6 reasons for Dems to be hopeful about the 2022 midterms

[pecksniff]

Everything depends on whether or not most whites who are not rich think they are better off in November 2022 than they were when Trump left office.

If there is a long hot summer of black ghetto riots, the Republicans will win.

I expect that has mostly burned itself out.

 

[Paul_Chance]

Happy New Year Peck, hope you and yours have a good one. My apologies in advance for any typo's or grammatical errors.

I'm feeling like a glutton for punishment, so I'll take a stab at it. I read the article in Salon on the link you provided and here are my thoughts, keeping in mind that the Cook Report is projecting a "red wave" in 2022, with a GOP pick up of 50+ seats.

I'll circle back around to that at the end, but first let me run through the points. First, I'll make a observation about Salon - Salon is a left-leaning publication, something pretty much all the sites that rate sites agree on. Second, this particular article appears in Commentary, which means it's mostly just opinion. (Or as it was characterized early "whistling past the graveyard", with the graveyard being the current Cook Report projections and over media sources reporting on the impending potential for a red wave.

The writer acknowledges this as two points in the article, quoted here:

"And yet, there are tendrils of hope peeking out through the freeze of despair."

"To be clear, much of this optimistic outlook is speculative or contingent. It could very well be that 2022 is an extension of 2021, where Democratic demoralization keeps snowballing, leading to Republican sweeps in the midterms."

1. GOP's gerrymandering-apocalypse is a dud

"informed redistricting experts now say it appears that this process will look more like a wash, or even that Democrats might gain a few seats." (from the water).

This is true - much of the furor around gerrymandering presents a picture that it is a terrible thing and that only Republicans do it. Gerrymandering is part of the political process and allowed, indeed embraced, in most of the states that do it. Here is a good in-depth article that explains it in a state by state context (https://redistricting.lls.edu/). 38 states allow it, 7 states it's irrelevant due to size (1 representative per state), and for the remaining 7 there is some form of either bipartisan or independent commission who has the task.

Cook say's it's possible for a Republican gain due to redistricting to be about 15+, but even as the states are going through the process, as the author acknowledges, it's shaping up to be a wash or even a DNC pick-up. Even if you subtracted Cook's projected GOP winds (15), then the landscape still heavily favors a red wave in the house (35+) - which would meet Rothenburg's definition of a wave (20+ seats in the house).

Gerrymandering is one of those things that is an imaginary tempest. Its impacts are drastically over-hyped and as such it makes a good "boogie man".

2. Democratic governors — who may be what save us in 2024 —look strong in 2022.

This is just wishful thinking. The problem with this specific statement is it bears no relationship to reality, being merely opinion. Governor's seats are very much candidate v. candidate (and respective party seat) - and actually have NO impact on the House elections. They could have a minor impact on redistricting (some states give the Governor the right to veto redistricting maps). But, it's a wash. There is some evidence that a Governor's endorsement can swing Presidential elections (again, a wash), and they can veto the worst intentions of their legislatures - again, a wash.

3. The Senate map looks good for Democrats

This wishful thinking again - and weirdly enough, the author in the article cites as two examples - Democrat Senators (being replaced by, they assume, a "better democrat" or a "more progressive democrat"). The contests over in the Senate will shape up as the candidates are solidified through the primary process.

4. Republicans are putting up a vomit-inducing set of candidates this cycle.

I honestly doubt anyone has ever vomited because of a candidate, LOL, but that aside again it's wishful thinking. Yes, there are some nut-balls out there, that's for sure and the modern media spends all it's time focusing on them (no drama in ordinary candidates running against ordinary candidates, drama's better when it's "demon v. saint"). But, even with the few horrible candidates that the media will focus on - that's just around the margins. In the vast majority of House races it's politician v. politician - neither saints nor demons.

5. The pandemic may finally dissipate

Amen. (From this authors lips to God's ears.). I personally doubt the pandemic will be gone by the next election - hopefully muted, hopefully morphed into something less lethal (as Omicron appears to be.). Will it impact the House or Senate elections - maybe, but only in the sense that it will remove one of the talking points from the equation or made it less relevant - but even if the pandemic ended tomorrow it is going to be fresh in people's minds and may influence them. The major concerns will still be there - the economy (inflation kills political careers and political parties), crime (rising and tied with a neat bow to "Defund the Police" and the DNC), immigration (always a peripheral issue, but impactful).

