Skip to main content

View Diary: An ideological realignment driven by demography (130 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Armando gets an F in Poli Sci (0+ / 0-)

    Sides is a political scientist. The Monkey Cage is a political science blog. And "realignment" or "realigning election" has a specific meaning in political science. So Armando does not get to make up what the term means.

    It does not mean transformative president. The two things -- transformative presidencies and realigning elections -- don't have much to do with each other. A president can be ideologically transformative without a realignment, as with Reagan whose election was not a realignment.  Or there can be a realigning election (1994) under a  president (Clinton) who falls short of transformative.

    Armanda may be right about this:

    I would argue that with the 2012 election result, the Democrats have finally captured the upper hand in the electorate with regard to this ideological argument.
    ...but that has nothing to do with whether 2012 is a realigning election.

    Again, realignment means:

    First, there has to be a dramatic and permanent shift in the party coalitions. Second, the shift in coalitions needs to usher in an extended period of party control.  Third, the shift in control needs to bring about a notable shift in policy.
    So where does "enduring shift in terms of ideological debate" fit in that definition? It simply doesn't. It's irrelevant to the question of whether an election is realigning.

    Neither 2008 nor 2012 was a realigning election. If either was, the Democrats would control the House. Maybe demographic change and the Latino vote will eventually produce a realignment, but it hasn't yet.

    So this attack on Sides is baseless and, well, just reprehensible:

    Unlike Edsall, Sides appears to unconsciously suffer from the view held by many in the beltway media that only the ideological views of whites matter.
    Sides, of course, said nothing of the sort. I've been around dKos for awhile, so I'm not particularly surprised to see Armando stoop a smear like this. But it still makes me sick.
    •  You get sick easily (0+ / 0-)

      Sides wrote:

      "Notice a pattern? It’s nothing new.  After presidential elections, commentators—especially those on the winning side—often seem to believe that Something Big Is Happening.  It’s not just that the winner won and the loser lost. It’s that the winner won in a transformational way, in a way that will fundamentally reshape politics, in a way that foreshadows one-party dominance." Emphasis mine.

      Sides wrote something EXACTLY of the sort,

      You get an F in reading comprehension.

      But my constitution is strong. I didn't get sick because of it.

      •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

        Right, he said nothing like the racist argument that you fasely attributed to him.

        An election in which the Republicans held the House for something like eight of the last ten elections, and the partisan balance in the Senate was almost unchanged, is not  a harbinger of one party dominance. That should be obvious.

        And saying that implies nothing about whose ideology matters.
        .

        •  I'm not as judgmental as you (0+ / 0-)

          Most people unconsciously discount ideological views of nonwhites.

          I am certain that the word "unconsciously" has a meaning. You can look it up.

          As for whether an ideological shit is underway, I think so and if you believe the demographic argument I present, then it seems undeniable to me.

          Of course, you can ignore that Mike Dukakis got the same percentages of the various slices of the electorate that Obama got (except of course with regard ti African Americans), and not that Obama won by 3 and half and Dukakis lost by 8.

          If that means nothing to a commenter like Sides, then political science might not  by what he is engaged in.

          •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

            Unconscious racism is racism. And accusing someone of thinking, unconsciously or not, that whether one's ideology matters is a function of their ethnicity or skin color is calling them a racist. And doing that when nothing they've said or done provides any basis for the accusation is despicable.

            As for whether ideological and/or demographic shifts are underway, none of that is relevant to the question of whether 2008 or 2012 were realigning election. 2008 was not: realignments last more than 2 years, so 2010 proved that it wasn't. 2012 was not: The Democrats didn't regain the House, and didn't see any dramatic increases in the Presidential or Senate national popular votes, so it wasn't.

            If the ideological and demographic ground is shifting in ways that you and I both hope to see (and we both think it is, though we may disagree on magnitude and speed) then that has implications for whether 2014 will be a realigning election (probably not) or maybe 2016 or 2020. But 2012 was not, and calling John Sides names doesn't change that.

            •   Meh (0+ / 0-)

              Our society is racist.

              •  Yes it is (0+ / 0-)

                but calling specific individuals racist without any basis is offensive.

                •  Denying the basics is wrong (0+ / 0-)

                  If Dems had won by shifting white working class voters, Sides would not have ignored the ideological implications.

                  I won't be bullied into not recognizing this this by you.

