Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Not gonna be a Rome “reset” for Rauner and Madigan
Next Post: Madigan says “we’ll reschedule” leaders meeting
Posted in:
* An Atlantic article about Jessica Post, the executive director of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, “a party organization tasked with winning back state legislatures”…
Groups like the DLCC saw the 2016 presidential election as a critical point to turn statehouses and governorships blue, and ride that momentum into the 2018 midterms—so that by 2020, the eventual redistricting process would take place under Democratic oversight. (No less important, Democratic chambers could put a stop to conservative, state-level legislation like transgender bathroom laws and rollbacks of reproductive-health services). Speaking to my colleague Russell Berman this past August, Post was downright bullish about the prospects of doing this: At that point, the DLCC hoped to flip at least 10 state chambers, and as many as 13. […]
One week ago, the DLCC’s target list included flipping seats in critical states: the Michigan House, the North Carolina House, the Pennsylvania House, the Florida Senate, both the Senate and House assemblies of Ohio, as well as Wisconsin’s State Assembly and Senate.
But on November 8, all of these states—Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin—ended up being the ones that ultimately destroyed Clinton’s chances of winning the presidency. The DLCC’s attempts to make Democratic inroads met with a similar end.
Of the 32 seats the organization had targeted in those states, Democrats won only eight. Ohio’s targeted seats remained solidly red, as did those in Wisconsin. In Michigan—once a reliably blue state—just one seat was turned. In Pennsylvania and Florida, both states that Clinton had been projected to win, two out of the four targeted senate district seats turned blue. In the end, it was only in North Carolina, a newly purple state that had been showered with significant attention, thanks to Clinton’s campaign, where the DLCC made real inroads: Three of its four House seats turned blue.
Post pointed out that the DLCC had also managed to flip three other state chambers into Democratic control—the Nevada Assembly, the Nevada Senate, and New Mexico House—both in states, not coincidentally, that Clinton won, whether because the state was reliably blue (New Mexico) or because of an extraordinary amount of resources directed there to target a changing electorate (Nevada).
* Overall, the Democratic picture is grim…
After 2016:
32 states have Republican legislatures
13 states have Democratic legislatures
5 states have split control between their chambers pic.twitter.com/Us4awEiAzM— Stephen Wolf (@PoliticsWolf) November 12, 2016
Democrats now control only 13 state legislatures (26%). If they lose 1 more they fall below the % needed to stop constitutional amendments. pic.twitter.com/6tVxNSoO2q
— Marc Porter Magee (@marcportermagee) November 12, 2016
Obama’s presidency disguised the fact that the Democratic Party was getting hollowed out at the state level. They haven’t been this decimated since the 1920s.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Nov 14, 16 @ 10:57 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Not gonna be a Rome “reset” for Rauner and Madigan
Next Post: Madigan says “we’ll reschedule” leaders meeting
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
This is the legacy of the 2010 mid-term GOP landslide. The Republicans got to draw the maps. And it is why 2020 is going to be hugely important.
Comment by Roman Monday, Nov 14, 16 @ 11:01 am
25 states have total Republican control (House, Senate & Governor). Only 6 for the Democrats. Other 19 are split (either one house or the Governor is of different party from other 2)
https://twitter.com/PoliticsWolf/status/798188386427113476
Comment by Grand Avenue Monday, Nov 14, 16 @ 11:06 am
Could it be that outside of the big cities and overwhelming blue states, voters have soundly rejected the banishment of the moderate, blue dog, pro business democrats?
Even some of the bluest states (Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland)
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Nov 14, 16 @ 11:13 am
If the Republicans get total control of 2 more Legislatures, they will be at 34 - above the 2/3 requirement to call for a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. They’ll need to get to 38 (3/4) to actually ratify those amendments. So it could be bye-bye 17th Amendment in the very near future.
Comment by Grand Avenue Monday, Nov 14, 16 @ 11:16 am
Perhaps the Democrat party should make some adaptations? I know all the (potential) customers are racists and rubes, but it is good sales and marketing to try to give the customers what they want. Probably not a good idea, electorally, to do everything you can to alienate the largest portion of voters. The Republicans have even begun to make tiny inroads with the AA population - it’ll take them years, but if they keep trying it will work.
There is a battle coming within the Democrat party - similar to the one that occurred within the Republican party - “mainstream” versus “progressive” in a battle for purity. The outcome isn’t that big of a deal really, unless constitutional amendments to bolster gun rights, limit abortion rights, etc., matter to you.
