One solution is that they don't replace the voters, they just take gerrymandering to the next level, for example, with the initiative in California to split its electoral votes.
If they loss of Latino votes is concentrated in states they were already going to lose, and they can offset what loses they do suffer with the de facto theft of 20 EVs in California, then who needs them?
The GOP has some protection from the overall patterns of gerrymandering, and, of course, from the corporate media, otherwise they'd be in danger of a 1932-style losses.
The GOP's problem is that they haven't really had full control of things since 1932. The last time they had the ball, they nearly destroyed the country. They finally get the ball again seven decades later, and damned if they don't do the same thing all over again!
It's not that tens of milions of people remember the Great Depression. But they sorta do remember when bridges weren't falling down, major cities weren't getting flooded and left unrepaired for two years, and we spent our summers worried about shark attacks instead of collapsing mines. Oh, yeah, and when military failure meant a brief embarrasment in the horn of Africa, not a bloody eternity in the middle of the Middle East.
Bottom line, when you look for things that Republicans do right, well, you better pack a lunch.
I think [the Democrats] will suffer the same consequences that the Republicans suffered a year ago. People are fed up with seeing Washington bickering, fighting, in-fighting and never dealing with the issue.
He said the same thing in 1931, so I'm not really worried.
I agree that it's very important to think in terms of winning a realigning election (which, historically, only happens in conjunction with 2 or more consecutive House wave elections). It's not just important for us, it's important for beating up the M$M, too. They need to be pounded over the head with this fact repeatedly from now until election day.
We know that they'll still write the same old crappy stories like they did after the 2006 election. But we want them to know that they're just rightwing tools as they do so. And that's important because when they do, we need to be prepared to mount the mother of all push-backs.
We can't expect any kind of honeymoon period. But we can expect to be fired up for one hell of a fight come January 2009. And the media, not the GOP, will be our #1 enemy.
You're attributing an implicit logic to Jerome that's derived from Bush. But ad hoc attribution is not proof.
A much more less labored interpretation of what Jerome said is: (1) Obama's early claim to fame was as an outspoken anti-war candidate. (2) He got a lot of mileage out of being "anti-war." (3) Now he's turning out to be "anti-Iraq-war"/"anti-Bush's-war." (4) That's a significant shift.
There are so many ways to use such a vote against them. It's just a great way to start framing a debate in terms of values, priorities, judgment, "looking out for the little guy," or any number of other themes. It's the themes that matter, the narrative, much more than the specific vote.
A good way to start this off is with an ad based on person-in-the-street interviews. "Did you know that Senator Scumbag voted against expanding health care to cover millions of uncovered children, including 150,000 in our state alone? What do you think about that vote?"
A few hours of interviewing folks should get some mighty good clips to put together some 30-second and 60-second ads. In fact, you could take it a step further, and ask people to submit their own clips via YouTube.
Anyway, the point is to use these ads to help establish themes for the campaign--themes that other ads will echo throughout the campaign, and that will resonate with the other major issues the candidate plans to run on.
If this vote is used to launch the themes, it will always retain its own resonance as well. People will remember, even if somewhat vaguely. Then, in the last days of the campaign, you can come back to the vote itself, either with the original ads, or with new ads that include a snippet of the original, and connect it with how the themes have been developed since then.
When you get close up to elections there are all sorts of things you can argue this way or that. Which is why it's important to also stand back and look at the big picture.
When you do stand back and look at the grand sweep of political power and partisan alignments, the 1932 election stands out because it began a period of almost unbroken Democratic dominance that lasted until 1948 in the Solid South, 1968 in the presidency, 1980 in the Senate and 1994 in the House.
Even when the Democrats lost the Solid South, they kept enough national power that they represented the dominant political power.
Even when Eisenhower won the presidency--and briefly, a GOP Congress, there was no thought of repealing the New Deal, as Taft-style conservatives wanted.
Even when Nixon won in 1968, Congressional Democrats continued to push a liberal domestic agenda--for which Nixon is falsely credited to this very day.
Even when Reagan won in 1980--and the GOP took the Senate as well--Democratic control of the House, and the overwhelming sentiments of the American people remained strongly supportive of the American welfare state, and the fundamental New Deal political order.
Even after the "Republican Revolution" of 1994, polls showed that support for the welfare state remained high, and that Clinton's policies were broadly favored over Gingrich's. Gingrich and The Beltwar punditocracy didn't believe it, of course, which is why Gingrish made such a fool of himself trying to shut the government down later that year--and why Clinton coasted to re-election in 1996. If Clinton had been a partisan fighter, the Dems could have and should have retaken the House at the same time. But that wasn't Clinton's priority, and he paid dearly for his narrowly self-interested campaign strategy.
And, even after 9/11, when Bush had 90% approval ratings, the American people still hadn't signed onto the conservative domestic agenda, and though it took a while for the potency of Bush's terror-mongering to wear off, the 2006 elections represented a long-delayed return to reflecting where the American people's domestic priorities have always been since at least 1932.
At no point since 1932 have the Republicans been able to realign the electorate into majority support for their agenda. They have been able to fast-talk themselves into positions of power, but either compromise (as in the case of Eisenhower) or deception (just about everyone else) has always been required to do that.
And so, yes, all those elections--1948, 1968, 1980, 1994--represented significant points of Republican gains. But none of them--individually or collectively--rose to the level of what Roosevelt and the Democrats acheived in 1932. None of them was a true realigning election, none produced a new governing majority.
if you don't align mythos and logos. Republicans are all about mythos and just screw logos. It's why they can't govern. But we can't afford the luxury of doing that. And that's the problem I have with Obama. He doesn't seem to realize that he's got to do better than that.
The notion that Democrats lack mythic figures compared to Republicans is mostly just a function of two things: (1) the media plus the solid control of the government the GOP has had for six years have given them a tremendous advantage in exposure. (2) Democrats tend to focus more on logos--on actually making things work.
But no one can say that Bill Clinton lacks mythic status. Heck, he's got more mythic status than practically the whole GOP wrapped up into one big ball.
And Obama is hardly the only candidate this time who has mythic potential. Hillary as the first woman president would certainly have it, and Edwards with his history and aspirations would have it as well. Even Richardson, as the first Hispanic President would probably grow into such a figure.
In short, I really don't see Obama as so exceptional in this regard. Distinctive, yes. But not exceptional.