Party Assymmetry
Weekend Opinionator looks at Republican infighting but then ends wondering if the same thing is coming to the Democratic Party in the form of MoveOn looking to find primary challengers against Democrats who don’t back health reform.
It should be said, though, that the parallel isn’t quite parallel simply because there’s a difference between an intra-party fight in a majority party and an intra-party fight in a minority party. If you’re looking to build 218 votes in the House of Representatives for progressive legislation, then at this point the bulk of the 218 most promising districts are already going to be in the hands of Democrats. That’s not universally the case. Mike Castle’s Delaware at-large district, for example, could clearly support a progressive Democratic. But in general the kind of Democrat who can win currently GOP-held districts isn’t going to shift the median point in the House to the left.
For Republicans, it’s a different situation. There are lots of districts held by liberal Democrats such that replacing them with a moderate Republican would shift the median point to the right. A “big tent” strategy, in other words, could very much advance conservative goals just as a “big tent” approach did advance progressive goals in 2006 and 2008. But the bigger your caucus gets, the harder it is to make further substantive policy accomplishments with that kind of approach.
17 Responses to “Party Assymmetry”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 8th, 2009 at 8:41 am
Assy-metry, eh?
November 8th, 2009 at 8:48 am
Mike Castle’s Delaware at-large district, for example, could clearly support a progressive Democratic.
Sadly, that party doesn’t exist, so we’re stuck with the Democrat.
But in general the kind of Democrat who can win currently GOP-held districts isn’t going to shift the median point in the House to the left.
No, but having actual Democrats (of any stripe post-1960, and post-1930 non-Dixicrat) in the districts you do hold wouldn’t hurt.
But the bigger your caucus gets, the harder it is to make further substantive policy accomplishments with that kind of approach.
So you do the best you can for the little people, if you’re in the good party.
max
['And then, there's the party we actually have.']
November 8th, 2009 at 8:48 am
Assy-metry, eh?
“Assymetry” is, I believe, the science of measuring asses. Which is exactly the right word to use in a blog post analyzing the U.S. Congress.
November 8th, 2009 at 8:52 am
I really don’t get Mike Castle’s votes on stimulus and healthcare reform. He’s a genuine moderate. Perhaps he’ll switch on the final legislation; but if he sticks with his party he’s just handed Beau Biden a powerful campaign issue to run on.
November 8th, 2009 at 9:08 am
Also, it’s a matter of national party priorities. There’s only so much DCCC money to go around, and cap and trade and HCR have shown that it’s not all that useful to have Blue Dogs in Republican districts. It costs a whole lot of money, but it doesn’t actually get you legislative votes.
When the goal is getting a majority so as to set the agenda, cast your net wide. When you have a safe majority (even in a landslide, we won’t lose control of the House in 2010) the goal needs to be protecting the agenda, not protecting incumbents.
Unfortunately, Rahm’s gonna want to protect his incumbents. After last night, they’re toast. “Now that I’ve fucked up the bill, I’m going to vote against it!”
November 8th, 2009 at 9:16 am
I’ll take 56 senators led by Dick Durbin over 60 led by Harry Reid any day of the week.
November 8th, 2009 at 9:29 am
The calculation Matt leaves out is the number of conserva-dems who represent liberal districts.
Primary bait. The DCCC should have nothing to do with those primary fights.
November 8th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Exactly! That’s the ONLY thing these assholes ever do “for” the party. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
November 8th, 2009 at 10:13 am
The calculation Matt leaves out is the number of conserva-dems who represent liberal districts
Serious question: how many of these are there, though?
MD-4th was the only example of this I can think of recently that actually worked. Probably that congresswoman from California that MattY has posted about wrt her attitude toward Afghanistan may be another one where the representative is more centrist than his/her district. But how many else would you say there are? A half dozen? A few dozen? Half the caucus? (my guess would be a number on the low side)
November 8th, 2009 at 10:23 am
I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but aren’t there a lot more disticts represented by Dems that voted for McCain than districts represented by Republicans that voted for Obama?
November 8th, 2009 at 11:23 am
IIRC there are 52 Democrats in the House who represent districts that voted for BOTH McCain in ‘08 and Bush in ‘04, and 48 of ‘em replaced Republicans in either ‘06 or ‘08.
And I think, other than Cao, the last House Republican to represent a district that voted for a Democrat for President was Chris Shays, who finally lost in ‘08, having been largely back-benched by his own party. (Cao, of course, was the only Republican to vote for health care reform — not insignificant, since it passed by two votes. He might have saved a Democratic seat, but he won’t save his own.)
November 8th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Based on this from CQ Politics, it looks like Obama won 34 CDs that also elected Republicans to the House, while McCain won 49 CDs that also elected Democrats.
Arguably, without having any data in front of me, those 34 CDs are probably the ones where Obama is the least likely to have remained popular, so going hard after GOP reps there by reminding everyone how they voted in ‘08 may not be a winner.
November 8th, 2009 at 11:26 am
It’s “Asymmetry” with one S, Yglesias. From the prefix a- meaning “not”, plus “symmetry”.
Rules exist for a reason, including the rules of English grammar and orthography.
November 8th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Um, Matt? What moderate Republicans?
Haven’t you noticed that there’s a purge going on? What kind of Republican do you think Scozofazza was?
A semi-sane GOP could murder the Democrats next year.
The Revenge of the Teabaggers, on the other hand, will not.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Even though Howard Dean acts like a lunatic when he’s speaking on his own behalf, he has/had the correct big tent strategy for a democrat majority. Being pure and in the minority is just stupid, in my opinion. Democrats can turn out a majority; progressive can’t.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Even though Howard Dean acts like a lunatic when he’s speaking on his own behalf, he has/had the correct big tent strategy for a democrat majority. Being pure and in the minority is just stupid, in my opinion. Democrats can turn out a majority; progressive can’t.
As long as they continue to tell the former slaveocrats and current unreconstructed racists of the former Confederacy to go fuck themselves, I’m fine with a Democratic Party that isn’t any more pure than Richard J. Daley’s.
November 8th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Dear MoveOn,
If you find someone to run against the Dems who voted “No” on health reform, I’ll contribute accordingly.