I’m not sure that’s true. Turnout among the “coalition of the ascendant” was historically high in 2008 and 2012. Assuming that this will be the case for a Democrat not named Obama is assuming much, especially given how lackluster turnout has been for the Democratic coalition in every other election besides the Presidential.
Better to correct that to “Republicans can’t win Presidential elections with their current coalition IF they turn out for future Democrats the way they turned out for Obama.”
Heck, even Obama wasn’t Obama in 2012. He lost 2 million youth votes. How many young voters will the old lady get?
2004 was the only clear cut Republican win. By 3 million votes. You can claim an electoral college technicality if you want to try, but just as I acknowledge that Gore was the voters’ choice in 2000, Bush was clearly the voters’ choice in 2004.
And if you want to talk about technicalities, I’d note that Obama is the only Democrat since 1976 to win a majority of the votes. When another Democrats does that, I’ll be impressed.
If they don’t vote, why bother? Appealing to actual voters is still the best strategy for winning elections, and as I said before, there is no evidence that the Obama coalition turns out for anyone but Obama.
The coalition that turns out for midterms and special elections looks an awful lot like the John Kerry coalition.
If only the Kerry/Gore voters come out, in proportion to demographics, the Democrats will win big in 2016. That’s how bad the demographics are now and going forward for Republicans.
The last Republican to be legitimately elected was Eisenhower. How so, might you ask?
1968: Nixon undermines LBJ’s Vietnam peace talks and narrowly defeats Humphrey. It’s now clear that what Nixon did was treason.. Take away that treasonous victory, and of course Nixon doesn’t win in 1972, either.
1980: Reagan undermines Carter’s hostage negotiations with Iran, stealing a play from Nixon. Take away that act of treason, and Reagan doesn’t in in 1984 nor would it have put Bush Sr. in a position to win in 1988.
2000: Bush steals Florida with help from a poorly designed ballot and the Republican US Supreme Court.
2004: Bush steals Ohio with the help of a crooked Ohio Secretary of State.
Now you’re getting into weird areas. Obama lied his ass off to get elected to an extent far beyond normal campaign gobbledygook, and Clinton never won a majority. Making Carter the last legitimate Democrat elected.
Going back further though, I’d eliminate LBJ and Kennedy too. Goldwater was too moral to go dirty against LBJ. For all the talk of his “Southern Strategy” being racist, he had an ad in the can featuring riots in cities that was judged “dynamite” in focus groups and would have changed the entire complexion of the election. That evil racist chose not to use it because it well, appealed to racial tensions. Predictably, the left never gave him any credit, unless they want to use Goldwater as a cudgel to beat up modern Republicans.
I think you’re giving Barry too much credit. The Southern Strategy started with Nixon, not Goldwater. In 1964, many southern white racists were still Democrats, now their children form the GOP base.
The biggest being his entire message: that he was a candidate for change, while McCain represented the old politics.
That one is about the dirtiest lie I can think of, because McCain spent his entire career fighting for change, bucking his own party, whereas Obama spent his rather short career just blending in with the Chicago political establishment.
Bill Clinton was right: Obama was an off the shelf Chicago politician. And he didn’t just screw McCain with the Big Lie. He screwed Hillary as well. While the Clintons will never be confused with change agents in terms of the way politics are conducted, they did make a ton of efforts to reform the government in Clinton’s eight years. Clinton was rightfully pissed that Obama was able to take this away from them.
He bamboozled the country in a way that no candidate ever has, and he stepped over two good people to do it.
Wow with that much venom in your system I’m surprised your organs still function. Campaigning on the concept of change is a big lie? Seriously? The way I recall, Obama wanted to usher in a post-partisan era. Little did he know that on the evening of his inauguration, Republicans would meet secretly and pledge to sabotage everything he tried to do.
Don’t waste any tears on McCain. Here’s a guy who had a wife who patiently waited for him during his POW years, then dumped her because she was disfigured in an auto accident and gained weight. The guy’s a dirtbag.
Obama does politics the same way the average politician does politics. There was never even an attempt to change politics. He defined “post-partisan” as “stop arguing and do what I want.” he used it as a weapon, not a unifying message.
But if you want something more specific, here’s the other tic that Obama has that is enraging: he can’t just say someone is wrong. They are liars, or in McCain’s case, crazy. McCain accused Obama of wanting to negotiate with Hamas. Obama said that was of course nonsense, and that McCain was “losing his bearings”. Kept it classy as always, that guy.
adaher, you have no credibility with regards to analyzing President Obama. You’ve admitted your incredible bias. The personal animosity you seem to bear him is weird and pathetic. Your criticism of his political style is absurd. He’s far from perfect, and he’s made lots of mistakes, but the “stop arguing and do what I want” is counter-factual. During his first term he bent over backwards to compromise, and far more than he should.
As to calling people liars… his opponents call him a liar far, far more than he calls them. And his opponents are liars far more than he is – just compare the ratings on factcheck.org or politifact – Obama is far from perfect, again, but he rates significantly higher than his major opponents.
McCain regularly lies because he hates Obama so much – most recently with the Bergdahl exchange, which he originally supported. McCain is not the man he was 20 years ago, not even close.
He’s had four big goals: ending the recession and recovering economically, reforming health care, responding to climate change, and education reform. You may disagree with how he did it, but he’s been far from ineffectual. He’s been very capable at accomplishing his goals, considering the unreasonableness of his opposition.
He’s accomplished significant things for all four.
Further, he’s pulled us out of the disastrous Iraq war and is getting us out (slower than I like) of Afghanistan. And he got Bin Laden, in a way that McCain said was foolish (going into Pakistan).
Your analysis is stupid and wrong. Your personal hatred of the man makes it impossible for you to look at him in anything but a negative light.
When he co-opts the message of one of your political heroes and unfairly diminishes the man in the process, yeah, I’m bitter.
And I don’t think it’s just bias, because the Clintons felt the same way. Their analysis of who Barack Obama was was EXACTLY the same as the McCain campaign’s.
You could give him credit for doing what you know needs to be done, and even for what you want done. Instead, you find yourself forced to denounce him just because of his party affiliation.
Can it never occur to you that perhaps you support the wrong party? Or is your devotion to your team stronger than any mere principle?
I think I’ve found your problem. You’ve got the wrong guy for a hero. McCain is the spoiled brat who wrecked a few planes while invoking his daddy the admiral’s name at every opportunity. His 2008 campaign was listless and he offered no ideas on how to deal with the economic crisis. During the campaign, when Bush convened a high level meeting Obama was present and participated while McCain sat in a corner and pouted. This is the guy who thought that Sarah Palin was qualified to be vice president and be one aged heartbeat away from the Oval Office. Since his loss, he has revealed himselft to be a bitter and angry old man.
The Clintons made their peace with Obama. They may tolerate each other in small doses, but they agree on most of the issues and Obama will enthusiastically support Hillary before and after the election.
So…you’re saying Obama ran a better campaign than HR Clinton or McCain?
I guess we knew that already.
Also, adaher, bit of friendly advice: take a break. You’re gonna burn out, and then where will we be when we want to read some counterfactual pro-Republican glurge on this board?