feel like looking at the last election that killed a party is instructive if the equivalent of 1852 happened to the dems: -kamala wouldve received only 77 electoral votes -had their house caucuse reduced to 130 -only have 29 senate seats you also wouldn't see them sweeping special elections - ThreadSky

breadnrosie.bsky.social • 40 days ago

feel like looking at the last election that killed a party is instructive

if the equivalent of 1852 happened to the dems:

-kamala wouldve received only 77 electoral votes
-had their house caucuse reduced to 130
-only have 29 senate seats

you also wouldn't see them sweeping special elections

Reposted from the abbot of unreason (an archaeologist)

like if randos with 300 followers are yelling about starting a third party, whatever, but if you're actually a person people listen to, third-party fantasizing *right now* is wildly irresponsible, the democratic party is nowhere near dead enough for that

Comments

breadnrosie.bsky.social•40 days ago

the claim that dems are dead is buying into gop talking points about a landslide

nikeomag.bsky.social•40 days ago

Not coincidentally the last major party destruction and reconstruction. And even then the new party was still mostly just whigs again with an anti-slavery emphasis but still mostly whigs.

breadnrosie.bsky.social•40 days ago

yeah which i think speaks to the fact that if there was a death > birth of a new party it wouldn't be the left wing third party of peoples dreams

ju-ten.bsky.social•9 hours ago

the death of the whigs was greatly exaggerated. It was still the party of WASPs and industrialists. It’s just that they replaced their feckless border state leadership with Yankee antislavers

nikeomag.bsky.social•7 hours ago

It was also a long time coming. Webster lived long enough to see his seat replaced by a straight up abolitionist. That was in 1851 with a Wierd coalition of antislavery whigs democrats and nativists a literal preview. to the republican coalition of the mid 1850s.

johnlk.bsky.social•40 days ago

Also they would have two sectional wings that were literally on opposite sides of the most important issue of the day.

archiecarter.bsky.social•40 days ago

Until it costs more to run as a dem than as an independent, then ain’t nothing changing

It’s not even like the Democratic Party is strong everywhere—look at Nebraska, Alaska

breadnrosie.bsky.social•40 days ago

those are both terrible examples to argue your point, considering how voting patterns in them are changing to the benefit of democrats--particularly alaska

breadnrosie.bsky.social•40 days ago

kamala did better in alaska than biden did in 08

breadnrosie.bsky.social•40 days ago

sorry *obama

saoirsefashion.bsky.social•40 days ago

technically speaking biden also got the votes

archiecarter.bsky.social•40 days ago

How so in Nebraska tho Osborn outran dems? I’ll take your point on Alaska tho I’d note Perolta pitched herself as something distinctly Alaskan instead of generic dem

breadnrosie.bsky.social•40 days ago

there was a 6 pt increase for dems in nebraska 2016->2020 that basically held 2020 -> 2024. you could flip this on its head: osborn was only able to get as many votes as he did, because so many voters moved R to D

breadnrosie.bsky.social•40 days ago

kamala beat obama's 2012 number, but slightly underperformed his 08 vote. but you have to remember thats in a D+7 environment, while hers was R+1. relative to the national environment she did better in nebraska than any dem this century.

breadnrosie.bsky.social•40 days ago

also worth noting this is entirely down to omaha and its suburbs becoming bluer. the mayoral election last night swinging by 20 pts against the gop is illustrative

archiecarter.bsky.social•40 days ago

Meh I think the comparative strength of the performance is less relevant than raw vote totals and Dan Osborn got more votes than Obama ‘08

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply