Reply With Quote
TX Congress reps 25 Repug to 11 Dem, and oligarchy's SCOTUS 5 just approved TX gerrymandering
What are the chances that Democrats will take over Congress next year? Obviously, it’s early, and polling isn’t going to give us a very reliable picture just yet. But the number of candidates from each party getting in line to run can give us some useful hints about how things will shake out.
Last year, I wrote a few pieces about the numbers of candidates who had filed to run for Congress. Since 2010, there had been more Republicans than Democrats filing to run for Congress in every election cycle.
Ed Kilgore ran a similar analysis recently at New York Magazine, drawing from a longer time series made available by the Campaign Finance Ins ute. The main finding was that Democrats hold an enormous advantage in early candidate filings for the 2018 midterm elections. In particular, if we limit the analysis to the number of challengers to House in bents who have filed for next year and have raised at least $5,000 — in an effort to narrow our sample to truly viable candidates — we see a record advantage for Democrats right now.
Who wants to run for the House?
Number of House challengers who raised at least $5,000 by June 30 of year prior to election
ELECTION CYCLE DEMOCRATS REPUBLICANS
2004 ----------------------22-----------------–29
–
2006 ----------------------48----------------------24
–
2008 ----------------------57 ----------------------49
–
2010 ----------------------40 ----------------------78
–
2012 ----------------------42 ----------------------40
–
2014 ----------------------45 ----------------------52
–
2016 ----------------------44 ----------------------28
–
2018 ----------------------209 ----------------------28
But what exactly does this mean? Yes, Democrats had twice the number of challengers that Republicans did in 2006 and then took over the House in that election, while a similar advantage yielded similar payoffs for Republicans in 2010. But should we necessarily expect an advantage in the number of early candidates to lead to election victories?
In the chart below, I have plotted the Democratic advantage in early House challengers against the number of House seats won by Democrats since 2004. As the chart suggests, while there is a pretty small number of data points, this is a very strong relationship. Each additional percentage advantage in early candidates yields about 2.5 additional House members in the election.
Why do we see such a strong relationship? It’s not precisely that the number of candidates causes a party to win more seats. After all, there are only so many House seats in play. What a large number of challengers does create is a better recruitment environment. If there are several challengers from whom to choose in a particular race, a party can pick the strongest nominee.
Political science research suggests that the recruitment of high-quality candidates explains a good deal of election outcomes — if a party can convince a large number of skilled and experienced candidates to run for office, those candidates tend to do better and the party tends to win more seats. Indeed, the recruitment of quality candidates helps explain the development of the in bency advantage in 20th century American politics. Finding strong candidates was Newt Gingrich’s approach prior to the 1994 Republican landslide, just as it was Rahm Emanuel’s strategy for 2006.
Other factors will affect just how successful those recruitment efforts will be, of course. If a House member looks safe and the political fundamentals (including the state of the economy and the president’s popularity) don’t look like they’re going to make in bents unpopular, it will be hard to convince, say, a state legislator in a safe district to jump into a difficult and expensive congressional race.
But the environment right now suggests that Republican in bents are vulnerable. President Trump’s approval ratings are in the mid-30s, even amid a strong economy, and it’s hard to see how the environment will improve much for the GOP by next year. And one way Democrats have been responding to Trump’s various norm violations is by running for office.
Of the 237 House challengers who raised at least $5,000 for the 2018 midterms by the end of June, 209 of them (88 percent) are Democrats. If we were to plug that into the regression line above, it suggests Democrats would pick up 93 House seats. This figure seems highly improbable given the number of seats that are actually compe ive, as Kilgore and Kyle Kondik note. But it does suggest strong potential gains for the Democrats next year.
Of course, it’s still early, and the people who went to rallies last January and said “ yes, I’m running for Congress!” might ask “What was I thinking?” by the time next January rolls around. And it’s hard to know just what the political system will look like by this time next year given the rapid pace of events lately. But indicators thus far suggest a strong year for the Democrats.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...for-the-party/
TX Congress reps 25 Repug to 11 Dem, and oligarchy's SCOTUS 5 just approved TX gerrymandering
It is a rear-guard action.
