The large electoral losses suffered by the Republican Party during the waning years of the Bush Presidency in 2006 and 2008 were well publicized. What has been less widely known, is the steady downward trend in the fortunes of the Democratic Party, since the inauguration of Barack Obama.
At the same time, there has never been a time when the Republican Party has been in a position of such ascendancy. Not since the founding of the party in the 1850’s, have Republicans held such a prominent position in the nation’s politics as today.
For investors and entrepreneurs this movement to the right, will be of tremendous benefit. Republican politicians are already pledging far lower taxes and less regulations for individuals and businesses alike. This will in turn, have an enormous impact on the American economy.
The lack of public awareness of this rightward trend, is mostly due to the leftist leaning domestic main stream media, that presently exists in the United States.
By intentionally ignoring what was happening at the state and local level, when the election of 2016 did not turn out as the polls suggested, the loss to the Democratic Party was finally recognized by many for what it was. A widespread rejection of the recent leftist direction, inspired by President Obama and his avid supporters.
One may argue, that the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, at latest count by more than two million. Although this may be true, it is important to remember that presidential elections are determined by the electoral vote. A successful candidate must win states, not just the highest overall voting count nationally.
The ability of the Democrat party to run up the voting total, is dependent on political control of most of the largest cities in the United States. It also relies on the party control of the most populous state in the union, which is California.
Another contentious issue concerning the popular vote, is how many of the ballots cast are illegitimate. Since the Democratic Party insists that photo identification is totally unnecessary at voting precincts,it is not clear how much fraud has been permitted to take place.
One must wonder why leading Democrats argue incessantly and have even used legal means, to prevent laws from passing, that would require photo identification upon voting. A citizen cannot conduct most financial transactions nor enter most government buildings, without proper identification.
By insisting on legal identification and reasonable registration requirements according to leading Democrats, is actually an effort by Republicans and conservatives to suppress the vote, especially among minorities.
It must be pointed out that offers to provide free identification services for disadvantaged potential voters by Republican officials, are routinely rejected by Democratic party supporters.
Republicans argue in turn, that most of the people who vote illegally are voting for Democratic candidates. This is why they insist, the opposing party wants to continue the lax laws on voting.
In their opinion, it more easily allows multiple voting by the same person in different localities and even states. It also permits non-citizens to vote in large numbers and even gives license to local politicians, in allowing votes to be cast in the name of people that are not registered to vote. This would include people who have moved away or are deceased, or are legally not eligible to vote as a result of criminal activity.
What is clear is that fraud can make a difference in close elections, at every level of government. When state and national legislatures are almost evenly balanced between two political parties, a single vote by a politician can make a huge divergence in policy.
What both sides need to remember is that public confidence in elections on all levels, is of a primary concern. If the citizenry lose faith in the political system because of the questionable fairness of the voting process, the entire edifice may collapse.
The tide for Democratic victories began to already turn in early 2010. A special election for the Senate was to take place to fill the vacancy, held by the long term Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy. The reliably Democratic state of Massachusetts, was expected to return another Democrat to the Senate. Liberal pundits had even referred to it, as the Kennedy Seat.
A virtually unknown Republican State Senator, by the name of Scott Brown won the election in an upset victory. It was a foreshadow of things to come. His seating cast doubt whether President Obama would be able to move forward with his landmark health care insurance plan. This was because a newly installed Senator Brown, would deny the Democrats of the 60 votes necessary, to prevent filibustering of new controversial legislation.
The aforementioned election mattered far less, when it became known that the Republican Senator Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania, was about to change his party allegiance. This would give Senate Democrats the crucial 60th vote once again.
The Affordable Health Care as a result would later be passed by both houses of Congress, without a single Republican vote. It would be the first major entitlement ever enacted, without at least some bipartisan support. This would not bode well for the future of the new law, that would be soon become known as Obamacare.
The political maneuvers made by the Democrat Party and President Obama during the nearly first two years of his administration, along with the issues of large budget deficits and a struggling domestic economy, would cost the Democrats control of the House of Representatives in the elections of 2010.
The Republicans would regain control of the House with a gain of 63 seats. The sheer number of pickups, would totally erase the gains the Democratic Party had made in 2006 and 2008. It was the highest loss a party would suffer in midterm elections, since 1938. It was the largest swing in the House since 1948.
In the Senate, Republicans would pick up 6 additional seats. Across the nation, Republicans now had control of 29 out of 50 governorships. There also was a gain of 690 seats in state legislatures, allowing them their highest number of seats since 1928. The Republicans at the state level, witnessed their best electoral year since 1952.
The control of many more statehouses would be important, because it would allow Republicans the privilege of drawing up the voting districts for state and national elections. This normally takes place after the taking of the census every 10 years. It is to reflect changes in population for representation purposes.
