Laying Tennessee’s Democratic Losses At Obama’s Feet

9 Responses to “Laying Tennessee’s Democratic Losses At Obama’s Feet”

1. dan t writes
   December 11th, 2008 1:08 pm

   Kentucky GOPers are still recovering from the Fletcher mess in the State House. But their still in firm control of the state senate up there. As far as blaming Obama and bloggers goes. Look, its like Gore in 2000. Gore had no one to blame but himself for that loss. It wasnt Scalia,Jeb,W or Ms Harris….IT WAS AL who LOST the 2000 election. The same goes for all these democrat hot shots at the legislature who are attacking Obama and the democrat bloggers. It was YOU guys who lost, not them. I know your going to be obliterated when Ramsey and Mumps do redistricting so I know your hurting. But stop blaming people who werent in charge and look in the mirror.

2. LeftWingCracker writes
   December 11th, 2008 1:44 pm

   Yup, Dan, I agree. it’s typical CYA for Democrats who refuse to be Democrats.

3. History Prof writes
   December 11th, 2008 2:09 pm

   As Sean admits, comparing Tennessee in 2008 to Tennessee in 1972 is comparing apples to oranges. Although there is one interesting aspect of his comparison. The late 60’s-early 70’s is the period during which Republicans became competitive in Tennessee. They won two U.S. Senate seats and the governor’s chair. They also had a majority in the State House for two years. If you’ll look over the last 40 years of Tennessee political history, I believe that you will find Republicans have made most of their gains in Tennessee during presidential years.

4. Sean Braisted writes
   December 11th, 2008 2:43 pm

   While the records are sparse, it appears as if after the Republicans had a bare majority in 1969-70, the Democrats took back a dramatic majority in 71-72, and then settled closer in 73-74. So, if that history plays out, Dems could be optimistic going into 2010. But you’re right, apples to oranges.

5. d writes
   December 11th, 2008 3:08 pm

   Yeah, the seats which the Republicans picked up in the mid-60s were from URBAN counties, as a result of the redistricting (for the first time since 1901, I think) that was enforced by the US Supreme Court in Baker v. Carr. These weren’t the rural Republicans to which we’ve grown accustomed today, they were upwardly-mobile members of the middle class who were voting Republican for their financial interest, not morality or whatever else. Apples to oranges indeed.

6. Sparse writes
   December 11th, 2008 3:28 pm

   Republicans did not have a majority in 1969-70. The House was split 49-49 with one independent. The indy rep voted for a Republican speaker. The Republican Party has not had a true majority in the state house since 1849.

7. d writes
   December 11th, 2008 3:57 pm

   The Republican Party didn’t exist in 1849.

8. Matthew Hurtt writes
   December 11th, 2008 4:14 pm

   I’m going to echo d’s sentiments. Prior to the elections of 1854, most of who we think of today as “Republicans” were probably Whigs or members of the Know Nothing Party. There were several other nationalistic third parties, but they did not operated on a national level and were confined to several northern states.

   No… you probably weren’t giong to find many Republicans in Tennessee between 1854 and 1860 - not in Middle and West TN, anyway. Hell, Abraham Lincoln wasn’t even on the ballot in TN in 1860.

   - Matthew

9. GOP Spin writes
   December 11th, 2008 4:32 pm

   For all intent and purposes, Republicans in ‘69-’70 were in the same position that current Republicans are in. They have one more vote for speaker than the Democrats do. That gives them operational control. That’s what counts as a majority. I’m willing to bet that the dumbasses in charge now hold their majority about as long as the Republicans of the late 60’s did.