The Democrats Have Two Choices Now: Gridlock or Annihilation [Personally 'pro-choice' on that one!]

NYMag.com ^ | Nov. 5, 2014 | Jonathan Chait

[Colofornian]

A cardinal fact of American politics that has emerged during the Obama years is that demographic forces are slowly and inexorably driving the electorate leftward. But the Republican Party has its own corresponding advantages. Its voters turn out for elections reliably, not just in spasms of quadrennial excitement. They are dispersed efficiently in rural and exurban House districts, and reside disproportionately in small states that have more per capita voting power in the Senate...

The midterm elections...exposed a grim reality for liberals. The Democratic presidential majority is a fragile asset, and its value as a driver of positive change is presently exhausted...

In the giddy wake of Obama’s 2008 election, Democrats almost immediately plotted ways to keep their army of newer, younger voters mobilized as a continuous standing force, exerting constant pressure on Congress to deliver the change they had demanded. There would be meet-ups, there would be emails, and there would be even more emails.

None of it worked. The Obama movement melted away almost immediately, withdrawing from politics even before the new president had taken office...Democrats plotted tactics to bring their voters back out for the 2010 elections, but these proved a dismal failure — the midterm electorate proved to be much older and whiter than the one that had elected the president.

...Democrats...spent the last two years or more trying to avert the 2010 disaster. They built the “Bannock Street Project,” a $60 million project involving some 4,000 paid staffers. It took its name from the location of the field headquarters for Michael Bennet’s Senate campaign, the party’s sole midterm-mobilization bright spot.

That, too, failed. Democrats again won voters under 30. (They also won voters between the ages of 30 and 44.) Those voters simply did not materialize. If anything, the 2014 electorate was even older than...2010...

[Colofornian]

The Democrats Have Two Choices Now: Gridlock or Annihilation ... Well, personally I'm 'pro-choice' -- when it comes to Democrats -- on them especially considering the latter choice!

From the article: In the giddy wake of Obama’s 2008 election, Democrats almost immediately plotted ways to keep their army of newer, younger voters mobilized as a continuous standing force, exerting constant pressure on Congress to deliver the change they had demanded. There would be meet-ups, there would be emails, and there would be even more emails. None of it worked. The Obama movement melted away almost immediately...

(Uh...didn't the Dems get the 'tech memo'? I mean: Don't "young voters" communicate more by text + utilizing various aps accessing certain websites?...And NOT e-mails, any longer? But, hey, who am I to lecture the Dems running $60 million get-out-the-vote enterprises? By all means, Dems: E-mail those young & younger voters -- to your hearts content!!!)

[madmominct]

I vote for the latter.

[Texas Eagle]

I’m guessing more than a few will go for Option 3: Retire.

[joshua c]

If the Democrats don’t walk over to the White House and tell Obama to rein it in, they may be caucusing in the cloak room in the future.

[goldstategop]

I prefer for them to be annihilated.

But if they want to gum up the works, I’m happy.

There is nothing good coming from the Left.

As Jonathan Chait well knows.

[Vince Ferrer]

Millenials are a big generation, and when Obama snookered them in 2008, they were a big advantage. However, they are still suffering under student debt, unable to buy houses, and under employed. They are getting lessons that took other generations much longer to learn. Age will make them more conservative, and at that time, they will be a very large block for conservatives.

[joshua c]

My Alinsky is showing tonight.

Democrats: The Cloak Room Caucus

[TigersEye]

Gentlemen, set your phasers to Gridlock Annihilation!

[FlipWilson]

No, the electorate isn’t lurching leftward and please stop with demographics. You make your own political supporters regardless of demographics. Democrats were democrats until they became Reagan democrats. Millennials were the typical uncaring, non-voting youth vote until the Obama cult of personality (unveted as it was) appeared on the scene with promises of free stuff. Hell, free stuff and skin color drove a lot of “demographics”’ to the polls as well as a war on some woman named Fluke and her right to screw on our dime.

But this much is true, a campaign based on nada won’t win the presidency in 2016 and won’t drive any demographic to the polls for the Republican Party. Luckily, there are those in the party who recognize this. Will they be stymied for another GOP-e “electable” choice like Christie, Jeb or Mittens Part Duex? If so, then the country’s demographic will lurch toward the principled alternative, even if those principles are destructive.

[Usagi_yo]

“[gop voters] reside disproportionately in small states that have more per capita voting power in the Senate.”

It’s ominous and disturbing to think the author and editor thought this was noteworthy. It’s representing it as a problem.

We have a bicameral legislation for a reason. The Senate is not supposed to represent the individual, but to represent and assert State Sovereignty. Too bad the 17th amendment stripped the ability of the State to determine who it’s Senator is and left it to the nationwide political parties to chose, fund and direct outside money to their campaigns.

[nathanbedford]

I take issue with your naked assertion, "...stop with demographics. You make your own political supporters regardless of demographics." I believe that the electorate is sliding (not "lurching," from which you properly demure) leftward. Depending on how one arbitrarily adjust his timeline, demographics can be destiny but that destiny can be interrupted by the exertions of a truly charismatic candidate, such as Ronald Reagan whom you cite.

We both agree, then, that a charismatic candidate is needed and that brings us to our eternal war with the Republican establishment. We conservatives believe that conservatism is the soul of charisma but establishment leaders like Boehner and McConnell believe in personal survival like a child in the classroom keeping his eyes down when the teacher is looking for someone to call upon.

I believe the author as got it about right when he talks about the demographic trend and the mindset of Mitch McConnell. I wrote a vanity along these lines yesterday citing the likely copouts that Boehner and McConnell will engage in rather than confronting Obama or confronting the centripetal forces pushing us over a cliff.

We conservatives have got to make it impossible for Mitch McConnell to fail to do the right thing.

[11th_VA]

McConnell’s next play is perfectly clear. His interest lies in creating two more years of ugliness and gridlock. He does not want spectacular, high-profile failures that command public attention — no shutdowns, no impeachment. Instead, he wants tedious, enervating stalemate.

This is the take-away I hope people here understand. The PRIZE, is winning the presidency in 2016. People here need to suck-it-up when Obama trys to provoke us into demanding he be impeached. His plan for the next two years is to do everything to provoke a reaction from the right, that will in turn, bring out his base in 2016.

Please people, don't take the bait. Lay low, keep your powder dry, and vote in 2016 without provoking the Lib base.