**2012 Election Day thread**

[StrangeSox]

“We face unusual obstacles. Our party organizations everywhere have been handicapped by lack of funds. The opposition, on the other hand, has used its easy access to the Federal Treasury as a political campaign argument.”

The Republican party was just as sincerely interested in the return of good times as the “political philanthropists,” he said.

 

“But we believe our fellow-citizens prefer a steady job to a political handout,” Mr. Fletcher continued. “We know that present artificial schemes are bound to fail; and that they are merely postponing a real and lasting recovery, and adding to our burden of debt and sapping the morale of our citizens.”

 

“In the final phases of the campaign there arose a new issue, one which challenges the very integrity of our form of government. I refer to the use of pubic funds by political organizations for the purpose of influencing elections.

It should be apparent to all thinking people, regardless of party affiliations, who have a real concern regarding the future of our government, that there must be an abandonment of the present system of handling public relief.

 

In the first place, if the Federal Government would take its hand off the throat of private enterprise, stabilize the currency and make some effort toward regulating public expenditures, an economic recovery would instantly begin that in a large measure would solve the problem of unemployment and public relief.

The whole relief problem as now handled is uneconomic and is riddled with favoritism and injustice. It is retarding recovery. The administration by the expenditure of billions of public funds has sought to create the illusion of prosperity, but it is entirely artificial. It does not and can not form a solid foundation on which to rebuild our economic structure.”

 

“If our representative form of government is to endure through the free expression of the will of the American electorate, that electorate must not be approached by the administration in power deliberately making the argument that only so long as it and its supporters in the several States are continued in power will the needy and the unfortunate be able to obtain that relief which a sympathetic nation has made available.

 

Federal funds in the last phase of this campaign have been used openly and shamelessly by Democratic party organizations to influence the election of Democratic candidates for Federal and State offices. The continuation of this practice would enable any Federal administration absolutely to destroy our political system. This requires no demonstration.”

 

I was watching this last week and I was amazed at how similar the arguments are 80 years later.

[StrangeSox]

There's been some talk on the left about how Republicans only held onto the House because of 2010 gerrymandering.

 

Political scientists at The Monkey Cage and Sam Wang take a look

 

Monkey Cage:

 

 

Sam Wang makes the case for both a strong incumbency effect but also a significant and historically abnormal gerrymandering benefit:

 

More on this:

 

http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/11/15/n...t-the-congress/

 

In direct support of the Chen and Rodden argument, states that are heavily urbanized (such as New Jersey and Pennsylvania) are more distorted against Democrats than more rural states (such as Minnesota and Wisconsin). Indeed, urbanization has a negative and significant effect on the difference between seats won by Democrats and expected seats, even after controlling for the party in control of redistricting.

 

Of course, this analysis does not imply that Democrats are doomed to the minority for the foreseeable future, or even the next decade. The Pennsylvania map includes five Republican seats won by Obama in 2008, suggesting that a wave of sufficient strength could reverse the delegation’s majority. But because of unequal concentrations of vote share in most states, not just those with Republican gerrymanders, a Democratic majority will be more difficult than it should be. And this difficulty persists even when both parties agree to the maps.

[Y2HH]

More on this:

 

http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/11/15/n...t-the-congress/

 

I'm not sure I get the complaint. So when gerrymandering works in the Democrats favor, it's ok, but when it doesn't, it's not?

[mr_genius]

I'm not sure I get the complaint. So when gerrymandering works in the Democrats favor, it's ok, but when it doesn't, it's not?

 

 

basically

[bmags]

I'm not sure why you guys believe there is a complaint. The complaint is that democrats should perhaps stop sitting on their asses during midterms.

[Y2HH]

I'm not sure why you guys believe there is a complaint. The complaint is that democrats should perhaps stop sitting on their asses during midterms.

 

Contradictory post is contradictory. "There is no complaint...the complaint is..."

 

Didn't the democrats do exactly this in IL and win a few seats by doing so?

Edited November 16, 2012 by Y2HH

[bmags]

Contradictory post is contradictory. "There is no complaint...the complaint is..."

 

Didn't the democrats do exactly this in IL and win a few seats by doing so?

 

The article has no complaint, you just read into things by the posters who put them.

 

My complaint is that they f***ed up by not being competent in the 2010 elections.

 

The article is addressing how the democrats could have fared so well in presidential and senatorial elections and not so well in the house. That's not a complaint.

[StrangeSox]

The Monkey Cage is a blog of several political scientists. It's not a partisan website making a complaint. In fact, my initial post was using one of their articles to rebut the claim that Democrats are making re: more Democrats received votes for the House, only reason they don't control is gerrymandering.

 

They're just examining the data. It's no more partisan or a "complaint" than when Nate Silver breaks down some poll or another.

[StrangeSox]

Contradictory post is contradictory. "There is no complaint...the complaint is..."

 

Didn't the democrats do exactly this in IL and win a few seats by doing so?

 

Democrats probably gained some seats in IL and a couple of other states, but Republicans dominated nationwide in 2010, which coincided with a census-driven redistricting. Democrats have been pointing to this post-election to posit that the only reason the GOP retains control of the House is because of gerrymandering.

 

Political scientists are taking a look at that claim to see if it stands up. What seems to be falling out is that beyond the typical gerrymandering benefits, Republicans got an abnormal boost in the last election. This isn't a complaint but an analysis of the data; it is what it is. You can tie various policy complaints into that e.g. redistricting reform, but that's not what they're investigating.

 

edit: the original post I linked to from the Monkey Cage asserted that Republicans benefited much more from the Incumbency Effect than anything.

Edited November 16, 2012 by StrangeSox

[mr_genius]

My complaint is that they f***ed up by not being competent in the 2010 elections.

 

The Democrats didn't really botch their strategy or anything like that in 2010. They just hit a lot of localized anger with D.C.

 

Don't be surprised if in the next midterms a number of 'Tea Party' GOP winners are knocked out in primaries after some votes they make in the next couple years.

 

[StrangeSox]

They abandoned dean's 50 state strategy for 2010, and they didn't do much to stress the importance of elections at all levels.