downzy

US Politics/Elections Thread

8,693 posts in this topic

Obama's unpopularity and the way Obamacare was shoved down America's throat by Dems had nothing to do with it, eh?

Read my above post. And by almost every measure, Obamacare has been a tremendous success in expanding coverage and lowering the rate of cost increases.

The reality is that Republicans are just better at motivating their base during non-Presidential elections. They're better at marketing their ideas, even if their ideas are counter to the economic interests of those voting for them.

And yes, historically, almost every mid-term sees the governing party lose seats/control of the House and or Senate. There are exceptions, but it's what generally happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh, as was expected - a Republican sweep. The governing party almost always loses big during midterms, save for 1998 (as a result of Republican overreaching by impeaching Clinton) and 2002, when 9/11 and the "war on terror" helped Republicans the following year. So not a big deviation from what normally happens.

Have to laugh (I think) at conservative pundit Erik Erickson who tweeted: "Americans just won back control of America." Not sure whether to :rofl-lol: or :vomit: Guess those of you who voted Democrat aren't really American...

If I'm guessing right now, I think this actually bodes well for Democrats in 2016. The Republicans have been the party of no, the party of obstruction. Now they actually have to govern. Will they have anything to show for in two years time? Something tells me that's a likely no. They are a party that claims to hate government, so why would they actually govern?

the thing is about 2016 the american people just hate having long periods of time with 1 party in control. a lot can happen in two years time in terms of new candidates popping up.

as for that quote it is utterly moronic and just makes you face palm. i voted for both parties today, does that make me half an american? :lol:

The main problem Republicans have going forward is demographic. Their base is getting older and smaller while the Democrats appeal more to younger voters. The reality is that if the U.S. passed a law that required all Americans to vote in every election, Republicans would not have a shot at the Presidency. The greater the voter turnout the greater the odds a Democrat wins the Senate and the Presidency. Partisanship and party alignment isn't something that fluctuates greatly, but voter intensity can and often does. And I have to admit that Republican supporters/voters are generally more intense in their political views than Democrats, which is why low-turn out elections generally favour Republicans (the exception was 2006, when almost everyone had had enough of George W. and the war in Iraq).

It's why only the Republican party push voter restriction laws. They want fewer people to vote because it helps their chances. If everyone voted - if every young person walked into the polls, they'd be done. But Presidential elections do generally bring out more to the voting box, which is why I don't think there's much chance for the Republican candidate regardless of their candidate (and I'm not seeing anyone who will successfully take on Hillary; I could be wrong on this though, I didn't think Obama was going to beat Hillary when the 2008 Democratic primary began).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reality is that Republicans are just better at motivating their base during non-Presidential elections. They're better at marketing their ideas, even if their ideas are counter to the economic interests of those voting for them.

There is some truth to this. Every town I've lived in has at least one or two very conservative radio stations that absolutely bash the democratic party 24/7. I have yet to hear one liberal radio station do the same. There is also Fox News that doesn't hold any punches. As opposed to networks like MSNBC that always seem to take the "politically correct" route when analyzing their opponents.

Maybe it's time Democrats learned something from Republicans and stopped being so "politically correct". :shrugs:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This makes a lot of sense:

According to exit polling, "nearly 8 in 10 dissaproved of Congress with most agry with Republican leaders in Congress...."

Perhaps an American explain how the party that gets most of the blame for the economy gets re-elected? For all my years having studies American politics, there are still moments when I find myself doing this: :shrugs:

Exit polls are as meaningful as spring training games.

I wouldn't go that far...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe as meaningless as the nfl's pro bowl :P

i think it is just of myriad of issues really, i could understand it is the same old same old midterm elections and all that but having coakley losing in mass and colorado flipping red not to mention a seat in montana going red for the first time in 100 years is another story altogether. i mean there was a real reason why democrats were running away from obama like he was the plague.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reality is that Republicans are just better at motivating their base during non-Presidential elections. They're better at marketing their ideas, even if their ideas are counter to the economic interests of those voting for them.

There is some truth to this. Every town I've lived in has at least one or two very conservative radio stations that absolutely bash the democratic party 24/7. I have yet to hear one liberal radio station do the same. There is also Fox News that doesn't hold any punches. As opposed to networks like MSNBC that always seem to take the "politically correct" route when analyzing their opponents.

Maybe it's time Democrats learned something from Republicans and stopped being so "politically correct". :shrugs:

It is interesting how there isn't a liberal equivalent to Limbaugh, Hannity or Coulter. I'm not going to suggest that Democrats/MSNBC don't fan the flames of anger and fear from time to time (because they do), but conservatives certainly hold the cake when it comes to fear/anger-based political discourse.

I sometimes wonder if this is simply because liberals/democrats feel like their positions will eventually prevail. That they represent the next generation; that the older/whiter generate that represents the GOP is on its last breath. Republicans have already lost the battle on gay-marriage and they're losing it on marijuana use. And with the younger generations growing less and less religious, the GOP position on abortion will prove less popular as well. It should be interesting to watch it all play out in the next twelve to twenty years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The irony is that a lot more people voted for Medical Marijuana legalization in Florida than for Rick Scott (winning Governor). And it still wasn't enough to pass the amendment. Like, wtf. :lol:

Medical Marijuana:

Yes for Approval: 3,353,383

57.57%

No for Rejection NOP 2,471,380

42.43%

Governor's Race:

Scott / Lopez-Cantera REP 2,856,957

48.22%

Crist / Taddeo DEM 2,784,771

47%

Edited by Kasanova King

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe as meaningless as the nfl's pro bowl :P

i think it is just of myriad of issues really, i could understand it is the same old same old midterm elections and all that but having coakley losing in mass and colorado flipping red not to mention a seat in montana going red for the first time in 100 years is another story altogether. i mean there was a real reason why democrats were running away from obama like he was the plague.

Yeah, I definitely think the combination of ISIS and Ebola didn't do Obama, and by proxy, he Democrats, any favours. Colorado reverting back to GOP control isn't that far fetched, since between 1997 and 2005 both of its Senators were Republican (with the state having a Republican Senator up until 2009). Montana's class two (I believe it's class two) Senator was Max Baucus, who has held the position since 1978. Not a huge surprise that the Republicans were able to grab his seat since the Democrats could no longer run an incumbent and take advantage of incumbency bias.

And to be honest, I think it was a real mistake by the Democrats to run away from Obama. They should have been touting the benefits of Obamacare and fearing-mongering voters into what happens if Republicans win and try to repeal Medicaid expansion. Obama's approval numbers today are very similar to what they were in 2010 because he and other Democrats weren't make a proper case for either him or the Party. Then look what happened in 2012, when Obama actually had to run for his own re-election. Other than his complete fuck up in the first debate, he and the Democrats were glued at the hip while defending him as a President and themselves as a party. As a result they picked up seats in the House and retained control in the Senate (though, admittedly, they got a little help from Republicans who chose some really shitty candidates - Todd Akin anyone?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the bonehead of the election season went to bruce braley who in polls was leading over 7 points until he made a mistake and didnt know he was being recorded referred to fellow senator chuck grassley as "just a farmer from iowa who never went to law school" he got his ass kicked by 9% points tonight.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I saw that. Pretty funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe as meaningless as the nfl's pro bowl :P

i think it is just of myriad of issues really, i could understand it is the same old same old midterm elections and all that but having coakley losing in mass and colorado flipping red not to mention a seat in montana going red for the first time in 100 years is another story altogether. i mean there was a real reason why democrats were running away from obama like he was the plague.

Worst successive midterm elections losses since Harry Fuckin' Truman.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/31/obama-set-to-make-64-year-history-in-worst-midterm/

Chalk up another title to President Obama’s legacy — the White House executive who’s about to oversee the worst successive midterm elections losses in 64 years.

The Democrats under Mr. Obama lost 63 House seats in 2010. And now, they’re poised to lose up to 12 from the House in Tuesday’s elections — and that’s the worst losing record in back-to-back, four-year midterms since Harry Truman days, the Daily Mail reported.

Well, let's call a spade a spade here. Districts were not nearly as gerrymandered back then as they are today. The Republicans would absolutely not hold such a large advantage in the House if districts weren't drawn by a partisan hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im still shocked martha coakley lost in mass.

Edited by bran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, let's call a spade a spade here.

Racist. Ban pls.

lolbama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in NC and basically voted Democrat, and so I don't think I voted for a single winner. And in the 2016 election, which I won't be in NC for, they will required ID at the poll (Republicans are using every trick in the book to gain an advantage and minimize minority/low-income votes), plus Obama's administration will be over, so it's doubtful there will be much in the Democrat's favor then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what's worse, the people in my home state reelecting a criminal Governor in Nathan Deal, the people in my current home state reelecting a 3 term governor reponsible for crippling the state economy or just people overall that reward obstructionism.

