MyDD :: Been Here Forever House Democrats

Been Here Forever House Democrats

by Matt Stoller, Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 05:04:22 AM EST

I started to write a comment on Scott Shields's post on Western Democrats, but I found some stats that are pretty remarkable and I think they deserve their own post. My suspicion is that the vitality in the party is coming from the West simply because the people on a state level are fresh. And while I can't back that up, I can show you that Democrats in the House are anything but fresh.

If you look at the number of new Democrats in the House of Representatives, there are 50 since the 2000 election. 13 Democratic freshman entered in 2001, 21 in 2003, and 16 in 2005. That isn't just low, it's historically low. I can't find the last time that either party introduced so few new members to the lower House of Congress over six years, and that includes the Republican Party during the Great Depression.

Since Bush was elected, there isn't just very little new Democratic blood in the House, there is almost no new Democratic blood in the House. More than 75% of the Democratic House was elected before the current President came to power, before the Democratic party became practically if not always functionally an opposition party. This is not just an issue of gerrymandering. The Republicans have done better than we have in absolute terms, of course, but they have also done better against their historical benchmark. They introduced 75 new members in the past three election cycles, which is a low but still relatively mainstream performance for the Republican Party in the 20th century. Democrats from 2000-2006 are off the charts scelorotic.

Even though the Republican majority is incumbent, the Republican Party has more new members in DC than the Democratic Party. In at least this respect, the Republican Party is more 'in touch' with the electorate. And in this respect, too, the Democratic House make-up is extremely status quo.

So if you're wondering why Democrats in the House are so out of touch, it's because they are very used to being in the House, and nearly all were elected assuming they would have some role in governing the country without having to work for it. If the party is to change, we'll need new people in Congress. Lots of them. As Scott says, Democratic energy will need to come from outside of DC, from the West, where Democrats are fresher, hungrier, and seeking to wield power instead of having it conferred upon them.

UPDATE: Ok, I think I overstated my conclusions a bit. I do that sometimes. First of all, Democrats in the House were not in the majority from 1994 onward, but having Clinton in the WH made a huge difference and made them relevant. They were not in the majority of the House, but they were part of the governing coalition. Second, it's not clear to me that having more new members implies anything in particular.

Tags: House 2006 (all tags)

Permalink :: 23 Comments :: Post a Comment

No Difference (none / 0)

I don't believe there is a difference, in issues that matter to them, between people in the western states and the rural areas of the eastern states. But I wonder if the leaders of the state parties in the east aren't dominated by the urban crowd and therefore only get behind candidates that reflect their views, i.e gun control, abortion rights, etc.

Memo to neocons: I respect your right to have an opinion, but I just don't want to hear it anymore.

by blogus on Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 08:51:40 AM EST

Re: No Difference (none / 0)

I would put money on the view that their approach is based on the statistical probability that a group of people that voted democrat in the last four years would continue to vote democrat.

Both parties make this error all the time. The internet and the availability of extremely finely detailed, extremely unbiased news makes the entire set up very, very suspect IMHO that this would be the case. I would simply refer you to all the republicans that are going to change party this next election, 06. They weren't under the banner of the old GOP to begin with, just like the idea that the dems are going to be working with their base.

In fact, both parties try to sell each other ideas on what their base really is - but they both tend to fall into empty rhetoric when it comes to actual reforms. I don't know how many times I've heard speeches that I just knew were written by someone who took a statistical report, sat down, figured out what would make the most number of voters turn towards a vote just for election - and not for the issue - and then have that candidate promptly proceed to connect him or her self with the paid lobbyist special interest groups ensconced in washington that helped him to fund and finance that approach in his or her election. There are so many of these people in both parties that the representatives end up working for the middlemen and the base is just going to move radically away. The GOP was so worried about it they had to start their own fake news station to keep the less intelligent voters in line, one that substitutes news media entertainment for news.

The litmus test in what you're looking at is this: if it can be run 24/7 in the background all day long, its not going to help.

The slogans and neat meaty epithets they come up with regarding their "Views" should be subject to that test - is it formulated to resonate in your subconscious? A form of a song? Or is it a view, of that man, that you would cast that vote for..

If it is, its likely that it can be dated, and it may even be... dare we say it .... impossible to hum to yourself while you are cooking breakfast..

