regardless of whether you think the 2010 GOP was different from the 2008 GOP, the public gave them a pretty crushing victory in 2010. While it was not quite Obama’s victory margin, it was very darn close.
But I know, these things are ‘structural’ or something. Has nothing to do with the Democrats’ performance.
I’m not arguing that one way or the other. I just don’t think the Republicans have had their soul-searching, self-reflecting, figure-out-what-we-did-wrong-and-stop-doing-it time in the wilderness yet.
Your posts are part of the reason why I think that.
These things have everything to do with turnout. More Americans vote, Democrats win. Few Americans vote, Republicans win. Obama was magnificent at turning out voters. That’s all Democrats need to do, not that it’s an easy task.
Frankly, it must really suck to be rooting for few Americans to vote.
I agree. But I also think Democrats suffer from the same disease. That’s why neither party has been able to maintain power for long.
That’s not EXACTLY true. It’s about 60% myth, 40% reality. The 2008 election saw turnout increase from 60.1% to 61.6%. It dropped to 58.2% in 2012.
I don’t feel the need to root either way. I figure whoever wants to vote, will vote. To the extent I do care about turnout, I got quite a bit of satisfaction from Barack Obama winning reelection knowing he couldn’t bring those first time voters back to the polls because he’d proven to be the same type of politician that had prompted them to stay home in the past. I don’t know if Republicans can ever win those 3-4 million voters, but I bet they never turn out for Democrats again.
You and others keep on saying that his approval doesn’t matter. Technically, you’re sorta right. It’s what’s BEHIND his low approval that matters, even though he’ll never stand for election again. I assume you want those 2008 Obama voters to turn out for Clinton or whatever current unknown the Democrats end up nominating if disaster strikes and she stays out of it. Too bad Obama alienated them, and the insoucience of longtime Democrats who never really cared about his reformist promises to begin with don’t help either.
Perhaps, although their failures aren’t of quite the same magnitude. There haven’t been any surpluses turned into deficits, airliners flying into skyscrapers, wars looking for things that don’t exist, or massive recessions on their watch, so the impetus for self-examination maybe isn’t quite as strong.
So you’re not rooting for people not to vote, you just feel satisfaction when they don’t. Gotcha.
No, I feel satisfaction when the party of self righteousness about getting people to vote explicitly carries out a strategy of tamping voter participation down to save their skins. the damage Obama has done to the party is as extensive as that done by Bush to the Republicans. He’s made you chuck your principles.
In a “still living in a bubble” update, even liberals are now tiring of the President. I’m guessing the ignorance fighters will be the dead enders:
Are you sure “explicitly” is the word you were going for there?
My point wasn’t true in 2004, but is true now, due to demographic changes. And it will be more and more true each year, such that Republicans will need lower and lower turnouts to just have a chance to win. Their only chance is mid-terms.
If you don’t want Republicans to get crushed, you’re going to have to.
What nonsense. Sure, young voter turnout was down from 2008, but he still won big – obviously, his re-election is going to be less exciting for young voters than his first election. Obama stomped his opponent, because that’s what Obama does in elections.
LOL.
LOL. God you’re a terrible political analyst. Just awful.
Exactly. And add to that the ridiculousness of the idea that it’s trying to put forth: He failed to deliver on the things I want so because of that I’m going to vote for people who are against those things.
The Republicans are voting to end a particularly pernicious form of corporate welfare. The Republicans banned earmarks and have kept the ban in place when Democrats would rather quietly end the ban.
What government reforms are the Democrats supporting? Looks like the same old corrupt machine politics we’ve seen from them for decades to me. And Obama personifies that old politics.
Campaign finance reform. Immigration reform. Filibuster reform (at least for some Democrats). Gerrymandering reform.
For you personally, Obama personifies all sorts of evil stuff that does not actually reflect reality. Obama’s really not that evil. Really. Hannity’s wrong about this stuff.
Campaign finance reform I’ll give you, although Obama didn’t help the cause by turning down public financing. And he didn’t have to do that either. I guess he just didn’t think he could beat McCain on a level playing field.
Immigration reform and filibuster reform have nothing to do with broken government and corruption. He promised change, not standard Democratic policies.
Gerrymandering reform is a state issue.
How about ending the practice of rushing bills through Congress before they are read? Bills would be posted online for five days. He reneged on that one. Wasn’t the last time either. Obama wasn’t supposed to be the guy who intentionally broke his promises.
The voters must not like his hair then.
LOL. No, he just played within the rules. That’s okay, even when you want to change the rules. Play within them until they’re changed.
He also promised standard Democratic policies. He’s a pretty down-the-line Democrat, in fact.
Sounds like a feel good thing that would make absolutely zero difference.
According to Politifact, he’s done remarkably well at keeping his promises. No one should be surprised that he didn’t keep all of them – every politician makes promises, and no one can keep them all.
The voters have complicated views, not simplistic views derived from Hannity.
Well, no, actually he said he would use public financing, but he was lying about that too.
Regards,
Shodan
Of course he flip-flopped. I never said he didn’t change his mind on this. And thank god he did! Sometimes, flip-flopping is the wise move.
No virgin was ever elected Queen of the Whores.
When LBJ got the Civil Rights Act passed, he did it with bullying, conniving, arm-twisting, and every other trick in the master politicians arsenal. Too bad he had to play dirty, thank Heaven he did.
I can’t make heads or tails of this post. I assume “the party of self righteousness about getting people to vote” = the Democrats, but what is their explicit strategy of tamping voter participation? What damage has Obama done to his party? Who has chucked what principles?
Whew! Thanks, adaher! For a while there, Bricker had me concerned that we might lose the Senate. Now, thanks to your prediction, not only will we keep it, there’s a good chance we’ll get the House back, too!
You’re a peach! 