Yes, the Democratic Party is at nearly its weakest point in a century

[Algernon Moncrieff]

Politifact

Republicans made dramatic down-ballot gains over the past decade, a trend that may have been overlooked somewhat given Democratic control of the executive branch for most of this time. But as the party vies to recapture the House and Senate from the GOP in upcoming midterm elections, the roots of Democrats’ recent losses are being reexamined.

"Unless Democrats face up to this reality and devise a strategy to reverse this tidal wave of defeat, they might find themselves surprised one more time this November," said CNN’s Fareed Zakaria. "When you tally up their representation in Congress, state legislatures and governorships, the Democrats almost have their lowest representation in about 100 years."

[PubliusEnigma]

1. Blue Wave is greater than False Concern

[Hassin Bin Sober]

2. Gee, I wonder why this was:

“The high-water mark of Democratic representation came during the New Deal era.”

I forget what the New Deal was all about. Was it a mantra of neve ever going to happen?

[thucythucy]

5. Part of the "New Deal coalition"

was the "Solid South"--segregationists and white supremacists like Strom Thurmond who were Democrats pretty much only because Lincoln was a Republican. They made support of racial segregation a condition of their continuing to be Democrats.

After passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act in 1965 "the Solid South" switched parties. This accounts for a major part of supposed Democratic losses since then.

Given that history, and what those "Democrats" stood for, do we really want them back in our coalition?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

12. Looking at that chart we still did fairly well up until the late 70s.

Definitely on a downward slope since the 90s.

[thucythucy]

17. To me it looks like the most significant drops came in the early 1970s--

the McGovern catastrophe, which in part was due to the GOP "Southern strategy", the post 9-11 "You're either with us or against us and Max Cleland is a bin Laden supporter" hysteria, and now the drop in 2016, in large part due to gerrymandering, voter suppression, and yes, Russian interference.

There's no doubt that Democrats gave less attention than was needed to down ballot races, everything from state attorneys general to school committee. But we see a big peak under Howard Dean's 50 state strategy, which recruited conservative Dems to run in conservative districts.

The thread that ties all this together is white discomfort with the fact that we're becoming a more multi-racial and multi-lingual culture. Also, Roe v. Wade and abortion rights (in the '70s) drove lots of anti-choice former Democrats out of the party. Social issues like LGTB rights also played a factor.

Many of these trends are now reversing. For instance, Gay rights is no longer the anathema it used to be to so many people, especially among younger voters. And I'm hoping that the racial dog whistles used so long and with such success by Republicans have begun to lose their potency.

That's my hope, anyway.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

28. We slaughtered the GOP in the '74 Midterms

Yet Ford almost got reelected in '76. Bussing and white flight drove many whites to vote Reagan in '80.

The Cake decision shows LBGTQ rights and marriage equality aren't settled issues - the fundies want a do-over and they figure Roe will be overturned on Trump's watch.

Clinton emerged as a young baby boomer who seemed like an alternative to the old, stodgy WW 2 era presidents. Obama seemed like an articulate alternative to the failed economic and military policies of GW Bush. Yet both Obama and Clinton lose control of Congress, and both of their would-be successors win the popular vote and lose the election.

If we can win one house of Congress, we can put the brakes on. But at that point, we need to present a vision that is more than just "we're not Trump."

[Proud Liberal Dem]

68. I feel like the idea that Democrats are making everything about Trump to be a myth

though it seems nearly impossible for anybody to ignore how Trump is a flaming dumpster fire in almost every aspect. And I also don't agree that "Democrats don't have a message." Anybody can read the Democratic platform, listen to statements made by Democrats at the federal, state, and local levels to figure out what Democrats stand for. If you mostly watch cable news, you'd think that Democrats don't have much to say, mostly because they are so rarely invited on. Most of the time, you see centrist/right-wing/Republican pundits on the air. Not sure why that is or how we fix it. But, at any rate, I'll take the scatterbrained, not-totally-cohesive Democratic Party over the racist, xenophobic, hate-everybody-but-the-wealthy-and-white-and-privileged Republican Party

[betsuni]

25. Since the 70s Republicans politicized Evangelicals; have worked to build a network of grassroots

organizations and think tanks that formulate and promote conservative ideas (they write legislation, policy, talking points); built their own media empire; built an ideological alliance between industry, government and regulatory agencies (by 2000, Republicans received 82% of the tabacco industry's political contributions, agribusiness 72%, defense 69%, etc); suppressed voter turnout in minority communities and gerrymandered districts. Single minded, organized, funded, will do anything to succeed. That's what happened.

