Posted on 11/15/2015 9:40:43 AM PST by Isara
After the first Democratic presidential debate Oct. 13, 2015, Texas Republican Ted Cruz interpreted the crowd’s cheers for proposals to raise taxes as a reason for the decline of the Democratic Party.
The day after the debate, Fox News’ Megyn Kelly asked Cruz how he could appeal for votes from Americans cheering on Bernie Sanders, the Vermont senator seeking the Democratic nomination, who has stressed how much more the very wealthiest Americans have than the rest of us.
"Well," Cruz replied, "it's why the modern Democratic Party is getting smaller and smaller and smaller. What does it say that they're having a hard time finding anyone to run for president who isn't nearly 207 years old? You're not getting new and fresh ideas."
Ahem: Sanders is 74; fellow Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton is 68. And while we’re not going to gauge how Cruz appeals for more Democratic support, we did wonder if the Democratic Party is shrinking, as Cruz said.
Cruz’s campaign spokesman said Cruz based his statement on the losses the Democratic Party suffered in recent elections. "Cruz is referring to all the Senate seats, House seats, governors and state legislative seats lost during this administration," said Rick Tyler, Cruz for President’s national spokesman.
Democrats losing steam under Obama?
Measuring the exact membership or size of either national party is difficult. Some states, including Texas, do not require voters to register with any party. As University of Texas-Austin government professor Brian Roberts, who studies American political institutions and interest groups, told us, there’s "no easy answer."
But certain measures can give a relative sense of party size, despite variations in registration rules. University of Texas-Austin government professor Sean Theriault, who studies congressional decision-making and has published books on the power of the electorate and party polarization. He suggested three measurements for evaluating the size and strength of political parties: the party in the government, the party in the electorate and party organizations.
The first component we looked at was the Democrats’ total electoral seats. That is what Cruz’s campaign spokesman said Cruz was referring to in his comment.
During Obama’s administration, Democrats have lost 13 U.S. Senate seats, 69 House seats, 11 governorships, and 910 state legislative seats.
Another way to look at a party's health is the number of voters who claim affiliation. Based on this data, the Democratic Party’s support in the electorate fluctuates, but generally is stable. A Gallup poll measuring trends in party identification since 2004 found that 29 percent of Americans identified as Democrats in October 2015. In January 2004, when the poll data begins, 28 percent of Americans identified as Democrats. The 11-year high was 38 percent in March 2008 and March 2009. The poll asks respondents, "As of today, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat, or an independent?"
For comparison, in October 2015, 25 percent of Americans identified as Republicans, and 42 percent identified as independents. Support for the Republican Party hit a high of 39 percent in September 2004.
Each party’s voter demographics also suggest changes in size ahead. According to a 2014 Pew Research Center study, 51 percent of Millennials identified as Democrats in 2014, compared to their Republican peers’ 35 percent — the highest margin of any generation. The Democratic Party also claims more members among Generation X and Baby Boomer voters, by smaller margins.
The only demographic in which Republicans have the advantage is the Silent Generation, with 47 percent identifying with the Republican Party, compared to 43 percent with the Democratic Party. That the country’s oldest voters are the only ones to lean Republican and that its youngest voters lean Democrat by a strong margin suggests growth for the Democratic Party, while the Republican Party’s strongest demographics are aging out.
Party organizations, and their success in fundraising, are also a component of a political party’s health or size. In the 2010 off-year election cycle, the national Democratic Party raised $817.5 million. In the 2014 election cycle, the most recent available, the party raised $855 million, which suggests an increase of $37.5 million in the 2014 election cycle, according to OpenSecrets.org.
Factoring in funds raised through the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and other party organizations, Theriault said, "the Democratic Party "is getting bigger and is bigger than the Republican Party."
For comparison, the Republican Party raised $586,978,840 in 2010 and $665,608,564 in 2014.
Our ruling
Cruz said that the "Democratic Party is getting smaller and smaller and smaller."
Democrats have lost a significant number of seats and federal and state offices throughout the Obama administration. The party as a whole, however, is stable or has grown both in terms of the electorate and its party organizations.
Cruz’s claim is partly accurate, but leaves out important context about the Democratic Party beyond its elected officials. We rate this claim Mostly False.
If you want to know why everyone finds lefty journalists so ridiculous, take a look at this particularly silly Politifact. I said "the Democratic Party keeps getting smaller and smaller." Looking to the actual numbers, Politifact is forced to agree that, in the last seven years, the Democrats have lost 11 governorships, 13 U.S. Senate seats, 69 House seats, and an amazing 910 state legislative seats. Visibly frustrated, they turn to national Gallup polls. Democrats in 2008 had 38% support; today it is 29%.
If Politifact were checking actual "facts," that would be the end of the matter. They would rate it something like "True, even though we really hate it." Instead, shaking with frustration, they grasp at straws: but Democrats (with an incumbent president and a massive crony shake-down machine) have raised more money! And here is one poll showing Democrats have (or had) support among Millennials! Of course, neither of those has anything to do with what I said.
Politifact is also, "ahem," peeved I correctly observed the Democratic field is not exactly young and dynamic.
