That doesn’t strike me as clear at all.
Democrats lose voters over $50,000/yr, and sometimes lose voters over $30,000/yr. I think the incentives are quite clear.
Ironic how it’s Republican policies that are making more poor people, then, isn’t it?
I don’t see how presenting a platform with the goal of appealing to the working poor (or unemployed poor, for that matter) translates to policies of increasing the numbers of the working poor. It’s kind of like saying doctors treat diabetes, therefore they want more diabetes cases and are taking steps to create them, like encouraging poorer diets and sedentary lifestyles and whatnot.
Yes, and THAT’s the problem. It’s the beginning and the end of the GOP’s issues. At the state level, where Republicans have governed better, they’ve done better electorally.
It’s my Simon Cowell Theory: On American Idol, Cowell would be asked what the contestants can do. He’d simply say, “Sing well”.
Same goes for politicians. Govern well, elections take care of themselves.
At this point, getting Republicans to govern well will require a pretty dramatic restructuring in and of itself, at least in Congress. What useful governance have the House Republicans done lately? Examples?
Shit, (almost) everything the pair thinks bears little to no resemblance to reality. It’s that delusional thing I pointed out a few pages ago.
Earmark reform, controlling spending. Given the limitations of only controlling the House, that’s actually a pretty successful record.
I’m guessing you consider the 37 (futile) attempts to repeal the ACA to be “controlling spending” despite the fact that the CBO has shown that the deficit will be HIGHER without the ACA than with it.
We’ve already seen cites that prove you wrong on the numbers (first quoted sentence); would you care to offer us a cite to support either of your two assertions above?
No, I do not. However, you’re buying into an inaccurate talking point. The Republicans have only voted on full ACA repeal a few times. Other votes have been to repeal parts of ACA, and a couple of them, such as repeal of the CLASS Act, actually went through and was signed by the President.
By controlling spending, I mean that Republicans have appropriated between $3.5-$3.6 trillion every year they’ve controlled the House, thus keeping spending flat. The President in each of those years has asked for $3.8 trillion, an 8% increase over the previous year’s spending.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-lost-2-4-million-young-voters-2012-161508263.html
ome 2.4 million young voters who supported Barack Obama in his 2008 presidential race did not vote for him in 2012, according to an analysis released Friday by the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement (CIRCLE) at Tufts University.
CIRCLE used Census data released this week combined with exit poll data to produce estimates for young voter participation. It found that 14.8 million voters between the ages of 18 and 29 voted for Obama in 2008, but just 12.3 million of those voters cast ballots for the president in 2012.
By earmark reform, do you mean the Earmark Transparency Act?
I’m not sure “controlling spending” is what the American economy critically needed; I’m not inclined to view it as a worthy goal in and of itself without some consideration of the context.
Anyway, couldn’t they be even more successful if they worked for compromises that the Senate and President could agree to, even if not enthusiastically?
Sure they could. That’s been one of their weaknesses, their unwillingness to consider revenue increases.
On the other hand, Democrats can’t be trusted on spending cuts. Tax increases are always immediate, spending cuts always come later. I think Republicans would be much more amenable if Democrats offered spending cuts equal in value to the tax increases in the same year, not 10 years down the road. So I understand the Republican intransigence as strategically necessary for the time being.
If Republicans win the Senate, however, the dynamic changes, and they need to make deals with the President in order to be effective.
Well, if the Republicans retake the Senate in 2014 (and retain the House), are they likely to be more compromising with Obama, less compromising, or about the same?
The link to the actual study in your cite does not go to a study or a website that exists.
On my own, I did manage to find the study and CIRCLE is careful to note that their methodology is imperfect and they are using a new source for data. They also are careful to use the word “estimate” before offering any numbers.
[
](CIRCLE)
But, if we take the estimate at face value, did Romney gain any of those youth votes?
How do you know they didn’t vote for Obama because he “disappointed them”?
What percentage or number of the youth vote from 2008 is now out of the age demographic considered by the CIRCLE paper? Did those people vote for Obama or Romney?
It looks like you saw some numbers that you thought were good for your argument (such as it is) and just started making up reasons to justify those numbers.
Doubtful. He is not the sort who is persuasive to anyone who does not already agree with him very strongly.
I dunno, what are Limbaugh’s demographics like? What are his audience numbers under age 25? Does he get any new listeners whose parents were not also listeners?
I hope more compromising, but it seems unlikely. A win in 2014 would essentially make Obama a lame duck and the country would start focusing on the Presidential race, which is pretty much what happened at the beginning of 2007.
Probably not anymore, but in his heyday he was extremely influential in a way not seen since Father Coughlin.