If you’re referring to midterm elections, well, to be fair, that’s only a sample size of one - 2010.
Special elections too, plus the 2009 and 2013 elections. But I agree with you to the extent that 2014 will give us more data.
Yes, the fact that it is two years away. Not only could the GOP take over by then, the lead could change several times over two years 
No they don’t. They don’t say what you’re saying.
Parts of the media and public do. Parts do not.
LOL. His approval rating is in the mid 40s. So it’s us and nearly half the country.
This includes one election. What a laughable statement. They failed to turn out in every single of the one non-presidential election.
As I pointed out, it includes all the special elections, plus the 2009 and 2013 elections. You think like a Democrat, believing that only the big elections matter.
Care to predict that Democrats will turn out in 2014?
Oh, and BTW, the President is at 41-42 approval, which is not “mid-40s” by any definition I’ve ever heard, unless you define “mid” as anything between 40 and 50. And his approval rating masks deeper problems, becuase on the issues he’s polling in the 30s and on competence he’s also in the 30s. Which means there’s a significant number of people who don’t approve of his handling of the issues and don’t think he’s competent but still approve of him anyway. That won’t last.
In this context, only the big ones matter. Turnout for special elections and other off-year elections isn’t really comparable to mid-terms and presidential elections.
Better than 2010, not as good as 2012.
The political pendulum always swings back the other way, sooner or later.
I half agree with you, but failure to turn out for special elections in such a way that there’s a partisan gap is a problem. Senators and Congressmen die, and then Scott Brown happens, which you have to admit was pretty inconvenient for Democrats. And boy, your Senators are getting awfully long in the tooth. If Democrats won’t come out for special elections, and Republicans control most state governments, most Democratic Senators who fail to finish their terms will be replaced with Republicans.
The reason I half agree is because special elections don’t predict general election turnout very well, so yeah, it tells us little about how Democrats will perform with Obama not at the top of the ticket.
But I’m also looking at 2000 and 2004, which weren’t that long ago. Democrats are gleefully predicting the rise of a “coalition of the ascendant”, but what, this suddenly occurred in 2008 and can be expected to continue? There’s just no evidence for that. It’s all based on the effect of one man. Democratic turnout in 2016 is a lot more likely to look like 2004 than 2012.
Thanks for a firm prediction. In 2010, 35% of the electorate were Democrats.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#USH00p1
In 2012 it was 38%
Adaher, I think most midterm elections go against the party in power. Special elections, not so sure. But it’s expected for the ruling party to lose the midterms.
You said the same thing about 2012 turnout. I see no reason to believe this. With the right candidate, turnout could even be higher – I think high black turnout, for presidential elections, at least, is here to stay… if Democrats can get high Hispanic turnout, then lookout!
It’s long been trendy to predict permanent dominance for one side. After the 1988 election, the Democratic Party’s third consecutive blowout loss in which the Republicans won 400+ EVs, it looked like the Democrats were done for good.
Yet at no point in the past 50 years has any party held the presidency for longer than twelve years.
*Holding *the presidency is not the same as being *elected *to it, is it now? :dubious:
2012 turnout was lower. Just not as lower as I’d predicted. Plus GOP turnout was lower as well. It was the lowest turnout election since 2000.
I predict black turnout will fall significantly from 2012 to 2016. If these are reliable voters now, where are they now? Obama’s trying to tell them that this election is about him, that these Democrats support him, please vote for them. Are they hearing him? Do they care?
Meh- you had the mythical Reagan win two of those. Actually, the real Reagan did, the myth came much later. The 1980 election was actually competitive, and Reagan would have lost had he not committed treason by undermining Carter’s hostage negotiations. And in 1988 Bush had the good fortune to run against the very definition of wimpy.
And likewise Democrats have only won when they’ve been able to run against unpopular Republican incumbents, both Bushes. Plus reelection of course, but incumbency confers its own advantages. Even Bush managed to win reelection when by all rights he should have been put out on his ass. And probably would have if Democrats hadn’t begun their recent immaturity towards selecting candidates. He’s a veteran, Bush is a chickenhawk! As if Democrats have ever actually cared about whether their candidates served.
In context, we’re talking about relative turnout. In absolute turnout, many demographics (especially Obama’s strongest ones) were indeed as high or higher in 2012.
Presumably they’re going about their day. In our causal and linear universe, we won’t know the 2014 turnout until after the election.
True, but we both believe it will be lower in relative terms than GOP turnout. Is it just because it’s a midterm, or is it because Obama isn’t on the ballot? I guess we’ll find out for sure in 2016.
Keep in mind that black turnout % EXCEEDED white turnout % in 2012. Do you really think that will last?
This is the *“Yes, the Spurs beat the Lakers, but the Lakers were bad that year” *argument. At a certain point, the result is the result and it is what it is.
By that same logic, Obama had the “good fortune” of running against McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012, both mediocre candidates.
I think it’s likely that white turnout will catch up.