Here is a prediction for their next Politifact: they will "fact" check my first sentence, and conclude it is false because, hey, they found three other lefty journalists who do not think they are ridiculous....
sorry copy pasted the response and left a html tag out. Didn’t had a whole paragraph I typed that didn’t show.
Wasn’t copying you really
What? The author states the high water mark of self-identified democrats was 38% in March 2009 (two months into Obama's presidency. Now it's 29%. Cruz was absolute correct. Under this president, the democrat party has gotten smaller and smaller.
I do not agree.
The democrat party is picking up lots of new members, because America’s job situation is horrible.
We have 94,000,000 unemployed now. Those people do not support the GOP.
Our party needs badly, to support the growth of American jobs once again.
Trump gets this. Nobody else seems to.
So the article goes into how much money is raised as a basis for the strength of their party over the Republicans.
Most of their huge contributions come from eccentric crackpot billionaire’s with a self serving agenda the Democrats will tailor an acceptance, and support, not necessarily the small contributions of the people.
We have to remember as well the Democrats have their fists into the pot of gold the taxpayers keep full to overflowing, thus satiate their desire for money through misappropriations laundered to their accounts by those same eccentrics, as well as other means.
D.E.M.O.C.R.A.T. is just another way of spelling C.R.I.M.I.N.A.L.
Well, queers not being able to naturally procreate and abortion being their form of birth control might have something to do with it.
I think Cruz’s economic plan of tax reform ,cutting spending and down sizing government shows he understands what needs to be done to bring back jobs and get our economy growing again. This country needs Trump and Cruz leading. I hope it happens.
Democrats don't want those people working... democrats want to pay the 'gave up looking' group to become depended reliable voters. If those who have given up start to burn buildings it's all the better for democrats.
If democrat filth had their way Republicans would work until they died on the job so dependent democrats could sit on their butts and vote every few years.
You're clueless if you think democrats want hard working happy people - those folks would vote Republican. And also, Dems also want broken families... those folks vote for them too...
Look at RESULTS of policies - NOT the dem lies about their great 'compassion'...
Let’s hope it shrinks until it disappears.
What's up with Theodore? Is he trying to outdo Obama's "ISIS is contained" proclamation or are we entering the political silly season................
May be true, but RINOs are appearing to take their place.
One and the same.
Democratic Party is not shrinking enough to guarantee a lose of Presidency. Until that time, the trailers are here. They have such an easier electoral college possibility then we do. I think it is hilarious they want to get rid of it. That is their last golden ticket and they want to get rid of it. I guess that is why they are called idiots.
Cruz is TOTALLY RIGHT, which is why my tag-line has been saying that Republicans can win with mainly just white votes, for the past 6 months (details are on my “about” page).
The Dems used to own A HUGE chunk of the white vote - these were FDR/JFK Democrats and lower/middle class working Americans. And they needed those votes, as blacks still were not voting in large numbers, and Hispanics didn’t yet exist as a victim group. So, to get those votes, Democrats had to at least appear to support AMERICAN VALUES, like the military, normal lifestyles, etc.
But now THINGS HAVE CHANGED. The FDR/JFK Democrats, people that vote Democrat ONLY because they simply HATE REPUBLICANS are dying out and not that many are left. Blacks/Hispanics/Asians/gays are now a large portion of the electorate (roughly 30%) of the vote, and EACH GROUP comes at a price. For example, Blacks/Hispanic leaders DEMAND that whites move over when it comes to college and jobs, Hispanic leaders DEMAND Open Borders, and gays DEMAND gay marriage and the right to recruit kids in public schools.
The problem is that a good number of Hispanics still won’t vote Democrats, and even if they did, 70% of the electorate is STILL WHITE (hence my tag line). So the Dems have to go back to these whites and convince them that the party that sent their jobs to China, holds their kids back from colleges and jobs, supports Open Borders, and has their schools trying to turn their kids into gays, is the party that they (whites) to identify with. A very tall order that even the Dems know is hopeless.
So, on to Plan B - which is to turn Republicans into MONSTERS and also make sure that no national Republican ever tries to unify the White vote (i.e., supports the interests of white voters), as the remaining 30% of the electorate simply isn’t enough for them (the Dems) to stand a chance.
And it worked (in 1992, 1996, 2008, and 2012) when the REPUBLICAN presidential candidate was essentially chosen by the DEMOCRATS (as in the media and GOPe working together), and nearly worked in the remaining election years (2000 and 2004, but even then, they were able to coop the Republican anyway), and was about to work yet again in 2016.
Except that NOW TRUMP IS RUNNING (and following my advice).
If they want jobs, they will!
Hopefully soon the only place you’ll find a Democrat is in a Museum ,stuffed
In comparing the R and D debates, the most obvious difference is the Dems have a static view of most everything. They have a static view of taxes as if changing the tax structure will not change people’s behavior. They have a static view of spending, as if free college, or free everything will not have unintended consequences. Most significantly, they have a static view of foreign policy. They seem to have no clue that events will happen in response to a vacuum.
In conrast, whether Rand Paul at one extreme or Jeb Bush at the other extreme, all Republican candidates have a dynamic view of events. They anticipate changes in people’s behavior beyond an intended government action.
The last time a political party had these losses was in 1927-1933 election cycle. I could be wrong, usually am, but 2016 is going to be interesting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.