The Perennial Losers Have Actually Done a Lot of Winning
Ezra Klein observes--contra the conventional wisdom among both Democrats and Republicans:
1990: Dems gain 1 Senate seat; Dems gain 7 House seats
1992: No change in Senate; Dems lose 9 House seats; Dems win Presidential vote by 5 points
1994: Dems lose 8 Senate seats; Dems lose 54 House seats
1996: Dems lose 2 Senate seats; Dems gain 8 House seats; Dems win presidential vote by 8 points
1998: No change in Senate; Dems gain 5 House seats
2000: Dems gain 4 Senate seats; Dems gain 2 House seats; Dems win presidential vote by 1 point
2002: Dems lose 2 Senate seats; Dems lose 2 House seats
2004: Dems lose 4 Senate seats; Dems lose 3 House seats; Dems lose presidential vote by 3 pionts
2006: Dems gain 5 Senate seats; Dems gain 31 House seats
2008: Dems gain 6 Senate seats (so far); Dems gain 20 House seats (so far); Dems win presidential vote by 6 points
As you can see, other than the 1994 landslide--which was the result of the Clinton administration getting off to a bad start and a long-anticipated realignment of the South--the Republicans only had two other positive years, 2002 and 2004. And the gains made in those years aren't particularly impressive when you look at them more closely.
First, the gains the Republicans made in the House were very small and were largely the result of redistricting efforts. Without Tom Delay's gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts, for instance, the Republicans would actually have lost seats in 2004. And as for the Senate, it's important to keep in mind that it is structurally skewed in favor of the Republican party. Sparsely-populated red states (like Wyoming and Kansas) have the same number of Senators as densely-populated blue states (like California and New York). Viewed in this light, the Republican majority in the Senate that existed from 2002 to 2006 was not very impressive. In 2004, Bush won 30 states, which means that 60 Senate seats were from red states, 40 from blue states. But the Republicans never controlled more than 55 seats in the Senate. Even at their lowest points, the Democrats have consistently out-performed the Republicans at the Senate level.
Furthermore, I think there's a strong case to be made that both 2002 and 2004 were aberrational elections. The country had been trending steadily Democratic until 9/11. Indeed, just prior to 9/11 Jim Jeffords jumped ship and the Republicans temporarily lost their Senate majority. Things were not looking good for them. But Bush and the Republicans party were able to take advantage of the unsettled post-9/11 political environment by adopting the War on Terror as their chief issue. That reversed the trend somewhat and gave the Republicans enough momentum to squeak out narrow victories in 2002 and 2004. By 2006, however, that issue was no longer as potent and the Republicans were routed.
So a case can be made that 2002 and 2004 were anomalies. And if you remove them from the equation, the Republicans really have very little in the way of electoral success to point to over the last two decades.
Democrats have won the popular vote in four of the last five presidential elections. They’ve enjoyed congressional gains in five of the last seven elections. Since 1992, the Republican Party has had three unambiguous wins: 1994, 2002, and 2004. In the grand sweep of American history, that’s not such an impressive record.Matt Yglesias takes this a step further and, after showing a graph of vote totals in congressional elections over the years, concludes:
Here you see that even though the elections of 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2004 all returned GOP majorities, most people actually voted for the Democrats. The vagaries of how congressional districts are drawn produced Republican majorities in those years but that’s not a problem of Democrats being insufficiently persuasive. Indeed, in 2004 the Republicans actually picked up seats even while securing fewer than half the votes. A lot of political commentary in the 21st century has been focused around the idea that Democrats have some sort of “problem” or other persuading voters to support them but in fact now that we’re past the 2008 election we can say that Democrats have narrowly-but-consistently prevailed in terms of voter preferences over the past 20 years.I'd actually go one step further. If you look at election results over the last 20 years, you see that the Republicans only had one unambiguosly good year, 1994. Here are the election results in each year:
1990: Dems gain 1 Senate seat; Dems gain 7 House seats
1992: No change in Senate; Dems lose 9 House seats; Dems win Presidential vote by 5 points
1994: Dems lose 8 Senate seats; Dems lose 54 House seats
1996: Dems lose 2 Senate seats; Dems gain 8 House seats; Dems win presidential vote by 8 points
1998: No change in Senate; Dems gain 5 House seats
2000: Dems gain 4 Senate seats; Dems gain 2 House seats; Dems win presidential vote by 1 point
2002: Dems lose 2 Senate seats; Dems lose 2 House seats
2004: Dems lose 4 Senate seats; Dems lose 3 House seats; Dems lose presidential vote by 3 pionts
2006: Dems gain 5 Senate seats; Dems gain 31 House seats
2008: Dems gain 6 Senate seats (so far); Dems gain 20 House seats (so far); Dems win presidential vote by 6 points
As you can see, other than the 1994 landslide--which was the result of the Clinton administration getting off to a bad start and a long-anticipated realignment of the South--the Republicans only had two other positive years, 2002 and 2004. And the gains made in those years aren't particularly impressive when you look at them more closely.
First, the gains the Republicans made in the House were very small and were largely the result of redistricting efforts. Without Tom Delay's gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts, for instance, the Republicans would actually have lost seats in 2004. And as for the Senate, it's important to keep in mind that it is structurally skewed in favor of the Republican party. Sparsely-populated red states (like Wyoming and Kansas) have the same number of Senators as densely-populated blue states (like California and New York). Viewed in this light, the Republican majority in the Senate that existed from 2002 to 2006 was not very impressive. In 2004, Bush won 30 states, which means that 60 Senate seats were from red states, 40 from blue states. But the Republicans never controlled more than 55 seats in the Senate. Even at their lowest points, the Democrats have consistently out-performed the Republicans at the Senate level.
Furthermore, I think there's a strong case to be made that both 2002 and 2004 were aberrational elections. The country had been trending steadily Democratic until 9/11. Indeed, just prior to 9/11 Jim Jeffords jumped ship and the Republicans temporarily lost their Senate majority. Things were not looking good for them. But Bush and the Republicans party were able to take advantage of the unsettled post-9/11 political environment by adopting the War on Terror as their chief issue. That reversed the trend somewhat and gave the Republicans enough momentum to squeak out narrow victories in 2002 and 2004. By 2006, however, that issue was no longer as potent and the Republicans were routed.
So a case can be made that 2002 and 2004 were anomalies. And if you remove them from the equation, the Republicans really have very little in the way of electoral success to point to over the last two decades.
posted by A.L. at 11:27 AM
1 Comments:
I agree with this piece, and as a conservative, I have foreseen the death of conservatism at the national level, and a slide into socialism. I just didn't think it would occur this soon.
The handwriting was on the wall in so many ways. Further, it was apparent to many, which was why the last couple of economic bubbles were so pronounced (many knew that the last big property bubble would be the last runup of any sort in our lifetimes), and why the current economic downturn has people more worried than past downturns. It is because many realize that we are getting closer to the edge of a cliff that will presage a deep economic morass, and they all wanted to cash in while they could. Make hay while the sun shines, so to speak.
Now, with technology eroding jobs and wages, both directly and through outsourcing, and globalization showing that american & european workers were generally overpaid compared to their counterparts, we will experience a permanent plateau, and perhaps a reduction in our standards of living, and to support the larger, permanent welfare state, taxes and borrowing will go up.
Those that can flee with their capital will, or at least engage in tax evasion. Rural red states will become redder and elect republicans, but the seaboards will be overwhelmingly blue and will relegate the red states to the backwater.
We are destined to become Europe. But from my experience, Europeans aren't much happier than americans, and those that work hard or have investment are especially unhappy. Also, tax evasion is rampant in Europe, much more so than here (though I expect a surge in evasion).
I kid my liberal friends by addressing them as "comrade" and they take umbrage since they feel it is an overreaction. But I see a big runup in planning for a permanent downturn and hard times by some very smart people (which all must be liberals since no one on this blog thinks that conservatives could be far-sighted or smart). And why are they doing it? Because, for all of their HOPE, they have no more faith in the government or their institutions to fix the problems than we conservatives do. At least we admit that we are greedy, self-centered and intent on protecting our families to the exclusion of others, if need be.
What's your excuse?
Nom Deplume, J.D., LL.M.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home