6. The Supreme Court may awake a sleeping giant

Nope, the giants going to sleep. Abortion exists as a political issue for only a portion of the electorate - and it moves votes one way or another, but not enough. Even if the Court allows Texas's highly restrictive law to stand, with it's novel approach to enforcement, "the system" will adjust and it's impact will only be felt in the states where it's challenged - which tend to be a handful of red.

So, all it all, be wary of wishful thinking. Inflation and the economy are the killers of political ambition because they're two places where the impacts are felt on the average voter - and if the voter decides "you suck" because of inflation, they can and will cross party lines or swing their votes (assuming they're true independents). Crime (and Safety) concerns are a close second.

My advice to the DNC is ease back on the nationalization of local (House) elections, pay attention to what the locals are saying, ease back on the "big hit" legislation and attempting to "change society" with the narrowest of margins. The national party has separated from the local parties and the DNC has a weakened ground game and low enthusiasm, which is going to cost seats. Take Stacey Abrams and send her on a talking tour in all states that can swing - whatever a person may think of her as a candidate, she has proven she knows how to build a ground game that tipped a red state purple, at least on the national level.

Finally, depending on your level of involvement in local politics, be really careful of believing the bubbles or getting caught up in your own hype. Both parties have a high percentage of people who are bubbled and believe "if only we can motivate the faithful by going more left or right, we'd win". Elections are not decided by the faithful, but by the swing voters, the persuadable voters.

 

[pecksniff]

My advice to the DNC is ease back on the nationalization of local (House) elections, pay attention to what the locals are saying, ease back on the "big hit" legislation and attempting to "change society" with the narrowest of margins.

Then what's the point of being in the game at all? I'd hate for the Dems to become like the Pubs, with no goals higher than obstructing the other party, and out to win elections solely for that purpose.

Finally, depending on your level of involvement in local politics, be really careful of believing the bubbles or getting caught up in your own hype. Both parties have a high percentage of people who are bubbled and believe "if only we can motivate the faithful by going more left or right, we'd win". Elections are not decided by the faithful, but by the swing voters, the persuadable voters.

But not all the swing voters are in the middle -- there are also voters to the right of the Pubs and to the left of the Dems (in terms of the present political center-of-gravity of each party). I daresay there are, at present, considerably more to the left of the Dems than to the right of the Pubs.

 

[Chernosoth]

Then what's the point of being in the game at all?

Public service. Politicians who don't serve their constituents deserve all the insults they get.

 

[Paul_Chance]

Then what's the point of being in the game at all? I'd hate for the Dems to become like the Pubs, with no goals higher than obstructing the other party, and out to win elections solely for that purpose.

But not all the swing voters are in the middle -- there are also voters to the right of the Pubs and to the left of the Dems (in terms of the present political center-of-gravity of each party). I daresay there are, at present, considerably more to the left of the Dems than to the right of the Pubs.

When we look at swing voters, we're looking fundamentally at people who are persuadable - in one election and for one candidate, they go DNC one election and then GOP next election, then back to DNC and they do this through their entire voting careers.

They are the individuals who are not wedded to one ideology, but rather take a more transactional approach - saying "I perceive this bundle of goods and services, in this election, as articulated by this candidate, to be my best choice." Those who can be persuaded by a party platform, by an election marketing campaign, by a candidate to give their vote to the specific candidate as opposed to the party (this is how you end of with elected officials from one party successful in a state or district that has run blue or red for years.

They're in contrast to the party line voters (got a D, got an R, just run down this list and check them all), or the single issue/ideological votes who approach the complex transaction of election with a simplistic thought process. "Abortion is good." or "Abortion is bad" and I'll never vote for a person who doesn't agree with me. Each of these represents a locked in vote, where the election is not about who they're going to vote for but getting them out to vote as the base onto which the candidate then also add their swing voters or persuaded voters.

What's the point of being in the game at all? I think the question arises from the simple approach - "If I don't get what I want, why should I bother to vote". These are your "it doesn't make any difference" or "they're all asshats" voters - the challenge there is persuading them that your candidate will make a difference, or your candidate isn't an asshat. (LOL - "Vote for Me! I'm not an asshat!" would be a good campaign slogan. Trump lost the last election in part because of the asshat factor - in the swing and persuadable voters it was clear to enough of them that he was an asshat.)

I'll give you the answer I give everyone when it comes to "being in the game" of politics. It's the nature of the game - either you play the game or the game plays you. That's the mythical "silent majority" that both parties try and motivate - because when they have stirred from their slumber (as the writer of the article suggests about the Court decision on abortion), they have the ability to swing elections one way or the other pretty impressively. The problem with the silent majority (if it even exists) is that you don't know what motivates them - because they're silent.

Public service. Politicians who don't serve their constituents deserve all the insults they get.

There is an art to politics and politicians can rarely do everything a constituent wants them to do, they're treading a tight rope (tighter in some places than others) where they're trying to serve there constituents - as many as they can, but you can't make everyone happier in any leadership position over a dozen people. The best build respectful consensus, which as a leader means often placating some, serving some, and ignoring others.

I think it comes around to Thomas Sowell's observation years ago that we get one vote to choose one bundle of promised goods and services. Because of that consensus building that is required to be successful, often politicians promise pasta bolognese and deliver canned ravioli.

If a person becomes an elected leader they'd best develop a tough skin because sooner or later they're going to piss someone off.

 

[WillJ8787]

Article. Summarized:

1. GOP's gerrymandering-pocalypse is a dud

2. Democratic governors — who may be what save us in 2024 —look strong in 2022

3. The Senate map looks good for Democrats

4. Republicans are putting up a vomit-inducing set of candidates this cycle

5. The pandemic may finally dissipate

6. The Supreme Court may awake a sleeping giant

...and mostly the Republican party has dismantled itself and will take a couple more election cycles to reveal the extent.

 

[Paul_Chance]

...and mostly the Republican party has dismantled itself and will take a couple more election cycles to reveal the extent.

I tend to think that falls into the category of "extreme wishful thinking" and it's just the mirror image of the view in Republican circles that "The Dems have revealed themselves as <insert evil wish here>".

Neither of the two major parties has successfully defined the other party except on the extreme margins. The advocates of either party who approach "politics as religion" and insist on the absolute truth of their particular partisan dogma.

At the end of the day, though it gets a lot of media attention and generates a lot of click-bait, it simply isn't enough to carry the day. It's enough to maybe put some boots on the ground, but not the right boots, and not enough of them.

 

[WillJ8787]

I tend to think that falls into the category of "extreme wishful thinking" and it's just the mirror image of the view in Republican circles that "The Dems have revealed themselves as <insert evil wish here>".

Neither of the two major parties has successfully defined the other party except on the extreme margins. The advocates of either party who approach "politics as religion" and insist on the absolute truth of their particular partisan dogma.

At the end of the day, though it gets a lot of media attention and generates a lot of click-bait, it simply isn't enough to carry the day. It's enough to maybe put some boots on the ground, but not the right boots, and not enough of them.

You might be right....only time will tell.

 

[pecksniff]

I tend to think that falls into the category of "extreme wishful thinking" and it's just the mirror image of the view in Republican circles that "The Dems have revealed themselves as <insert evil wish here>".

Neither of the two major parties has successfully defined the other party except on the extreme margins. The advocates of either party who approach "politics as religion" and insist on the absolute truth of their particular partisan dogma.

At the end of the day, though it gets a lot of media attention and generates a lot of click-bait, it simply isn't enough to carry the day. It's enough to maybe put some boots on the ground, but not the right boots, and not enough of them.

No, we're dealing with something new here. This is not Reagan's GOP. That party was dedicated to the principles of "movement conservatism" as defined after the 1964 Goldwater campaign. Partly that was defined by Cold War politics -- after the end of the Cold War, and especially after 9/11, a new form of neoconservative warhawkery prevailed -- and now that is no longer relevant either. What's left of that is a general defense of business interests, and a willingness to at least pay lip-service to the religious right even while leading Pubs privately roll their eyes at those morons.

But, starting with the Perot campaigns of the 1990s, a new strain of nationalist populism emerged, and, via the Tea Party movement and the Trump campaign, it took over leadership of the GOP. This kind of populism appeals to the white working class, impoverished and immiserated by offshoring and automation, and therefore is not necessarily pro-biz the way the old GOP was -- e.g., it has room for economic protectionism and isolationism even if that's bad for corporations' profits. Likewise, it's anti-immigration, no matter how much the corporations value the cheap labor.

But the pro-biz Old Guard is by no means down for the count, and can count on plenty of support from the corporations. This intraparty struggle will be continuing for some years to come -- it will heat up, after Trump passes away and deprives the populists of their present focal point -- and will make it that much more difficult for the GOP to present a clear public message as to what it stands for. That is why most GOP campaigning in recent years is more defined by what the GOP is against.