[sharedvalues]

55. +1000. This is what happened: weaponized wealth in politics

[brer cat]

69. +1000

Very good points, betsuni. Single minded and not only willing but eager to appeal to the voters' basest instincts allows them to hone their message and pound it home. Our big tent is reality; it absolutely defines who we are, and most of us will fight to lift every voice, slide over to allow one more to sit beside us on the girder. E pluribus unum, yet we are herding cats while they are in front of a school of fish.

[CrispyQ]

97. +1

And I like what sharedValues called it: weaponized wealth in politics. The GOP has been playing the long game & we are now on a precipice & could topple either way.

[Demsrule86]

61. What about McGovern?

[ehrnst]

63. Gerrymandering and breaking the Unions by the GOP pretty much took our power.

We do get the majority of support, but it takes far more than a majority to elect a Democrat.

That's why we have less power.

[karynnj]

81. Another way to look at that chart is to look at the trend on the "red" Republican side

Even now, they are not as far above 50% as we were in the late 30s, briefly in the 60s and 70s. What is interesting is that unlike the governorships and state Senates, the US House, Senate, and the state houses are already starting to trend back towards 50%.

It is also something that people who blamed Obama's personality or political skill dealing with Congress for not achieving what LBJ did should look at. Even in the first two years when Democrats were higher than they were and would be in the later 6 years he never had anything near the level of Democratic control LBJ or FDR had.

In addition, it really does show that the political trends over the last several years were pretty strong and it is almost an understatement that we were too comfortable, happy with the Obamas in the White House.

[Midwestern Democrat]

117. It seems the losses started becoming persistent/worsening starting with the '94 disaster.

The Democratic Party had suffered bad party wide losses before - the 1966/1968 elections at the height of the Vietnam War and Carter's landslide defeat of 1980 - but in both those cases, the party was able to quickly bounce back from those losses in 1970 and 1982 - 1994 was different - this time we DIDN'T quickly bounce back.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

76. The New Deal Created a middle class, some of whom's members no longer felt the need for an ...

The New Deal Created a middle class, some of whom's members no longer felt the need for an activist government.

[ansible]

6. Good times, back when being a democrat actually meant being on the left

[thucythucy]

9. Unless you were a Southern Democrat

like Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, Lester Maddox, and the rest of the "Solid South"--segregationists and white supremacists all.

Do we really want to go back to those days? Back then even the New Deal had a racist component?

Let's not romanticize the past. That's something we should leave to Republicans.

[ansible]

10. It's unfortunate, but FDR needed their support to get as far as he did

And IIRC they turned on Truman when he attempted to desegregate the military and they eventually switched to being republicans instead

[Algernon Moncrieff]

15. Actually...

Pre Reagan, both parties had liberal and conservative wings.

[kamalafan]

47. It was pony's and unicorns I think

[Demsrule86]

62. I would think the fact that the economy had cratered and millions had starved and were

continuing to starve and lost their homes etc might have had something to do with that. My Grandpa told me when I was young about finding people dead in their cars on his farm property. They had starved to death trying to find a better place or died of disease brought on by deprivation. Roosevelt saved this country no doubt. The policies were enacted because of the conditions on the ground ,and also he could run four times back then. He had time... I love Roosevelt and believe he was a great president, but no man is perfect. He opposed unions for federal workers, his policies were only for the white man, and he intered the Japanese in camps during WWII. He made mistakes along the way . In 37, he attempted to balance the budget sending unemployment soaring.

All in all despite what I have written above which is all true, t really isn't fair to judge Roosevelt by the standards of our time. I merely bring it up because I feel this hero worship of Roosevelt is akin to that for Reagan on the Republican side...you can't live in the past. The desire to go back to happier more simple times mostly those we experienced as young people is tempting but as Thomas Wolfe famously said, 'You can't go home again'.

[blake2012]

3. Not true at all

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

51. Sad, but true.

[YOHABLO]

4. Why is Fareed Zakaria the go to guy?

[thucythucy]

7. And yet Democrats have won the popular vote in six of the seven last

presidential elections:

Clinton in 92
Clinton in 96
Gore in 2000
Obama in 2008
Obama in 2012
Clinton in 2016.

And in several midterms more people have voted for Democrats in Congress than Republicans, but because of gerrymandering Republicans gained and continued to hold the House and especially the Senate. More people voted Democratic in California's Senate races than voted Republican in Wyoming, the Dakotas and Idaho combined.

