Election Results Show That the Country Is Evenly Divided

[MineralMan]

Both the 2016 presidential election and yesterday's two congressional elections demonstrate something that many of us don't want to recognize or refuse to believe. The United States is almost evenly divided between people who will vote for Democrats, as a rule, and people who vote for Republicans, as a rule. Nothing about that is likely to change anytime soon. It has been the case for a long, long time, and is likely to remain the case.

In 2016, we lost the presidency, despite winning by 3 million votes nationwide. That sucks. However, that's the system that is in operation for presidential elections. We can hate it all we want, but that is the system. In some states, elections may well be unfairly counted. Those states have to fix that problem for themselves, really. Their own voters have to change that. The rest of us can't. So, how do we win back control of Congress and the White House?

There is only one way in a deeply and evenly-divided country as large as ours: Turnout. We lost three critical states in 2016 that we should have won. We lost them by very, very slim margins. Had we won those, we'd have a Democrat in the White House. But, we took those states for granted. I know that I did. I assumed that they would vote as they have voted in recent years. They did not.

The Clinton campaign did the same thing. They ignored those crucial states and focused on winning other states they saw as additional swing states. They took some states for granted. That was a miscalculation, and cost us the electoral college majority. I don't like it. None of us likes it. So, what do we do? As near as I can tell, there is only one thing to do, and it doesn't involve changing who runs as Democrats for Congressional seats across the country. We don't need a wholesale political shift to win.

We simply need better turnout in every last freaking state. If we don't accomplish that in states like WI, PA, and MI, we have seen what happens. But those are not the only states we must succeed in with higher voter turnout. We must achieve a better result in turnout in every state if we are to retake majorities in Congress.

Some people are tired of my focus on GOTV. I understand that, but that fatigue will not help us in 2018 and 2020. The bottom line is that either party can win. We're that closely divided, philosophically and politically. The party that gets people to the polls wins. The Republicans did it in 2016, by employing a false populism campaign. They won, and we're paying dearly for that. We can either fight among ourselves over the next three years and lose again or we can make the decision to win by turning out voters.

GOTV is how we win. It is the only way we win. That is true today and it will be true in 2018 and 2020. If we don't manage that, we will face more losses. If we do manage to achieve a higher turnout, though, we will win. I vote for GOTV. I vote for winning. I don't enjoy losing and facing the consequences of that. So, let's put aside our bickering over details and do what is necessary to regain our Congressional majorities and get the White House back for Democrats.

That is my opinion. Thanks for reading it. I'll stop now, but only for now.

[JHan]

1. For us to gain any wisdom about this we have to determine what it is we are "Divided" about.

The answer is not going to be pretty.

[MineralMan]

2. If you're talking about why Democrats are divided,

I will agree that the discussion will not be pleasant. However, there is a binary divide between those who vote for Democrats and those who vote for Republicans that is much, much deeper.

We're going to have to get over our differences within the Democratic Party, or we're going to keep losing. Different places have different viewpoints and no single Democratic philosophy will win everywhere. Recognizing the deeper division between the two major parties and accepting that division as a reality is the first step in coordinating our efforts.

We are simply not going to elect progressives in every state or congressional district. It's not going to happen. Ever. We have to remain flexible and support Democrats in general. If we do not, the Republicans will continue to have control. That is the sad fact. I see no way around that recognition and working together as a party everywhere.

I'm afraid that what I'm saying isn't going to sit well with some, but I'm far more afraid of Republicans in control of the entire federal government. That is a fear we'll all need to adopt and to overcome, as we will see very soon.

[JHan]

3. I meant the divide in the country over all.

And the divide in the country is a moral one. The right has successfully framed justice issues negatively. "SJW's" "Snowflakes" and all the other slurs which seeped into culture helped make liberal a bad word. Ideas about fairness, equality and justice have been dismissed to nurture a belief that people deserve the outcomes they suffer - those who depend the most on the safety net are seen as "takers" , "moochers". Divide society into have and have nots where the have nots are the problem. The most vulnerable are seen as the problem. This is a moral affliction but one that is - at its heart- dualistic in nature. The fractures on the left reflect the same dualism (the false dichotomy of progressive vs establishment for example). Divisions over ethnicity are so steep even the left parrots the same dualistic type of thinking with the call for safe spaces which I don't entirely agree with. In this post modern era , Cosmopolitanism, diversity and learning to live together are seen as threats when they are the things necessary to bridge divides.