GOP, even in Texas, or especially in Texas is going to start to feel the effects of ting on minorities with young populations.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content...2016report.pdf
Brookings analysis paints an increasingly bleak picture for the GOP as well.
Trump and the Texas GOP declare war on Hispanics
https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/c...-war-hispanicsere are the prime examples:
Texas Republicans continue to push measures that seem primarily designed to minimize the political clout of Hispanics through legislative and congressional redistricting plans, the nation's strictest voter ID law, and a newly passed law aimed at so-called sanctuary cities.
Trump, meanwhile, gave the back of his hand to Arizona's Hispanics by pardoning Joe Arpaio, the 85-year-old former Phoenix sheriff found guilty of contempt of court by a federal judge for refusing to stop detaining suspected unauthorized immigrants.
The Immigration and Customs Enforcement service's scatter-shot administration of Trump's efforts to curb illegal immigration has gone beyond deporting the "bad hombres" the president vowed to expel. One result has been the totally unnecessary breakup of productive families by deporting Hispanics who, while initially here illegally, led positive, law-abiding lives.
While Sessions cited legal issues in refusing to extend Obama's DACA program, Tuesday's action broke a moral commitment by the government to productive people brought here as children and rejected America's historic role as a place for immigrants to find freedom and a better life. Unless Congress acts, which recent history suggests remains highly questionable, rescinding DACA could cost many Dreamers their jobs and subject them to the vagaries of ICE's administration.
Turning Texas blue may well be wishful thinking though.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...-shot-at-texasTexas is a large and utterly elusive grail. A 2016 simulation incorporating demographic and political trends in the state concluded that Texas would not fall into the Democratic column anytime in the next four presidential elections. "The juggernaut there is whites keep voting Republican," said William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Ins ution who co-wrote the study.
I have seen such efforts first hand. Not sure how effective it will be, but the National party would do well to make a solid investment, IMO."Trump’s politics are not playing well in Texas," said Democratic strategist Simon Rosenberg, via email, "and national Democrats would be smart to invest heavily there this cycle and next with two goals in mind -- winning some critical races in 2018 that could affect the control of Congress, while accelerating the state’s migration from rock bed Republican to a swing presidential state."
2020 Census Could Bring Big Changes for These States
Texas stands to gain three or four seats in 2020, while Illinois could lose two.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta...th-2020-census
The GOP will be very hard pressed to Gerrymander more and more and more Democrats.
You can only dilute Democratic voters so much, before people get really angry.
It is a good bit, and dovetails with some of the analysis of what needs to happen from 538.“One of the problems that Hillary Clinton had, and one of the problems that Democrats still have,” he said, “is people don’t really know what we stand for.”
Another point mentioned that I have talked about here, having personally seen it:
Supports the OP.What I think is unique, happening right now, and I think this is a real gift for Democrats, is that the activism that I’m seeing is almost greater than anything I’ve witnessed before. And it is everywhere. You could go into the reddest congressional districts and Indivisible or another group could have a rally or protest and hundreds of people would show up.
I'm sure you put that there, because you liked the headline, but the meat of the article offers a lot of interesting discussion. (too long to read quickly, so I skimmed it, but will thumb through it later)
I think the stink of failure is going to follow the GOP around for decades.
Brownbacks humiliating defeat when the GOP led legislature had to (gasp) raise taxes is just the tip of the berg.
Looks like there is more than a little acknowledgement of the need to clarify what the Democratic party is for, as I have also noted in discussions.Perez: I mean, the two big prizes for 2017 are New Jersey and Virginia. The last time Democrats won in both states was 2005, and we know what happened in 2006, and again, past is not prologue. We have a lot of work to do, and Mitch’s point about putting forth our affirmative message is absolutely on the mark.
What I’ve seen in Virginia—and I’ve spent a lot of time there—is exactly that is happening. We have a remarkable candidate for governor in Ralph Northam; we have a remarkable candidate in New Jersey in Phil Murphy, and they’re not simply talking about Donald Trump. They’re talking about what they’re going to do.
A lot of coffee table discussions are going to percolate upwards. My sense is that will be a few years developing, but the end result will be something that the GOPs intellectually bankrupt idea-mills will be ill-equipped to combat.
