Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Once again, that depends on whether the voters have a 3T or 4T mindset. If they have a 3T mindset, then yes, they pay no serious attention and vote their pocketbooks as if the president had magical powers. If they have a 4T mindset, then they support the president based on whether he is seen to be taking the right action to solve the problems -- whether or not immediate results accrue. Immediate results are not expected in that case, but "being on our side" -- which implies not on THEIR side -- is.

It's my contention here that the voters are in a 4T mindset and are upset with Obama, not because 1990s prosperity hasn't been instantly and magically restored with a word and a smile, but because he's seen these days as being too much on their side and not enough on ours. Whether that gets fixed by election day isn't dependent on whether the economy goes into a magical and impossible instant recovery. It's dependent on what Obama does between now and then.

EDIT: I believe that partisan Republicans here and elsewhere want to believe that it all comes down to what the economy does, precisely because they know I'm right in this: the economy is beyond Obama's power to rapidly fix. If it all depends on what the economy does, therefore, then it's not Obama's election to lose. In fact, if it all hinges willy-nilly on what the economy does, then odds are he can't win, because the economy isn't going to go into a magical recovery and there's nothing Obama can do to make it do so, particularly with Republicans in control of the House.

I prefer to believe that the voters aren't quite that stupid. I could be wrong, though.

How do you interpret the "right track/wrong track" numbers in light of your 3T/4T method of interpretation?

James50

Originally Posted by James50

How do you interpret the "right track/wrong track" numbers in light of your 3T/4T method of interpretation?

There's no indication there. Either one could result in people saying the country is on the wrong track. If we have a 3T mindset, the response means "my gas prices are going up, so is my grocery bill, I got laid off from my good job and had to take a job at Wal-Mart." If we have a 4T mindset, it means, "we didn't get a public option in the health-care bill, we're still at war in Afghanistan, and that SOB in the White House has sold out to Wall Street."

If Obama shifts into progressive mode and governs the way he campaigned, then perhaps the responses will give us an indication.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I know. What I'm saying is that all of this reasoning depends on the party establishment remaining in control of the nominating process. Essentially, what you're saying is that if it looks like a Republican can win, the party will nominate someone serious, but if it looks like a loser for sure, they won't waste that nomination and will instead let someone off the wall take the slot. That would certainly be the smart way to play it. I just think the establishment has lost control to the degree they won't be able to make it happen.

See, this is something that just isn't borne out by the polling data. Here's the way I see '08 having happened.

1) The Republican base was not happy with McCain and also pretty disgruntled with Bush, and didn't get excited about the election. However, not many Republicans actually voted for Obama. Most of those affected by all this simply didn't vote.

2) The Democratic base, in contrast, was hyped. They had a chance to vote for someone who seemed like a genuine progressive, for the first time since 1972. There were a lot of first-time voters who voted for Obama. Black turnout was high. Hispanic turnout was high.

3) The Millennials voted overwhelmingly for Obama and, for young voters, they voted in large numbers.

In the popular vote, Obama won by almost 10 million votes (69.5 million to 59.9 million). There is no way that ten million Republicans switched sides and voted for him. I just don't believe that. So his margin of victory lay elsewhere. I think it lay in the groups noted above, especially the second one, the people you are calling the "far left nutty base," who apparently constitute anywhere from a large minority to an actual majority of the electorate, depending on the issue.

Obama's problem at this time is that he has failed to live up to the promise of his campaign, and by that I do NOT mean that he has failed to magically and instantly revive the economy to its full former glory with a wave of his hand. I mean that he has failed to stand up to Wall Street (and, by extension, to the Republicans) the way he promised. To some degree I can see that this is due to parliamentary compromise, but it's obvious that in some measure he never actually intended to do it. Increasingly, he's regarded these days as Clinton Term 3, and that's not what people want.

I didn't mention him but I didn't forget him. My list wasn't inclusive. But yes, Rubio is another example. The establishment Republican candidate was Crist. There again, the party establishment lost control. Unlike in Nevada, Delaware, and Colorado, they didn't lose the election as a result.

I read somewhere that the electorate in 08 was roughly the same size as it was in 04. So it seems the voters who participated had changed. You're right alot of conservatives sat home, not happy with McCain or just disillusioned. While I respect McCain I wasnt that excited about him. But I think there were a sizable group of Repubs who did in fact vote Obama. Of course no where near 10 million.

I dont think anyone is expecting an immediate return to the 80's/90's boom years but they do need a sense that things are going in the right direction. This is anecdotal to be sure but I dont hear to many people griping about wall street. What they are worried about is jobs, the deficit, the future for their kids and now the price of gas which is eating up thier disposable income.

People forget that Reagan was re-elected in a landslide with a higher unemplyment rate than when he took office. He won because jobs were being created at a very fast pace, inflations back was broke and people had the sense that things were getting better. I imagine a similiar situation in 1936 even with still high unemployment, 12% is better than 25%.

I would agree with your scenario more if the 2010 election had different results. It didnt, it was a historic Republican victory and a repudiation of Obama's left policies. Roosevelt added to his gains in 34 as the Republican party was discredited. Unfortunately for your side voters arent dumb and they know that there's plenty of blame to go around fro both parties. They punished the Repubs in 06 and 08 and they punished the Dems in 10. The 2010 election shows that the Repubs havent been repudiated and Independents are still willing to give them a chance. Voters also proved that they certainly do not want more spending and that the debt is an important issue.

Originally Posted by Weave

I would agree with your scenario more if the 2010 election had different results. It didnt, it was a historic Republican victory and a repudiation of Obama's left policies.

No, here you're misunderstanding what happened last year and it's quite important. First of all Obama doesn't have any "left policies" to speak of and that's exactly the problem. Secondly, it's totally clear from the exit polling from 2010 that very few people changed their minds. What happened was the inverse of 2008. Instead of Republican voters being disillusioned, Democratic voters were. Instead of Democrats being fired up and going to the polls, Republicans were -- but for negative rather than positive reasons. That is, while Democratic voters in 2008 voted more for Obama than against McCain, Republican voters in 2010 were voting against Obama (by proxy) more than for the Republican candidates.

What I think is happening here is that you are describing your own mindset and experience in last year's election. Obama did perhaps push for more reform than you wanted or than you expected him to be willing and able to do. This made you (and a lot of other Republican voters) determined to go to the polls. Because that's true of you and of other conservatives, you believe it was true of the nation. It was not, though. From a liberal perspective, President Obama does not look like a progressive. Candidate Obama did, but unfortunately President Obama does not. He was widely perceived last year as having let us down. There was open talk in the left-wing blogosphere about sending a message to the Democrats by not voting for them and letting them lose the election. The combination of those two factors -- fired-up outrage on the right and a sense of betrayal on the left -- combined to produce the outcome. The narrative that the voters took a shocked look at how liberal the Democrats were in power and turned against them has no basis in fact. Very, very few voters voted for Obama in 2008 and also voted for a Republican candidate in 2010, and that would have to not be true in order for the turn-against-liberalism narrative to have any basis.

In fact, if the Democrats had won last year instead of losing, that would argue against what I'm saying. Why? Because it would show that the American people, far from being polarized, are happy with a middle course -- because, contrary to what you seem to feel, a middle, moderate course is exactly what the Democrats steered in 2009-10. But because we are polarized, the compromise, corporate-friendly legislation they passed made nobody happy. It was too much reform for those on the right (ANY reform would have been), but not nearly enough (and more importantly, not the right kind) for those on the left. Unhappy right-wing voters voted, while unhappy left-wing voters didn't, and that's the full and complete explanation for 2010.

Remember that the Republicans majority in the House was elected by just over 20% of the electorate. That's not going to be enough to win in 2012.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

No, here you're misunderstanding what happened last year and it's quite important. First of all Obama doesn't have any "left policies" to speak of and that's exactly the problem. Secondly, it's totally clear from the exit polling from 2010 that very few people changed their minds. What happened was the inverse of 2008. Instead of Republican voters being disillusioned, Democratic voters were. Instead of Democrats being fired up and going to the polls, Republicans were -- but for negative rather than positive reasons. That is, while Democratic voters in 2008 voted more for Obama than against McCain, Republican voters in 2010 were voting against Obama (by proxy) more than for the Republican candidates.

What I think is happening here is that you are describing your own mindset and experience in last year's election. Obama did perhaps push for more reform than you wanted or than you expected him to be willing and able to do. This made you (and a lot of other Republican voters) determined to go to the polls. Because that's true of you and of other conservatives, you believe it was true of the nation. It was not, though. From a liberal perspective, President Obama does not look like a progressive. Candidate Obama did, but unfortunately President Obama does not. He was widely perceived last year as having let us down. There was open talk in the left-wing blogosphere about sending a message to the Democrats by not voting for them and letting them lose the election. The combination of those two factors -- fired-up outrage on the right and a sense of betrayal on the left -- combined to produce the outcome. The narrative that the voters took a shocked look at how liberal the Democrats were in power and turned against them has no basis in fact. Very, very few voters voted for Obama in 2008 and also voted for a Republican candidate in 2010, and that would have to not be true in order for the turn-against-liberalism narrative to have any basis.

In fact, if the Democrats had won last year instead of losing, that would argue against what I'm saying. Why? Because it would show that the American people, far from being polarized, are happy with a middle course -- because, contrary to what you seem to feel, a middle, moderate course is exactly what the Democrats steered in 2009-10. But because we are polarized, the compromise, corporate-friendly legislation they passed made nobody happy. It was too much reform for those on the right (ANY reform would have been), but not nearly enough (and more importantly, not the right kind) for those on the left. Unhappy right-wing voters voted, while unhappy left-wing voters didn't, and that's the full and complete explanation for 2010.

Remember that the Republicans majority in the House was elected by just over 20% of the electorate. That's not going to be enough to win in 2012.

While there is no doubt that turnout was a factor, you have been deluding yourself about this stuff for the last year or so, and have proven yourself impervious to facts when they're presented. There was a massive swing among independents between 2008 and 2010. Every poll showed it, and the election results showed it.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

While there is no doubt that turnout was a factor, you have been deluding yourself about this stuff for the last year or so, and have proven yourself impervious to facts when they're presented. There was a massive swing among independents between 2008 and 2010. Every poll showed it, and the election results showed it.

Wrong. I answered those assertions of fact when they were presented, you never responded coherently to my rebuttal, and now you are just repeating yourself as if the exchange between us then had never taken place. You are the one who's impervious here, not I.

To repeat: an "independent" is simply a person who does not label himself as either a Republican or a Democrat. (Or a third party.) Going by voting patterns, more than 90% of so-called "independents" are actually Republicans or Democrats, in about the same proportion as labeled Rs and Ds. These "Democrat-Independents" and "Republican-Independents" vote with the same loyalty to the party as do those Republicans or Democrats who are willing to use the party label. The number of true independents, those who are genuinely swing voters, is less than ten percent of the total number of "independents." (There's a tremendous amount of research backing up these statements. I linked it at the time.)

What happened with the "independent" vote is exactly what happened with the Republican and Democratic vote. Dem-Indies, like Democrats, were unhappy with Obama and the Dems in Congress and did not vote. Rep-Indies, like Republicans, were unhappy with Obama and the Dems in Congress and DID vote.

The same exit polls that showed such a wide change in the "independent" vote -- a change that is completely and totally accounted for by voter turnout between the party supporters -- also showed the Democrats winning the "moderate" vote. The true independents are a subset of the moderates. That is, all true independents (swing voters) are moderates, but some moderates call themselves Dems or Reps and so are not "independents." Since the Democrats won the moderate vote, clearly they won the true independent vote as well. Not, however, by as much as they did in 2008 or 2006. So the true indies did move towards the Republicans, but there were so few of them that that didn't matter much. The shift in turnout among Democratic and Republican party supporters -- regardless of whether or not they used the party labels -- is the change that mattered.

The 2012 election will be a convoluted nightmare that further divides the nation.

Tom Kratman's A state of disobediance might be an interesting if poorly written look into this.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Wrong. I answered those assertions of fact when they were presented, you never responded coherently to my rebuttal, and now you are just repeating yourself as if the exchange between us then had never taken place. You are the one who's impervious here, not I.

To repeat: an "independent" is simply a person who does not label himself as either a Republican or a Democrat. (Or a third party.) Going by voting patterns, more than 90% of so-called "independents" are actually Republicans or Democrats, in about the same proportion as labeled Rs and Ds. These "Democrat-Independents" and "Republican-Independents" vote with the same loyalty to the party as do those Republicans or Democrats who are willing to use the party label. The number of true independents, those who are genuinely swing voters, is less than ten percent of the total number of "independents." (There's a tremendous amount of research backing up these statements. I linked it at the time.)

What happened with the "independent" vote is exactly what happened with the Republican and Democratic vote. Dem-Indies, like Democrats, were unhappy with Obama and the Dems in Congress and did not vote. Rep-Indies, like Republicans, were unhappy with Obama and the Dems in Congress and DID vote.

The same exit polls that showed such a wide change in the "independent" vote -- a change that is completely and totally accounted for by voter turnout between the party supporters -- also showed the Democrats winning the "moderate" vote. The true independents are a subset of the moderates. That is, all true independents (swing voters) are moderates, but some moderates call themselves Dems or Reps and so are not "independents." Since the Democrats won the moderate vote, clearly they won the true independent vote as well. Not, however, by as much as they did in 2008 or 2006. So the true indies did move towards the Republicans, but there were so few of them that that didn't matter much. The shift in turnout among Democratic and Republican party supporters -- regardless of whether or not they used the party labels -- is the change that mattered.

I will slow down and spell it out carefully, as seems to always be necessary when responding to you. The shift I'm talking about was evident in public opinion polls, and was borne out in the exit polls. If you look at every poll taken from Obama's inauguration until now, you will see that there has been a dramatic shift in his support among independents. The number of people identifying themselves has Democrats has gone down substantially, while the number identifying as Republicans has risen, although to a lesser degree. The number calling themselves conservatives has risen as high as 40%. The only way you could be ignorant of that fact is if you never watch the news.

While you are right that many independents lean one way or the other, they are independents for a reason. They will split tickets and change which party they vote for from one election to the next, even if they lean one way or the other. There are people who post here who are examples, and say so regularly. You seem to want to believe they don't exist, or are smaller in number than they actually are.

Going back for a past example, Ronald Reagan got a lot of votes from registered Democrats -- not even independents. Only about 1/3 of voters on the right and 1/5 of voters on the left are of the type who will never vote for the other party.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I will slow down and spell it out carefully, as seems to always be necessary when responding to you. The shift I'm talking about was evident in public opinion polls, and was borne out in the exit polls. If you look at every poll taken from Obama's inauguration until now, you will see that there has been a dramatic shift in his support among independents. The number of people identifying themselves has Democrats has gone down substantially, while the number identifying as Republicans has risen, although to a lesser degree. The number calling themselves conservatives has risen as high as 40%. The only way you could be ignorant of that fact is if you never watch the news..

I'm going to have to go with you on this one. As I recall from the 2008 primaries, so many centrist Democrats were suspicious of Obama, especially in the Midwest and Appalachia. They thought he was arrogant for trying to run for President on his lack of experience and an empty suit. Anyone besides me remember the people that threatened to vote McCain if Hillary did not get nominated? While I suspect that most of these people voted for Obama anyway, it probably did not take much on his part to push them over the edge.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I will slow down and spell it out carefully, as seems to always be necessary when responding to you.

That's not necessary. What's necessary is to change reality so that it fits with your interpretation of it.

The shift I'm talking about was evident in public opinion polls, and was borne out in the exit polls. If you look at every poll taken from Obama's inauguration until now, you will see that there has been a dramatic shift in his support among independents.

And among Democrats as well. Which makes that datum about independents meaningless.

The number of people identifying themselves has Democrats has gone down substantially

Completely irrelevant to the entire question.

While you are right that many independents lean one way or the other, they are independents for a reason. They will split tickets and change which party they vote for

Wrong.

And until you understand this, you will continue to misunderstand the results of the 2010 election. That the overwhelming majority of independents do NOT switch their votes from one election to the next is exactly why you are mistaken, not in the bare FACT that the Republicans got a higher percentage of the so-called "independent" vote in 2010 than in 2008 or 2006 but in what that means. It means that the Democratic-leaning independents stayed home. It means that the Republican-leaning independents came out and voted. (Or, in the earlier elections, vice-versa.) And yes, it means that the Democrats won the true-independent vote by less than they did in those earlier elections. But that was not a change of much consequence, while the change in voter turnout was.

There are people who post here who are examples, and say so regularly

Of course. I'm not saying that these people don't exist. I'm saying that there are very few of them, and most of those whom the exit polls label as "independents" are not these people. They are Republicans or Democrats, who do not switch their votes, but who don't like to label themselves.

Originally Posted by Rose1992

I'm going to have to go with you on this one. As I recall from the 2008 primaries, so many centrist Democrats were suspicious of Obama, especially in the Midwest and Appalachia. They thought he was arrogant for trying to run for President on his lack of experience and an empty suit. Anyone besides me remember the people that threatened to vote McCain if Hillary did not get nominated? While I suspect that most of these people voted for Obama anyway, it probably did not take much on his part to push them over the edge.

However reasonable that may sound, the measurable, observable reality is that it is not so. I will add here that you have lumped together several completely disparate groups. The people who threatened to vote for McCain if Hillary wasn't nominated were not Midwesterners or Appalachians, they were hard-core feminists who were crushingly disappointed that we would see our first black president rather than our first female one. (And in the end they didn't vote for McCain.)

But more to the point, all of the data from the election, all the exit-poll data in particular, show not a change in who people voted for but a change in who voted. The reality is that the category of "independents" that JPT is talking about barely exists, and a lot of those who are called "independents" in polling are not, in that sense, independent at all. There is a massive amount of evidence demonstrating this fact. JPT discards that evidence and relies instead of plausible-sounding but false truisms because they tell him what he wants to hear.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

That's not necessary. What's necessary is to change reality so that it fits with your interpretation of it.

Yeah...OK...

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Yeah...OK...

And again, you respond to the assertion which blows your entire edifice of argument out of the water with a non-answer. You neither refute the statement that "independents" are mostly partisans without labels, nor acknowledge that it is true. And so most likely we will have this same exchange again down the road, as if this one had never taken place. It's the way you roll.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

And again, you respond to the assertion which blows your entire edifice of argument out of the water with a non-answer. You neither refute the statement that "independents" are mostly partisans without labels, nor acknowledge that it is true. And so most likely we will have this same exchange again down the road, as if this one had never taken place. It's the way you roll.

Bottom line...arguing with you about whether or not the sky is blue is not interesting. And I'm not getting paid to do research for you about current events that are common knowledge.

I gave my opinion, and the reasons for it. It can't be proven, it's a prediction. What can be proven is how wrong you were about the 2010 elections, denying up to the last day that the Republicans would win the majority, when they ended up winning by a historic margin, larger than 1994. Those posts are still on the board unless you deleted them. Maybe I should look those up for you along with the charts and polls needed to explain reality to you.

Originally Posted by Rose1992

I'm going to have to go with you on this one. As I recall from the 2008 primaries, so many centrist Democrats were suspicious of Obama, especially in the Midwest and Appalachia. They thought he was arrogant for trying to run for President on his lack of experience and an empty suit. Anyone besides me remember the people that threatened to vote McCain if Hillary did not get nominated? While I suspect that most of these people voted for Obama anyway, it probably did not take much on his part to push them over the edge.

The pissed off Clinton voters fall into two categories: a. feminists, gay activists, and such that saw Obama as the moderate who was lukewarm on their issues, esp. abortion, and perceived sexism against Clinton, and b. conservative democrats who rallied to Clinton because they were afraid Obama was too liberal.

Group A has probably completely forgotten their grievances with Obama, and they probably voted for him in 2008 even if they weren't happy, but they are firmly within his camp at this point.

Group B probably didn't vote for him in 2008 and they still dislike him. They're split-ticket voters only because they live in states that still have honest-to-God conservative Democrats. Economic moderates, social conservatives.

Originally Posted by Rose1992

I'm going to have to go with you on this one. As I recall from the 2008 primaries, so many centrist Democrats were suspicious of Obama, especially in the Midwest and Appalachia. They thought he was arrogant for trying to run for President on his lack of experience and an empty suit. Anyone besides me remember the people that threatened to vote McCain if Hillary did not get nominated? While I suspect that most of these people voted for Obama anyway, it probably did not take much on his part to push them over the edge.

I do. But the "empty suit" and "inexperience" labels are now shattered as forcefully as they can be shattered. In 2012 he runs on his record, and that record is as unambiguous as the record of any President in recent times. Foreign policy, counter-terrorism, and now military policy are his property now, which is uncharacteristic of a liberal. In those he has likely achieved much that most conservatives want him to achieve. So the Presidential election now boils down to his achievements versus the promises of the Other Side.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I will slow down and spell it out carefully, as seems to always be necessary when responding to you. The shift I'm talking about was evident in public opinion polls, and was borne out in the exit polls. If you look at every poll taken from Obama's inauguration until now, you will see that there has been a dramatic shift in his support among independents. The number of people identifying themselves has Democrats has gone down substantially, while the number identifying as Republicans has risen, although to a lesser degree. The number calling themselves conservatives has risen as high as 40%. The only way you could be ignorant of that fact is if you never watch the news.

While you are right that many independents lean one way or the other, they are independents for a reason. They will split tickets and change which party they vote for from one election to the next, even if they lean one way or the other. There are people who post here who are examples, and say so regularly. You seem to want to believe they don't exist, or are smaller in number than they actually are.

Going back for a past example, Ronald Reagan got a lot of votes from registered Democrats -- not even independents. Only about 1/3 of voters on the right and 1/5 of voters on the left are of the type who will never vote for the other party.

Yes, I'll come out.

While I consider myself a conservative person who shows loyalty to pretty much everything else in my day to day life, I am not loyal to any political party.

My name is Millie X and I am a Independent.

(I will add that I am loyal to my ideas, beliefs and stance, which hasn't changed since I first started voting and struggle to find the closet candidate to that. I'm not wishy washy when it comes to my stance. This goes beyond policy and is more about leadership qualities)

But party registration can be an unreliable predictor of actual voting habits "on the ground": On Staten Island, for example, Democratic registrants still outnumber Republicans - yet virtually all borough-wide elections are won by Republicans, and all local ones as well, except on the island's North Shore, which is only one-third white (the rest of the island is approximately 6/7ths white, with Italian-Americans accounting for about half of the white total).

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I do. But the "empty suit" and "inexperience" labels are now shattered as forcefully as they can be shattered. In 2012 he runs on his record, and that record is as unambiguous as the record of any President in recent times. Foreign policy, counter-terrorism, and now military policy are his property now, which is uncharacteristic of a liberal. In those he has likely achieved much that most conservatives want him to achieve. So the Presidential election now boils down to his achievements versus the promises of the Other Side.

I ran up on some analysis in the Economist about the effect of the Bin Laden killing. I had simplistically thought that by the time of the election this event would have no impact. What these opinion pieces project is the impact on the Republican primaries. The prediction is that it will make the Republicans less crazy sounding and give us a more clear debate about the deficit and size of government. I like this thinking.

Before the news about Mr bin Laden, 26% of voters strongly approved of Mr Obama, and 36% strongly disapproved. The total split was 49% approving and 50% disapproving, meaning that 23% of voters somewhat approve, and 24% somewhat disapprove. There's an emotive component to the strong feelings, and that does reflect policy considerations, most notably health-care reform, but it also includes the personal animus discussed above. That means Republicans have had an incentive to play to their base, because that's where their greater relative advantage lies—in the ferocity of the opposition, rather than its size. And although moderates determine the outcomes of elections, the base influences the issues that are foregrounded in the primary process and the tone of proceedings. The news about Mr bin Laden changes things. We would expect it to diminish the strength of the disapproval, if not its size. That could push Republicans to a different strategic approach, one more focused on moderates, as they enter the primaries.

Here.

And in another place:

I AGREE with my colleague in Austin: the worst of the Republicans just lost a lot of their story against Barack Obama, "apology tour", "palling around with terrorists" and all. There is very good news in this: Mr Obama's re-election is far from guaranteed, but now this means the Republicans will have to come with ideas on how to fix the economy, and not with tales of Barry Hussein Soetero's wild years. The country needs a long debate on how to make short- and long-term fixes that will create jobs and prepare the economy for the next two or five decades. It's a debate worth having, and now I'm more confident that we'll have it.

Here.

From their lips to God's ears.

James50

Originally Posted by Tomas Nau

The 2012 election will be a convoluted nightmare that further divides the nation.

Tom Kratman's A state of disobediance might be an interesting if poorly written look into this.

Good first post. Welcome to the forum.

Originally Posted by Rose1992

I'm going to have to go with you on this one. As I recall from the 2008 primaries, so many centrist Democrats were suspicious of Obama, especially in the Midwest and Appalachia. They thought he was arrogant for trying to run for President on his lack of experience and an empty suit. Anyone besides me remember the people that threatened to vote McCain if Hillary did not get nominated? While I suspect that most of these people voted for Obama anyway, it probably did not take much on his part to push them over the edge.

Actually, I think David Kaiser is closest to the mark. All evidence to the contrary, we're still expecting instant results. No one has the guts to say, "Governing is hard and some problems need time to be resolved." They also avoid, "Simplistic ideas about the economy/international trade/war/taxation are never right. No more pandering: we need to do the right thing now." Instead they hear the simplistic ideas, and the Great Media Megaphone(TM) echoes all the nonsense and, worse still, validates it.

Apparently we have to hit a brick wall to know it's there and it really is brick.

Originally Posted by James50

I ran up on some analysis in the Economist about the effect of the Bin Laden killing. I had simplistically thought that by the time of the election this event would have no impact. What these opinion pieces project is the impact on the Republican primaries. The prediction is that it will make the Republicans less crazy sounding and give us a more clear debate about the deficit and size of government. I like this thinking.

But the crazy stuff can't be pushed under the rug, especially when it emanates from the House of Representatives. We may see the demise of the relevance of the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck -- good riddance! If mean-spirited nutcases like Michelle Bachmann walk the (political) plank in 2012, then such will be good for the future of the Republican Party. After defeats in 2006 and 2008 the Republican leadership should have sought to forge a different coalition from what it succeeded with between 1980 and 2004. Instead it repackaged its old message with a louder campaign of publicity and more lavish marketing.

As it is, President Obama has delivered the most hated terrorist in the world to the Great Satan and as such has solved a huge problem. Any reduction in military spending that results from a ramp-down of American involvement in wars overseas implies a reduction in deficit spending -- the "peace dividend" that underpinned the budget surpluses of the Clinton era.

Political realignments happen under the cover of landslides of the other side. The losing side comes to recognize that it is condemned to failure if it doesn't seek out a part of the recently-victorious coalition or foster a new and fast-growing constituency. The Republican Party has long had a lock on the Old Money types, most of small business owners (including successful farmers and ranchers) and bureaucratic elites within Big Business... and found the heavily-Boom Religious Right. The Religious Right made possible the Reagan-Bush era of overwhelming victories in the Presidency and the Presidency of Dubya as well as most of the Republican majorities in the House and Senate. But the Religious Right is Boom, and Boomers are entering old age. The Religious Right has failed to keep a hold on late-wave X and Millennial adults who are either too secular or too rational for the Religious Right. As a rule, deaths of cohorts are nearly negligible through the twenties but slowly rise into the forties. The youngest Boomers turn 51 this year, and the oldest are now turning 68 this year. Sure, many 68-year-olds can remain active and productive -- if they have good habits. But Boomers are beginning to die off in large numbers -- and with them the Religious Right. Politicians cannot depend upon the Religious Right to continue deliver right-wing political victories.

2010 looks like a Pyrrhic victory for the Hard Right. It did nothing to recreate a coalition of victories in 2012 and beyond because it failed to find new voters. The only lasting legacy of the Hard Right in the election of 2010 will be the presence of some right-wing Senators who will be around until at least 2016. The GOP will go down bigger in 2012 than it did in 2006 and 2008 and it will stay down until it starts finding people that the current Democrats will surely under-serve. The poor?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Actually, I think David Kaiser is closest to the mark. All evidence to the contrary, we're still expecting instant results. No one has the guts to say, "Governing is hard and some problems need time to be resolved." They also avoid, "Simplistic ideas about the economy/international trade/war/taxation are never right. No more pandering: we need to do the right thing now." Instead they hear the simplistic ideas, and the Great Media Megaphone(TM) echoes all the nonsense and, worse still, validates it.

Apparently we have to hit a brick wall to know it's there and it really is brick.

In the last Crisis, people kept hoping for a return for economic conditions characteristic of the 1920s until reality disabused them of any such hope. Then people made their personal and political adjustments. They started finding business opportunities that they would have rejected in the late 1920s -- long-term, low yield opportunities in which they needed to create capital and goodwill before they could embark on consumerism that wouldn't become possible again for at least a decade and a half. They learned that "New Era" economics of the late 1920s was an illusion.

There are no economic quick fixes. Not economic bubbles and certainly not tax cuts targeted at the economic elite.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

While there is no doubt that turnout was a factor, you have been deluding yourself about this stuff for the last year or so, and have proven yourself impervious to facts when they're presented. There was a massive swing among independents between 2008 and 2010. Every poll showed it, and the election results showed it.

But in 2012, the voting trends that separated 2010 from 2006 and 2008 will be irrelevant.

I post on an election thread, and I have created some models to predict the 2012 election. Sure, those models depend upon the assumption that the President will not implode politically due to a personal scandal, some diplomatic/military debacle, or an economic collapse. But based upon existing polls that show how the President is doing in matchups against Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, and Newt Gingrich, I find the following:

Even with blank spaces for states that have not been polled since at least December 2010, the President wins 264 electoral votes against everyone. Blank spaces include Illinois and Vermont, another 23 electoral votes as sure things. Such brings the total to 287 electoral votes against anyone. That is roughly Dubya vs. Kerry in 2004. Obama wins against anyone known to be a reasonable opponent.

Romney apparently (and this is before the dispatch of Osama bin Laden) wins Nevada, Arizona, Iowa, Florida, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire... 76 electoral votes against President Obama. But nobody wins any of those states against Obama.

So if I reasonably expect a 287-261 win for Obama over Romney, I expect a 363-185 win for Obama over Huckabee. Such is very close to what President Obama did against John McCain even with the re-apportionment of House seats. Missouri might be a tie, and I have no idea on Indiana.

Sarah Palin not only loses everything that Huckabee loses, but also Georgia, South Carolina, Missouri, and South Dakota! That means at the least 38 more electoral votes lost by Palin. (Gingrich is almost as bad, in case you are curious, and with what little is out with Donald Trump, his prospects look execrable with few matchups shown). Obama would trounce both Palin and Gingrich by at least a 401-137 margin in electoral votes. Palin would apparently tie in Nebraska and Tennessee -- tellingly, Nebraska hasn't voted for any Republican nominee statewide since the LBJ landslide. Unpopular as she has become in Alaska she might lose that.

States that have not been polled since December 2010 include Vermont and Illinois (sure things for Obama), Indiana, Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana, Arkansas, North Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Idaho, Utah, and Alaska. Those states not polled since December 2010 aside from Vermont and Indiana included only one state close for Obama in 2008 (Indiana), the rest being decisive losses for him.

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/ind...190#msg2889190

Here's another consideration: how Governors fare. State governors are often the politicians with the second-highest exposure to political attention in any state, the President alone getting more attention. It seems evident that a highly-popular Governor can help any politician of the same Party, but an unpopular Governor is to be avoided by other politicians of his own Party or to be exploited by politicians of the other Party. So if the Democratic Governor is seen as incompetent, corrupt, dictatorial, or otherwise troublesome, then any Democrat has a harder task (Beverly Perdue is trouble in North Carolina) in winning a statewide election. The Republican Governor of Virginia seems to be holding his own, and he would be of help to any Republican nominee for President who seeks and gets his help. But contrast Scott Walker in Wisconsin, who is now just slightly more popular than a timber rattler in Wisconsin. If Scott Walker were President of Wisconsin, then he would be in danger of a military coup.

OK, so here we go with the latest treatment of statewide polls of Governors. Rhode Island is an independent, so the 4 electoral votes of Rhode Island don't fit the model. DC has no Governor, so no governor can have an effect on any district-wide race. Ties would have zero effect in my model, but I see none yet.

I am using a gap to decide how popular a Governor is, and I include only data beginning in February for new Governors and December for re-elected or otherwise continuing Governors. Basically people who re-elected Rick Perry in Texas or Jan Brewer in Arizona acted as if they knew what they were doing. Intensity matters greatly. Intensity of the gap means more than a raw approval rating. A governor with a split of 37-31 in approval and disapproval isn't especially well-known but is doing OK. One whose split is 37-35 isn't especially good, but it is the right direction. 37-40? Somewhat troubled. 37-49? Big trouble!



So here's how I see them:

Democrat, popularity gap -10% or more 15 Republican, popularity gap -10% or more 93

Democrat, popularity gap -5% to -9% 0 Republican, popularity gap -5% to -9% 14


Democrat, popularity gap -1% to -4% 0 Republican, popularity gap -1% to -4% 6

Democrat, popularity gap 0% (tie) 0 Republican, popularity gap 0% (tie) 0


Democrat, popularity gap +1% to +4% 0 Republican, popularity gap +1% to +4% 41

Democrat, popularity gap +5% to +9% 0 Republican, popularity gap +5% to +9% 14


Democrat, popularity gap +10% or more 112 Republican, popularity gap +10% or more 88

Independent Governor, Governorship vacant, or no Governor 7

....Now for the kicker. Add the approvals of Democrats and opposite directions for Republicans. Such suggests the advantage; having a highly-popular Governor of one's own party has the presumed effect of having a highly-unpopular Governor of the other party.

What do we then see?

Democratic advantage, 10%+ 205

Democratic advantage, 5%- 9% 4

Democratic advantage under 5% 6

No advantage 7

Republican advantage under 5% 41

Republican advantage 5% -10% 14


Republican advantage 10% + 103


This is as of 5/1/2011, before the President announced the demise of Osama bin Laden. Some strange results are possible; for example, the Democratic President and a Republican governor could get credit for dealing with a natural disaster very competently. But all in all, the unpopularity of Republican governors in a swath from Wisconsin to Pennsylvania bodes ill for any Republican nominee for President.