A part of any strategy "to reverse this tidal wave of defeat" should include the fight against gerrymandering--made more difficult now by a stolen Supreme Court seat, followed by yet another stolen presidential election.

I wish Zakaria and the other talking heads would emphasize that, for a change.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

52. And emphasize the need to do away the Electoral College!!

[CrispyQ]

95. Gerrymandering affects the House, not the Senate.

Congressional district lines are drawn by state governments, not SCOTUS. The dems lost 1,000 state seats & governorships during Obama's two terms. They dropped the ball & have some responsibility in this clusterfuck.

[thucythucy]

98. Yeah, but the fact that each state gets two senators

no matter how small or large its population skews the Senate heavily towards Republicans.

Wyoming, with fewer residents than the District of Columbia, gets the same number of Senators as California, which has more residents than all but the largest European nations. While that isn't gerrymandering, it's highly undemocratic with both a small and capital "D."

Though, I agree, on the local and state level the party dropped the ball big time.

[CrispyQ]

100. The entire electoral process needs an overhaul with publicly funded elections at the top of the list

The money spent on some of these races is obscene. Republicans like to claim that America turned on God & that's why we're in the decline, when really it's that mammon became our god–everything for profit. We let private corporations profit from locking up our fellow citizens. That one galls me the most. We also let them lobby to influence legislation to lock up more people.

[Voltaire2]

110. Been that way forever.

So the fact remains that our representation in the senate has also declined.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

118. Yes, but the Big State / Small State thing is way outta whack

DC has a higher population than Wyoming.

IIRC, Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties have a higher population than both Dakotas, Nebraska, and Wyoming.

Bottom line - a bunch of big states would do well to break up.

[NY_20th]

8. The Democrats are our last line at saving Democracy.

Vote!

[Garrett78]

11. Democrats have been fighting a policy war, while Republicans have been fighting a procedural war.

Few articles that I've read are more important than this one: https://www.vox.com/2018/5/1/17258866/democratic-party-republicans-trump-election.

David Faris
Right. People just don’t seem to make the connection between policies and the party in power.

So, for example, the Democrats passed Obamacare and gave millions of people heath care, and yet tons of people who benefited from it have no idea what it is or how they benefited. And it’s like that with a lot of policies — voters simply don’t connect the dots, and so they reward or punish the wrong party.

I think the idea that we’re going to deliver these benefits to people and they’re going to be like, “Thank you Jesus, thank you for everything that you’ve done, let me return you with a larger majority next time,” is just nonsense. It’s the wrong way to think about politics.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do things for people, but we’ve got to be serious about how elections are won. And they’re not being won on the basis of policy proposals or policy wins.

Sean Illing
In the book, you say that Democrats are engaged in “policy fights” and Republicans are waging a “procedural war.” What does that mean?

David Faris
The Constitution is a shockingly short document, and it turns out that it’s extremely vague on some key procedures that we rely on to help government function at a basic level. For the government to work, cooperation between parties is needed. But when that cooperation is withdrawn, it creates chaos.

Since the ’90s, when Newt Gingrich took over Congress, we’ve seen a one-sided escalation in which Republicans exploit the vagueness or lack of clarity in the Constitution in order to press their advantage in a variety of arenas — from voter ID laws to gerrymandering to behavioral norms in the Congress and Senate.

Sean Illing
What the Republicans did to Merrick Garland was one of the most egregious examples I’ve ever seen.

David Faris
Right. They essentially stole a seat on the Supreme Court — a swing seat, no less. But they correctly argued that they had no clear constitutional obligation to consider the president’s nominee for the seat. They didn’t violate the Constitution. They violated the spirit of the Constitution. They violated the norms that have allowed these institutions to function normally for years and years.

This is the sort of maneuvering and procedural warfare I’m talking about, and the Republicans have been escalating it for two decades. And they’ve managed to entrench their power through these dubious procedures.

The result is that the structural environment is biased against Democrats and the Republicans have engineered it that way.

Sean Illing
Let’s dive into some of your proposed solutions. For starters...

More at the link.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

13. Very good article

Thanks for posting.

[leftstreet]

16. Interesting!

Thanks for posting that

[kamalafan]

48. That's a great link!

Bookmarked. Thank you.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

70. +1

[Caliman73]

87. True. Republicans know they represent a small and shrinking demo.

They cannot sustain their governing authority through policy because their policies only favor the wealthy, White, and particular brand of Christianity.

