state.
mattH
@Bill Murray: Control of the state legislatures during redistricting years has had a huge impact on representation. “Uses to be” is just that.
pseudonymous in nc
On gerrymandering: there’s a fairly decent argument that packing/stacking of districts starts to break down in the latter half of the decade. People die, young people hit 18, people move into a district, other people move away. In fact, the more aggressive the gerrymander, the more likely it is to fray.
I believe hereditary congressman Dan Lipinski is the poster child for that shit.
Another Holocene Human
Sometimes it is very difficult to oppose an incumbent in those D+7 and up districts. Sometimes the district is D+++ but an immigrant community and more socially conservative anyway, and sometimes it’s a “safe” seat that is controlled by corporate insider dems and you would need a lot of things to come together to get a more popular (as in of the people) pol in there. Party primaries and jungle primaries have not delivered us from the power of insiders and the problem with the power of insiders is the power of money over those insiders. I don’t know what the answer is but ironically sometimes it’s easier to get a good democrat in a close district than get a real progressive in a super majority district.
lol
@pseudonymous in nc:
Gerrymandering raises the ceiling of what’s possible but also lowers the floor. A very bad no good election can leave the gerrymandered majority with no safe seats.
Schlemazel
Funny, that is what Kos said & tried to do & you may remember everyone here was fully on board with that effort & thought it was a great idea!
sharl
@pseudonymous in nc: Aww man, that memory of Little Lip’s ascendancy – with the help of dear ol’ Dad – will always grate on me.
I had high hopes for Mark Pena back in 2007, naive fool that I was…
Richard Mayhew
@Bill Murray:
From DKos: dailykos.com/story/2014/12/04/1345599/-Your-guide-to-2014-s-election-results-and-the-114th-Congress-…
” the correlation between presidential and congressional results is at a relatively historic high, there are still a fair amount of members who represent districts carried by the other party’s presidential ticket in 2012. In total, five Democrats and 26 Republicans sit in these hostile districts. ”
97% of House Democrats represent districts that voted for Obama, and 89% of House Republicans represent districts that voted for Romney. The correlation is not 1, but it is high.
Kay
@Mnemosyne (iPhone):
They understand it, Democrats, some of them. This is Obama on why it is harder for ordinary people now:
This is real to people. It has to be talked about. It’s what the “opportunity agenda!” ignores. People need state action more than ever because the non-state factors that run their way are weaker.
Kay
@Mnemosyne (iPhone):
And so an example would be rather than saying “we have this temp and independent contractor lower class of workers that our laws weren’t designed to protect and that’s just the way it is, markets, blah, blah” they could say “we need new labor laws that protect the actual workforce we have- all of them”.
That to me is the difference between a lecture and advocacy. Aspirations for education are nice, but I think they have to talk to people about where they ARE, too.
MomSense
@Kay:
I agree with you for the most part although I do think that there are a lot of young people in rural areas who are desperate for training programs in things like HVAC or certifications to service different kinds of boilers and heating systems. Those are good jobs with higher wages and it is tough for kids to come up with the money to take those programs.
I talk about earning enough that you can pay your oil bill, buy enough food for the week, etc. It is crazy making though that so many people are not really paying attention and unfortunately they have accepted the messaging of lowering taxes for job creators, etc as being true and being the Republican brand.
Roger Moore
@pseudonymous in nc:
It also sets you up for a electoral loss in a change election. If you’re depending on +1 to +3 seats, you can get crushed if there’s a fundamental swing of 2%.
@lol:
It’s not even obvious that it raises the ceiling. When you gerrymander your opponents into +5 and +10 seats, you make them invulnerable to all but the biggest swings. What gerrymandering does is to maximize your results in typical elections at the expense of worse- potentially much worse- results when there’s a big partisan swing in either direction.
richard mayhew
@Roger Moore: So you are saying that gerrymandering primarily reduces variance against a restricted range of expected swings in national mood. Interesting take… makes a lot of sense.
mdblanche
A relevant segment from Rachel Maddow last night.
rikyrah
@Mnemosyne (iPhone):
Amen
Amen
Amen
say it all again
rikyrah
@Jeremy:
I’ll say it again…
phuck ’em.
They wanna cling to the Whiteness…let them.
How come working class Native Americans
working class Asian Americans
working class Latino Americans
working class Black Americans
understand the economic truths out here…
tired of folks coddling working class White folks…they wanna cling to their Whiteness..phuck ’em, and let’s keep on marching past them.
jacel
@mdblanche: Yes, that Maddow interview with Chris Janowski was amazing, including her build up of the background on what he accomplished on behalf of the Republicans. When Rachel started talking with him and made her usual request to correct any thing she said in introduction, Chris said it was accurate, and his daughter would finally be able to understand what he had done, thanks to Rachel’s clear explanation. When will Democrats ever try erring on the side of overkill for mobilizing during non-presidential election years? Janowski was able to achieve deep results at low costs.
Kay
@MomSense:
I agree. We have a Labor Dept program here at the community college, and some of them are going to what I call “windmill school” in Michigan (they are taught how to make wind turbines). I actually love the Labor Dept approach to all of this.
However. I think it is worthwhile to explain what is happening to them, why they feel so economically insecure, because it isn’t all government. We had beneficial levers outside government and they are gone. That’s part of what happened to people.
There are two groups of people I see in my office- those who are legitimately economically insecure and those who are afraid they will become insecure. That’s it. That’s 100% of the people. I just think this anxiety has to be recognized and addressed in a way that is truthful and not patronizing. Pom pom waving about “opportunity!” won’t do it. Address where they are, not where they might be if everything lines up for them.
Kay
@MomSense:
I’ll just give you an example. I regularly speak with people who have money in 401k’s and don’t believe it will be there when they retire. This isn’t abstract- they are unconvinced that anyone at all is looking out for them and this number they see could disappear just as they hit 65.
That’s the level of insecurity we’re talking about. They think this thing is all but imaginary. Telling people like that to grab a rung on the ladder of opportunity is just not coming close to their reality.
Another Holocene Human
@MomSense: 45% of Florida households are financially struggling. They have virtually no assets and income too low. Among them are 800,000 working poor who lack health insurance.
Staggering numbers.
Another Holocene Human
@rikyrah: had to school a couple of painters who were sneering about Obama’s Keystone veto, “environmentalists” “oil trains”, I said, look, it’s about Native lands and Native sovereignty and the seizure of their sacred lands in the early 20th century, those folks as well as white landowners in the Dakotas and NE are fighting KXL, heck, it’s already built and running in the South! They had to agree that was true and hadn’t really thought about the Indian stake in the matter.
I also pointed out that environmentalists in the PNW were throwing a fit over oil trains, trying to block a port being upgrade for oil exports, so enviros are not hypocrites on this issue….
Roger Moore
@richard mayhew:
That sounds about right for typical partisan gerrymandering, though it’s obviously also done with the goal of maximizing representation within that expected range of swings rather than just reducing variance. There can also be bipartisan gerrymandering, where the goal is to protect incumbents by increasing the total number of safe seats for both parties. We had that in California after the 2000 census, and it meant that our state legislature saw very little partisan swing throughout the decade, even when the country as a whole was swinging wildly.
Roger Moore
@Kay:
But the loss of those levers outside of government has a lot to do with what’s happened inside government. Unions are weak because labor law has been weakened in both statute and enforcement. Labor’s bargaining position has been weakened by loosening of restrictions on international trade and weak enforcement of immigration law. There’s a hell of a lot that a friendly government could do to improve the ability of labor to look after itself.
Tripod
So…. wait for the olds to die, or if Democrats would only use my word slaw recipe…
Color me meh.
Working for redistricting reform might not be a bad idea.
Tripod
@Roger Moore:
I think the inclination here is to see things in ideological or a single issue terms, when in fact the rural-urban divide is the first order sieve.
There are also structural reasons why the rural votes count more in the House.