There seems to be massive structural weight against democratic control. Democratic voters are clustered around population centers where they have largely emptied out the rural areas and exurbs of large chunks of liberal voters. This combined with republican control of state houses and governorships allows the further handicap of gerrymandering that stacks democratic voters in cities and leaving far more numerous congressional districts, in geographic number if not actual human beings represented, in republican control.
The last time democrats got control of the house was in the 2008 election, and that was after one of the worse recessions and housing market crashes in recent memory, and when the nation was still breathing the fumes of the funeral pyre of the disasters of the Iraq war. And even with all that the margin was not as large for democrats as what republicans will soon have.
So what is to be done?
Is persuasion the only way in? And if so, can that be done without alienating the core democratic constituencies that are more traditionally liberal?
I don’t think the Senate or presidency are hopeless, in fact I think there is still a perfectly decent shot democrats can get both in 2020, but without the house they have no hope of pushing any legislation through.
Democrats are willing to compromise if they get some of what they wish, republicans are the reverse. They are explicit about compromising on virtually nothing that is not related to national security or busting the debt limit, and even on the latter they are prone to play chicken with the nation.
I was hopeful there might be a change if they lost badly with Trump, but they were REWARDED with both the presidency and both houses of congress for their efforts.
As such I expect ZERO decent behavior from that lot, I see the only path forward to beat them in both houses of congress… but I have no idea if the latter is going to be possible due to the distribution of where liberals live.
Someone talk me down, someone, anyone, please tell me there is a way to sway enough people to our side. If we need to change something… what?
I understand that one of Obama’s post-Presidential missions will be to tackle the problem of gerrymandering. I don’t know how hopeful to be about that.
It’s not too hard. You just need ballot issues to pass anti-gerrymandering measures, and then Democrats take control after the next redistricting. We could even have it in place by 2020, if we do our homework.
Democrats are not going to want to give up their gerrymandering. Are you picturing overcoming that resistance? Or writing ballot initiatives that create rules for drawing districts that Democrats like but Republicans don’t?
Cheeto will be enormously unpopular in 2020. The Democrats will nominate a young, totally honest candidate and sweep the federal government and many statehouses, just in time to redraw the maps in our favor for the 2020s. That gavel will be in Pelosi’s hands in just over four years.
The Republicans use of computer programs to create their gerrymandered districts have provided them with narrower and narrower needed margins of victory. A “wave” election will cost a lot of them what had been presumed to be safe seats.
Something that hasn’t been brought up in this thread, but probably should be discussed, is the effect of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and in particular “majority-minority” districts. Those probably help the Republicans overall.
To add a little detail to the data, here is a site that tries to provide economic data by Congressional District. Sorting by “E009”, which is unemployment rate, shows us that the CDs with the highest unemployment rates are:
*MI13
*IL02
*MS02
*IL01
*OH11
*PA02
*CA51
*GA02
CA41
*MI14
*NJ10
CA08
*CA21
CA10
*IL07
*AL07
NY15
CA16
*FL05
*FL24
PA01
*NC01
*SC06
*FL20
MI05
The ones with a * are majority-minority districts according to this list.
I got sick of transcribing and checking after 25 or so Congressional districts, and I may have made a transcription error or two, but I think you get the idea.
By way of good example could work, such as with gay marriage and, as is happening now, marijuana legalization. If some state, or coalition of states, can get UHC off the ground that could really shake things up. Otherwise, I don’t see any reason to be hopeful.
That actually makes me wonder, since we can’t count on the federal government to create a more robust framework for healthcare now… what about a confederation of liberal states (not just a one off like Vermont with no one living there) banding together to create a common framework that they can all sign onto to regulate the healthcare markets? This deserves it’s own post. Time to make one.
Honestly, that might be the way forward on a lot of issues, and it has worked in some cases in the past. For example, the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) was independently adopted by every state. There are a few states that modified or rejected certain items, but it’s basically a national law created by states persuading each other to get on board.
Gerrymandering is a nice hope, but the only way for Democrats to take control, at least in a way that gives them a structural advantage, is to do even more gerrymandering than Republicans do.
Things aren’t hopeless for Democrats, they just need to cater their message to the voters who actually exist, rather than the voters Democrats wish existed. As for the structural disadvantage, it’s not that hard to overcome. A five point win in the House popular vote probably delivers the House to them. The GOP has done that twice in the last three years.
