Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, August 08, 2017

When Democrats think about their party's problems on the political map, they tend to think of President Trump's ability to win the White House despite losing the popular vote and Republicans' potent efforts to gerrymander congressional districts. But their problems extend beyond the Electoral College and the House: The Senate hasn't had such a strong pro-GOP bias since the ratification of direct Senate elections in 1913.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Even if Democrats were to win every single 2018 House and Senate race for seats representing places that Hillary Clinton won or that Trump won by less than 3 percentage points -- a pretty good midterm by historical standards -- they could still fall short of the House majority and lose five Senate seats.

This is partly attributable to the nature of House districts: GOP gerrymandering and Democratic voters' clustering in urban districts has moved the median House seat well to the right of the nation. Part of it is bad timing. Democrats have been cursed by a terrible Senate map in 2018: They must defend 25 of their 48 seats1 while Republicans must defend just eight of their 52.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

This should be a wake-up call to everyone. Democrats need to do something, anything, to come up with a message that's pro-worker and pro-middle-class, or we can kiss the ACA goodbye.

I blame the current situation entirely on Debbie W. Shultz throwing the primaries to Hillary. After a lifetime of voting Democrat, I had to vote against the worst Democrat candidate I have ever seen in my life.

(Also, does anyone know why the site calls itself 538?)

#1 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-08 05:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- Debbie W. Shultz throwing the primaries to Hillary.

Alex Jones must be SO proud of you! A completely unfounded and downright idiotic conspiracy theory. Congrats! Almost as stupid as your vote for Trump.

"This is partly attributable to the nature of House districts: GOP gerrymandering and Democratic voters' clustering in urban districts has moved the median House seat well to the right of the nation.

Part of it is bad timing. Democrats have been cursed by a terrible Senate map in 2018: They must defend 25 of their 48 seats while Republicans must defend just eight of their 52.

Meanwhile, Republicans have made huge advances in small rural states -- think Arkansas, North and South Dakota, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana and West Virginia -- that wield disproportionate power in the upper chamber compared to their populations." excerpts

Dems have, and did have, a great pro-worker, pro-middle class set of policies and will have the same policies next time.

What they didn't have was a way to assure angry whites with limited educations that those policies are good for them even though they are also good for the multi-cultural demographics they have been fearmongered into voting against.

Dems can't run as Trump Lite, but they can't run as far lefties, either. They have to make the message that all boats rising is a good thing for all Americans, not just poor and mulit-cultural Americans.

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-08 05:30 PM | Reply

#2 Don't you have someones character to impugn who is "very, very white"? Well, hop to it, Corky.

#3 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-08 05:37 PM | Reply

#2

Corky conveniently left this out:

"In the last few decades, Democrats have expanded their advantages in California and New York -- states with huge urban centers that combined to give Clinton a 6 million vote edge, more than twice her national margin. But those two states elect only 4 percent of the Senate. Meanwhile, Republicans have made huge advances in small rural states -- think Arkansas, North and South Dakota, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana and West Virginia -- that wield disproportionate power in the upper chamber compared to their populations."

Wonder why he did that?

Oh yeah, it completely eviscerates his narrative about Hillary winning by 3 million votes.

#4 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-08-08 05:42 PM | Reply

#3

Stop giving Corky a hard time, you know that he is only trying to "save someone the effort."

#5 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-08-08 05:44 PM | Reply

#3

Obviously you have no argument to what was said or you would have made it.

And I've yet to meet a Trump voter with a character undeserving of being impugned.

#6 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-08 05:44 PM | Reply

#5 |

Whew, I thought maybe you were going to make your first argument ever here. Not even a close call, though.

It'll be nice, though, when the dead of summer passes and the rwingers go back under their rocks.

#7 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-08 05:46 PM | Reply

- conveniently left this out:

Every one knows about Ca and NY votes, that was not problematic for Dems which is the point of the article.... the important part was the disproportionate power in the upper chamber of small rural states held by the GOP.

Must you must be preening proud of the successful gerrymandering of districts by your Masters.

#8 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-08 05:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Notable from the article:

Today, Republicans don't even need to win any "swing states" to win a Senate majority: 52 seats are in states where the 2016 presidential margin was at least 5 percentage points more Republican than the national outcome. By contrast, there are just 28 seats in states where the margin was at least 5 points more Democratic, and only 20 seats in swing states.

The GOP's current 52-seat majority makes the Senate look tantalizingly competitive. But a look at the map reveals that the Democrats hold far more seats on borrowed time than Republicans do. The GOP doesn't hold a single Senate seat in those 14 states that are more Democratic-leaning than the country overall. Meanwhile, Democrats hold six seats in the 26 more-Republican-than-average states, and all six are at risk in 2018.

The Dems are going to have to keep their powder dry until 2020, when the calculus reverses. They better hope that the Trump Klown Kar keeps caroming around DC until that election, when the tide will definitely turn.

Until then, I predict despair for the Democratic Party.

