The Red Sea Change

With the survival of President Obama and his Democrat Senate in the 2012 election, the Democrat media is filled with proclamations of a new progressive Democrat ascendance dooming the GOP to electoral irrelevance. In what country do these people live? For those celebrating (or in a funk over) another four years of Barack Obama, a reality check is in order – the GOP controls most other levels of American government.

From 2009 to 2012, the voters have fired well over 600 Democrats and gave the GOP state capitals across the country between the Democrat Northeast and Left Coast enclaves. GOP governors are running 30 states and the GOP controls 56 state houses and senates compared to 41 for the Democrats. This is the first time the GOP has controlled this many state governments since the 1920s, nearly a century ago.

Governors provide the stable for candidates for president and nearly all the successful governors are Republican – with the notable exception of the surprisingly conservative Democrat John Hickenlooper of my state of Colorado.

Even more importantly, state legislatures redistrict for the House of Representatives. Because the voters fortuitously fired Midwest Democrat governments just before the latest redistricting, the new GOP legislatures were able to scrap Democrat gerrymanders in place since the 1930s and replace them with Republican gerrymanders. The GOP is likely to hold the House for the foreseeable future unless they betray their constituents and govern from the left as the did under Bush 43.

Historically, 2013 will be a mirror image of 1981 when the GOP held the White House and narrowly held the Senate, while the Democrats ran most of everything else. While I want the White House and Senate back as well, I would much rather be in the GOP’s position now than that of the Democrats.

About these ads

About Bart DePalma

Bart DePalma is a solo country attorney practicing in the mountain town of Woodland Park, CO. Bart publishes the Citizen Pamphleteer blog and his new book Never Allow A Crisis To Go To Waste: Barack Obama and the Evolution of American Socialism was released December 2011.
This entry was posted in 2012 election, Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to The Red Sea Change

  1. Shiloh says:

    You might be happy with the current situation, but the long term demographics are not in your favor. Don’t forget that you are also in the process of losing the War Against Gay Marriage as well as the “Women must give birth to their rapist’s baby” argument.

    • Bart DePalma says:

      White religious Republicans are reproducing while white secular Democrats are literally dying off like their EU counterparts.

      The young folks are a rather libertarian bunch and will turn conservative when they grow up, get married and have kids – just like their boomer parents did in the 80s.

      Hispanics migrate in to get jobs. They are now reverse migrating to get jobs because of the Obama economy. The GOP needs to work to get the Hispanic conservatives who stay. Rubio 2016 anyone?

      • Shiloh says:

        The white demographic gets smaller every year. The young folks voted Dem in overwhelming numbers. They’re not libertarians. They’re liberals. And Hispanics don’t appear to like your policies very much. Unless Rubio runs as a Dem they are not voting for him. Oh, Asians and Jews also don’t like you very much, either. I have no idea why you’re feeling good about where you are right now.

        • Bart DePalma says:

          “The white demographic gets smaller every year.”

          Really? Are they being taken up in the Rapture? The white demographic is still very much there and they win every election in which they vote. Obama managed to suppress the vote with a historic dump of sludge through the media, and the white working class vote most of all.

          • Shiloh says:

            Yes, it’s getting smaller. It’s not good when your base is becoming a smaller percentage of total voters.

  2. Shiloh says:

    You also still have Rush Limbaugh and Donald Trump.

    • Bart DePalma says:

      And you still have Ed Schultz and George Soros.

      Our guys get better ratings.

      • Shiloh says:

        Your guys also appear to kill your chances to win national elections.

        • Bart DePalma says:

          Rush has been around for decades.

          • shiloh says:

            Bart

            The presidency has and always will be the big enchilada ie updating my post from a couple years ago w/2012 election results:

            1992 ~ 37.5% Bush41 an incum­bent pres­i­dent who won Bart’s er the 1st Gulf War.

            1996 ~ 40.7% Dole

            2000 ~ 47.9% against a very, very weak can­di­date Gore.

            2004 ~ 50.7% as an in­cum­bent wartime Rep ran against a very, very weak Kerry.

            2008 ~ 45.7% as the best Reps could come up with, Mc­Cain, didn’t have a dog’s chance in hell af­ter (8) years of cheney/​​​bush.

            2012 ~ 47.8% as Willard had a con bil­lion­aire $$$ advantage.

            >

            The good news ;) for Reps ~ the updated aver­age has gone from 44.5% to ( 45.05% ) for the last (6) pres­i­den­tial elections.

            >

            btw, Nate pre­dicted Obama would get 50.8% and grog’s link has a pro­jec­tion of 50.8%.

            >

            Also, someone mentioned a couple days ago if the youth vote votes for a particular party (3) presidential elections in a row, they usually become permanently attached to said party and Obama took the youth vote in 2008/2012 by wide margins 68/32 and 60/37 respectively.

            The Dems huge advantage w/minorities notwithstanding!

          • shiloh says:

            btw, Hillary will have all the advantages Obama had in 2012 plus she is white and female.

            blessings

          • Shiloh says:

            Demonizing African Americans (welfare queens), Hispanics (build a fence!), and other minorities is not going to help you in elections any more, and that’s his entire tool set. He’s killing you now. By the way, so is Fox News. Fox News viewers were the only people on the planet who were expecting a Romney landslide. The Fox bubble means that you have no idea what is going on in the real world. That’s not a good basis for winning elections in the real world.

  3. dcpetterson says:

    “… Democrat Senate … Democrat media … Democrat ascendance … ”

    Serious question here. Why do Republicans forget the rules of grammar? The adjectival form of “Democrat” is “Democratic”. Why is that so hard to remember?

    “… voters have fired …”

    This meme comparing government to a business needs to be killed, and killed again until it is dead, then killed some more. We don’t “hire” government officials. They are “elected”. A business is not a democracy. The United States is. The government is not a business. The last time we had a businessman as president, we got into two unnecessary wars and tanked the world economy.

    You are correct though that voters ELECTED Republicans to state legislatures and governorships in record numbers in 2010. This year, the voters revolted against Republican rule. Here in Minnesota, for example, the state House and Senate both changed to Democratic majorities from Republican, as voters recoiled in horror (and Minnesota is not the only such example — but readers can use The Google). Here in Minnesota, we have a Democratic Governor, two Democratic Senators (one of whom was just reelected overwhelmingly) and a majority Democratic House delegation. In fact, NOT ONE statewide official here is Republican anymore. And Romney thought Minnesota was a swing state.

    Republicans lost ground in both the U.S. House and the Senate, in addition to losing the Presidential election. More Americans voted for House Democratic candidates than Republican candidates. The only reason Republicans still have a majority in the House and in many states is because of partisan gerrymandering.

    But you know these facts. Why do you pretend you don’t?

    (By the way — thank you for approving me for posting to your site. I’ve missed our conversations.)

    • Kevin Edwards says:

      “… Democrat Senate … Democrat media … Democrat ascendance … ”

      Serious question here. Why do Republicans forget the rules of grammar? The adjectival form of “Democrat” is “Democratic”. Why is that so hard to remember?

      This wasn’t directed at me, but I’ve done this, too, in order to distinguish democratic vs. Democratic. It may have started with verbal conversations that involve both meanings but I’ve also done that in written form for consistency and since people can be loose with capitalization.

      I’ve just discovered that Wikipedia has a page on it: Democrat Party (epithet). I didn’t realize some Democrats were offended by it. That’s a shame, since I think it’s useful.

      Also, the grammar section provides support for such grammar:

      Some grammarians believe that the use of the noun “Democrat” as an adjective is ungrammatical.[40] However, the use of a noun as a modifier of another noun is not grammatically incorrect in modern English in the formation of a compound noun, e.g., “shoe store,” “school bus,” “peace movement,” “Senate election,” etc. […]

      • dcpetterson says:

        Kevin,
        It is true that some nouns can be used as adjectives, but that’s because there generally isn’t an adjectival form of such nouns (there is “shoe” but not “shoeic”). Even if there is an adjectival form, it alters the meaning — we have “scholarly” or “scholastic,” but a “scholastic bus” is not the same as a “school bus.”

        But in any case, the official name of the party is “The Democratic Party”, and it is run by the “Democratic National Committee”. So that grammatical argument on Wikipedia is irrelevant. “Democrat Party” is an intentional misrepresentation of the name of the party. It would be like referring to the “Republikan Party” or like talking about “Republicants.” Regardless of any arguments about how squinting hard and holding your head just so makes the grammar possibly acceptable, it’s just not the name of that particular party.

        • Kevin Edwards says:

          You have ignored my answer to you: it is done to avoid confusion between democratic and Democratic. I haven’t yet had a problem with republican vs. Republican, probably since democracy is the more popular term and subsumes republicanism, but you make a good case for another (ideally adjectival) suffix to distinguish them when necessary.

          Also keep in mind that the primary goal of proper grammar is clarity of communication.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s