I know this sounds not believable and over-the-top. Could be, but didn’t President Trump seem not believable a year ago?
Comment by Anony Monday, Nov 14, 16 @ 11:21 am
Step 1.) Figure out how to stop sucking so bad.
Step 2.) Be honest about why you’re sucking so bad.
Step 3.) Maybe implement less suckiness in time for 2018.
Comment by Anon Monday, Nov 14, 16 @ 11:22 am
A great feature article would be a look at how much the Democratic consultants have made while losing hundreds of legislative seats. There doesn’t seem to be a correlation between results and income. I think Dems had better rock the boat or risk riding on the Titanic for a few more campaign cycles.
Comment by Quad Cities Monday, Nov 14, 16 @ 11:24 am
And there sits blue Illinois, surrounded by red.
Sigh!
Comment by Piece of Work Monday, Nov 14, 16 @ 11:24 am
Things change. The parties I remember of the 1960’s and 1970’s are not the parties I see today. From my perspective, both parties have shifted, mostly left to some extent, although there have also been some weird alliances from chasing the funding.
Early on, I made the point I thought this was shaping up as an “outsider” election. IMO, the electorate was clearly unhappy with the current state of affairs, both nationally or locally, and wanted something to change.
Nationally, the voters, rightly or wrongly, handed full control to one party, expecting something to happen differently the next 2 or 4 years. If you look back, that is a fairly uncommon move; most the time the executive branch and at least part of the legislative branch are controlled by opposite parties. We’ll see how that works out; the 2018 elections will tell us.
As noted, the statehouse trend has been going on for some time. Illinois is not immune to it, although metro Chicago / East St Louis provide a very heavy offset to the more rural areas. I still believe Rauner’s election was more anti-Quinn than pro-Rauner, but the latest returns also show that enough money can move voters from one side to the other.
You can disagree with my analysis, but I think it was been a combination of the Nixon Silent Majority and former Democrat blue collars workers who felt abandoned by their party, that mostly drove the election this year. I would also argue that both parties, nationally, put up bad candidates and the perceived “least bad” one won, kind of like the Rauner / Quinn election results.
Specifically here in Illinois, Madigan and the Democrat party haven’t, so far, totally abandoned the working class. Yes, there were taken down a notch or two by the latest returns, but they did gain the Comptroller’s office, so overall I see it as close to a wash.
Before we write an epitaph for the Democrat party in Illinois, I think we need to see at least one more election cycle before things will become clear.
Right now, I’m not making any predictions about Illinois in 2018.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Nov 14, 16 @ 11:31 am
The map illustrates my previous points perfectly. The fact of the matter is that Illinois is so blue this time around BECAUSE Rauner has been such a bad governor. Ironically, if he’d been governing for the past two years and gotten anything accomplished, his quest to “flip” the state would have been bolstered by this election…but alas, he blew it and is on course to continue to blow it…
Comment by Captain Illini Monday, Nov 14, 16 @ 11:32 am
How Michigan could go red after a republican governor and his hires poisoned an entire city continues to astound me.
Comment by Jocko Monday, Nov 14, 16 @ 11:37 am
Illinois was dark blue before the election (veto-proof). Now it’s light blue. Don’t know if that’s a victory for Rauner, but it sure is a defeat for Madigan.
Comment by Grand Avenue Monday, Nov 14, 16 @ 11:38 am
@LuckyPierre
That is one theory. That Dems weren’t pro-business enough.
This ignores that the Democratic Party is never going to out pro-business, out pro-Wall Street the Republican Party.
Another theory is that union rights have been steadily hollowed out the last 36 years at the same time American unions have been co-opted by the Democratic Party to fund and support elections that have achieved progress on social/cultural issues while the Democratic Party has achieved little to advance the economic concerns of union and non-union working people in return for union leadership’s unwavering support. Thus discrediting unions as an institution and eroding labor solidarity.
Did Hillary Clinton ever say the word “unions” on the stump? I know it never came up in the debates.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Monday, Nov 14, 16 @ 11:39 am
Everyone on the left struggles to say the “i” word - immigration - other than to fall back into comfortable memes about racism. In the Great Recession, low educated workers lost 5.6 million jobs. They only gained 50,000 jobs back in the recovery. The Democrats response is to tell them “those jobs are gone forever,” lock arms with the Koch Brothers and back a bill the CBO says will bring up to 12 million low edu workers + families (mostly) “out of the shadows” while only slowing their replacements “in the shadows” by 25%. These people know that low skill jobs are being taken by technology and won’t be coming back, but they’d like someone to slow the process down. Hence the opposition to immigration reform and free trade. There’s definitely racism in the mix, but with the Democrats so tone deaf to their suffering this past race, they had no place else to go. (For the record though, I didn’t predict a Trump win - I thought there were Bradley effects and it would be closer than the polls were saying, but ultimately HRC would squeak it out…).
Comment by lake county democrat Monday, Nov 14, 16 @ 11:42 am
BTW…. I think this piece forgot to mention that Ds lost majorities in the KY and Iowa houses ch
Comment by Annonin' Monday, Nov 14, 16 @ 11:46 am
===Before we write an epitaph===
After Rauner’s win and then Trump’s win, I don’t think anybody should be predicting anything. lol
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Nov 14, 16 @ 11:49 am
There are a lot of voters who haven’t followed the Kansas experiment. Maybe we’ll all get to live it in real time and learn about the outcome together.
Comment by NoGifts Monday, Nov 14, 16 @ 11:54 am
Alaska and Maine can easily flip to the GOP. Thanks to an unstable governor, ME hasn’t already.
Eight years of the Oval Office didn’t build bridges for the Democrats. Sadly too many bridges got burned for short term gain for Obama. The President didn’t successfully make his case for Democratic policies and relied too heavily over the past six years on executive orders which also didn’t build consensus.
Obama gambled on success by ramming through partisan policy solutions that didn’t work as expected. His veto - proof Congressional support didn’t win converts in sufficient numbers. Obama’s wins were personal victories. 2010, 2014 and 2016 were powerful reputations.
Rauner is also failing. There is a lot of power in daily governing and he isn’t doing it. Rauner has no credibility as as result. Illinois hasn’t felt the sweep of GOP success as a result.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Nov 14, 16 @ 11:55 am
No OW here, about a topic of Republican dominance? Shocking. /s x20
To the post, 25 states have the triumvirate — Republican Governors and both chambers with Republican majorities.
And then there’s Illinois with the worst financials and an obstructionist 42 year Speaker keeping the state down.
Comment by Deft Wing Monday, Nov 14, 16 @ 12:15 pm
What RNUG said plus some.
There’s no point comparing the party labels now and the 1960s, much less the 1920s.
In the 1960s, the Confederate state governments were solidly Democratic while New England state governments were solidly Republican.
Guess which ones were the reactionaries and which ones were the progressives? What’s really changed?
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Nov 14, 16 @ 12:25 pm
At an even more granular level, even the solidly blue Madison County in the Metro East has gone red.
That one was a genuine shocker to myself as a resident.
Comment by illini97 Monday, Nov 14, 16 @ 12:25 pm
If you want a taste what all those states have coming - and what I think is on the menu for Illinois, take a peek. http://cjonline.com/legislature-state/2016-07-01/gov-brownback-orders-new-round-cuts-rebalance-state-budget
Comment by NoGifts Monday, Nov 14, 16 @ 12:25 pm
Never heard of them.
Comment by walker Monday, Nov 14, 16 @ 12:42 pm
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the iron-hide former DNC chair who largely orchestrated the specter of the flaming crash of the Democrats’ 2016 presidential hopes, is one reason for the alienation that is apparent. Throw in the focus & antics of Donna Brazile, and some of the traditional Democrat base may be wondering if they’re even a factor.
Urban and social issues certainly have their place, but I’m thinking that a big part of the traditional Democrat base has been left wondering if anybody is thinking about them.
Who knows, if the frustration gathers enough steam, they could even cross over and vote for an angry, unstable, boorish gazillionaire. oh…wait…
Comment by Stumpy's bunker Monday, Nov 14, 16 @ 12:42 pm
lcd 11:42am: Good analysis. It is the economy, stupid, resonates again.
There were other factors as well.
The margin, like in most Presidential elections, was on the order of 2% over a dozen states. There was the e-mail/trust/Comey factor, the gender factor, and the new voter restriction laws in at least NC and WI. Also, we often move to the other party for President after 8 years of one. Finally, the Trump campaign was smarter in its geographic spread. Who knows how much of what factors added up to the 2%?
Comment by walker Monday, Nov 14, 16 @ 1:12 pm
What really changed?
Air conditioning changed the South. Northerners were able to leave New England and the Midwest and could enjoy the warm winters and the horrible summers.
