Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 3 years ago

Poll: Are Republicans the Golden State Warriors of Politics?

The Golden State Warriors are a championship superstar team. They have 4 superstars on the team and the warriors absolutely steam rolled everyone in the NBA this season and easily swept the cavaliers in the NBA finals to win the championship.

Similar to the warriors, the Republicans are a super majority in politics. The president, house, senate, and supreme court, and governors are all controlled by the republican party. 2016 was the first year since 1928 that the president, house, senate, and supreme court were all controlled by one party.

Since there is a republican president, a republican majority house, a republican majority senate, a republican majority supreme court, and a republican majority governors, do you think that the Republican party is the Golden State Warriors of politics?

5 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    3 years ago

    No they're not the Golden State Warriors of politics. It's true that Republicans control all branches of the federal government right now but that control is pretty precarious.

    In the Senate, Republicans have just 51 seats. All they need to do is lose two and they lose control. The only reason that seems unlikely to happen right now is because of the fluke that Democrats will be defending an unusually high number of seats next year. Of course, a win is a win, but their control of the Senate is simply very small and not comparable with, for example, the 59 seats which Democrats had after the 2008 election. In addition to putting them in a precrious electoral position, the small majority means that the Republican controlled Senate is almost completely unable to pass legislation. They can only afford to lose two votes if they want to pass anything (and that's ignoring the filibuster).

    In the House, Republicans have 235 seats, about 17 more than a majority. But Democrats look to be in good stead to retake the House in 2018. The signs all point to greater enthusiasm on the Democratic side and the Republicans have been plagued by a wave of retirements which will probably hurt them in their efforts to retain the House (incumbents usually have an advantage). Democrats are looking at about 25 Republican held seats which were won by Hillary Clinton in 2016 as the starting point for their effort to retake the House. The other thing to keep in mind is that Republicans have retained control of the House since 2010 not because Americans actually consistently like them but rather because of gerrymandering. In 2010, one of the lowest turnout elections in recent history, Republicans made a concerted, and successful, effort to capture state legislatures. They did this so they could control redistricting after the 2010 census. They then proceded to draw boundaries which greatly benefited them and hurt Democrats. The results are most clearly seen in 2012. In that year, buoyed by Obama's reelection, most Americans cast ballots for Democrats to control the House. However, when the dust settled Republicans retained the House. This was because of gerrymandering. In Ohio and Pennsylvania for example, Republicans got a minority of the vote but still retained 3/4ths of the House seats. The problem for Republicans is that the power of this gerrymander may be weakening. We're eight years on from when it was done and populations have changed. Gerrymanders also work by reducing the margin of victory in your side's districts (in order to spread your voters among a wide number of districts). The problem is that in wave elections this can lead to a wipe out. Finally, some of the gerrymandering has been undone. In Pennsylvania, for example, the state supreme court has found the gerrymander unconstitutional and has drawn maps which are much more friendly to the Democrats. The Democrats need to pick up about 20 seats to retake the House and it's believed that they will get 2-3 seats just based off of this new map in Pennsylvania. The bottom line of all this is that Republicans aren't very secure in the House either and their power there is less due to their electoral dominance and more to do with flukes and beneficial rules.

    Finally, we come to Trump. A lot of Trump supporters really misunderstand Trump's victory. What you've got to remember is that he lost the popular vote. He failed at the one thing which political campaigns are supposed to do: get the most votes. Yes, he won the electoral college but there's two relevant points here. First, he only won the states which put him over the top by incredibly slim margins. In Michigan he won by less than 0.25%. If anything had broken against Trump he would have lost those states, and the election. Second, Trump was only able to accomplish this razor thin victory running against Hillary Clinton, who was the least popular Democrat ever nominated. And he was only able to do it against Clinton because James Comey announced that he was reopening the investigation into her emails at the very end of the campaign. Without that announcement Trump would have lost. So while Trumps victory was very surprising it wasn't very strong. In fact it was really really weak. Far from demonstrating that he's a skilled politician or that the American people love him it demonstrated that he was lucky. His can't really count on the same thing happening in 2020. And if we look at Republicans things look even less like the warriors. Rather than being some dominant force they seem incredibly weak. 2016 marks the sixth time in seven elections that Republicans have lost the popular vote. You have to go all the way back to 1980 to find a Republican who won the popular vote without being a sitting president or vice president. That's really really bad, and it's going in the wrong direction. In 2000, George W Bush barely lost the popular vote to Al Gore. Trump lost it by almost three percentage points. He actually got less of the vote than any losing candidate since Bob Dole. What we see here is not that people love Republicans and want to vote for them, thus ensuring Republican dominance. Instead we see the opposite. People don't like Republican presidential candidates. Since 1988 the only time they have gotten into office was through flukes. Of course, Republicans should take the win, but it doesn't indicate that they are a domineering political force.

    To extend this metaphor further, the GOP seems really bereft of all star talent. You've got Trump as president but he's not really an all star, for the reasons I already mentioned. Other than Trump, who is there? There used to be a raft of potential stars but they've all been damaged one way or the other by Trump. Is anyone going to want to vote for Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio for president again? The furute of the GOP looks really bad as they continue to double down on the losing culture war politics of Donald Trump at a time when America is becoming more diverse and more in tune with progressive cultural beliefs.

  • 3 years ago

    Maybe the Warriors are the Republicans of the NBA.

  • 3 years ago

    No. The Republican and Democratic parties are both unpopular.

  • 3 years ago

    Not really. POLITICS works on a pendulum.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    3 years ago

    Yes. Boom that just happened.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.