 

[Rightguide]

Unfortunately it's pretty much proven that outrage is sole best voter motivator. That's by great part what the American political discourse problem is.

Democrats should worry about discipline of their voters more than anything else.

Democrats should worry more about the intelligence levels of their leaders than anything else. They are the ones who are going to lose the election.

 

[Rightguide]

I notice that nobody has refuted or contradicted any of the points listed.

Bellisarius did much worse. He pointed out why in the minds of those who vote, none of it is relative.

 

[WillJ8787]

Democrats should worry more about the intelligence levels of their leaders than anything else. They are the ones who are going to lose the election.

I think 45 and co did a wonderful job of making most Dems look like Ph. D's

 

[pecksniff]

When we look at swing voters, we're looking fundamentally at people who are persuadable - in one election and for one candidate, they go DNC one election and then GOP next election, then back to DNC and they do this through their entire voting careers.

There are also swing voters well to the right and left of the major parties. Those do not swing between one party and the other, but they do swing between voting and not voting. Each party has a large potential constituency which it can mobilize via greater extremism. The GOP cannot really get much more extreme than its present formation, so the Dems have more to gain in that way.

 

[WillJ8787]

There are also swing voters well to the right and left of the major parties. Those do not swing between one party and the other, but they do swing between voting and not voting. Each party has a large potential constituency which it can mobilize via greater extremism. The GOP cannot really get much more extreme than its present formation, so the Dems have more to gain in that way.

Yes, this would be me. I am:

Not a Dem
Not a Repub(though currently registered...long story)
Not Libertarian
I can get behind social democracy
Have not ever had a candidate that I truly loved....except maybe Bernie, he has come the closest to my beliefs.

 

[Paul_Chance]

No, we're dealing with something new here. This is not Reagan's GOP. That party was dedicated to the principles of "movement conservatism" as defined after the 1964 Goldwater campaign. Partly that was defined by Cold War politics -- after the end of the Cold War, and especially after 9/11, a new form of neoconservative warhawkery prevailed -- and now that is no longer relevant either. What's left of that is a general defense of business interests, and a willingness to at least pay lip-service to the religious right even while leading Pubs privately roll their eyes at those morons.

But, starting with the Perot campaigns of the 1990s, a new strain of nationalist populism emerged, and, via the Tea Party movement and the Trump campaign, it took over leadership of the GOP. This kind of populism appeals to the white working class, impoverished and immiserated by offshoring and automation, and therefore is not necessarily pro-biz the way the old GOP was -- e.g., it has room for economic protectionism and isolationism even if that's bad for corporations' profits. Likewise, it's anti-immigration, no matter how much the corporations value the cheap labor.

But the pro-biz Old Guard is by no means down for the count, and can count on plenty of support from the corporations. This intraparty struggle will be continuing for some years to come -- it will heat up, after Trump passes away and deprives the populists of their present focal point -- and will make it that much more difficult for the GOP to present a clear public message as to what it stands for. That is why most GOP campaigning in recent years is more defined by what the GOP is against.

When we talk about political parties (and party affiliation), keep in mind we are talking about groups that are millions of members. Here is a number that should be given the DNC concerns:

In January 2021 (when Biden took office), 30% of voters identified/affiliated with the DNC and 24% of the voters with the RNC, with 45% non-affiliated/independent.

Fast forward to that last poll and the DNC fell to 27%, but the RNC has advanced to 31%, Independents have dropped to 41%.

So, from the data we can see that since the DNC has gained power the numbers are trending downward for them, while the numbers are trending upward for the RNC, and the Independents are breaking for the RNC. So, the DNC has lost -3, and another -4% of Independents are breaking RNC.

Those numbers are not good (and part of what drives the Cook Report to predict a Red Wave come November this year) for the DNC. Now, these are not specific approval ratings (currently bad for the DNC) but rather people answering the generic question of "which political party are you affiliated with". So, it's a survey looking at the high level trends and this why the original article can be considered "whistling past the grave yard". The three major indicators of an off-cycle house election are 1.) political affiliation, 2.) presidential approval, and 3. historical trends (party of the sitting president loses seats). All of which should be setting off major warning bells in the DNC.

