Mother Jones: Why the Democrats Will Keep Losing
In a thoughtful, but misguided, piece over at Mother Jones magazine, Steven Hill cries 'Woe is us!' and tells us Why the Democrats Will Keep Losing.
The basic thesis? That the U.S. Senate (and by extension, the Electoral College) award disproportionate power to small states - thus throwing the Senate and the Presidency to the GOPers, despite higher vote totals for Democrats.
So from the Democratic Party perspective, the political geography does not work. In the current climate of Red vs. Blue America, any "emerging Democratic majority" must overcome an 18th-century political system that puts urban-centered Democrats at a decided disadvantage. As I wrote above, it's like having a foot race in which one side (the Republicans) begins 10 yards in front of the other (the Democrats), election after election. It's time to level the playing field.
So, he's crying out for amending the Constitution. Now, that's all well and good, but does anyone really think that three-fourths of the states will vote to reduce small-state power in the Senate and the Electoral College? (The 38 "biggest" states would have to agree - and that includes states with five electoral votes like Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and West Virginia.)
Of course, Steve misses the larger point. The small-state math is exactly why the Western Democrat project is so important. If we continue to rely on a big state strategy, we will continue to lose.
If Democrats are going to regain a majority in the U.S. Senate and a majority in the Electoral College, Democrats have to find a way to win in the small states.
And as everyone who reads Western Democrat knows, our best hope lies in the West.
Take the Kerry '04 states, add Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico. We win - without Ohio and without Florida.
Kari Chisholm | June 20, 2005 | Comment on This Post (7 so far) |
Your Name: Your Personal Note: | Your Email: Friends' Emails*: |
Comments
Whad'ya spect from a leftist rag like MJ?!? You're quite correct in your analysis of the real solution, though.
Cheers
Posted by: Ringmasta | Jun 21, 2005 7:48:42 AM
With real respect for Howard Dean, (and none for John Kerry) this all seems to point to the need to get as prominent a Western Dem as possible and start introducing him/her to the nation for '08.
Richardson is becoming the western Mario Cuomo, brooding, agonizing, and thinking deep thoughts--so he's out.
There is, of course, that Southern Westerner General Clark, famous line from '00 "I might have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls."---He's busy right now, having just accepted a contract with Fox News.
The Salazars are relatively new and unknown on the natiional scene, so what've we got?
************
Jim Dean is touting a "20 year plan" for DFA. Do we really have to wait that long, and if so, does anyone have suggestions for a Moses to tend our journey out of the wilderness to the Promised Land?
Just asking.......
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Jun 21, 2005 9:06:51 AM
I don't know which Bill Richardson you're talking about, but the Governor of New Mexico seems far from brooding and agonizing. Having watched his NH trip on C-SPAN, he seems funny, affable, gregarious, and smart.
As for 2012 and beyond, Montana's Brian Schweitzer. And the rollout has begun. Here, here, here and here.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jun 21, 2005 9:33:52 AM
Wes Clark a Southwesterner? Huh? He's straight up south, if that even.
Posted by: Emmett O'Connell | Jun 21, 2005 4:14:47 PM
Emmett the Clark reference is sarcasm. Clark's appeal has ALWAYS been a mystery to me....When I went back to Boston last year, hard core liberals were knocking each other over for a photo-op. I even got drafted into one, but I remain puzzled.
Kari I'm talking about the perennial "let's run Richardson" Richardson.
Is he available. Gasp swoon. Well probably not this time, but maybe....and wow he's beloved by latinos...and gee wiz....and so on.....
*********
Kari, whataya think about either Salazar......I know little about Schweitzer, but I'll do the links and listen real hard when Jenny Greenleaf comes to talk to our HD about the Montana Miracle this coming Saturday.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Jun 21, 2005 5:01:28 PM
OK. I'm impressed. If he isn't ready to run, we can at least key on some of his excellent rhetoric. I've long espoused populism as a package for progressive ideas, but I ain't no pro framer.
I'd really like to be able to quit reading Luntz, who's been the only game in town for resonant bon mots even if he has absolutely no scruples to go with that sunny attitude and gift of gab......
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Jun 21, 2005 5:10:32 PM
It seems to me that Richardson is definitely running this time. No inside info here, but he doesn't appear to be dithering. (Other than the usual blather from politicians three years out.)
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jun 21, 2005 9:33:07 PM
Ads by Google
(and yes, we know that sometimes they're very, very wrong. Other times, they're right on.)