And the ignorance and suspicion of facts and knowledge, we're living in a "shallow state": David Rothkopf put it well

"The shallow state, on the other hand, is unsettling because not only are the signs of it ever more visible but because its influence is clearly growing. It is made scarier still because it not only actively eschews experience, knowledge, relationships, insight, craft, special skills, tradition, and shared values but because it celebrates its ignorance of and disdain for those things. Donald Trump, champion and avatar of the shallow state, has won power because his supporters are threatened by what they don’t understand, and what they don’t understand is almost everything. Indeed, from evolution to data about our economy to the science of vaccines to the threats we face in the world, they reject vast subjects rooted in fact in order to have reality conform to their worldviews. They don’t dig for truth; they skim the media for anything that makes them feel better about themselves. To many of them, knowledge is not a useful tool but a cunning barrier elites have created to keep power from the average man and woman. The same is true for experience, skills, and know-how. These things require time and work and study and often challenge our systems of belief. Truth is hard; shallowness is easy."

It'll take time to undo this and a world of hurt before people admit to the damage.

[MineralMan]

5. The only nationwide election we have is for President and VP

Everything else is local, either statewide or district-wide.

National issues are not what decide local races. They simply are not.

[JHan]

7. You can't ignore culture..

what I'm getting at is it is not enough to just say the country is "divided" , we need specificity over what we are divided about and what divides voters even in local races, localities don't exist in a vacuum.

[Caliman73]

18. The divisions are likely complex

They have to do with age, gender, race and ethnicity, religion, education, income and wealth, and other factors. Fundamentally, there appears to be a difference in how government (Federal v. State v. local) is viewed in relationship to various economic and social issues.

Significantly, over the last several decades, Republicans/Conservatives have been fed a lot of ideas about the Federal government becoming overbearing and tyrannical, about the Feds doing "social engineering", and about the size and scope of practice within the Federal government. However, those same people will praise a "large Federal government" when it comes to laws enforcing "traditional social values" (I.E. restricting abortion, protecting discrimination in the public square based on religious practice) and a large and expensive military. They also value Federal programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, but are conflicted because they have been told that non-deserving people (Blacks and Latinos) are using up all of the services and defrauding the system in huge numbers (even though study after study shows low rates of fraud, waste, and abuse). They have been told that "elites" typically meaning educated liberal thinkers, are making their lives difficult. What they always seem to fail to realize is that their politicians are often economic elites, also educated, and make policies that disadvantage them financially in favor of large and powerful economic interests.

I have a family member, several really, who constantly rail against the "government", but survive largely through government contracts for employment, or whom have used government programs to help them purchase their home, or other activities where you would think that they would be more understanding of the role that all levels of government play in our daily lives. It is amazing to see the twists of logic they have to go through to justify their hatred of the "government" while they live off of its largess.

[Blue_true]

21. You are right. The belief that a fire and brimstone liberal can win in red districts is nonsense.

Moderates CAN win in those places because I feel that even many republicans want to vote for a person that offer solutions for real problems instead of party orientation - that need will only grow larger under Trump.

[SpankMe]

4. Two things - with all due respect.

1. The country is not evenly divided. It is about 60/40 in favor of values held mainly by Democrats. Polling on almost every individualized issue (when taken agnostic to partisan leanings) shows the public favors values held by left/center-left viewpoints. In some cases, by wide margins. Think about it - abortion rights, LGBT rights, social safety net, climate change, government funded infrastructure, middle east wars, women's rights, minority rights, trade policy, foreign policy and engagement, etc. The Democratic perspective on all of these and more are, by referendum, favored by majorities in the high 50%'s and higher. In many cases, well into the high 60's. [One notable exception is guns. The majority is still largely on the Republicans' side of this issue.]

2.a.) Republicans have gerrymandered the majority of congressional districts in their favor; and 2.b.) A large enough segment of left-leaning people just don't get out there and vote with the dedication and duty of right-leaners. Liberals have a problem finding the time to vote. This gets to your GOTV conclusion. But, it's so much more than that, I believe. Getting conservatives to vote takes the same effort as rolling a rock down a steep hill. But, getting liberals to vote is like pushing a rock up a hill, against gravity.

Liberals and conservatives are just different. It's hard to use equivalencies to gain an edge against Republicans. For example, it's been suggested that we could have more influence if we had more liberal AM talk radio to counter the right wing talk radio. But, liberals don't listen to talk radio at all. Conservatives do. In droves. Conservative talk radio thrives, while Air America failed and liberal commentators have had to go to YouTube channels and podcasts.

Conservatives are driven by hate and prejudice to a significantly larger degree than are liberals. For a conservative, all you have to do is bash Hillary and Nancy Pelosi, and throw around a few dog whistles about race - and you get the vote very easily. But, bashing Trump and Ryan and displaying sober, logical arguments on the issues doesn't inflame liberals to get out and vote.

