Gerrymandering is a major issue, but it does not explain how someone likes their own representative, while thinking poorly of all the rest, regardless of party. You'd imagine rather the opposite, as part of the point of gerrymandering is to focus efforts - there is little campaigning going on in gerrymandered districts, so folks are not fed so strong a line of how good their congressperson is. Gerrymandering generally results in low voter turnout (because, why bother?), which should lead to very little voter investment in their congressional representation.
So, I don't think gerrymandering explains the data. Basic and common human psychology, "that *mine* is better than average," I think better explains what's seen.
Well, there's probably two other factors I overlooked as well.
First, there's 435 members of the House, so a lot of them are going to be pretty obscure. Not everyone is represented by one of the big names like Boehner or Pelosi, and when they blame both parties, it's probably blame on the leadership. If their rep is a lesser-known member who isn't bloviating regularly on CNN or C-SPAN or something, a voter might figure "He/she's not part of the problem" and blame everyone else. It's nonsense of course, because the Reps usually tend to vote with the rest of the party, if they don't, they don't get leadership positions, they don't get seats on the committees and so on. Party leadership won't pay them much heed if they stray too often. But gerrymandering may play some part here because of partisan loyalties -- when you've got a safe seat, the rep is probably the same party as the majority of active voters, so they're probably going to be inclined to be more forgiving of the rep.
Second, there's pork and earmarks. Technically, they're not the same, but they tend to get lumped together. It's the money that gets things done in Congress, but it's also what bloats the budget, often needlessly (like the infamous Bridge to Nowhere). This is another way legislators get support, they can brag about how they obtained federal funding for the district which gets them support and approval.
You're talking a little longer term than I am, but I don't disagree. I was speaking of the coalition with the Tea Party. But, I might say that the rise of the Tea Party was actually a major step in the break down of the Reagan coalition, as it represents a section of the party that no longer believes the party as a whole represents their desires.
...
And the breakdown of Reagan's coalition is, in turn, really a breakdown of the Southern Strategy on which Reagan's was based.
Yeah, I'm looking back to the late 60's/early 70's to explain the current dynamics, because a lot of it to me has been driven by the Baby Boom's participation in American politics, though they didn't start taking over until they '80s.
I would say the social end of the conservative platform hasn't changed much since the Reagan era, and that's a problem because the world is changing around them.
To some degree, yes. For me it depends on the reasons for the views, traditions, and values conservatives support. I don't support conservative views that originated in protecting the privileges of one class, religion, or race over another, I see that as against basic American ideals to begin with. I don't support views that were important in the past but don't really apply today becuase the views have become obsolete. I do support the sort of values that tend to be timeless, values that society needs to function properly. One of the biggest weaknesses in any conservative movement IMO is the tendancy to romaticize the past and not see the problems.
Well, you noted above - since at least the Reagan Era, the GOP has been *actively courting* the far right. There have been party people helping them organize, whipping them up and telling them that what they want is okay, and that they can make a difference - the image of them being "grass roots" is not actually very accurate, in that sense. The GOP put effort (and a lot of money) into building up the clout of the far right. The Democrats have not done the same with their more radical elements.
I think perhaps that Democrats don't bother because they know far left isn't likely to vote Republican in the general elections. So if they can win without radical support, they'll court the middle instead. That sometimes is a problem for them when the GOP successfully mobilizes and achieves victories.
In essence, the GOP is Dr. Frankenstein. They have created their own monster, and now must deal with it.
Yes, unfortunately. Since the GOP is more likely to side with my views, I don't like seeing them commit political suicide at the behest of the far right. What they need to do is build up real political support from the center, particulalry from minority voters instead of playing gamews with gerrymandering and voter registration. Without building the party base outside the far right, they're not going to get long-term victories.
Gerrymandering is one of those things that both parties do, and I wish we could just get made illegal because it is antidemocratic and generally creates more problems than it solves. There is some whiff that it may yet be struck down, but that movement will probably take decades to get any serious political force behind it. I have to ponder which party will go for it first and hardest, though. While the Democrats would seem to have the most to gain by it, the GOP has truly refined the method to a fine art...but they're also being damaged by it.
Here's what I mean: traditional gerrymandered districts are drawn in such a way as to produce unassailable political advantages. Candidates win with huge margins of victories- often exceeding 30%. That's the way most state Democratic Party majorities playing the game still do things. The past decade or so, though, GOP strategists learned they could gerrymander in such a way as to reduce their margins of victories to lower double digits- safe, but still daunting 15%+ margins- while picking up seats by spreading their voters among other districts enough to get similar victory margins OR make former Democratically-held strongholds into toss-up districts. It has been VERY effective.
...And it is biting the GOP in their collective tuchus right now: a goodly number of the party's far right representatives came from such districts, and not only do they not fear the Democrats, they're also virtually immunized from a need to follow GOP leadership on anything.
That shows the GOP
can be smart, very smart really when they want to, regardless of what liberals think. They know that they don't need landslides to win, just majorities. So by going for smaller margins which are still safe, they can spread their influence in the House out more. But it's probably not just votes in Congress, they may be looking at electoral votes too. Which is another short-sighted problem: during the last century, holding the presidency became more important for them (perhaps one reason they hated Clinton so much). But the president doesn't make the laws, Congress does. So without controlling Congress (and that includes the Senate where they can't make safe seats), they get less influence on the laws that are made. Sure, the president can veto, but that's reactive.
That should never have been a huge issue to begin with.