Edited by Rustycage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main problem Republicans have going forward is demographic. Their base is getting older and smaller while the Democrats appeal more to younger voters. The reality is that if the U.S. passed a law that required all Americans to vote in every election, Republicans would not have a shot at the Presidency. The greater the voter turnout the greater the odds a Democrat wins the Senate and the Presidency. Partisanship and party alignment isn't something that fluctuates greatly, but voter intensity can and often does. And I have to admit that Republican supporters/voters are generally more intense in their political views than Democrats, which is why low-turn out elections generally favour Republicans (the exception was 2006, when almost everyone had had enough of George W. and the war in Iraq).

It's why only the Republican party push voter restriction laws. They want fewer people to vote because it helps their chances. If everyone voted - if every young person walked into the polls, they'd be done. But Presidential elections do generally bring out more to the voting box, which is why I don't think there's much chance for the Republican candidate regardless of their candidate (and I'm not seeing anyone who will successfully take on Hillary; I could be wrong on this though, I didn't think Obama was going to beat Hillary when the 2008 Democratic primary began).

There's one problem with your theory that Republicans are screwed going forward because their base is getting older: SO IS THE DEMOCRATS' BASE.

This isn't Logan's Run (props if you get this reference), those same youngins won't stay young forever. They will age, and as they age they will come to realize it's asinine to always vote based strictly on the political party you're affiliated with.

See that's the thing you just don't get, you think the majority of Americans vote for parties rather than candidates. When in reality, the majority of Americans will vote either for incumbents who have done a good job or against incumbents who have done a bad job.

Like most Americans, I don't give a crap about whether a candidate is a Republican or Democrat or Independent or whatever. All I care about is past performance and results, that's what the majority of Americans care most about. And the results under the Obama administration and Democrat-controlled Senate have been damn shitty, hence tonight's bloodbath.

Almost everything you said is wrong. Sorry if I'm being condescending here, but age played, and will always play, a significant factor in determining the intensity of one's affiliation to one party. This is something I wrote my master thesis on, so yeah, despite me being a Canadian and yourself an American, I feel fairly confident that I might know a bit more on this issue than you.

The data doesn't lie - the older you get, the more times you vote for a particular party, the greater the likelihood you'll vote for that party as you grow older. Sure, there are leaks and some people will change their support, but by and large, people's affiliation to a political party doesn't change. In fact, with most people, party affiliation generally grows stronger and more intense.

As the baby boomers and seniors begin to die off, they will be replaced by a demographic that has voted for a Democratic president twice (and likely a third time in 2016); a nation that's increasingly becoming less white (with a Republican platform that does little for an increasingly diverse populace). Much like how many Republican voters first voted for Reagan, many first and second time voters for Obama will likely not be changing their vote. You may think otherwise, but again, the historical data argues that you'd be wrong (I don't have it handy, as my thesis is on another computer). Your notion that many of today's young Democratic voters will one day wakeup and start voting Republican is a fantasy. Not that it will never happen: voter realignment does happen, with the last great realignment happening in the late 1960s and ending in the early 1980s, but almost never does it happen over one or two election cycles. It generally takes a decade or two and a generational shift for people to change their voting habits. Many present day Republicans use to vote Democrat, but as a result of Nixon's southern strategy and Southern Republican's complete abandonment of African American voters, we see a very different political landscape now than we did in, say, 1964. But more often than not, a person voting for Reagan in 1980 and 1984 was likely voting for a Republican candidate last night.

Not sure what the rate was for last night's election, but for 2012, 90 percent of incumbent House members won re-election; 91 percent of incumbent Senate members also won re-election. It's a fantasy to believe that incumbency doesn't play a role.

