Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums4 things we learned from the Virginia election that we already knew
Virginia has elected Republican Glenn Youngkin to be its next governor, challenging the state's emerging reputation as a reliably Democratic electorate. The governor's race in New Jersey is too close to call at the time of this writing, and some of these ideas apply there, too. But, fairly or not, the Virginia race was highly nationalized and drew a great deal of national attention - including the inevitable rounds of lessons and interpretations of the election results.
1. Racism is a thing
Its a depressing reality and certainly one I would have hoped were no longer true. But political strategies that rely on a wide range of racial animosities and fears are hardly new. Linking racial backlash to anxieties about education and school children is a very old tactic. (Here's some reading to get started) One lesson of the 1960s and 1970s is that racially progressive attitudes often fade when faced with issues that come close to home. These kinds of political attacks are also often mixed with gender-related and sexual fears, and the politics of the 21st century offer no shortage of opportunities to deploy the politics of fear in this area.
I genuinely dont know what to do about this. Its a very ugly reality. But commentators and analysts could devote more time thinking about solutions if we stopped acting so surprised that it still happens.
2. Republicans are still competitive post-Trump
Of all the things we knew, we perhaps knew this one most of all. Trump performed quite well in the 2020 election for a president serving during a disastrous economy and pandemic. Republicans picked up seats in the House and kept Senate seats they might have lost. Even in the 2018 elections, widely considered a blue wave, Republicans picked up Senate seats (in expected places) - North Dakota, Indiana, Missouri.
Youngkin provides useful clues about what a post-Trump GOP might look like, at least in purple areas, clinging to some Trump talking points and ideas (see item 1) while distancing himself from some of the former presidents norm-breaking rhetoric and political antics.
For Democratic strategists, this may prove to be useful information. But its not especially new information. Trump himself won in 2016 with this combination of racially conservative appeals and ambiguity on other questions, and promises to improve the economy. His lack of, shall we say, political discipline has always been an advantage with some voters and a liability with others, but his basic formula was a combination of novelty and promises, traditional Republican fare, and Trumpist nationalism, with enough blurriness that people could see what they wanted to see.
3. Democrats have a complicated identity and coalition
Maintaining a multi-racial coalition in a racially divided country is hard. Maintaining a coalition across class lines, in which some voters want to see structural change and others crave normalcy is also hard. The Democrats have had particularly vocal fights over long-standing party leaders like McAuliffe (and Biden) and a wide range of perspectives auditioning to be the future of the party, with different visions of policy, ideology, and demographic representation. One implication is that nationalized contests are probably trickier for Democrats than for Republicans. There are no easy answers or winning formulas that work everywhere.
4. Thermostatic politics
This is probably the biggest one - the party that holds the White House (and in this case both chambers in Congress as well) is vulnerable and likely to lose seats.
Given this regular occurrence, why the focus on finding lessons and explanations? In some sense, it seems like commentators are eager for any sign that politics is about to change, that this election will shake up the dimensions of American politics that are at once dull and erratic, fractious and predictable. This one will be the realignment, the 1860, the 1932, the earthquake, the big shift, the contest that ends the stalemate and reflects the depths of the real crisis were in.
This sort of goes back to the thermostatic voting idea, which is an important concept but perhaps one were not curious enough about. Political observers have accepted this as a regular feature of political behavior in our context, even as that context has dramatically changed. One reason, perhaps, that this has persisted through a period of dramatic polarization is that while the party in power changes, very little else does. Policies are passed, or not, and the basic problems of healthcare and economic inequality and the environment remain. Thermostatic politics is the most recent expression of how unresponsive American politics can be.
Maybe these assessments are right, and maybe theyre not. But if we have to over-analyze a single states outcome for lessons, we should look for reasons and not narratives. Its true that Biden is unpopular right now, and that has electoral implications. Hes unpopular because - in spite or because of administration efforts - everything sucks for a lot of people. Electing a Republican governor in Virginia is unlikely to fix the problem, obviously. Instead of trying to relearn what we already know, maybe its time to start thinking about why were stuck in these patterns, and what could create real change.