"I think the stink of failure is going to follow the GOP around for decades."
You're still stuck thinking idealistically that citizens are of ANY concern to politicians, between elections.
the GOP OBVIOUSLY doesn't care about such stink.
They only dance to the VRWC/oligarchy pipers, who give them $Bs to buy elections for extreme right wing politicians and judges, all s to the oligarchy.
Single payor health care.
Immigration reform and increasing access to legal immigration pathways.
Bam.
medicare for all will be DOA, the for-profit $3T healthcare industry will kill it, smeared as socialism, unAmerican, etc, etc, plenty of legislative s for sale, "on both sides"
Oligarchy already hired Repugs to kill Medicaid, Medicaid, SS, and oligarchy has all the power
evangelicals will say being sick, diseased, in pain, dying early are, like rape, a gift from God, so be thankful, pray, and above all, send us money
It'll be interesting to see if the Dems can find someone dumb enough to believe that getting crushed by Abbott would be good for their political career.Castro Bows Out of Race for Governor
posted by 1200 WOAI
Don't plan on seeing Congressman Joaquin Castro living in the Texas Governor's Mansion any time soon, News Radio 1200 WOAI reports.
"I'm gonna run for re-election," Castro said today. "If I change my mind, I'll reach out."
Texas Democrats had floated Castro as a potential opponent for Republican Gov. Greg Abbott in next year's elections.
Abbott currently has no Democratic opponent.
Analysts say not only is the first term governor by far the most popular politician in Texas, he is sitting on a $50 million plus campaign warchest, and his popularity has soared in the wake of Hurricane Harvey, due to his constant attention to the storm and the victims.
Analysts said Castro was unlikely to give up what is a safe seat in Congress, especially as he is building a solid career on several key House committees, to run for an office he is likely to lose.
The general feeling was that Castro's name was floated to improve the Texas Democratic Party's flagging fundraising. Not having a candidate at all at the top of the ticket in next year's elections is cutting into the party's ability to convince supporters that it is running a slate of candidates that have a chance at ending more than twenty years of Republican domination of Texas statewide politics.
Spankwire thread.
the liberal mental disorder!
lol in a few years the Democrats will come up with some ideas of what they stand for
Maybe CNN will take time out from hounding our juvenile president and spend some time analyzing this topic down further. Maybe an issues driven breakdown. My wife has a CNN app on her iPad. I pick it up turn it on and what flashes across:
Trump says week 3 NFL ratings are down, but the viewership picture is much more complicated.
Really? This is breaking News to flash across my wife's iPad?
This is stuff for ST to have fun with. CNN actually puts this out as some sort of headline...
Yes I know FOX is just as bad.
WOAI
I love a listen here and there. Some of the stupidest crap I have ever heard. This Joe Pags with his little girl cohost who does the "now Joe" thing... It's like The Beaver reruns with the Missus in the background going about her housework.
Give me NPR in SA any day. I don't care if they lean left, at least they have some substance. ( And Science Fridays)
Should’ve thought of that when you were getting those mighty calf tats, you re .
So says the guy making a 5 figure income and supporting the party of supply side and tax cuts he will never see.
You hearken to the days of the white trash who supported the plantation owners while sharecropping on land and borrowing seed so that you never had a pot to piss in. But hey at least darkie ahd it worse off and IMMIGRANTS!
This is basically the Democrats new message to the white working class. Was that deliberate?
New message? Supply side being bull has been discussed since before the 1980s. Sociologists have been talking about the duplicitous relationship between southern gentry and lower class whites since the 19th century. Personally I have been discussing both my entire adult life having grown up in VA. I've never heard anyone say "5 figure Republicans."
As for the DNC, their new message has been that "Better Deal" bull . It discusses neither of what I bring up here.
Long term: anyone would.
Even losing campaigns gain experience, which is what the Dems need in Texas. Human organizations are not generally things that turn on a dime. To start winning in Texas there are a lot of things that need to happen, and getting experienced campaigners and staff is one of those things, as the OP points out.
Texas shifting blue/purple will be the end of the GOP ability to win the white house. It is the paradigm shift, the game changer, etc. It will be interesting to watch.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