In explaining last night, you had a multitude of factors that explain the Republican sweep. First, several incumbent Democratic Senators weren't seeking re-election, so Democrats lost the incumbency advantage in several key contests. Second, as Obama noted yesterday, many states that had historically elected Republican Senators were being represented by Democrats as a result of Obama's big 2008 sweep. In other words, the Democratic Senators were facing a tough climb to begin as their election was rather exceptional to begin with six years ago (and as you know, Senators only run for re-election every six years). The 2008 provided wins in states where Democrats don't usually win, so it's not a big surprise that Republicans took them back six years later in a mid-term election with a lame-duck Presidency. It happens in almost every two-term Presidency, with exception of President Bill Clinton. Third, Democrats had more ground to defend than Republicans, as more states with Democratic Senators were up for re-election than Republicans. So there's already a baked in advantage for Republicans, as they needed to defend less territory than their Democratic counterparts. But this will begin to change in 2016 and get even worse for Republicans in 2018 and 2020, when the GOP will be forced to defend more territory than the Democrats. Finally, though I haven't heard official vote numbers yet, Republicans always do better when fewer people vote. And fewer people vote in mid-terms. And like I've mentioned numerous times, the governing party generally sees its base go missing during the mid-terms. Again, if became law that every person was required to vote, last night's results would have looked very different. Voter intensity won last night; the results are not a product of general voter intent.

As for your "performance and results" explanation, I'll defer to David Letterman who said, “Take a look at this: gas under $3 a gallon – under $3 a gallon. Unemployment under 6%, whoever thought? Stock market breaking records every day. No wonder [Obama] is so unpopular.”

But I have to ask, what kind of economic conditions would you have considered necessary for the Democrats, if all things being equal, to prevail last night? Currently, the United States is "experiencing falling unemployment, increasing growth, rising stock indexes, a shrinking deficit, and increasing economic confidence. More Americans are gaining access to affordable medical care. More Americans are graduating from high school and entering higher ed. Gas prices keep dropping." Finally, the U.S. seems to be one of the few developed countries doing well economically, with most other developed nations seeing a return to recession. So again, what would have been needed for the Democrats to do well if so many things are already relatively going well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is interesting how there isn't a liberal equivalent to Limbaugh, Hannity or Coulter.

I don't live in the US, but isn't Olbermann basically this guy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reality is that Republicans are just better at motivating their base during non-Presidential elections. They're better at marketing their ideas, even if their ideas are counter to the economic interests of those voting for them.

There is some truth to this. Every town I've lived in has at least one or two very conservative radio stations that absolutely bash the democratic party 24/7. I have yet to hear one liberal radio station do the same. There is also Fox News that doesn't hold any punches. As opposed to networks like MSNBC that always seem to take the "politically correct" route when analyzing their opponents.

Maybe it's time Democrats learned something from Republicans and stopped being so "politically correct". :shrugs:

It is interesting how there isn't a liberal equivalent to Limbaugh, Hannity or Coulter. I'm not going to suggest that Democrats/MSNBC don't fan the flames of anger and fear from time to time (because they do), but conservatives certainly hold the cake when it comes to fear/anger-based political discourse.

I sometimes wonder if this is simply because liberals/democrats feel like their positions will eventually prevail. That they represent the next generation; that the older/whiter generate that represents the GOP is on its last breath. Republicans have already lost the battle on gay-marriage and they're losing it on marijuana use. And with the younger generations growing less and less religious, the GOP position on abortion will prove less popular as well. It should be interesting to watch it all play out in the next twelve to twenty years.

lol sean hannity

Edited by usemyillusions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter, his second term will be over and there will be another election. Many Republicans are hardline when it comes to immigration so Latino voters will stick to Democrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Progress? More like sell outs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost everything you said is wrong. Sorry if I'm being condescending here, but age played, and will always play, a significant factor in determining the intensity of one's affiliation to one party. This is something I wrote my master thesis on, so yeah, despite me being a Canadian and yourself an American, I feel fairly confident that I might know a bit more on this issue than you.

The data doesn't lie - the older you get, the more times you vote for a particular party, the greater the likelihood you'll vote for that party as you grow older. Sure, there are leaks and some people will change their support, but by and large, people's affiliation to a political party doesn't change. In fact, with most people, party affiliation generally grows stronger and more intense.

As the baby boomers and seniors begin to die off, they will be replaced by a demographic that has voted for a Democratic president twice (and likely a third time in 2016); a nation that's increasingly becoming less white (with a Republican platform that does little for an increasingly diverse populace). Much like how many Republican voters first voted for Reagan, many first and second time voters for Obama will likely not be changing their vote. You may think otherwise, but again, the historical data argues that you'd be wrong (I don't have it handy, as my thesis is on another computer). Your notion that many of today's young Democratic voters will one day wakeup and start voting Republican is a fantasy. Not that it will never happen: voter realignment does happen, with the last great realignment happening in the late 1960s and ending in the early 1980s, but almost never does it happen over one or two election cycles. It generally takes a decade or two and a generational shift for people to change their voting habits. Many present day Republicans use to vote Democrat, but as a result of Nixon's southern strategy and Southern Republican's complete abandonment of African American voters, we see a very different political landscape now than we did in, say, 1964. But more often than not, a person voting for Reagan in 1980 and 1984 was likely voting for a Republican candidate last night.

Not sure what the rate was for last night's election, but for 2012, 90 percent of incumbent House members won re-election; 91 percent of incumbent Senate members also won re-election. It's a fantasy to believe that incumbency doesn't play a role.

In explaining last night, you had a multitude of factors that explain the Republican sweep. First, several incumbent Democratic Senators weren't seeking re-election, so Democrats lost the incumbency advantage in several key contests. Second, as Obama noted yesterday, many states that had historically elected Republican Senators were being represented by Democrats as a result of Obama's big 2008 sweep. In other words, the Democratic Senators were facing a tough climb to begin as their election was rather exceptional to begin with six years ago (and as you know, Senators only run for re-election every six years). The 2008 provided wins in states where Democrats don't usually win, so it's not a big surprise that Republicans took them back six years later in a mid-term election with a lame-duck Presidency. It happens in almost every two-term Presidency, with exception of President Bill Clinton. Third, Democrats had more ground to defend than Republicans, as more states with Democratic Senators were up for re-election than Republicans. So there's already a baked in advantage for Republicans, as they needed to defend less territory than their Democratic counterparts. But this will begin to change in 2016 and get even worse for Republicans in 2018 and 2020, when the GOP will be forced to defend more territory than the Democrats. Finally, though I haven't heard official vote numbers yet, Republicans always do better when fewer people vote. And fewer people vote in mid-terms. And like I've mentioned numerous times, the governing party generally sees its base go missing during the mid-terms. Again, if became law that every person was required to vote, last night's results would have looked very different. Voter intensity won last night; the results are not a product of general voter intent.

As for your "performance and results" explanation, I'll defer to David Letterman who said, “Take a look at this: gas under $3 a gallon – under $3 a gallon. Unemployment under 6%, whoever thought? Stock market breaking records every day. No wonder [Obama] is so unpopular.”

But I have to ask, what kind of economic conditions would you have considered necessary for the Democrats, if all things being equal, to prevail last night? Currently, the United States is "experiencing falling unemployment, increasing growth, rising stock indexes, a shrinking deficit, and increasing economic confidence. More Americans are gaining access to affordable medical care. More Americans are graduating from high school and entering higher ed. Gas prices keep dropping." Finally, the U.S. seems to be one of the few developed countries doing well economically, with most other developed nations seeing a return to recession. So again, what would have been needed for the Democrats to do well if so many things are already relatively going well?

Since you are so convinced that age plays a factor in "intensity", which I assume means younger people vote only in Presidential elections (an insult to the nation's youth, but whatever), then is it safe to say that Obama received a large percentage of votes in his two elections because many young people and African Americans wanted someone in the Oval Office to which they could relate?

I don't think you even realize how many people you are insulting by saying "Republicans always do better when fewer people vote". That reinforces the notion that the "additional" voters who elected Obama twice are apathetic towards political issues and the importance of all non-presidential political offices, lacking in knowledge of the candidates and issues, and came out to vote in 2008 and 2012 only because they either a) wanted an African American in the White House or b) were encouraged to vote by the very liberal entertainment industry.

Replaced by a demographic that voted for a Democratic president twice? How'd that work out for ya in 2000 after 8 years of Clinton. :lol: And I'm glad to see you're so humble in your prediction of a Democratic retaining the White House in 2016. ;)

Geez, I don't know how I could possibly refute something a late night talk show host said in a comedy routine ... but I'll try. :o

Gas was $1.75 a gallon when Obama was first elected President. Is a 70% increase in 6 years your idea of successfully keeping gas prices down?

The Unemployment Rate in July 2008 was below 6%, so no sign of improvement there.

The stock market crash of September 2008, was that all the Republican Party's fault? Hmmm ...

Oh, and one more thing ... Obama had won the majority of the Latino vote in large part because of his promise to end deportations of non-criminals. What do you think will happen when people realize he won't keep that promise?