Was that a Dean Scream I heard from Iraq, today - that said "human rights abuses are as bad, if not worse, now, than they were under saddam hussein" from the ex-iraq PM? Was it a scream from a torture chamber? Was it an American torture chamber?

We have people in the highest levels of government trying to authorize torture and detainment of the citizenry. I think about that every day.

In sum, you are correct. But who exactly is dominating the parties - is not as important as the implicit acceptance by both sides, that, after they are elected a new group of people will take over to steer them where the corporations think that they should go. Because, where we're going is in the wrong direction and under the current administration, its still going in that direction - and clearly we don't have anyone standing up and questioning those that are pushing us in the wrong direction. Its only a well defined, very public and very personal attack on one man. The rest of them are getting out of jail, free...

by turnerbroadcasting on Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 09:21:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Difference (none / 0)

There is absolutely a difference in what issues are important in different regions, but more importantly, there is a huge difference in the party structures of the Western states. They are largely new parties, with fewer stakeholders.

by Matt Stoller on Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 12:21:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Difference (none / 0)

Matt...Certainly there are differences in regional issues, such as water rights and land use being of higher importance in the west vs. the east. Some issues, like farming, tend to be of higher importance to rural areas (regarless of region) than to urban areas. But what I consider to be core issues, such as separation of government and church (hence abortion, stem cell research, etc.), taxes, et. al. are nationwide.

Memo to neocons: I respect your right to have an opinion, but I just don't want to hear it anymore.

by blogus on Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 03:51:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Newness means more "In Touch?" (3.00 / 1)

I can't swallow that one whole. There is no doubt that demcrats have been SLOW to accept that they are in the minority - but that does not mean that they are not "in touch" with their constituents.

Which is not to say that freash blood in the party is a bad thing. I like to see incumbents lose in primaries to more interesting, less "bought" candiates on my side. But for that to happen, we need to make incumbents fight harder for their seats in a way that doesn't just require more money and doesn't make both candiates vunerable to the opposition.

For that reason, I support the idea ofan entirely party regulated (and paid for) primary process that does not take place in the advertinsg world of TV, Radio and Newprint, but happens somehow intelligently, fairly and privately among as many registered democrats from a district (or state) as posible.

by David in Burbank on Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 10:24:31 AM EST

Re: Newness means more 'In Touch' (3.00 / 1)

I have four bills that demonstrate that old Democrats are out of touch:

Bankruptcy

Class Action Lawsuit restrictions

CAFTA

All three of those abominable bills passed with help from Democrats who I would bet a dime to a dollar were "old Democrats."

I would also bet a dime to a dollar that there was not a tremendous outcry in any of their districts to pass those three bills from their Democratic base. Those bills all passed because old Democrats were willing to sell out their constituents in exchange for campaign contributions from corporate scumbags.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 05:29:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This MAY Be True In The Aggregate, But... (3.00 / 1)

(1) I have yet to be convinced. You write, "So if you're wondering why Democrats in the House are so out of touch, it's because they are very used to being in the House, and nearly all were elected assuming they would have some role in governing the country without having to work for it."

This is sheer conjecture on your part. I would argue that since 1995, it's been very evident that House Democrats would have to fight tooth and nail to have an impact.

(2) By your logic, the Republicans should be more in touch, since they have half again as many new members. But the polls say people are far more supportive of Congressional Dems than Congressional Reps.

(3) One reason Democrats leave less than Republicans do is that Democrats actually believe in governing, and it takes time to get good at it. Republicans leaving Congress to get lucrative lobbying jobs, or jobs in industries they formerly had oversight over are acting fully in harmony with their political philosophy--such as it is. It's only natural that more of them should move on more quickly to greener pastures.

(4) Even if true, there are some obvious obvious counter-examples. Such as people like John Conyers and Henry Waxman, who are pushing the limits of what they can do in opposition in minority status. They aren't the only ones, they're just two of the higher-profile examples. There's Dennis Kucinich, who managed to get Mr. Freedom Fries [Walter Jones (R-NC)] as a co-sponsor for his Iraq withdrawal resolution. Being an old hand does not automatically turn you into a bump on a log.