The South lost its segregation governments which were Democratic. Most state legislatures didn’t become GOP until recently.
Air conditioning. That’s what happened.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Nov 14, 16 @ 1:37 pm
Yes, the Democrats of today are not the party I’ve known all my life. The decimation of labor and unions have been casually observed by Dems. Therefore, why reelect them if you are an ordinary working guy, union to boot! If they’re the same as Republicans on that issue but worse yet—-have done nothing to help you, why would they deserve your vote?
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Nov 14, 16 @ 1:40 pm
Illinois is an island, a dark blue state surrounded in red. And, just how well is our state doing? Some reflection may be in order.
Comment by Keyser Soze Monday, Nov 14, 16 @ 1:49 pm
2010 killed the Dems. Nationally, more votes were cast for Democratic Representatives than Republicans yet again, but more Republicans get elected. The same is true to lesser degrees in a lot of states.
Comment by Carhartt Representative Monday, Nov 14, 16 @ 1:51 pm
===No OW here, about a topic of Republican dominance? Shocking===
I’m a Republican. I think it’s great.
Rauner isn’t a Republican. That’s not so great.
Capiche?
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Nov 14, 16 @ 1:59 pm
“After Rauner’s win and then Trump’s win, I don’t think anybody should be predicting anything. lol”
I predict that statement will be prophetic.
The leadup to the 2018 elections will be insane as the GOP goes for the jugular.
Comment by Touré's Latte Monday, Nov 14, 16 @ 2:26 pm
Will Democrats ever get the message that the following is not a winning communication with voters concerned about economic issues, especially in rust-belt states…. “No less important [than redistricting] Democratic chambers could put a stop to conservative, state-level legislation like transgender bathroom laws and rollbacks of reproductive-health services.”
In a change election, Democratic Party Super Delegates nominated the most unpopular Presidential candidate in modern history to establish a Clinton third term in the White House.
Did anybody turn on the lights and say “Maybe this isn’t such a great idea for our down ballot candidates?”
Comment by Bill Edley Monday, Nov 14, 16 @ 3:16 pm
==Illinois is an island, a dark blue state surrounded in red.==
Illinois had 91 red counties and 11 blue counties in this election for president.
Comment by OldIllini Monday, Nov 14, 16 @ 3:27 pm
Back to the 1920’s? Put your money in the tin can, if you have any, and want to keep it safe.
Comment by littlehorse Monday, Nov 14, 16 @ 3:46 pm
Never ending delight at the number of Illinois Democrats proclaiming the GOP gains at the state level are almost entirely due to their ability to control the legislative maps. As if that mattered or something. Weird, right?
Comment by JB13 Monday, Nov 14, 16 @ 3:50 pm
–Illinois had 91 red counties and 11 blue counties in this election for president.–
So, how did that election go?
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Nov 14, 16 @ 3:55 pm
===–Illinois had 91 red counties and 11 blue counties in this election for president.–
Dirt doesn’t vote.
However, it does mean that parties split largely on urban/suburban vs exurban/rural leads to over representation of the exurban/rural party. By over representation I mean generally you should have a proportion of seats to underlying partisanship. That’s nationally.
In Illinois right now. Clinton got 55% of the vote. Democrats got 56.7% of the Illinois House seats. Democrats got 62.7% in the Illinois Senate. So Dems are over represented in the Illinois Senate by a about 7-8 points.
What’s different is the relative portion of urban/suburban voters compared to the other rust belt states and a map that led to over representation of Democrats. Democrats are still in good shape in Illinois. We’d be better without one leader for sure, but Bruce Rauner’s basic problem is the majority of people in Illinois don’t want what he’s selling.
Comment by archpundit Monday, Nov 14, 16 @ 4:37 pm
Interesting article wrote the day BEFORE the election.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/11/07/patrick-caddell-real-election-surprise-uprising-american-people.html
Comment by RNUG Monday, Nov 14, 16 @ 6:42 pm
Just when I thought my post election malaise was lifting…time to get busy for 2018…
Comment by Loop Lady Tuesday, Nov 15, 16 @ 6:56 am
I agree with NoGifts. A look at the Kansas experiment should be enough to tell us how well huge tax cuts and austerity programs revive a state’s economy. The story in NO GIFT’S LINK said predictions of increased revenue as a result of the Governor’s policies were “optimistic”. The proof is there for all to see.
Comment by Gene Debs Tuesday, Nov 15, 16 @ 9:06 am