Definitely. I understand your point about not all non-workers being welfare recipients, but I knew that, which is why I didn’t care too much about the exact poll breakdown of that demographic. What I was interested in was how workers vote, given that all workers are taxpayers. And they do in fact vote more GOP than Democrat, just not by as big margins as I had expected.
Anyway, disastrous week for Democrats in the polling. The House is also starting to look worse for Democrats, with Republicans poised to have their biggest majority since 1946 if things shake out just right for them.
Surprisingly, Kay Hagan is bucking the trend, continuing to do better and better against Tillis.
Why are you repeating claims that were already shown, by your own cites nonetheless, to be false? Obama won the “working vote” in 2008, and it was tied in 2012. It’s false to say they vote more GOP than Democratic.
No, because the working vote was less than the overall Democratic vote. Obama won the working vote by a small margin in 2008 because he won the election by a rather large margin. Just as Reagan won certain groups in 1984 that Republicans usually didn’t win, but that didn’t make them Republican leaning groups. It just meant that in such a historic landslide, Reagan was going to eke out majorities among some traditionally Democratic constituencies. Constituencies that reverted back to form in later elections.
Obama also won the wealthiest voters in 2008. No one would call that group a Democratic constituency, but when you win by 7 points, you probably won some votes you wouldn’t normally win. We are still a 50-50 country after all.
That’s not what you said. You said the GOP wins the working vote more than the Democrats – you’re saying the GOP gets a majority/plurality of working voters. That is false. In some elections it is true, but in 2008 and 2012, it is absolutely false.
Yes, it was false, because I assumed a larger majority than existed. I should have been more careful, because Obama did win those two elections, which by definition in a 50-50 country means he won some extra support somewhere.
Then why did you repeat this false claim again in post #601 after you acknowledged that it had been disproven?
It’s not a false claim. Working voters are more likely to vote for Republicans by a slight margin, all things being equal. Obviously in a big Democratic year, this won’t be the case. Just as in a big Republican year, Democrats don’t win the women’s vote.
You didn’t say “all things being equal”.
Quit being so damn easy on yourself. You’re constantly being criticized about factual accuracy because you’re frequently terrible with facts. And when challenged on it, you just dance around and try to change the subject, when you don’t abandon the thread altogether (like the other Elections thread).
I admitted I was wrong about Republicans always winning the working vote. I assumed the margins were bigger than they were.
I just also didn’t want YOU go get away with implying that there was nothing at all to the argument that Republicans do well with workers.
So stop repeating this claim unqualified. Don’t say “Republicans get more working voters”, or some similarly counterfactual assertion.
I never implied this.
May I hijack to repeat the obvious (but probably ignorant) question: What difference does it make?
The House is certain to be GOP. so GOP can block anyhing they want. They won’t have enough strength to override a veto, so Demos can block anything also.
Even for Senate-only decisions, the Demos have nowhere near the 60 votes they need without going thermonuclear; in a sense, having 41 Senate seats isn’t much worse than having 59.
I suppose the Senate majority will mean GOP can devote the Senate to investigating Beghazigate, but giving GOP enough leash to show its true colors should be good for the country.
… Tell me why I’m being foolish.
Judicial nominations. Also, optics. Reid for years now has prevented embarrassing votes for Democrat Senators.
Of course not. Still a month to go and a move of as little as three points in Democrats favor would leave them losing only two seats.
Of course, three points in the other direction, and they lose 9.
Plenty. If Republicans are smart, which is obviously not a sure thing, to put it mildly. But if they can pass stuff out of Congress and put it on Obama’s desk, that has serious consequences. Vetoes are big news. Vetoes force Democratic candidates running for President to say whether they agree with those vetoes. Putting popular conservative legislation on the President’s desk is a win-win. If he signs it, great. If he vetoes, then it helps the GOP candidates for President. Of course, this assumes that they’ll pass popular bills instead of just trying to cut food stamps like they usually do.
It’s easier for Republicans to function with a minority than Democrats. Historically, Republicans have been able to peel off red state Democrats to get things passed. I don’t see that changing. None of the remaining red state Democrats are going to take a bullet for Obama or Reid again. If it’s to their advantage, they’ll vote with Republicans.
That’s another thing I’m afraid of. I do think oversight is a good thing, and Democrats will try to portray any oversight as a witch hunt. But the Benghazi thing has been beaten to death with nothing new learned in over a year. Unless they have something new, enough already. It’s a distraction. And I believe the President shouldn’t be undermined while fighting a war.
As I’ve said earlier in this thread, one thing Republicans can do to help themselves and the country is support the President to the hilt in his war against ISIS.
If they were smart they would pass immigration reform, but we’d likely just get more obamacare repeals.
If they are smart, they’ll pass an immigration reform bill that prioritizes enforcement and makes amnesty contingent on improved enforcement metrics. And I think the President would sign such a bill.
I’m still on the “working vote” claim. The 2008 CNN cite explictly demonstrates that Obama beat McCain by 55 to 44 among those who work full time while only beating him 50 to 48 among those who do not. The exact opposite of your claim adahar. So some years there is an excess of full time workers to the GOP and some years to the Democrat.
Personally the phrase “working vote” strikes me as a bit misleading. We do not include part time workers as workers? We count CEOs as part of “the working vote”? Yes they are working but usually “the working vote” has an implication other than that.
Ah, balls, I really screwed that one up. I got the numbers reversed.