We need new blood in the House because we need to win a realigning election. This means winning a lot of new seats. That's reason enough to want new Democratic blood in the House.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 10:50:52 AM EST

Re: This MAY Be True In The Aggregate, But... (none / 0)

Just an fyi, I never asserted any of the four things you're ascribing to me. I largely agree with you, except for (3). I don't see evidence that Republicans leave more often.

by Matt Stoller on Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 12:19:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Then I'm Confused! (3.00 / 1)

The one thing I'm not confused about is #3. Here's
a simple equation:
Relatively stable # of seats held by both parties
-More new Republicans by 50%
=============
More Republicans leaving.

As for the rest, my first point involved a direct quotation. My second point -- we agree the Reps are more out of touch. Question is -- are the Dems? Sure, to some extent. But are the new Dems better? That's a whole 'nother argument, one you have yet to make. Which brings me to #4, which shows why the argument needs to be made, and what sort of counter-evidence it's up against.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 09:29:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe we're the grand OLD party (3.00 / 1)

In my state, Maryland, there are four democrats who hold statewide elected office--two U.S Senators, the state Comptroller, and Attorney General. The YOUNGEST of these is 69 year old Barbara Mikulski, who was re-elected to the Senate in 2004.

Meanwhile, there is a backlog of qualified, talented people holding lower offices around the state who have had nowhere to go for years.

Two younger democrats will be vying for the governor's office. Everyone else must either sit on the sidelines and wait, or challenge a party leader. Only one of the younger, vibrant and progressive Democrats waiting in line is braving a primary challenge (State Delegate Peter Franchot will be challenging the 83 year old Comptroller). And several others are sitting on the sidelines, waiting for 74 year old AG Joe Curran to retire.

Many of these old Democrats are deservedly popular. But I think at some point that they aren't doing the party any good.

by Steve Hill on Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 11:50:15 AM EST

CURREN MAY RETIRE (3.00 / 1)

curren is o`malley`s father in law so if he gets elected governor there would probably be a conflict.schaeffer will be in office till he dies
just like the last comptroller who was in his late 80`s when he died in office after about 40 years!

by JOEL1954 on Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 02:34:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The split (3.00 / 1)

Democrats who were in the House when they last held the Majority (1994): 90
Democrats who were in the House from 1995 until now: 110

I'm pretty sure I passed over somebody.

So, having mentioned that, can anybody name a Senior Democrat who has a seat which would be better off with a younger Democrat?

by RBH on Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 01:15:53 PM EST

Re: The split (none / 0)

Thanks, what's your source for that data?

by Matt Stoller on Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 02:39:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The split (none / 0)

I went though a listing and counted. Although I left out somebody by accident, or miscounted a little bit (since we have 202 Dems and all)

by RBH on Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 02:42:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The split (none / 0)

What listing? I looked for a few hours and couldn't find an easy one to use. Thanks for the help.

by Matt Stoller on Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 02:44:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The split (none / 0)

I went though the listing on the Almanac of American Politics site (which is subscription only)

but the split is pretty simple

If you served in the 103rd Congress or any Congresses before that, you're on one list

If you're not on the first list, you're on the second list.

by RBH on Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 07:10:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Seats better off with a younger Democrat (3.00 / 1)

Biden, Lieberman, Feinstein, Dodd, Schumer and let's just throw in every DLC Democrat to make things easier.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 05:32:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The House Dems Have Not Been Relevant Since 1994 (3.00 / 1)

You have to understand House Rules to understand why the House Dems have not been relevant since 1994. The House is run on the rule of 218 which is the bare number needed to pass something assuming all 435 vote. Since the Repubs took power in 1994, the Dems have basically been irrelevant in the House because on virtually all major issues b/c the Repubs have had the votes necessary to pass legislation. Even in the Clinton years, most of the negotiations took place b/w the Repub leadership and the White House with little input from the Dem leadership.

This is very different from the Senate where the threat of a fillibuster forces input from the minority party. However, having the majority in both Houses is important b/c it lets you set the agenda. It is important to remember that when the left is demanding ideological purity from the Ben Nelson's of the world. He puts us one seat closer to setting the agenda and the importance of that cannot be overstated.

I think new blood is important but it is also important to hold every seat we can so the Dems can be a majority party. A number of people mentioned some old war horses like John Conyers and Henry Waxman are some of the Dem party's best advocates. I have never been a fan of term limits. To me it isn't how long you have been there, it is how effective you are.

by John Mills on Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 04:35:59 PM EST

The DCCC and the DLC (none / 0)

I've been googling for information and giving some thought to why the DCCC does such a poor job of supporting new Democrats.