They have been working to create an infrastructure of cheating that while not illegal in most cases (in some, very illegal) to maintain their power as a minority party.


Slightly over 27% or the eligible electorate picked the president in 2016.

Democratic candidates in many state and national races, have gotten more actual votes than their Republican opponents, but because of Redmap and other programs instituted by Republicans, Democratic candidates need over 5% more votes to win.

[Garrett78]

93. Yep, Republicans saw the writing on the wall long ago.

And, fortunately for them - as Faris points out - most people don't do a good job of connecting policy and those responsible for said policy.

It's unfortunate that some may associate the Illing-Faris conversation with Democratic Party bashing, because that's not what it is. And I think it's a must-read for Democrats in Congress.

[CrispyQ]

96. While I'll work hard to get dems elected in November,

I don't have much confidence that they will act boldly enough, should they gain any kind of influence. Our team has been playing by a rule book that the GOP threw into the trash a long time ago. Is it any wonder they've gotten the idea they can do whatever the fuck they want? Who's stopping them?

Sean Illing
I don’t really disagree with your logic, but doesn’t this spiral of norm-violating give you pause? I get that this is a war Republicans are already waging, and it’s near suicidal for Democrats to ignore that. But I wonder what the end game is here.

David Faris
We’re in the midst of a slow-motion unraveling of democracy in this country. If we don’t return the favor with some of this procedural war stuff, the only other option is to continue watching the other side do it. That’s not an acceptable option in my opinion.

I don’t think we can restore order by respecting rules that are not respected by Republicans. I do believe we’ll have to find a way to end this procedural war at some point, but now is not that time. Republicans need to know what it’s like to be on the other end of normative violations. The Republicans are behaving like a party that believes it will never be held accountable for anything they’re doing, and so far they haven’t been.

That has to change before we can fix this mess.

on edit: This interview should be it's own post.

[Garrett78]

101. It has been but it'd be worth posting again.

[Cha]

14. I don't know why you're pushing this disingenuous, voter depressing, crap

from M$M's FZ.

No thanks for nothing. We have been winning elections and Presidential Popular Votes. The Elections of our Lives are coming up and you post this hogwash.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

18. Just wondering- did you read the article or just the excerpt?

The article tells a true story - we are in bad shape right now. We control none of the three branches of the Federal government, and we are not in great shape in a lot of state houses. It's not like this is from Newsmax - it's Politifact validating a statement from CNN.

We don't do ourselves any favors hiding from facts. We can't please everyone, but we can try to answer questions like how to get our message out to states Trump won where we should do better - like Iowa, Wisconsin, and Missouri. There's no excuse for a Republican to be Governor in Maryland - yet that's the case. There's no good reason why Rick Scott should be polling ahead of Bill Nelson - yet that's the case.

[NY_20th]

21. Right now, polling shows that the majority of Republicans are

OK, with separating children at the border.

The Democratic party is the only party with the power to save us from this absurdity.

We are not in "bad shape". The public is with us.

We need to fight Trump and his atrocities. Not the Democratic Party.

[Cha]

22. Yes, it's rather obvious we don't control any of the 3 branches..

it's also obvious why. The Russians stole the election for trump along with all their enablers.. including the M$$$$M.

[QC]

36. If we don't clap loudly enough, Tinkerbell will die! n/t

[Cha]

40. No, you must hang your heads, push disingenous

pronouncements from M$$$M mouthpieces and wallow in the doom and gloom.

[NY_20th]

43. perfect.

[NastyRiffraff]

92. That's a lot easier than working to GOTV

and volunteering for/donating to a campaign; you know, actually working. Oh, and VOTING. For Democrats. Only Democrats. No matter what. Even if you don't agree with them on every little thing.

Whining is a LOT easier, after all.

[Cha]

106. Right.. easier to depress the vote than actually

get out there and work for the Vote.

We get that from all sides but still we're Winning Elections.. they won't stop us!

Riff

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

56. No use arguin as some with "ostrich" mentality prefer keepin their heads buried & ignore the obvious

Don't see how that helps turn things around.

[ehrnst]

64. So tell us - what is "the obvious?"

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

71. Read.

[ehrnst]

83. I did. I don't know what you are talking about. Please clarify.

I certainly don't have my head in the sand, so no, what you are implying is not obvious to me.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

94. Then I'm sorry ehrnst, I doubt I can help you.

[ehrnst]

99. Not brave enough to say it, eh?

Thought so.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

107. Yeah riiiight... you're very good with your insults ehrnst, I'll give you that.

[ehrnst]

108. But I'm right. Yes? (nt)

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

112. Yes, you're SO right.. the BIG winner, if that makes you feel better...congrats!!

I could not possibly compete with your brilliance erhnst and your unparalleled ability to insult those of us on the same side... this goes not just for this exchange, but, also includes the many disparaging comments you have made for a long time, based on mere differences of opinion.

[ehrnst]

113. Well, somebody has some feels.

I think that facts are important, along with math.

If you think that makes my posts "insulting" and "disparaging," then there is way more difference between us than "mere opinion."

I'm not the one unwilling to actually own what they are implying... however I find it refreshing that I am no longer the target of "hey, I just think everyone's cool and everyone has a point!" charm offensive, which gets old when it's not really sincere.

Have a lovely evening.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

114. Thanks for again making my point.. you as well.

[ehrnst]

115. I made some edits - go back and re-read.

You might have missed something.

But, hey, you're cool, and we all have a valid point, right?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

116. Thanks erhnst, that's very kind of you. Just so you know, I read & take your posts quite seriously.

You've had more than a few valid points, yes, and have even got me to rethink my position on some issues. But, even where we disagree - that's the collective "we"... all of us here at DU - I see no ftreason why we can't do so respectfully and with civility.

[NY_20th]

19. It's very odd considering all that is at stake.

Our Democracy is under attack, our values are under attack, and yet...

[Cha]

29. It's gratuitous doom and gloom when most of us

are intent on building on our Democratic Successes and actively working for Victories in November. GOTV!

Not bloody "weak" boohoo

[Tom Rinaldo]

72. I think the status described is a snap shot of trends of the last two or three decades

Trump's election scrambled those lines because he is so extreme people are now stepping up to oppose him.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

119. I'd like to think that

The number of women running for office is encouraging, and I'm hoping what we are seeing with the growing opposition to child separations will be, for Trump, akin to Joe McCarthy's "Have you no decency, sir?" moment.

[LeftInTX]

38. 500,000 more people voted for Ted Cruz than Beto O'Rourke in the March primary

Ted didn't even have a primary challenge.......

Many Texans have never heard of Beto.

Our candidate for governor is forgetful and not articulate. She blames her forgetfulness on her age. Yet, the Texas Democratic party decided she would be the "blue wave" forebearer. Like they did with Wendy, they're making it about identity politics. But this candidate ain't Wendy...she doesn't come close. Some Democrats are considering not even voting for her. (She is that bad)

This is reality.......

[Cha]

39. I'm sorry about what's happening in Texas..

but that's only focusing on the negative.. not on all the positive Democratic WINS.

The OP is BOGUS and Vote depressing.. poor Dems.. weak boo hoo. Bullshit.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

120. The OP is validated by well-respected journalists

The forum is called "General discussion" - not "Cheerleading." Pointing out where we are weak is constructive if we take positive steps.

I wonder why, for example, when the President blathers about the threat from MS 13, why nobody calls out Russian organized crime? Every time Trump calls the free press a threat because of fake news, why aren't we agreeing with him and loudly calling for the removal of American Media Inc publications (Globe, Enquirer, OK! - the original fake news) from Target, Wal Mart, and other fine retailers? Tonight the Democratic Socialists of DC ambushed the Homeland Security Secretary at a Mexican Restaurant and shouted her out of the joint. We need some of that.

As horrific as this administration has been, we damn well should pick up 50 House seats and be winning back the Senate.

So that's what I have to say. You and I actually have historically agreed on most things, so I'm not going to argue the point with you any further. You Cha, may have the last word.

[lapucelle]

41. "Nearly...almost..."

"Zakaria said, "When you tally up their representation in Congress, state legislatures and governorships, the Democrats almost have their lowest representation in about 100 years."

Democrats wield less power than Republicans in each of these offices. In the 1920s, they had an even weaker standing relative to the GOP than they do today. But Zakaria hedged his bets by saying Democrats almost have their lowest representation in about 100 years — and the numbers appear to back him up."

Interesting fact:

The RCP data shows the Democrats’ Senate representation was weakest in 1920 during the Republican presidency of Warren G. Harding. At that point, the GOP held a 59-37 seat advantage — with Democrats holding 10 fewer seats than they do today.

(Technically, Democrats currently hold 47 seats, though two Independent senators — Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine — caucus with the Democrats, giving Republicans a razor-thin 51-seat majority.)