#9 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-08-08 05:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Must you must be preening proud of the successful gerrymandering of districts by your Masters.

buhbuhbuh...waaaaaah!!!

#10 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-08-08 05:52 PM | Reply

buhbuhbuh...waaaaaah!!!

Your most intellectual post yet.

I see that Edit problems entertain you, so I won't fix it. Just stay easily entertained. It fits you so well.

#11 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-08 05:54 PM | Reply

#9 We have to do something to save the 2018 elections from the Republicans. Maybe exiling Corky will help.

Well, at least it couldn't hurt.

Anyway, the party needs a new message. It can't "globalization is good for America", because we've tried it for thirty years, and it built up China while destroying our middle class. It can't "open borders are good for America", because ending illegal immigration is already driving wages up. "Boots on the ground in Libya/Syria" isn't going to make much traction either.

How about tax the rich, medicare for all, free college, and a free giant gold statue of Bernie in every living-room? That might work.

We need someone with as much character as Al Gore had, the last good presidential candidate we put forth. I mean, Obama was nice, as a populist, but he became a corporatist.

#12 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-08 06:06 PM | Reply

#11

Quick Corky, go check and see who flagged me NW on #9!!!!!

#13 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-08-08 06:20 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

How about tax the rich, medicare for all, free college, and a free giant gold statue of Bernie in every living-room? That might work.

Not even close or realistic. How about tax cuts for the middle class, corporate payment (in lieu of medical insurance benefits) for Medicare for all and guaranteed education through junior college. That is doable and affordable.

#14 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-08-08 06:22 PM | Reply

- How about tax the rich, medicare for all, free college, and a free giant gold statue of Bernie in every living-room? That might work.

That won't even win a Dem primary, much less a general election. It lost the primary in a landslide last time.

- but he became a corporatist.

No, he just governed from the middle rather than from the left because that's what he could get passed in this highly GOP gerrymandered redistricting.

Of course, people who thought he brought a Magic Wand with him to Washington were highly disappointed. But they were fantasists anyway.

#15 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-08 06:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#13

You are just like Trump; no one really care about you as much as you like to think they do.

#16 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-08 06:27 PM | Reply

We need to do something about the debt, and that means raising taxes on the rich. At least back to 1960's levels. What's happening today with the 1% is outrageous. Our country is going to go bankrupt and we are all going to have to survive by cannibalism if something isn't done.

Would you like to the Boaz version of the future come true? Then stay on the currently charted course.

#17 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-08 06:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

- We need to do something about the debt,

Hilarious coming from a Trump voter. Your Dear Leader plans on raising the debt substantially for new tax cuts for himself and his ilk, paid for by.... wait for it.... typical Republican Non-Existent Magic Growth!

You voted for that.

#18 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-08 06:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

We need to do something about the debt, and that means raising taxes on the rich.

I agree with you , but the problem with that is that 8 of the top ten richest Americans are Democrats and the other 2 are the Koch brothers and there is no way any of them will let the politicians on either side of the aisle that they bought and paid for raise their taxes. They will talk a good game, but it will never happen.

#19 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-08-08 06:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- there is no way any of them will let the politicians on either side of the aisle that they bought and paid for raise their taxes

There are a lot of wealthy Dems who support Dem tax policies that would raise their taxes, including some on that list.

#20 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-08 06:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#20

The funny thing is that guys like Buffett, Bezos and Gates all talk about raising taxes, but when a bipartisan group in Congress proposed taxing Carried Interest gains as ordinary income in 2015 they all were against it, with Bezos leading the charge with hit piece articles in WashPo. Given that a large chunk of their taxable income (separate and distinct from their equity holdings) falls squarely in that income category, anyone who was surprised by their reaction hasn't been paying attention.

#21 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-08-08 06:50 PM | Reply

WIthout a doubt, yes. Plenty of E-Z wins :).

#22 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2017-08-08 06:54 PM | Reply

The point is, Corky, that these .01%ers are totally fine with raising their taxes on ordinary income because they do not have any/it is negligible, which is why Warren Buffett's base pay (ordinary income) is $100,000/year yet his share of dividends (Carried Interest/Capital Gains) generated by Berkshire Hathaway companies is $2,077/minute...every 48 minutes he equals his base salary, but that is only taxed at the capital gains rates and only if he takes it as a capital gain.

Of course he is fine with being taxed at a rate higher than his 39% on ordinary income.

#23 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-08-08 07:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#20 so why don't they just donate it to the government if they support it so much? Last I checked nothing is stopping them.

#24 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-08 07:03 PM | Reply

the important part was the disproportionate power in the upper chamber of small rural states held by the GOP.

Must you must be preening proud of the successful gerrymandering of districts by your Masters.

What does house gerrymandering have to do with the Senate being disproportionately controlled by rural red states?

#25 | Posted by jpw at 2017-08-08 08:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#25

Nothing, which is why I posted #10.

#26 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-08-09 05:19 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort