It seems the Republicans are dealing with being shut out of the WH by (1) at the federal level, playing the party-of-no role and (2) meanwhile, in any states they control, barreling forward-and-rightward at full-retard speed with guns blazing to enact probably ALEC-crafted new abortion restrictions, cutbacks in public services and benefits, anti-labor-union legislation, voter-ID laws, anti-gay marriage resolutions, meaningless 10th-Amendment or “nullification” resolutions, etc., etc. SomerelevantrecentPitthreads. North Carolina’s legislature in particular appears to have gone completely off the rails and provoked a backlash of “Moral Monday” protests. And what Scott Walker has done in and to Wisconsin these past three years . . .
In policy terms it may be that they are just doing what they believe in. But in electoral terms, this all makes sense only as a grand national Hail-Mary play: Betting that their RW base’s positive reaction to all of this will outweigh any anti-Pub backlash at the polls in November 2014. And there will be backlash.
Until Fox News says the Republicans have gone too far it won’t matter. Do you expect people who voted for Romney in the last election to pick up a newspaper, look at anything other than right-wing web sites, or watch anything other than Fox News?
I think the GOP will actually do pretty well in 2014. Lame-duck midterm, lower turnout, typical mid-term malaise, pretty tough maps for Democrats. Only a solid up-tick in the rate of the economic recovery might save the Democrats, I think. Or another round of laughably insane GOP nominees, but I think the national party will do a better job of preventing that this time around.
Been really mad for about forty-five years or so. Goes from just sullen and morose to hopping up and down Yosemite Sam on meth mode. But its reassuring to know that making everybody else just as much a miserable pissant as me is my duty.
They’ll do fine, their voters are simply more reliable in mid terms than ours. Plus there is always gay rights, gun control and irs-gate to get them motivated.
Plus again the OP is making the mistake of labeling popular initiatives as “overreach”. No, overreach is rushing through a lot of unpopular initiatives, as the Democratic Party did from 2009-2010. That was overreach, and it’s why they lost so badly in 2010.
Given that Republicans don’t have much power, it’s hard to see how they can truly overreach.
Republicans control most of the states plus the House. It’s hardly an “illusion” of adequacy. On the contrary, the predictions of imminent Democratic dominance are illusion built on hope as a plan. The country already experienced Democratic dominance and rejected it in record time: twice. Democrats will have to wait a long time for a third opportunity.
Except the country didn’t reject it; the Republican-drawn maps rejected it. More people voted for Democrats than for Republicans for the House, and yet the Republicans won the House anyway.
Given the distribution of Democratic and Republican voters, there is no way to draw district lines that don’t give an advantage to Republicans. Democrats are concentrated in the big cities. Next you’ll say the Republicans have an unfair advantage in the Senate. They do, of course, but that’s simply because of the Democratic Party’s limited appeal.
There’s no doubt that the tendency of racial minorities to be concentrated in a group of overwhelmingly Democratic districts hurts the Democratic Party as it seeks control of the United States House
Far from naturally arising, there are plenty of examples where district lines are drawn deliberately to exclude one party or another. Take Austin, Texas. Well-known for its liberal outlook and with a Democratic mayor, its size is conveniently just big enough to have its own congressional district. But the population is divided amongst 3 or 4 Congressional districts, every one of which is controlled by a Republican.
You may argue that this could have happened by chance, or that it is the right of the Texas legislature to draw districts this way, but you can’t really argue that this is the result of districts just naturally favoring Republicans.
Of course Nate is right in the concentration of Democrats into big cities, but the grouping of these into congressional districts is is a deliberate strategy rather than something that arises naturally. It is helped along by the Voting Rights Act, but without it there is nothing stopping redistricters from carving up big cities just like they carved up (majority white) Austin. They may of course choose to keep the majority-minority districts in order to not risk losing everything in an upset election.
I didn’t say they rejected the Democrats in 2012, I said they rejected Democratic dominance, decisively, the last two times it happened, and after only two years.
And yes, gerrymandering happens, and it helps Republicans since Republicans were in charge of most of it thanks to their 2010 victories. But even without gerrymandering, the Democrats would not have won the House. Democrats need a fairly big lead in the popular vote to win the House, even when they do the gerrymandering.
This abortion measure in Texas, the one Davis filibustered and which they called another special session to pass, is really not very popular in Texas, all news reports agree.