                  Go sell that crap somewhere else.
                   

                  •  The only one denying anything here (0+ / 0-)

                    is you.

                    So stop whining about supposed bullying when you're the one calling people names without justification.

                    You've made it very clear that you don't understand Sides's post. But that's no excuse for insinuating that he's a racist. Your attacks say nothing about him. But they say a lot about your character.

                    •  Sides swims in the same society as everyone else (0+ / 0-)

                      is the point I made. It is valid.

                      You call that "calling people names."

                      Go sell that somewhere else.

                      Do not try and bully me, or anyone else, from recognizing the racial nature of our society.

                      That says a lot about YOUR character.

                      •  OK, I'll keep feeding you rope (0+ / 0-)

                        as long as you want to keep embarrassing yourself.

                        I'm bullying you? Seriously? Grow up. Nowhere in this thread have I said anything that could remotely be characterized as bullying. I've simply pointed out that you've misunderstood the concept of alignment and your attacks on Sides are baseless and outrageous. You, on the other hand, are calling people racist simply for disagreeing with you. That, I suppose, could be characterized as verbal bullying.

                        If you're going to make harsh and unfair attacks on people, expect to get called on it. And don't whine and cry like a baby when you are. It's pathetic. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. If you can't take the "heat" when someone calls you out, get off the front page of dKos.

                        As for my supposedly trying to "bully" you into not recognizing societal racism, you might want to scroll up a few posts to where you wrote "Our society is racist," and I (apparently in an attempt to bully you into denying it) wrote "Yes it is." See how I bully people into denying things by...agreeing with them! About those things!

                        Care to dig yourself any deeper?

                        •  So you just levelled a character attack (0+ / 0-)

                          on everyone, except of course, John Sides, according to you.

                          What makes John Sides especially invulnerable to this societal racism exactly?

                          What's funny of course is you think you are digging me a hole.

                          Instead, you hysterical defense of Sides is revealed to be just that, irrationally hysterical.

                          FTR, no one called Sides a racist. Instead what was pointed out is that Sides suffers from the common malady of not considering the significance of the ideological views of people of color.

                          For some reason, that statement, I think undeniable to anyone  not desperate to deny it, set you off to unimaginable levels of outrage.

                          It made you sick, you wrote.

                          You think I am the one digging holes here?

                          You have some holes all right - in your head.

                          •  Bored now (0+ / 0-)

                            You're no longer even trying to make sense.

                            Character is an individual trait. So observing that society is racist says nothing at all about any individual, and therefore attacks no one's character.

                            Your claim that Sides neglects "the significance of ideological views of people of color" is false, and -- given that I have now explained to you repeatedly why it is false -- willfully ignorant on your part. One last time: Sides did not address ideology because ideology -- of anyone, regardless of color -- is not relevant to the question of whether 2012 was a realigning election. It clearly wasn't, and anyone (looking at you) who thinks otherwise, doesn't understand the definition of realignment, can't read election returns, or has Karl-Rove-on-election-night-level delusions about the results.

                            Your stubborn attempts to claim that Sides thinks that only white people's views matter are offensive -- whether you want to admit that's tantamount to an accusation of racism or not -- because they are so obviously without basis.

                            At this point, it's clear that you are either incapable of understanding these points, or simply too prideful to admit your error.  So you're going to keeping digging a deeper hole until you come out on the other side of the planet. I have no wish to follow you through the molten core.

                            Bye.

    •  While I think this may not have been Armando's (0+ / 0-)

      best or most carefully written piece, that was an unusually, and probably unfairly, fierce rebuttal.

      Please take a breath before you post a rebuttal, and take two if it's a rebuttal to someone you didn't like even before the post.  It's better for everyone.

      “In the Soviet Union, capitalism triumphed over communism. In this country, capitalism triumphed over democracy.” - Fran Lebowitz

      by Aramis Wyler on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 09:26:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (137)
  • Community (59)
  • Elections (39)
  • Civil Rights (36)
  • Culture (32)
  • 2016 (32)
  • Law (27)
  • Economy (26)
  • Texas (26)
  • Baltimore (26)
  • Environment (26)
  • Bernie Sanders (23)
  • Labor (23)
  • Hillary Clinton (22)
  • Republicans (18)
  • Health Care (18)
  • Barack Obama (17)
  • International (17)
  • Rescued (17)
  • Freddie Gray (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site