Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I would put the chances of Obama getting the same kind of turnout in 2012 that he got in 2008 at approximately zero. Better than 2010? Presumably. Like 2008? Zero.

the game is afoot.

Another thing about the issue of turnout. Hopeful Democrats keep trying to compare 2010 to 2008. The correct comparison is 2006. Demographically, the electorate in 2010 was nearly identical to the electorate in 2006. There was no huge change in who voted, including by age or party ID.

2008 has to be looked at separately. I have no doubt that black voters will turn out again for Obama in large numbers, but the numbers will not be higher than they were in 2008, because it's not possible for them to be any higher. And there is only one first time. I'm sure most of those who voted for that reason will return, but probably not all. Millenials as a whole, on the other hand, have shifted away from Obama and the Democrats by 5-10 points according to various polls. What was almost a 65-35 advantage is now more like 55-45. Independents, who also favored Obama in 2008, have shifted away by as much as 20 points, the biggest shift by far.

While the first group may remain largely intact, the second two could only be brought back into their 2008 form by one thing: a dramatic explosion in economic activity like what happened for Ronald Reagan in 1983. That's not going to happen.

With Obama, Pelosi and Reid still leading the Democratic Party, there will be no other choice for voters in 2012 than to ratify their style of leadership or reject it. In other words, I expect another desperate, vicious scorched-earth smear campaign from the Democrats against whoever is the Republican nominee, because that is all they will have to run on.

Perhaps most importantly, the Democrats were blown out in 2010 in critical swing states like FL, OH and even PA, which has been reliable for them in recent presidential years. If the economy does not improve dramatically, it's hard to see how those states swing back in Obama's direction.

Then there is the issue of the census and redistricting, which is likely to take electoral votes away from Democrat-leaning states and add them to Republican-leaning ones.

When it comes to the Senate, Democrats will be defending 23 seats, many of them in red states or swing states, and Republicans will only be defending 10, almost all of which are in solid red states.

It seems 2010 has done little to sober many Democrats still drunk from the euphoria of 2008. Obama has an uphill battle, to put it mildly.

Originally Posted by playwrite

the game is afoot.

Yeah, it sure is.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Another thing about the issue of turnout. Hopeful Democrats keep trying to compare 2010 to 2008. The correct comparison is 2006. Demographically, the electorate in 2010 was nearly identical to the electorate in 2006. There was no huge change in who voted, including by age or party ID.

2008 has to be looked at separately. I have no doubt that black voters will turn out again for Obama in large numbers, but the numbers will not be higher than they were in 2008, because it's not possible for them to be any higher. And there is only one first time. I'm sure most of those who voted for that reason will return, but probably not all. Millenials as a whole, on the other hand, have shifted away from Obama and the Democrats by 5-10 points according to various polls. What was almost a 65-35 advantage is now more like 55-45. Independents, who also favored Obama in 2008, have shifted away by as much as 20 points, the biggest shift by far.

While the first group may remain largely intact, the second two could only be brought back into their 2008 form by one thing: a dramatic explosion in economic activity like what happened for Ronald Reagan in 1983. That's not going to happen.

With Obama, Pelosi and Reid still leading the Democratic Party, there will be no other choice for voters in 2012 than to ratify their style of leadership or reject it. In other words, I expect another desperate, vicious scorched-earth smear campaign from the Democrats against whoever is the Republican nominee, because that is all they will have to run on.

Perhaps most importantly, the Democrats were blown out in 2010 in critical swing states like FL, OH and even PA, which has been reliable for them in recent presidential years. If the economy does not improve dramatically, it's hard to see how those states swing back in Obama's direction.

Then there is the issue of the census and redistricting, which is likely to take electoral votes away from Democrat-leaning states and add them to Republican-leaning ones.

When it comes to the Senate, Democrats will be defending 23 seats, many of them in red states or swing states, and Republicans will only be defending 10, almost all of which are in solid red states.

It seems 2010 has done little to sober many Democrats still drunk from the euphoria of 2008. Obama has an uphill battle, to put it mildly.

Sorry, amigo, there will be 2.5 million new Hispanic voters in 2012 than in 2010. Any doubt that they will turn out? Any doubt they won't try to punish xenophobic Repugs?

The Millie cohort is growing at least as fast. On the other hand, the over 50 registered voter peaked in 2008 and has begun to slow substantially for the over 65 that go Repug. Also, when the death panels don't show up among other health scare tactics, the Repugs might have a lot of explaining to do for trying to create donut holes again.

Dem-ographics win in the long run, just a question of when.

Obama's favorables are nearly twice that of the Repugs in general and 5-12 points higher than any currently viable Repug candidate. Of his unfavorables, about 20% believe he is not liberal enough - put those together with the favorables and Obama is back to his sky high ratings.

Redistricting doesn't have anything to do with a statewide determinations like electorial votes and coattails will likely have a stronger impact on district races

But keep hoping.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Another thing about the issue of turnout. Hopeful Democrats keep trying to compare 2010 to 2008. The correct comparison is 2006. Demographically, the electorate in 2010 was nearly identical to the electorate in 2006. There was no huge change in who voted, including by age or party ID.

The Republicans come out of the 2010 election having learned little more than to be more ruthless, duplicitous, demagogic, strident, and doctrinaire. Such is not the mixture suitable for good government. I expect the same old 3T mistakes from the GOP and the same failures.

2008 has to be looked at separately. I have no doubt that black voters will turn out again for Obama in large numbers, but the numbers will not be higher than they were in 2008, because it's not possible for them to be any higher. And there is only one first time. I'm sure most of those who voted for that reason will return, but probably not all. Millenials as a whole, on the other hand, have shifted away from Obama and the Democrats by 5-10 points according to various polls. What was almost a 65-35 advantage is now more like 55-45. Independents, who also favored Obama in 2008, have shifted away by as much as 20 points, the biggest shift by far.

Watch the non-Cuban Hispanic vote. It is the fastest-growing segment of the electorate and it is decidedly Democratic in its leaning. As for the Millennial generation going away from the Democrats, such reflects that Democrats didn't vote in 2010 as they did in 2008. Bring 'em back, and bring the 1990-1994 cohorts into the electorate as a similar number of Republican-leaning voters in their 60's through 80's die off (now mostly Silent, but now more Boomers than GIs meeting the Grim Reaper), and the Democrats win the Presidency decisively, pick up a couple Senate seats, and win back the House.

While the first group may remain largely intact, the second two could only be brought back into their 2008 form by one thing: a dramatic explosion in economic activity like what happened for Ronald Reagan in 1983. That's not going to happen.

The GOP economic agenda will require a huge boom to undo the harm of intensification of economic inequality that is the cornerstone of GOP economics. After the catastrophic failure of the speculative boom in housing, you tell me where a speculative boom is possible.

With Obama, Pelosi and Reid still leading the Democratic Party, there will be no other choice for voters in 2012 than to ratify their style of leadership or reject it. In other words, I expect another desperate, vicious scorched-earth smear campaign from the Democrats against whoever is the Republican nominee, because that is all they will have to run on.

Barack Obama can easily look like "the adult in charge", especially if the GOP seems to scrap reason for narcissism, recklessness, and cruelty. The 2012 election will give Americans plenty of opportunity to ratify or reject what voters of 2010 elected in the House. Republicans, as I see it, could even have some trouble in the South because they are so firmly wedded to 3T ideology and policy.

Perhaps most importantly, the Democrats were blown out in 2010 in critical swing states like FL, OH and even PA, which has been reliable for them in recent presidential years. If the economy does not improve dramatically, it's hard to see how those states swing back in Obama's direction.

I see no chance of a full recovery. Indeed, it is possible that if the economy falters it will be the newbies of American politics -- freshman Reactionaries in "purple" districts -- who get the blame.

Then there is the issue of the census and redistricting, which is likely to take electoral votes away from Democrat-leaning states and add them to Republican-leaning ones.

If the Democrats can't undo that effect, then they deserve to be the minority party. The 50-state strategy could well be the cure.

When it comes to the Senate, Democrats will be defending 23 seats, many of them in red states or swing states, and Republicans will only be defending 10, almost all of which are in solid red states.

Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

It seems 2010 has done little to sober many Democrats still drunk from the euphoria of 2008. Obama has an uphill battle, to put it mildly.

Drunk with euphoria? You don't understand what liberals feel. The big question is whether the propaganda machine will convince Americans pure plutocracy is the only way to go.

I am far from euphoric. I am scared. I know of several ultimate expressions of despair that I could use if your semi-fascist idols took over America.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Sorry, amigo, there will be 2.5 million new Hispanic voters in 2012 than in 2010. Any doubt that they will turn out? Any doubt they won't try to punish xenophobic Repugs?

The Millie cohort is growing at least as fast. On the other hand, the over 50 registered voter peaked in 2008 and has begun to slow substantially for the over 65 that go Repug. Also, when the death panels don't show up among other health scare tactics, the Repugs might have a lot of explaining to do for trying to create donut holes again.

Demographics win in the long run, just a question of when.

Obama's favorables are nearly twice that of the Repugs in general and 5-12 points higher than any currently viable Repug candidate. Of his unfavorables, about 20% believe he is not liberal enough - put those together with the favorables and Obama is back to his sky high ratings.

Redistricting doesn't have anything to do with a statewide determinations like electorial votes and coattails will likely have a stronger impact on district races

But keep hoping.

The Repubs will hold thier own in 2012 in the House and in the Senate they'll have a good chance of taking over with the Dummycrats defending 23 seats, many of them in Red states. As far as Obama, he'll have a better than even chance of holding his seat. I wouldnt however put stock in any poll at this point either for or against Obama. Much, much too early for any of that. He better hope the economy improves markedly or he and the rest of the Dummycrats are toast.....

Originally Posted by Weave

The Repubs will hold thier own in 2012 in the House and in the Senate they'll have a good chance of taking over with the Dummycrats defending 23 seats, many of them in Red states. As far as Obama, he'll have a better than even chance of holding his seat. I wouldnt however put stock in any poll at this point either for or against Obama. Much, much too early for any of that. He better hope the economy improves markedly or he and the rest of the Dummycrats are toast.....

You care to provide a lick of data or rationale to support your pure conjecture?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The Republicans come out of the 2010 election having learned little more than to be more ruthless, duplicitous, demagogic, strident, and doctrinaire. Such is not the mixture suitable for good government. I expect the same old 3T mistakes from the GOP and the same failures.



Watch the non-Cuban Hispanic vote. It is the fastest-growing segment of the electorate and it is decidedly Democratic in its leaning. As for the Millennial generation going away from the Democrats, such reflects that Democrats didn't vote in 2010 as they did in 2008. Bring 'em back, and bring the 1990-1994 cohorts into the electorate as a similar number of Republican-leaning voters in their 60's through 80's die off (now mostly Silent, but now more Boomers than GIs meeting the Grim Reaper), and the Democrats win the Presidency decisively, pick up a couple Senate seats, and win back the House.




The GOP economic agenda will require a huge boom to undo the harm of intensification of economic inequality that is the cornerstone of GOP economics. After the catastrophic failure of the speculative boom in housing, you tell me where a speculative boom is possible.



Barack Obama can easily look like "the adult in charge", especially if the GOP seems to scrap reason for narcissism, recklessness, and cruelty. The 2012 election will give Americans plenty of opportunity to ratify or reject what voters of 2010 elected in the House. Republicans, as I see it, could even have some trouble in the South because they are so firmly wedded to 3T ideology and policy.



I see no chance of a full recovery. Indeed, it is possible that if the economy falters it will be the newbies of American politics -- freshman Reactionaries in "purple" districts -- who get the blame.



If the Democrats can't undo that effect, then they deserve to be the minority party. The 50-state strategy could well be the cure.



Don't count your chickens before they hatch.




Drunk with euphoria? You don't understand what liberals feel. The big question is whether the propaganda machine will convince Americans pure plutocracy is the only way to go.

I am far from euphoric. I am scared. I know of several ultimate expressions of despair that I could use if your semi-fascist idols took over America.

Well said - as usual.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Demographically, the electorate in 2010 was nearly identical to the electorate in 2006. There was no huge change in who voted, including by age or party ID.

Got any evidence to support this claim?

Originally Posted by playwrite

You care to provide a lick of data or rationale to support your pure conjecture?

It doesnt require a "lick of data" to have enough common sense to know that incumbents have a hard time being re-elected in bad economies. Does Carter '80 or Bush '92 ring a bell? Since common sense and liberalism rarely intersect I guess i'll give you a pass.....

from Weave

It doesnt require a "lick of data

does that answer surprise anyone?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Got any evidence to support this claim?

2006

2010

The key changes:

- Ideology. In 2006 voters called themselves 20% Liberal, 47% Moderate, 32% Conservative. In 2010 it was 20% Liberal, 38% Moderate, 42% Conservative. In addition to that shift, Democrats lost ground among both Moderates and Conservatives, while doing better among Liberals in 2010.

- Independents. Party ID remained roughly the same. Self-identified Republicans and Democrats voted basically the same as in 2006. There was only a slight shift to Republicans among those voters. But in 2006 Democrats won Independents 57-39%. In 2010 Republicans won them by 56-37%.

- Seniors. The composition of the electorate by age did not change. In 2006, Democrats won all age groups except 65+, where they tied 49-49%. In 2010 Republicans won all age groups except 18-29, although they did 5 points better in that group than they did in 2006. There was a massive shift toward the Republicans among 65+ in 2010, and they won them 59-38%.

I know how the left will interpret the last number. "See, it's old people, and they'll die off, and then everybody will vote for Democrats!". The reality is that every generational cohort for which there is polling data has started out voting for Democrats in their youth and voted increasingly for Republicans as they age. Voting patterns are not static over people's lives, especially among Independents, who made up almost a third of the electorate in 2010. Indeed, the fact that there was a massive shift among seniors from 2006 to 2010 is proof in itself that people's voting patterns are not set in stone even at an advanced age.

As far as other groups go:

- Sex. In 2006 Democrats won Men by 50-47% and Women by 55-43%. In 2010 Republicans won Men by 55-41% and Women by 49-48%.

- Race. All groups shifted toward Republicans in 2010 except African-Americans. They did 7 points better among Whites, 8 points better among Latinos, and 3 points better among Asians.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

2006

2010

The key changes:

- Ideology. In 2006 voters called themselves 20% Liberal, 47% Moderate, 32% Conservative. In 2010 it was 20% Liberal, 38% Moderate, 42% Conservative. In addition to that shift, Democrats lost ground among both Moderates and Conservatives, while doing better among Liberals in 2010.

- Independents. Party ID remained roughly the same. Self-identified Republicans and Democrats voted basically the same as in 2006. There was only a slight shift to Republicans among those voters. But in 2006 Democrats won Independents 57-39%. In 2010 Republicans won them by 56-37%.

- Seniors. The composition of the electorate by age did not change. In 2006, Democrats won all age groups except 65+, where they tied 49-49%. In 2010 Republicans won all age groups except 18-29, although they did 5 points better in that group than they did in 2006. There was a massive shift toward the Republicans among 65+ in 2010, and they won them 59-38%.

I know how the left will interpret the last number. "See, it's old people, and they'll die off, and then everybody will vote for Democrats!". The reality is that every generational cohort for which there is polling data has started out voting for Democrats in their youth and voted increasingly for Republicans as they age. Voting patterns are not static over people's lives, especially among Independents, who made up almost a third of the electorate in 2010. Indeed, the fact that there was a massive shift among seniors from 2006 to 2010 is proof in itself that people's voting patterns are not set in stone even at an advanced age.

As far as other groups go:

- Sex. In 2006 Democrats won Men by 50-47% and Women by 55-43%. In 2010 Republicans won Men by 55-41% and Women by 49-48%.

- Race. All groups shifted toward Republicans in 2010 except African-Americans. They did 7 points better among Whites, 8 points better among Latinos, and 3 points better among Asians.

JPT, do you understand what midterm elections do to an electorate?

It motivates the partisans to turn out in far greater numbers than anyone else, and especially when one side is poised to do better, that side turns out greater.

There is no evidence that anyone has actually changed their mind. Republicans simply voted while Democrats didn't.

I mean, what do you think, in 2 years 10% of people who considered themselves moderate suddenly said, "You know what, I'm conservative!"

Unlikely.

The electorate has not changed significantly at all. Don't mistake voters that turn out to be representative of the population as a whole.

Originally Posted by Silifi

JPT, do you understand what midterm elections do to an electorate?

It motivates the partisans to turn out in far greater numbers than anyone else, and especially when one side is poised to do better, that side turns out greater.

There is no evidence that anyone has actually changed their mind. Republicans simply voted while Democrats didn't.

I mean, what do you think, in 2 years 10% of people who considered themselves moderate suddenly said, "You know what, I'm conservative!"

Unlikely.

The electorate has not changed significantly at all. Don't mistake voters that turn out to be representative of the population as a whole.

You clearly either did not read or did not understand the information I provided. Party ID stayed almost the same (there was about a 3% shift from Democrats to Independents), while Ideology shifted from Moderate to Conservative by 10 Points. There were not any more Republicans voting in 2010 than voted in 2006. People can and do change their minds and their views, and they did. Specifically, Independents.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

You clearly either did not read or did not understand the information I provided. Party ID stayed almost the same (there was about a 3% shift from Democrats to Independents), while Ideology shifted from Moderate to Conservative by 10 Points. People can and do change their minds and their views, and they did.

Uh, ok, you did not understand what I just said.

Different people voted in the elections.

You have no evidence to show that the exact same people voted in both elections. The evidence points towards just the opposite: that more conservative independents showed up to vote than moderate independents.

Just because the percentages of the people who voted changed does not mean that people actually changed their minds.

And when we're talking about how many Republicans vs Democrats showed up, it is mostly irrelevant: there are lots of independents, and they do not necessarily coincide with the word "moderate." Lots of people are liberal and independent, lots of people are conservative and independent. You can be an independent and be a straight ticket voter. Simply not as many people register as one party or the other.

In fact, the people who are going to have the most variation in which years they turn out are typically independents. Registered party members are pretty likely to turn out no matter what. Independents are typically far more driven by whether or not they are excited by an election, and conservative independents were clearly more excited than liberal or moderate independents: meaning that more of those voters showed up to vote in 2010 than in 2006, which accounts for the 10% shift.

If the turnout of conservative independents rose by 5% and the turnout of moderate independents fell by 2% it would account for the 10% shift just as well (with the other 3% being registered Democrats that didn't turn out)

Originally Posted by Silifi

Uh, ok, you did not understand what I just said.

Different people voted in the elections.

You have no evidence to show that the exact same people voted in both elections. The evidence points towards just the opposite: that more conservative independents showed up to vote than moderate independents.

Just because the percentages of the people who voted changed does not mean that people actually changed their minds.

Nope. Polls of the public at large over the last two years have showed the same shift. The number of Americans calling themselves conservative has grown dramatically since Obama took office.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Nope. Polls of the public at large over the last two years have showed the same shift. The number of Americans calling themselves conservative has grown dramatically since Obama took office.

Uh, if by dramatic you mean 3%.

Originally Posted by Silifi

Uh, if by dramatic you mean 3%.

I guess it depends on what you consider dramatic. It's actually more like 5% if you go by Gallup. But what you really have to do is look at the graph:



I'd call that a pretty significant change. Where did it come from?



Crap, looks like I was right again.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I guess it depends on what you consider dramatic. It's actually more like 5% if you go by Gallup. But what you really have to do is look at the graph:



I'd call that a pretty significant change.

How people self-identify doesn't necessarily mean that their actual positions have changed.

The word "conservative" has a drastically different connotation than "liberal" in American society. To many people, the word represents moderation.

I think Center-Right voters are more likely to call themselves conservative while Center-Left voters are more likely to call themselves moderate.

Originally Posted by Silifi

How people self-identify doesn't necessarily mean that their actual positions have changed.

The word "conservative" has a drastically different connotation than "liberal" in American society. To many people, the word represents moderation.

I think Center-Right voters are more likely to call themselves conservative while Center-Left voters are more likely to call themselves moderate.

Considering the massive anti-conservative bent of the media with its constant negative portrayals of anything conservative its hard to imagine those who dont completely hold those ideals as wanting to be identified with them. Most likely, those who identify as moderate actually hold conservative views but wont admit it and instead say they are moderate.

Gotta love James Carville's latest quip...LOL....

http://www.breitbart.tv/carville-if-...both-have-two/

Originally Posted by Weave

Considering the massive anti-conservative bent of the media with its constant negative portrayals of anything conservative its hard to imagine those who don't completely hold those ideals as wanting to be identified with them. Most likely, those who identify as moderate actually hold conservative views but wont admit it and instead say they are moderate.

With the notable exception of MSNBC, what liberal media are you railing about? I've never seen so many GOP faces on the TeeVee as I have in the last few weeks ... and they only won the House. Even the commentators have been biased right.

For every 10 business or monetarist economists blabbing on and on about austerity or tax cuts, I see roughly 1 from the left. I never see Stiglitz, I rarely see Krugman and Jaime Galbraith is only welcome on PBS. The entire argument is now centered on the proposals of the minority party ... such as they are.

Funny how each side sees only people they disagree with in the media. Fact is, there is both a liberal bias and a conservative bias, depending on where you choose to look. What we rarely see is a reasoned discussion from both points of view.

Oh, and M&L, you can see Krugman almost every week on ABC's This Week with Christiane Amanpour. Just last week, he was duking it out about tax cuts.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

With the notable exception of MSNBC, what liberal media are you railing about? I've never seen so many GOP faces on the TeeVee as I have in the last few weeks ... and they only won the House. Even the commentators have been biased right.

For every 10 business or monetarist economists blabbing on and on about austerity or tax cuts, I see roughly 1 from the left. I never see Stiglitz, I rarely see Krugman and Jaime Galbraith is only welcome on PBS. The entire argument is now centered on the proposals of the minority party ... such as they are.

Krugman is frequently on ABCnews "This Week" and also on "Meet the Depressed". He is also featured ad naseuam as a columnist in the NY Times. Tell me, who is the resident NY Times Conservative...David Brooks...RINO and he's outnumbered. How many women magazines have positive portrayal of conservatives...Vanity Fair? People? US weekly please....How many TV shows have positive portrayals..let me know if you know any....How many Hollywood movies? Ridiculous movies made by Sean Penn get rave reviews, Michael Moore and Al Gore get Oscars for ridiculous propaganda films that are proven false. The media, barring Fox news and few conservative magazines are by and large liberal.

Now my take on the auto bailout:

Three states that rely heavily on the auto industry (MI, OH, IN)

Michigan: off the table, President or US Senate (Debbie Stabenow).

Ohio: President Obama has probably pushed the state into a slight-win area and taken the pressure off Senator Sherrod Brown.

Indiana: back to the toss-up category for President. Octogenarian Dick Lugar (R) wins re-election whether he wins the GOP primary or is tea-bagged into a write-in candidacy after which he goes (I). The Hard Right had better leave him alone if it gives a damn about the GOP.

Democrats should regain some House seats in those states.

The GOP can win without Michigan, but can't without Ohio and have no real chance if Indiana is close. The last time that Indiana was close in a GOP loss other than 2008 was 1948 -- and Truman won.

The generational connection between Obama (early-wave Generation X) and Truman (early-wave Lost) should be obvious enough should President Obama run against a GOP majority in the House.