"The Ocasio-Cortez wing of the Democratic Party thinks its policies are the path to victory in red states. Last night’s results suggest otherwise."
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/08/08/democratic-socialism-sanders-ocasio-cortez-2018-primary-results-219161
Considering that the last election won it for the Republican of that district by double digits, I think it was a pretty respectable result last night. Over 70 of the Republican incumbents had results within that margin, meaning that unless something changes and the shift leftward which has been reflected in all of the elections since Trump took office holds at the same percentages, then the house will flip.
ReplyDeleteErik, we all see things from our perspective, including me. Other than raging against President Trump from the extreme left daily through protests and on media, all elections since the last Presidential election have not been for Democrats; let alone socialist candidates.The house could flip but there is no indication that Socialist candidates will be the ones to do so. Even former President Obama gave Ocasio-Cortez the snub (as pointed out by other media). We will have to wait until midterm results to see what happens. I happen to agree with Scher, other than places like Humboldt or Ocasi-Cortez's comfortable turf, it remains to be seen what policies will be effective in the mid term elections. The Republican party has similar divisions so no one party should be feeling comfortable about winning or maintaining the House.
DeleteKirk would rather we suffer complete economic collapse and nuclear annihilation than lose his communist Ocasi-Cortez's erection. Americans will never believe these lies of free free free the taxpayers like me know the truth.
DeleteOcasio-Cortez was elected in NY City, defeating an incumbent who was simply too conservative for the constituency. He might do well in Humboldt County, but her district has changed much since the days Archie Bunker was considered a representative of the neighborhood. In fact, it was changing back then - that was a major focus of the show (the Jeffersons move next door, a woman (probably based on Geraldine Ferraro who represented the district in the 70s and 80s) ran for office in the district, etc,). Her politics do not represent the majority of the country, nor even the majority of Democrats. But they are a constituency, and she is enjoying celebrity status, so she is using her instant influence to promote various candidates around the country. I don't think O'Connor was one of them - he is much more conservative than she.
ReplyDeleteBut her organization, Democratic Socialists of America, has been around for several decades. When I was in college its numbers were about 10,000. Now they're over 40,000 - the largest of any socialist organization in this country since the 1930s. But it's more than that. DSA's history is unique. It's not a political party, but rather an organizing platform and they organize primarily in the Democratic Party. They have a number of people in local office and state legislatures, but she is the first to be elected to Congress since Major Owens and Ron Dellums retired. She ran hoping to raise issues, but everybody discovered that in some areas of the country there are people who have been dissatisfied with the compromises Democrats have made with conservatives over the past decade, and the moderation which hasn't been appreciated by conservative American anyway. So they want to push back, within the Democratic Party and without. She represents the Bernie wing (although he is not DSA). Bernie was to HRC's left, but he defeated her in conservative white areas because he embraced class issues which the Democrats have pretty much abandoned over the past few decades. So while socialists and the Bernie left doesn't expect to take over the party anytime soon, they are energizing the vote in all areas of the country, and even the wimpy centrist/conservative Democrats will benefit.
Lastly, on the possibility of a swing, the overperformance of Democrats has been steady over the past year. By "overperformance" I mean the swing of votes since 2016. It doesn't always result in wins - for instance if the Republican won in 2016 by 26 points and then a Republican won in the same district in a special election by 13 points, the "overperformance" is 13 points. Depending on the study (they differ because they look at different offices), the overperformance of Democrats has averaged 13 to 17 points, as very few races have involved Republicans picking up votes. Mostly, the centrists/independents who voted for Trump aren't voting for the Republicans.
So the point is that there are over 70 races in which Republicans won in 2016 with less than the average margin of overperformance for Democrats over the past year to year and a half. Does this mean all those races will go that way? No, of course not. But Tuesday's results continued the trend of overperformance by a Democrat. To avoid a blue wave, something has to change. And apparently continuing Obama's 9 years of economic expansion isn't enough for that. Something else has to break for the Republicans.
Rusty - I had no idea my erection contains so much power! Good to know.
ReplyDelete