I'm very pessimistic. I think the Republicans have rigged the system structurally to give them an advantage for the near term. Perhaps the long term. I think we have to resign ourselves to being the minority party for a while, and to quietly start working on "structural" elements that WE can influence and get back a solid, governing majority in another 10 or 15 years or so. We're already big losers on the judiciary. We have to re-think our society and our whole approach to this thing.

[a kennedy]

6. The Wisconsin gerrymandering suit before the Supreme Court, if it comes to the correct outcome

can have a a huge effect on the rest of the country's gerrymander districts.......*keeping fingers crossed* that's one good thing.

[HeartachesNhangovers]

17. SpankMe: "2.b.) A large enough segment of left-leaning people

just don't get out there and vote with the dedication and duty of right-leaners."

That's why it's 50-50 and not 60-40. People can answer every poll they see and answer like devout Dems - but if they don't vote regularly, they don't count.

[Blue_true]

22. Have you ever seen a conservative person who was not angry about something all the time?

I haven't. When people craft messages in terms of hating something, they bring out angry voters. When a candidate craft a more complex message built around opportunity and possibilities, that message is intrinsically harder to sell.

[RKP5637]

26. Conservatives I've been around in my life are always angry about something, and it

extends far beyond politics, and generally they carry a chip on their shoulder. Bottom line, it's hardwired in their brains to think and behave that way.

[rock]

8. So, just by how many million

Do we have to win the popular vote to win the presidential election? I recall that Obama won it by 6 million votes and in theory that may not be enough due to the electoral college.

[MineralMan]

9. Actually, had we had a few hundred thousand more

votes in three states, MI, PA, and WI, Hillary Clinton would be in the White House right now.

So, had we won more votes in those three states, you'd have your answer.

[rock]

10. Yeah, in truth

It's a real crap shoot. I recall someone saying, "A million more votes for Hillary in California would not have effected the results."

[MineralMan]

13. It's not really a crap shoot.

Everyone understands how the electoral college system works and what is required to win. It's very simple really.

And yes, a million more votes in California would not have affected the election at all.

California went for Hillary. That's all that matters. MI, WI, and PA did not, and by very slim margins. That matters.

[rock]

15. Well, I mean "Crap Shoot" in the sense

That a million votes (or 100,000) depends on where they are. And in certain cases, 10,000 votes more (say) could mean 30 more electoral votes, depending on circumstances (the crap shoot).

[Blue_true]

23. The system is what it is. Changing it is difficult if not impossible.

Do you expect people in rural states to give up power to California and New York State. Won't happen anytime soon.

Like Mineral Man seem to have pointed out, Democratic voters must be aware of what is happening within their state. Anyone that prefers a Democrat as President but vote third party in a state where the race is close might as well simply vote for the republican and get it over with.

[rock]

25. I was just pointing out

that our form of government is not strictly a Democracy. We have a problem (the electoral college). I have not suggested a solution. And yes, changing the system is difficult if not impossible. And yes, anyone with an advantage is not going to give it up willingly.

[Caliman73]

11. You can't win the EC with the popular vote.

That is the wrong approach. Trump "won" the EC by winning margins in the tens of thousands of votes. We need to focus on fighting against the voter purging and other suppression tactics used by the Republicans. Higher turnout is usually better for Democrats and the Republicans know this, which is why they use Crosscheck and other suppression strategies.

[leftstreet]

12. Yes. Voters vs Nonvoters n/t

[MineralMan]

14. That's it, in just a few words.

If Democrats vote in higher numbers than Republicans, Democratic candidates win where they voted. That is the only factor that matters, really.

[pirateshipdude]

16. Popular vote of last election argues otherwise. Eom

[Caliman73]

19. 129 million people voted. 3 million more voted for Hillary

That is 2.3% more. Statistically, that is fairly evenly divided. Recent races, coming to within 1 or 2 percentage points also bear out that at least in the turnout population, there is an even division.

What we have to do is as Mineral Man said, increase the turnout of moderate and more liberal voters who have become apathetic to the process.

[pirateshipdude]

24. Well, I agree but hasn't that 40% been pretty consistent?

In utopia, but reality argues otherwise.

[Blue_true]

20. You ignore the fact that both districts yesterday have around +10+

republican registration. To run nearly even in those districts with our sure voters failing to turn out says that if we work on turnout and messaging crafting, we win big in 2018. Republicans will give us lots of opportunities over the next year and four months, we need to seize them.

[get the red out]

27. I agree

Thanks