Yup, and without campaign finance reform, it's going to continue to be the Democratic party. I look at this series of Roberts court decisions on campaign finance as being bad for democracy, but probably a winner for the Ds.
There have only been two Republican presidents in my lifetime who didn't ascend from the Vice Presidency: Reagan and GWB. Both of those guys formed broad coalitions with some downright left-leaning policy portfolios, especially Reagan. Not all of their policies, mind you, but a not insignificant portion of them.
Where are those moderate national Republicans now? Flushed out of the party by the big money donors who want pure conseratives. It's the Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Bobby Jindal flamethrowers from here on out. Maybe those guys can win a Governorship in the South, maybe they can hold onto a Senate seat against a weak opponent in a favorable area, but that's about it. The Republican party will never be a national party again until the big money dries up.
2010 was an awful year for Democrats because of fatigue from the 2008 election and the public, drawn out legislative process surrounding Obamacare. The Republicans were able to gerrymander themselves into some very favorable congressional districts. But that's a brief respite from an overall trend. Those districts are only going to hold for so long, maybe five, ten years. Demographics are always changing.
And when the House falls, we'll be down to a true one party system, with well-funded right-leaning Republicans continuing to chase viable moderates out of the party.
I think the influx of money is awful for all the issues that fly just under the radar that they don't receive national attention . . . all those public health issues where politicians of both parties can be bought and sold. And the amount of graft these decisions portend is upsetting. But from a purely political, non public good perspective, I'm hard pressed to figure out how the decisions don't help the vast majority of elected Democrats.