No wonder Democratic leadership approached King and Sanders last October hoping they would declare themselves Democrats for the purpose of denying Republicans the Senate majority and the concomitant control of the calendar.

Mahalo, my friend!!!

[Cha]

42. Mahalo for that "almost-nearly" from FZakaria,

lapucelle.

Our Dems are out there fighting for our Lives against a truly Fascist Regime.. and this "weak" Vote Depressing Shite gets Posted on Democratic Underground.

[Hortensis]

44. Good post, Lapucelle. No one should ever claim

anything about Democrats without mentioning the structural inequalities that require us to EXCEED Republican votes by many millions in order to win majorities. This year, for the House, 1 vote more isn't enough, or 0.01%, or even 1% of the vote. Our candidates have to win by more than 11% of the popular vote. The Republicans routinely win with less than half the vote.

We all know a solid majority of Americans voted for Democrat Hillary Clinton, but that structural inequity gave the presidency to the candidate who lost. That is reality for Democrats and any analysis that buries this shocking reality is bogus.

As for Sanders and King giving Republicans control of the senate...despicable. This current atrocity at our borders would not be happening if we had a Democratic-controlled senate that told Trump months ago that it would not stand for it.

[Jim Lane]

46. What the HELL are you two talking about re Sanders and King?

You write, "As for Sanders and King giving Republicans control of the senate...despicable."

That's absurd. Both Angus King and Bernie Sanders, although elected as independents, have caucused with the Democrats since their first day in the Senate. Neither has ever changed that.

The reason we don't have a Democratic-controlled Senate is that there are 51 Republican Senators. Drawing invidious distinctions among the members of the Democratic caucus may satisfy certain elements but it has nothing to do with control of the Senate.

Every commentator (AFAIK) has said that the Democrats must flip a net of two seats to regain control of the Senate. That's because all those commentators expect King and Sanders to continue to caucus with the Democrats.

[kamalafan]

49. Huh? Sanders and King? What?

"As for Sanders and King giving Republicans control of the senate...despicable. This current atrocity at our borders would not be happening if we had a Democratic-controlled senate that told Trump months ago that it would not stand for it."

This isn't factual. They both caucus and vote with Democrats. What more do you want?

[ehrnst]

65. And it takes more than a majority now to elect a Democrat, with Gerrymandering

and the breaking of the unions by the GOP.

We still get the popular support.

[Cha]

103. Important DETAILS.. the article doesn't

talk about. That wouldn't fit their agenda.

Thanks, ehrnst

[ehrnst]

104. Yes. We aren't the ones hiding our heads in the sand...

[blogslut]

20. Golly. I guess we should all just give up then.

[NY_20th]

23. Doom and gloomers trying to rain on the parade.

What's in it for them, I wonder.

[Cha]

30. That's funny.. I wrote "doom and gloom" in

my post above and hadn't seen yours yet.

GMTA! GOTV!

[redstateblues]

33. You rock Cha!!

[Cha]

34. Backatcha, redstateblues!

[lapucelle]

79. The data set that FZ relied upon only goes up to 2016.

[RCP researcher] Byler noted a couple caveats. For starters, the dataset ends at the 2016 election. Furthermore, the researchers made certain judgment calls that resulted in the index not tracking exactly with election results.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/jun/15/fareed-zakaria/yes-democratic-party-nearly-its-weakest-point-cent/

[Cha]

105. Wow.. Thank you for that Correction, lapucelle!

DETAILS!

[NY_20th]

24. Wrong. The Democratic Party is fighting back

and voters are not only engaged, but enthused to undo this atrocity.

[C_U_L8R]

26. Come see us on June 30

then tell me who's weak

[4now]

27. Your concern is noted.

Plonk.

[TheRealNorth]

31. Fareed Zakaria

Is reminding the Koch Brothers to spend some of that "issue advocacy" group money on CNN to help depress Dem turnout.

[JNelson6563]

32. I believe we've flipped 42 seats

In special elections etc since popular vote loser Donald Trump took office. Places that never even had Dems on the ballot now have great candidates. Events here in blood red northern Michigan are packed w/people getting active with Dems.

I will believe my lying eyes over this stinky pantload of an article but thanks for bringing that bullshit here.

[Cha]

35. Mahalo for your eloquent reality check, Julie!

[JNelson6563]

45. You bet Bunky!

[shanny]

80. Cool.

Only about 950 to go.

[JNelson6563]

102. With the House up for re-election

and the Senate has enough opportunities that we can take that too, yeah, you can keep drinking ALL IS LOST vintage if you want, out here in reality we are working really hard to change it. And we will in spite of people like you!

