Comments on: Midterm and Long Term Electoral Prospects http://www.gcadvocate.com/2010/07/midterm-and-long-term-electoral-prospects/ The Student Newspaper of the Graduate Center of the City University of New York Tue, 07 Feb 2012 03:04:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Homes for Rent In Tucson AZ http://www.gcadvocate.com/2010/07/midterm-and-long-term-electoral-prospects/comment-page-1/#comment-1540 Homes for Rent In Tucson AZ Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:08:25 +0000 http://advocate.mellifluously.info/?p=2872#comment-1540 Extremely interesting article post. Your article is extremely interesting. I liked this blog post. This article is wonderful! I have to say that after continually reading terrible as in, same old ideas, little quality content, etc. blog posts on other sites, it's pleasant to actually read something that has some thought put into it. It's a pleasure to read well written blog posts, especially after continually seeing rehashed %$!# that writers and bloggers are putting out nowadays. It's always nice when I come across content that actually has value, I've been seeing a ton of subpar writing attempts recently. Anyways, thanks again and I'll check back often to see what else you have to offer. I'll check back in the future to see what else you have up your sleeve. Keep up the good work! BTW, I like your site design, but your header image was only loading half way for me. P.S. Your header is messed up a bit in IE. The problem could be on my end but I thought you might want to look into that. Extremely interesting article post. Your article is extremely interesting. I liked this blog post. This article is wonderful! I have to say that after continually reading terrible as in, same old ideas, little quality content, etc. blog posts on other sites, it’s pleasant to actually read something that has some thought put into it. It’s a pleasure to read well written blog posts, especially after continually seeing rehashed %$!# that writers and bloggers are putting out nowadays. It’s always nice when I come across content that actually has value, I’ve been seeing a ton of subpar writing attempts recently. Anyways, thanks again and I’ll check back often to see what else you have to offer. I’ll check back in the future to see what else you have up your sleeve. Keep up the good work! BTW, I like your site design, but your header image was only loading half way for me. P.S. Your header is messed up a bit in IE. The problem could be on my end but I thought you might want to look into that.

]]> By: Geoff Johnson http://www.gcadvocate.com/2010/07/midterm-and-long-term-electoral-prospects/comment-page-1/#comment-480 Geoff Johnson Sun, 18 Jul 2010 04:30:41 +0000 http://advocate.mellifluously.info/?p=2872#comment-480 To emo, you'll get no arguments from me as to the dangers and problems of being in a "permanent" majority (the points you raise about that are quite valid), and obviously that term is fairly hyperbolic, though it gets kicked around a lot which is basically why I employed it. "Period of dominance" might be a better phrase, and what I'm talking about here in terms of (possible) future Democratic electoral success could perhaps best be analogized to the period of Republican dominance from 1896-1932 and the period of Democratic dominance from 1932 to the late 1960s. The less dominant party certainly won national elections (both presidential and legislative) during those periods, but one party was clearly dominant in electoral terms. As to your point about possible Whitman and/or Fiorina victories in California and their bearing on the efficacy of Teixeira’s demographic argument, part of the general thrust of my post is that it's likely the 2010 midterms will not tell us much of anything about the future, and thus would neither validate nor blow away Teixeira’s theories or those of anyone else. This is a weird cycle, coming during the first term of a unique presidency (Obama is certainly perceived by many as "something different" for a variety of reasons) after ostensibly major reforms have been passed and during a time of profound, profound economic crisis. Many incumbents are vulnerable, and if Barbara Boxer loses to Fiorina it's hardly a sign, in my view at least, that non-whites and "wired" workers will not be solidly Democratic in the future. California is also an absolute basket case in fiscal terms, Jerry Brown is an odd candidate for several reasons, and the gubernatorial election could hinge on any number of issues that seem critical now but less important going forward. Even more so than other 2010 contests, I would avoid extrapolating much of anything from the CA election results. To emo, you’ll get no arguments from me as to the dangers and problems of being in a “permanent” majority (the points you raise about that are quite valid), and obviously that term is fairly hyperbolic, though it gets kicked around a lot which is basically why I employed it. “Period of dominance” might be a better phrase, and what I’m talking about here in terms of (possible) future Democratic electoral success could perhaps best be analogized to the period of Republican dominance from 1896-1932 and the period of Democratic dominance from 1932 to the late 1960s. The less dominant party certainly won national elections (both presidential and legislative) during those periods, but one party was clearly dominant in electoral terms.

As to your point about possible Whitman and/or Fiorina victories in California and their bearing on the efficacy of Teixeira’s demographic argument, part of the general thrust of my post is that it’s likely the 2010 midterms will not tell us much of anything about the future, and thus would neither validate nor blow away Teixeira’s theories or those of anyone else.

This is a weird cycle, coming during the first term of a unique presidency (Obama is certainly perceived by many as “something different” for a variety of reasons) after ostensibly major reforms have been passed and during a time of profound, profound economic crisis. Many incumbents are vulnerable, and if Barbara Boxer loses to Fiorina it’s hardly a sign, in my view at least, that non-whites and “wired” workers will not be solidly Democratic in the future. California is also an absolute basket case in fiscal terms, Jerry Brown is an odd candidate for several reasons, and the gubernatorial election could hinge on any number of issues that seem critical now but less important going forward. Even more so than other 2010 contests, I would avoid extrapolating much of anything from the CA election results.

]]> By: emo http://www.gcadvocate.com/2010/07/midterm-and-long-term-electoral-prospects/comment-page-1/#comment-473 emo Sat, 17 Jul 2010 23:19:14 +0000 http://advocate.mellifluously.info/?p=2872#comment-473 One problem with Dems as the permanent majority. With no serious threat from the GOP, the Democrat party will fall apart. First any party that is in permanent majority status, becomes brain dead and has tendencies to be extremely corrupt. Dont believe me? The most electorally successful political party in the west the past 100 years, is the Canadian Liberal party. Yet the Canadian liberals have been out of power for 13/26 years (1984-1993 and 2006-Present). They lost their power both in 1984 and 2006 due to corruption and incompetence. Even though the Liberals are "Canada's natural governing party", they have a tendency to be arrogant and corrupt when left in power too long. Then they lose. Secondly, how will the Democrats get their base to the polls with no threat that the GOP will ever win??? Without the GOP, there is increasingly likelihood that the Dem's own factions will wage war on one another and eventually split the party. Thirdly, Ruy Tuxieria's theory will be completely blown away if Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina win in CA, where the white population is under 50% and the state has many "wired" workers who are suppose to be friendly to the Democrats. One problem with Dems as the permanent majority. With no serious threat from the GOP, the Democrat party will fall apart.

First any party that is in permanent majority status, becomes brain dead and has tendencies to be extremely corrupt. Dont believe me? The most electorally successful political party in the west the past 100 years, is the Canadian Liberal party. Yet the Canadian liberals have been out of power for 13/26 years (1984-1993 and 2006-Present). They lost their power both in 1984 and 2006 due to corruption and incompetence. Even though the Liberals are “Canada’s natural governing party”, they have a tendency to be arrogant and corrupt when left in power too long. Then they lose.

Secondly, how will the Democrats get their base to the polls with no threat that the GOP will ever win??? Without the GOP, there is increasingly likelihood that the Dem’s own factions will wage war on one another and eventually split the party.

Thirdly, Ruy Tuxieria’s theory will be completely blown away if Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina win in CA, where the white population is under 50% and the state has many “wired” workers who are suppose to be friendly to the Democrats.

]]>