1. Racism is a thing
Its a depressing reality and certainly one I would have hoped were no longer true. But political strategies that rely on a wide range of racial animosities and fears are hardly new. Linking racial backlash to anxieties about education and school children is a very old tactic. (Here's some reading to get started) One lesson of the 1960s and 1970s is that racially progressive attitudes often fade when faced with issues that come close to home. These kinds of political attacks are also often mixed with gender-related and sexual fears, and the politics of the 21st century offer no shortage of opportunities to deploy the politics of fear in this area.
I genuinely dont know what to do about this. Its a very ugly reality. But commentators and analysts could devote more time thinking about solutions if we stopped acting so surprised that it still happens.
2. Republicans are still competitive post-Trump
Of all the things we knew, we perhaps knew this one most of all. Trump performed quite well in the 2020 election for a president serving during a disastrous economy and pandemic. Republicans picked up seats in the House and kept Senate seats they might have lost. Even in the 2018 elections, widely considered a blue wave, Republicans picked up Senate seats (in expected places) - North Dakota, Indiana, Missouri.
Youngkin provides useful clues about what a post-Trump GOP might look like, at least in purple areas, clinging to some Trump talking points and ideas (see item 1) while distancing himself from some of the former presidents norm-breaking rhetoric and political antics.
For Democratic strategists, this may prove to be useful information. But its not especially new information. Trump himself won in 2016 with this combination of racially conservative appeals and ambiguity on other questions, and promises to improve the economy. His lack of, shall we say, political discipline has always been an advantage with some voters and a liability with others, but his basic formula was a combination of novelty and promises, traditional Republican fare, and Trumpist nationalism, with enough blurriness that people could see what they wanted to see.
3. Democrats have a complicated identity and coalition
Maintaining a multi-racial coalition in a racially divided country is hard. Maintaining a coalition across class lines, in which some voters want to see structural change and others crave normalcy is also hard. The Democrats have had particularly vocal fights over long-standing party leaders like McAuliffe (and Biden) and a wide range of perspectives auditioning to be the future of the party, with different visions of policy, ideology, and demographic representation. One implication is that nationalized contests are probably trickier for Democrats than for Republicans. There are no easy answers or winning formulas that work everywhere.
4. Thermostatic politics
This is probably the biggest one - the party that holds the White House (and in this case both chambers in Congress as well) is vulnerable and likely to lose seats.
Given this regular occurrence, why the focus on finding lessons and explanations? In some sense, it seems like commentators are eager for any sign that politics is about to change, that this election will shake up the dimensions of American politics that are at once dull and erratic, fractious and predictable. This one will be the realignment, the 1860, the 1932, the earthquake, the big shift, the contest that ends the stalemate and reflects the depths of the real crisis were in.
This sort of goes back to the thermostatic voting idea, which is an important concept but perhaps one were not curious enough about. Political observers have accepted this as a regular feature of political behavior in our context, even as that context has dramatically changed. One reason, perhaps, that this has persisted through a period of dramatic polarization is that while the party in power changes, very little else does. Policies are passed, or not, and the basic problems of healthcare and economic inequality and the environment remain. Thermostatic politics is the most recent expression of how unresponsive American politics can be.
Maybe these assessments are right, and maybe theyre not. But if we have to over-analyze a single states outcome for lessons, we should look for reasons and not narratives. Its true that Biden is unpopular right now, and that has electoral implications. Hes unpopular because - in spite or because of administration efforts - everything sucks for a lot of people. Electing a Republican governor in Virginia is unlikely to fix the problem, obviously. Instead of trying to relearn what we already know, maybe its time to start thinking about why were stuck in these patterns, and what could create real change.
https://www.mischiefsoffaction.com/post/4-things-we-learned-from-the-virginia-election-that-we-already-knew
Good points worth remembering.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
5 replies, 1146 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (10)
ReplyReply to this post
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
4 things we learned from the Virginia election that we already knew (Original Post)
bluewater
Nov 2021
OP
Bev54
(10,045 posts)1. Republicans will lie about anything and everything
The dems must find a way through that and effectively calling out the lies in a straightforward simple way.
GoodRaisin
(8,922 posts)3. And do. They sold Virginia voters another
bucket of shit yesterday.
It appears to me they have more mouthpieces in the media than we do.
empedocles
(15,751 posts)4. All Dems needed to support what Biden & Pelosi asked for.