republicans

These guys, again?

~ ianrandalstrock ~ Leave a comment

I’ve been rewatching The West Wing (and dreaming of politicians we can all admire), while also remarking on the pure fantasy of it all. We hear opinion polls all the time: the party in power is supported or opposed, the person in office has favorables and unfavorables, and so forth. But the point of it all—regardless of the polls, regardless of the people—is that the American electorate, by and large, is never happy with the party in the White House.

Specifically, we have buyer’s remorse, and almost always have. For evidence, I point to the number of times we’ve elected a new president who is a member of the same party as the outgoing president. That number is small.

From 1800 to 1828, we had four straight presidents who were members of the Democrat-Republican party, but there really wasn’t much of an opposition party at that time. Indeed, the election of 1820 had only one candidate: sitting president James Monroe was re-elected with more than 78% of the popular vote and 231 of the 232 electoral votes cast (the Federalist party, with no named candidate, got 19% of the popular vote). Thomas Jefferson was elected in 1800 and 1804, James Madison in 1808 and 1812, Monroe in 1816 and 1820, and John Quincy Adams in 1824.

In the election of 1836, Democrat Andrew Jackson was retiring after two terms, and his second vice president, his chosen successor, Martin Van Buren, won the election, holding the White House for the Democrats.

The next time that happened was in 1856, when Democrat Franklin Pierce lost his bid to be nominated for a second term, but the Democrat who won the nomination, James Buchanan, won the presidency as well.

The election of 1876 was very close. As Republican Ulysses Grant was retiring after two terms, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes was in a very close race with Democrat Samuel J. Tilden. Indeed, Tilden won the popular vote, but the Electoral Commission awarded enough of the disputed electoral votes to give Hayes the electoral college, 185 to 184. In 1880, Hayes kept his pledge and did not run for a second term. Instead, Republican James A. Garfield won the election to succeed him (and was assassinated six months into his term of office).

Republican William McKinley was elected in 1896. His first vice president, Garrett Hobart, died in 1899, and in the election of 1900, McKinley was re-elected with vice president Theodore Roosevelt. McKinley was assassinated in late 1901, and Roosevelt succeeded. Roosevelt then won his own term as president in 1904. In 1908, Roosevelt stepped aside, and his chosen successor, Republican William Howard Taft was elected. In 1912, Roosevelt would split from Taft, run against him, and give the election to Democrat Woodrow Wilson.

In 1920, Republican Warren Harding was elected. He died in 1923, elevating Vice President Calvin Coolidge to the presidency. Coolidge won his own term in 1924, and chose not to run for another term in 1928, so Republican Herbert Hoover was elected to succeed him.

In 1988, after two terms of wide support, Ronald Reagan was forced to retire from the presidency under the terms of the 22nd Amendment, and his vice president, George H.W. Bush, was elected to succeed him.

To sum up, we’ve chosen a person of the same political party to succeed a departing president only in 1808, 1816, 1824, 1836, 1876, 1880, 1908, 1928, and 1988. Nine times. That’s it. (That is also ignoring Vice Presidents John Tyler and Chester Arthur [who weren’t elected to their own terms] and Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson [who were], who first succeeded to the office upon the deaths of their predecessors).

We chose to change parties in the elections of 1800, 1828, 1840, 1844, 1848, 1852, 1860, 1868 (Abraham Lincoln’s second vice president, Andrew Johnson, was not a member of his Republican party), 1884, 1888, 1892, 1896, 1912, 1920, 1932, 1952, 1960, 1968, 1976, 1980, 1992, 2000, 2008, 2016, 2020, and 2024.

I’m not predicting anything for 2028; you can draw your own conclusions.…

Don’t like Congress? Your opinion doesn’t matter.

~ ianrandalstrock ~ Leave a comment

RealClear Polling doesn’t show a Congressional approval rating above 40% in the last 15 years. In the short term, Ballotopedia agrees. Gallup has Congress’s job approval rating in the teens.

In other words, everywhere we look, nobody likes what Congress is doing or how they’re doing their jobs. Every news story using those numbers predicts a massive change in Congress at the midterm election, shifting control to the Democratic party, and watchers hope they’re right.