The year 2010, was a census year. Changing electoral boundary lines could now be done to maximize Republican advantages and safeguard certain legislators, from any real competition.
Although the Democrats were mollified, with their victory in the re-election of President Obama in 2012, elsewhere the negative impact for the Party continued. The success of redistricting by the House Republicans, permitted them to hold on to a larger majority than originally calculated.
In the Senate, Democrats were only able to pick up only two seats, when more had been hoped for. Their number was now at 53 with two independents voting with them. At the state level, there were fewer electoral gains than had been forecast with a presidential win. The coattails of President Obama had indeed proved to be rather short.
The 2014 midterm elections, proved to a disaster for the Democrat Party. The cycle saw sweeping gains by the Republicans in the House, Senate and in numerous gubernatorial, state and local races.
The Republican Party was able to recaptured the Senate with 9 seats for a total 54. They also increased their representation in the House by 13 seats, and gained two more governorships.
These elections permitted the Republicans the largest majority in nearly a century. They now had 247 seats in the House, which is a 56.78% majority. The conservatives now had their largest majority in the House and the overall Congress since 1928.
At the state level, the number of governorships moved up to 31, which ends up being a 62% majority.
The number of legislatures increased to 68 out of 98 partisan chambers. This gave the Republicans the highest number under their control since 1928, with the Democrats at their lowest level of power in state chambers since 1860.
The voters treated the elections of 2014, as a referendum on the economy and the Obama Presidency in general. It resulted in the most partisan, nationalized and president centered midterms in at least 60 years.
Voters also focused on the problems associated with the implementation of Obamacare, income inequality, and illegal immigration.
The 2016 election brought further Republican gains on the state level. Now well over 4,100 seats of the total 7,383 in state legislatures, are now Republican. This is a historical record that goes all the way back to 1920.
Next year, the Republicans will control both legislative chambers in 32 states. This is an all time high for the party. Democrats have total control in only 13 states.
In 24 of the 32 states, voters have also chosen a Republican governor. The Democrats have a comparable situation in only 6 states.
Since Obama was inaugurated as President in 2009, the Democrat Party has lost 919 seats in state legislatures.
Back in 2009, Democrats had complete control of 27 state legislatures, as well as holding a majority of at least one chamber in an additional 8 more states. Republicans in contrast, only had possession of 14 state legislatures.
In the first year of the Obama Presidency out of a total 1,971 state Senate seats, 1,024 were in Democrats hands, compared to just 880 in the Republican fold.
Among the total 5,411 house seats at the state level, the Democratic Party held 3,058, compared to the Republicans number of just 2,334.
At that time, there were 28 Democratic governors compared to 22 Republican ones.
On the eve of the 2016 election, after nearly two terms of President Obama there were just 823 Senate seats left in Democratic hands, a loss of 201. In a complete reversal, Republicans now possess 1,089.
The same phenomena can be seen in the state House seats. Republicans had surged to 3,029 compared to just 2,340 Democrats. This is nearly the opposite, of what existed nearly 8 years before.
At the state governor level, there were 31 Republicans, 18 Democrats and 1 Independent. Following the 2016 election, Republicans gained two additional seats, with one still undecided.
After the 2016 elections, Republicans gained 46 more legislative seats at the state level. Their total share has risen to 4,170 compared to 3,129 for Democrats. There are a number of seats that are still undecided.
Overall, Democratic control has dipped to a near record low of just 42%. In contrast, Republicans gains at the state level have gone from 44% in 2009 to 56% today.
There has never been a time in history,where the Republican Party made such gains at the state level, as during the Obama Presidency.
At the national level, the Republican party in 2017 will control the Presidency and both Houses of Congress. They can also be excepted to make substantial gains in the Federal Judiciary, as well.
For example, the Supreme Court is now evenly divided between conservatives and liberals 4 to 4. The appointment of a new Justice in 2017, will move the Court back towards a more conservative stance.
In addition, the new Republican President Trump can expect to replace two or more Justices in his first term. At least one, is likely to be a conservative replacement for a more liberal judge.
This will tip the balance of the Supreme Court even further, to a 6-3 majority for Republicans. This will matter enormously, when past and future federal and state legislation is considered before the Court.
Although President Obama remains personally popular among voters, his policies have been thoroughly rejected, by far more Americans than one might think. The President himself, insisted his domestic and foreign policy agenda was on the ballot in 2016.
A further worry for Democrats is that much of this agenda, was created through executive orders and other means, used to bypass legislative and judicial review. This makes it far more easily reversed by an incoming President, who is in opposition to many of the policies of his predecessor.
The 306 vote count out of a total of 538 in the electoral college for Donald Trump, when only 270 is needed for the win, clearly tells the story. Although one can argue that this is more due to the unpopularity of the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, it must be noted that her policy positions would have basically resulted in a third Obama term.