Is there any way to get numbers for the percentage of DCCC dollars went to DLC incumbants and how much went to Democratic challengers?

In other words, is the DCCC consciously funneling massive amounts of money into expensive campaign commercials for "old Democrat" incumbants at the expense of new Democratic challengers?

It might explain the difficulty the DCCC has in recruiting a challenger for every district if they do not offer any financial assistance in getting a campaign up and running. I suspect that if they were offering $50,000 in seed money to qualified Democratic challengers they would be having better luck recruiting.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 05:36:33 PM EST

Re: The DCCC and the DLC (none / 0)

The DCCC funnels money into incumbents they deam marginal -- generally defined by party registration and electoral performance. They also spend large amounts of money in open seats they think are winnable. The Repubs do the same thing.

In a perfect world it would be great to give $50K to every challenger (not even the Repubs do this) but resources are finite and a lot of this money would be wasted in completely unwinnable seats. Imagine giving $50K to a challenger in a deep red district where the incumbent is not scandal tarred and won with 80% of the vote. That money could be used to help another candidate in a marginal district.

There is nothing wrong with targeting money at winnable seats but the DCCC needs to do a better job of identifying these seats. Their track record the last few cycles has been horrible.

Also, we cannot expect the DCCC to identify challengers in every district. The local parties must help with this since many times the local parties develop the candidates and receive DCCC money after they have proven their strength as a candidate.

by John Mills on Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 06:09:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

GOPAC (none / 0)

A question that comes out of where I think your thinking is going -- How many of the Republicans elected in the late 80's and into the 90's, especially 94, can credit their election to Gingrich's GOPAC, their money, and his tapes on tactics? He was sending out those tapes for some time, and created a generation of disciples to his methods. That crowd is the core of the House radicals now.

-- Seeing the Forest

by davej on Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 07:49:27 PM EST

The Minority is Never Relevant (3.00 / 1)

One of the first rules of the legislative process is that the minority is never relevant in the House. There is almost nothing that the minority in the House can do in the face of a well run majority in the House. Compare this to the Senate. The second rule is that the minority can almost always take over the Senate if it has discipline and good leadership.

by LoganFerree on Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 08:10:49 PM EST

out of touch (1.00 / 1)

it's a little more than being out of touch it matter of a number of things we are losing in a number of states at every level. We are running stand on the rumble campaigns. The party makes a termedous effort to win the top spots then we either don't bother running people for local postition or do nothing to help them leave no farm team, to draw from to run.

Then there are the "REAL DEMOCRATS" the 12% of the party that is loud the Ultra Liberal wing of the party forcing candidates forwards that have zero chance of wining in socially conservative and moderate areas where to win you must win republican votes. Who go around spouting ideas that would sell in Manhattan Ny but not in Manhattan Kansas.

Also we no longer have real locals running we have alot of transplants running that have lived in the areas less than 15 years. That have no real cultural understanding of the area running and one pops up the activists (people with too much free time and little understand of where they live) try to run them out of the race.

The other part of the problem is we run elitist politicans in areas where that is considered insulting. Running a Liberal college professor in an area like the T of pennsylvania is a recipe for losing. Examples of this are the two they are running right now Steven Porter and Phil Avillo neither of which have any chance of winning Porter got slaughtered the last time and Avillo's anti-war activism has made him unelectable in this pro-miltary area, highly conservative distict that hasn't elected a democrat since the Johnson sweep of 1964.

The other thing I keep hearing is base base base i'm sorry the Liberal activist in the party aren't the base. They make up slightly more than a 1/10 of the party and make come out of a group that is slightly larger than the number of Conservatives in the party.

Most Democrats are self Id Moderates, not Dlc moderates the DLC is the Conservative wing of the party. The moderates are the group that fall inbetween the Dlc and DFA wing of the party.

The group the party ignores the people that go in vote in the primary vote in the general election then go home but say little inbetween. THe group you scream and yell at call them republican lite. The ones you insult by calling them stupid.

John Kerry is not a Moderate John Kerry is a Left wing elitist politican. That was somewhat aligned with the DLC for money. Just because you fought in a war does not make you a moderate.

IF Kerry had been a moderate he would be president now.

You want to win run represtive candidate in representive areas

by orin76 on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 10:17:29 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.