But what none of those polls and none of those pundits are doing is looking at four hundred and thirty-five individual campaigns for four hundred and thirty-five individual seats in the House of Representatives.

And that’s why I think a lot of people looking forward to that massive change are going to be very disappointed next January 3, when the 120th Congress is seated. It’s very difficult to do legitimate polling on such a granular level, but the way our government is put together, combining the results of such tiny polling samples is the only way to get a legitimate estimation of what is going to happen. Because while the sentiments of 55%, or 60%, or 70% of the voting public in the US may be with the Democrats, that doesn’t matter. What matters is which candidate gets the greater number of votes in the California 41st, and the Texas 32nd, and the Florida 9th, and the New York 15th, and on and on and on. Each district, by itself, in an election of several hundred thousand people, upon which the opinions of 99.8% of the population matters not one whit.

Congressional approval ratings are always low. People never like what Congress—as a whole—is doing, or its direction. If that were the only thing that mattered, we’d see a tidal wave of electoral defeats among Representatives every two years. But we don’t. We don’t see that tidal wave, and we won’t as long as we have a body made up of representatives by geography who have chosen the boundary lines of their own districts in order to guarantee their re-election. And we, the voters, always vote to re-elect our own Congressional representatives.

As Ballotopedia told us, in the election of 2024, fifteen Representatives running for re-election were defeated in primary or general elections. Further, they say, since 2014 (six elections), a total of 125 House incumbents were defeated: an average of 21 per election (remember, out of 435 seats).

That’s the reason we keep getting the same non-functional Congress we all hate not doing what we want: because we only vote for our own representative. It doesn’t matter what I think of the Speaker—who lives in Louisiana. And it doesn’t matter what I think of the minority leader—who lives in the next district over from mine in Brooklyn. Neither does my opinion of any of the 432 other members of the House matter. I only have a say in who will represent New York’s 9th district. And the two major political parties have done such an excellent job of choosing their voters through political gerrymandering that almost none of the 435 districts have any chance of changing the party of the person who represents them.

A year ago—in April of 2025—Fair Vote said that 81% of the House seats were already decided… for the 2026 election! And this is not surprising or new. It’s been going on for decades.

So when everyone around me expresses optimism for change following the election of 2026, I’m the Eeyore. I’m the one who is not looking forward to the results, because I don’t expect very much, if anything, to change. Unite America claimed that only 69 of the seats were competitive elections in 2024. We’ve seen absolutely no reason to think it will be any different this time around.
https://www.uniteamerica.org/articles/research-brief-why-are-most-congressional-elections-uncompetitive-2

And this is one of those times that I don’t have a solution to propose. We’re stuck. We’ve let the parties gerrymander the country too damn far, and we can’t find a way out of it. So as much as I hate that Congress has abdicated its responsibilities; as much as I hate that Congress—even if its members wanted to—can’t do anything it should; as much as I hate the political gridlock caused by extreme politicians who only campaign in the primaries because they don’t have to compete in a general election… I fear we’re stuck with it all until we can find a way to tear down walls of power that the Democans and Republicrats have built for themselves.

Put simply: we’re screwed.

Democrats keep attacking themselves

~ ianrandalstrock ~ 3 Comments

The Democrats are doing it again: they’re so busy fighting amongst themselves that the Republicans and the Trumpians can just sit back and laugh, knowing they’re going to win because the Democrats are their own worst enemy. How many of them are yelling at Senators Manchin and Sinema to change the filibuster rule in the Senate, instead of yelling at the Republicans and the Trumpians to protect voters’ rights? They’re just wrong. The reason the original filibuster existed—and the current horrible incarnation of it is in place—is to prevent the tyranny of the majority over the minority. Yes, of course, the majority should decide. But if the slimmest of majorities can stomp all over the largest of minorities, that’s not what we want either. And overturning the filibuster now will only result in even unhappier Democrats in the future, because the pendulum continues to swing, and there will be a time when the Democrats are a minority.

Every time there’s a political debate, it’s the same story: the Republicans yell at the Democrats, the Trumpians yell at the Democrats and threaten the Republicans, and the Democrats yell at… other Democrats. Just the latest instance of the gang who couldn’t shoot straight, DC edition. If they ever focus on those who are actually in the wrong on the issue, they might be able to accomplish great things.