Cheers!

[shanny]

109. in spite of people like me?

people like me who always vote and have always voted Democratic?

in reality, people like me are the last people you want to discount. and at least SOME people like me have a fucking clue as to what we are up against.

pretending we are somehow WINNING right now is...pathetic.

Cheers!

[JNelson6563]

111. Ah yes, you "have a clue"

And that clue, apparently, leads you to believe posting as much negativity as possible, while the Dems are making herculean efforts out here. Yes, you show signs of being a superb leader actually! I wouldn't be surprised if Our Revolution were to be looking for a new head soon, you might just fit the bill! Especially if you have as little real world political experience as your posts seem to indicate.

Good luck spreading apathy and what not. I will be out here doing what I can to change this shit.

[shanny]

121. lol

[R B Garr]

122. lol? busted.

[GoCubsGo]

37. Bullshit.

[JustAnotherGen]

50. The article fails to point out down ballot

Gains in 2010.

I'm a precinct elected Democratic County Committee member.

We are laser focused on our two council seats and Mayor race.

It's up to you OP.

Wrong hands and pontificate - or get in touch with your local committee to see where the gaps are in their strategy and fill that space.

Now you may very well be actively engaged - but what I'm learning?

Those who are actively engaged five months out don't have time for pundits and we are ignoring the polls. Good results or bad results - ignore the polls and get the numbers.

For the first time ever - more Democratics voted in our primary in our Borough and Congressional District than Republicans.

It's our election to lose.

[kcr]

53. Fareed Zakaria?

WTF, Politifact?

[MFM008]

54. We have had

3 elections stolen.
Does that count??

[ProfessorGAC]

57. The Hundred Years Thing Is A Canard

100 years ago, the hyperconservatives in the south were democrats. Black americans, in the teens and twenties voted republican.

You cannot reasonably go back 100 years to make this comparison. The political dynamic is such that he's making an apples and oranges comparison.

[LeftInTX]

77. Democrats in the South were truly a monopoly

100 years ago, in Texas more people voted in Democratic primaries than they did the general election. That is because the general elections was decided in the primary. They knew the Democrat would win.

[LeftInTX]

82. What you can't deny is the downward spiral since 1980

We've had a few spikes, but they have been short lived.

The modern Republican party was basically formed in 1980. The modern Democratic party was formed in the late 60s. Moderately conservative Democrats lingered in the party for about 20 years. (Blue Dog, Joe Manchin types) After 20 years, many had lost their seats or retired.

[ProfessorGAC]

88. I Buy That

I mean we in IL got Rauner. Now, we have had R governors in my voting life. Ryan (who went to jail), Thompson (who should have gone to jail), Edgar and Ogilvie (R's who weren't crazy or crooks).

But if you look at the other 4, none were radical libertarians or tea pukes. So, when IL voted in an R, until Rauner, they weren't lunatics. Now, we have a lunatic.

[beachbum bob]

58. democrats became lazy in voting, but that has changed and changed big...the numbers don't lie

on the votes democrats have cast since trump been elected. The mistake made was pissing off the democrats, universally..


we out number the other side and we are angry

[Demsrule86]

60. That is a very good point. We need to vote in all elections as if our lives depend on it because

they do.

[Demsrule86]

59. Let me say that in 2008 we had it all...but by 10 those who should have had our backs were

whining because it was not possible to get single payer...many 'sent a 'message vote', and Pres. Obama spent six years playing defense as a result. Sadly, the 'message voters' turned their anger on down ballot candidates as well...we lost governorships and legislatures...thus we ended up with a computerized gerrymander...we would have had the House back in 12 had there been no gerrymander...in 14 the whining of those who were 'disappointed' with Pres. Obama reached a fever pitch, and we lost the Senate...which gave us Gorsuch in the end. So some say look look the Democratic Party needs to do xyz...fill in the blank in order to 'win' elections. But, that just isn't true. There is no one size fits all ideology for the Democratic Party; a look at the Senate will confirm that we must have a big tent party to hold power.

There is a party loyalty problem and until Democrats and so called progressives (left left greens in my opinion) who for some unknown reason think splitting the party in two and demanding a certain ideology will somehow help us defeat Republicans understand that you have to vote for those in your party and not nitpick and denounce Democrats. This is how we lose and there isn't a damn bit of ideology that can save us because it is not about ideology. It is about party loyalty. Any Democrats is better than any Republican if for no other reason that they count towards a majority (although most Democrats are pretty great in my opinion).

Today we watch children ripped from the arms of their parents. This is the worst thing I have ever seen. I weep for the children and parents...and I feel a deep hatred for Trump and Republicans . This is their policy. They own it. But they would not making policy had Stein, Turner, Young Turks ET AL fully supported the Democratic nominee.Those who caused the problem cry the loudest now, and my inclination is to say this 'sit down and shut the hell up'. I see no evidence in special elections or in primaries that going back to Roosevelt's policy who was dead before most of us were born would accomplish anything but more losing...we need to march into the future with new ideas and solutions. And if we want to save out democracy, we need to bury the Republicans in the next two elections or those who caused this mess can sit in their ivory towers (if they can keep them) and debate policy endlessly with no ability to enact anything and watch as Republicans destroy this country.

These words are not directed at you...but at those who helped the Republicans attain office by not voting , voting for Stein, writing in any candidate or voting for Trump. Also, those who spent endless hours trashing Hillary Clinton on social media and drove God knows how many voters away from our nominee and then only grudgingly voted for her are not much better. 2016 was as my son would say 'a shit show'...so let's do better in 18 and 20. I know we can...we couldn't do much worse.

[mcar]

67. +1000!

Odd how many of those who helped depress the vote in '10 are now whinging about what terrible shape Dems are in - more of the same doom and gloom, why bother voting shite we saw then.

[Demsrule86]

73. Exactly and this is why we are in this position where we sit helplessly by and watch Trump burn

down our Republic. So, in my opinion...if you can't help in the effort to take back our country from true evil...then don't hinder it with the doom and gloom posts about how bad Democrats are which is a lie repeated by the Republicans as well.

[mcar]

74. Agree. Do something or get out of the way

[Demsrule86]

78. We have have had much success in special elections and primaries...but these folks

are unhappy because to them...unless they have perfect purity and a rigid adherence to their ideology, they would rather lose...let's pray that they are in the minority as I believe they are.

[LeftInTX]

84. That is only a fraction of the problem

Those who vote Democratic from time to time can be fickle.
They loved Obama, so they turned out for him.
Since Obama was not on the ballot in 2010, they stayed home.

There are independents who voted for Hillary Clinton and Will Hurd (R) in 2016. Clinton won Hurd's district, but Hurd kept his Congressional seat. I've talked to voters in that congressional district and they will say, "I usually vote Democratic, but I like Will Hurd ".

We also had the rabid Tea Party. They showed up big in 2010.

But I totally agree with what you said: "We need to vote every election".

Those who voted for Obama and stayed home during midterms do not understand how our government works. They are Democrats at heart and support Democratic principles, but do not understand how down ballots/mid terms affect everything. They don't understand gerrymandering etc.

[disillusioned73]

66. k&r..

truth..

[Blue_Tires]

75. Yep, more concern trolling agitprop so it must be an even-numbered year...

Tune out all this bullshit noise and remember that when we WORK, and when we VOTE, we WIN, without exception...

[R B Garr]

123. Exactly. The concern and purity trolling is so transparent. nt

[LiberalFighter]

85. Fareed Zakaria the writer is full of shit.

[vi5]

86. If and when we get power back it's going to be interesting to see...

..if Dems still try to pass off the excuse that "The president can't act unilaterally...he needs CONGRESS to act!!!" or that "We can't do anything without 60 votes!!!!", both of which have been proven over the past 2 years to be complete and utter BS.

But, you know the adults will be back and we'll have to reach across the aisle and mend fences and all the old rules will need to be put back in place and enforced.

[DemocraticSocialist8]

89. This is why the shielding of criticism of Dem leadership in the long run hurts the Party

If you truly care about the future of the Democratic Party and the country, you should be wanting to run the people with the most popular policies. Not trying to cater to a so-called "CENTER" that isn't prepared to upend problematic systems in America that people wanted to be changed. The whole idea of not wanting to be "too far left" is 90's Establishment talk that is out of touch with where the American people are. Democrats need to support popular policies that MAY make their donors upset. But what's more important? Upset donors or a fascist government?

[andym]

90. Politifact rated this TRUE

Curve looks like the 1920's
The coming blue wave should rectify this somewhat.
But what happened that we reached such a point?
Gerrymandering, yellow journalism like Fox News, and huge outlays of cash focused on results by rich GOP donors.

[ismnotwasm]

91. Quit reading after "politics of identity"

I’m done with that shit.