Changes within each political party happen often enough - the old back and forth of trying to figure out how to assemble a winning coalition/winning message, so at the micro-level they're almost irrelevant, they move the results a few points in each direction. Conservative people are going to vote for conservative candidates. Liberal people are going to vote for liberal candidates. That is part of why policy wonks are stumped constantly by voter behavior. The majority of voters, are simply not that involved in the nuts and bolts of politics and when the argument to persuade them to vote this way or that gets wonky, they tune out.

Oops - had to edit - here is the poll I am talking about, one of Gallup's long running historical polls. https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

 

[Rightguide]

I think 45 and co did a wonderful job of making most Dems look like Ph. D's

Here's the Democrat PHD and her focused intellect:

'Certified lunatic': AOC slammed for posting clip of boyfriend Riley Roberts' feet
AOC was trying to give it back to critics who had criticized her boyfriend's feet but she has again been trolled

By Divya Kishore
Updated On : 02:28 PST, Jan 5, 2022

https://meaww.com/aoc-slammed-for-p...ends-much-talked-about-feet-certified-lunatic

 

[Chernosoth]

The Dems are losing much more than just swing voters. Members are losing their white collar jobs in management, education, social influence, etc. Without those positions of middle class privilege, their beliefs and loyalties shift. Pivoting to a different platform and economic demographic is a drastic change that the party won't be ready to do until it loses overwhelmingly.

 

[pecksniff]

The Dems are losing much more than just swing voters. Members are losing their white collar jobs in management, education, social influence, etc. Without those positions of middle class privilege, their beliefs and loyalties shift.

Not to the right, they don't.

 

[YDB95]

There's a worldwide pandemic, millions are worried about losing their livelihoods, a major political party is being taken over by fascists...and we're supposed to care about AOC's boyfriend's feet? Riiiiight.

 

[BidudeinWi]

Article. Summarized:

1. GOP's gerrymandering-pocalypse is a dud

2. Democratic governors — who may be what save us in 2024 —look strong in 2022

3. The Senate map looks good for Democrats

4. Republicans are putting up a vomit-inducing set of candidates this cycle

5. The pandemic may finally dissipate

6. The Supreme Court may awake a sleeping giant

7. Cheat again like they did in 2020!

 

[pecksniff]

Democrats should worry more about the intelligence levels of their leaders than anything else. They are the ones who are going to lose the election.

I dunno about leaders, but Dem voters are smarter than Pub voters. The more education you have, the likelier you are to vote D. Everybody knows this, it has been a very well-established fact for decades now.

 

[pecksniff]

There's a worldwide pandemic, millions are worried about losing their livelihoods, a major political party is being taken over by fascists...and we're supposed to care about AOC's boyfriend's feet? Riiiiight.

It's the Lit. You have to make allowance for certain fetishes.

 

[Paul_Chance]

I dunno about leaders, but Dem voters are smarter than Pub voters. The more education you have, the likelier you are to vote D. Everybody knows this, it has been a very well-established fact for decades now.

The flip happened in 1996. In 1996 27% of GOP voters had a college degree, compared with 22% of Democratic voters. In currently sits the other way, with 41% Democrats and 30% Republicans today. Both parties increased they percentage of educated voters, the Democrats just increased by more.

With non-college voters it's gone the other way with 65% of GOP voters having no college degree compared to 59& of Democrats (down from a high in 1996 of 79%). So, the Democrats have picked up an 11% share at the cost of a -20% share.

That's a pretty big realignment, especially given that the only 36% of the electorate has a college degree. It's not a winning formula for the house, given that they tend to be clustered in a handful of urban centers.

It's also not a generally winning talking point in America, since we have in us a deep core of anti-elitism (which is the thing that makes so many American's self-identify as "middle class" when economically they're well out of the middle-class). That's why a large part of Biden's campaign sought to portray him as "an ordinary Joe", even though his actual working class credentials were scant.

 

[Chernosoth]

I dunno about leaders, but Dem voters are smarter than Pub voters. The more education you have, the likelier you are to vote D. Everybody knows this, it has been a very well-established fact for decades now.

More educated is not smarter, just more stuffed with whatever they studied in college, or more blank after college binges. The smarter move now is trade school or apprenticeships, to prepare for a career with adequate income and minimal debt. Many college graduates are finding the opposite, no jobs and huge debt. Enrollment has been dropping for a while. Dems must pivot to the less educated, or they're done. They can't run a party without a base.

 

[pecksniff]

Dems must pivot to the less educated, or they're done.

I guess the only way to do that, would be to mark out an at least plausible path to providing an adequate supply of blue-collar jobs requiring no higher education.