The first election after ACA passed was 2010, and there’s little question that the reason a Republican was elected to Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat was to stop ACA from passing.
Obama successfully made the election about things other than ACA. he became the king of distraction, focusing on the “war on women” and Romney’s personal qualities. Obama also benefits from a more loyal base than any Democrat has seen since LBJ. Except it doesn’t translate to elections where he’s not on the ballot.
Big change isn’t just hard, big change is deadly to your career. The only hope is that big change will radicalize your opponents so that they throw away easy victories. If the GOP had responded sanely to what Democrats did while in power, they’d have both chambers of Congress.
That’s pretty weak. Using this line of reasoning, the public suddenly changed their minds and became for the ACA after 2010.
The first two sentences are mostly false (and blatant right-wing spin). Obama was happy to talk about the ACA during the election, and mentioned it in most of his stump speeches.
Polling showed ACA as unpopular in 2012 as it was in 2010. What changed was what the election was about. As in, not ACA. Democrats avoided the subject successfully.
Yet all pro-Obama voters talked about was Mitt Romney being rich and a flip-flopper and the war on women.
Gracious! You mean to say they emphasized the themes that favored themselves? I gasp in horror, I clutch my pearls and faint dead away. How proud you must be to associate with a Party that does not deploy such sordid tactics.
When polled on the specifics, elements of the ACA were and remain quite popular. In addition, much of the opposition to the ACA was from the left, and the number of folks who have wanted to repeal the ACA has been shrinking for quite a while. The election wasn’t just about the ACA, but the ACA was a big part of it.
Said the Fox News viewer who probably has never spoken to an actual Obama voter.
I am failing to believe this on at least two points. MA already had the state-level version of the ACA, so it is hard to imagine that that would be a significant issue for them. And Brown may have given the Tea-shirts lip service, but it is not at all obvious (that I know of) that they helped him get elected. Brown was a moderate republican, because too far to the right in MA you go nowhere.
Romney was from MA as well. While governor he signed into law the state equivalent of the ACA: Obama need expend no particular effort to avoid debate on the subject, it was all built-in already.
Of course the good stuff polls well. Ask people about the individual mandate and losing their health insurance and paying higher taxes.
The fact is, the health care law did not grow more popular between 2010 and 2012. So logically, the reason it didn’t hurt the Democrats was because the election in 2012 was about different things than the election in 2010.
Let’s see what happens in 2014, with the health care law being a prominent issue in people’s minds and Obama not at the top of the ticket.
I know exactly why they didn’t. The GOP was a miserable failure during the Bush years and normally, a party spends a lot of time in the wilderness after such a fiasco. The Republicans got 15 years after the Depression to figure out who they were as a party. This time they got two. So the public returned them to the Congressional majority while in the midst of a civil war.
Sure they would. They’d have their internal battles, some types of candidates would have done better than other types and eventually the factions would settle down and realize their place within the coalition. The party from 1980 to 2006 was fairly harmonious as political parties go. You had religious right folks providing most of the enthusiasm, K street providing the money, and conservative ideological groups the ideas that were mostly ignored in favor of base-pleasing and corporate favoritism.
Now the conservative base is saying, “Hey, you should listen to us!” and are now the most powerful group in the party. And the religious right, led by figures like Huckabee and Santorum, is like, “Uh UH!!! we’re still the conscience, you libertarian-types are a danger to the party!” and K street’s going, “Um, can we get something done here?”
Those kinds of disputes are much easier to adjudicate while in the minority.
But no, you don’t get the majority back. 2010 was the third time out of the last four that Democrats had total power and then got hammered in the next election. I think the public gets it now. They may hate Republicans, but they’ll keep them the majority in at least one chamber for the forseeable future.
Waitaminnit, now. Why are you distinguishing the “religious right” from the “conservative base”? You seem to be saying the latter is libertarian. I (deeply) fear you’ll find the American conservative base is far more religious than libertarian. Also (and again I deeply fear) far more Pat-Buchanan-style-paleoconservative-nativist-isolationist than libertarian. After all, pure libertarianism would require not only free religious and moral consciences, but open borders and zero tariffs.
As for K Street, pimps will take whichever party that will serve. Mostly Pubs, at present. The Pubs are comfortably kept in condos, but the Dems walk K Street furtively, as it were.
The Tea Party and the religious right have some overlap, but the Tea Party also represents a more libertarian strain in the party that’s always been there but was pretty weak. No, they aren’t pure libertarians, but they are the closest thing we’ve seen in modern American political history.
They are close enough that religious right figures feel the need to take time out from liberal bashing to speak out against them.
They are also pissing off the national security/neocon faction of the party.
No, they’re decentralists. That is not anywhere near the same thing as libertarian, and that sad confusion is endemic throughout American intellectual-political history. Decentralism usually just opens the way for the local bully/feudal lord/local notable/Boss Hogg to oppress the neighbors.
FYI: This recent Gallup Poll shows “liberal” as a self-identifier is edging upward–mainly at the expense of “moderates”. And among Democrats a plurality (43%) accept the label, a steady climb from 2000 when self-identified liberals were at 29%.
The poll does point out that conservatives still outnumber liberals (38%-23%), but as for the Republican Party:
Actually, independent to a large extent now equals Republican. This is a function of Republicans alienating a lot of their base through incompetence and corruption, as well as being too ideologically rigid, and worse, inconsistent in their ideological rigidity. Since 2000, the GOP has found a way to piss off moderates AND conservatives, which is no easy feat.
But it hasn’t changed the number of conservatives much, which still creates unpleasant electoral realities for Democrats. So even when Democrats are in power, we still live in Reagan’s America. Just as even when Republicans were in power briefly in the 50s, they still had to live in the America of the New Deal.
Republican dominance should be as great as Democratic dominance was in the New Deal era. What prevents that from happening is the Republican Party keeps on giving back the gains among public opinion made by conservative talkers and writers and media.
Primary Season is well underway here in Texas. Can’t watch local shows without catching numerous ads from Republican hopefuls. Who are in a contest to claim they are The Most Conservative. And their Conservatism has nothing to do with fiscal prudence or libertarianism. They are agin’ immigrants, agin’ Obama (never “President Obama”) & agin’ Obamacare. Oh, and they are for the Right To Life & Gun Rights. And Preserving Their Religious Freedom, whatever that means–ask their hero, Ted Cruz. When “the public” is shown, the failure to hire even one non-White token is evident…just so nobody misses the racist & xenophobic message.
Houston tends to vote Democratic but we’re a big city, so we’ve got lots of Republican votes here, too. Especially Outside The Loop.
I really need to catch the news because weather is changing: Cold AM & Hot PM? Hot AM & Cold PM? We’re a few weeks away from our standard “Hotter than fuck but watch the Tropics.” However, I either have to keep running for the mute button or risk vomiting.
I remember William F Buckley & even respected him. A little. These guys are giving Conservatism a bad name. Even worse than it deserves.