Well, if you want to misrepresent what I said and make up straw man arguments then that's your call. I guess if I didn't know what the fuck I was talking about I'd make shit up as well. I will say this Linguine, you know baseball very well. But you I cannot underscore how little you know about your own political system. It's one thing to disagree on something, it's completely another to argue points in which the person you're speaking to isn't making.

I didn't say that Democrats are more apathetic, but younger voters generally are more apathetic in their voting habits. Sure, you can find me a 19 year old who loves the political process, but by and large, the youth just aren't politically engaged as older people. That's not an insult, that's a fact, one that is backed up by a mountain of evidence. And again, that changes as people get older. This has no bearing on partisanship. But the reality is that most people do not leak from one party to the other. It does happen, but it's greatly exaggerated by the media.

Clinton won in 1992 because he was the change candidate when the electorate was demanding change. It had little to do with his partisan policy planks. The economy was crumbling in '92 and he represented for voters a viable alternative. But the country was still moving to the right on the political spectrum. Clinton governed from the left in his first two years, attempting to reverse the conservative movement that Reagan had started nearly twenty years ago, but was crushed in the '94 midterms, with the Democrats losing the House for the first time in 50 years. He then moved dramatically to the right, adopting almost wholesale the Republican's platform (when the Republican platform could still be considered relatively moderate). Your suggestion that Clinton invalidates my point about partisan inertia is absurd when we consider that Clinton very much continued many of the policy planks that was common day Republican ideology (Welfare Act, deregulated the banking industry, etc).

Voter intensity means what it means, those who hold their political beliefs with greater fervour than those who hold opposite positions will almost always be more engaged in lower-turn out elections. Youth plays a factor, but low-turn out elections are demonstrably important when considering reasons for why one party does better than the other. The governing party, especially one that's governed for six years, almost never does well in mid-terms. It's the nature of the beast. Reagan lost both mid-terms during his Presidency; Clinton lost the '94 midterm (would have lost the '98 had Republicans not overreached with impeachment). What we saw last night is typical. Supporters of the opposition party will almost always come out in bigger numbers when it comes to elections that are perceived as less important. There are exceptions to this precept ('98, '02), but it holds most of the time.

Republican candidates in battleground states always do better when fewer people vote. Why do you think it's Republicans who support voter suppression laws? You think that's simply a coincidence?

Obama won his election in 2008 because people wanted change. The economy was cratering and the Republican positions were not supported by the majority of Americans. That's why Obama won. Perhaps for a number of African Americans having a black person in the white house might have motivated them more than in previous elections, but the vast majority of Americans voted for Obama because they believed in the message he was offering. He was the change candidate in a change election. In 2012 voters again favoured Obama's policies to the Republican challenger. Admittedly, W. Bush's failed presidency still lingered and voters still hold W. Bush accountable for the debacle that were the financial collapse and the Iraq War. Let's not try to trivialize my positions by suggesting things that in no way would I ever support.

Generally when commodity prices are falling, the presiding President usually gets credit. It doesn't matter whether they were previously cheaper. Public sentiment generally associates with positive or negative momentum, and not in absolute terms. Gas, along with every other commodity, crashed as a result of the financial collapse. It was over $4 a gallon in the summer of 2008. You really think Obama is to be blamed because the price recovered from its financial crisis collapse? Does he then get credit for gas at $1.78 a gallon? No one would argue that (at least, no one of sound mind).

And are you seriously suggesting that the employment picture hasn't improved since Obama taking over as President? Yeah, unemployment was 6 percent in the summer of 2008, but it was also over 10 percent a month into Obama's presidency. Are you saying that Obama gets faulted for 10 percent umemployment? You're really not that daft, are you? I mean, you have heard of the lag effect, where generally it takes a year or more for policy outcomes to bear fruit?

The stock market crash wasn't all the Republicans fault (since Clinton played a hand in repealing Glass-Steagall), but they were the governing party at the time and hence gets most of the blame. It maybe unfair, but that's how it goes.

Fine, you want to take issue with what Letterman said, then consider what Forbes Magazine recently publishes: "Obama Outperforms Reagan on Jobs, Growth, and Investing." As the article notes,

”President Reagan has long been considered the best modern economic President. So we compared his performance dealing with the oil-induced recession of the 1980s with that of President Obama and his performance during this ‘Great Recession.’

“As this unemployment chart shows, President Obama’s job creation kept unemployment from peaking at as high a level as President Reagan, and promoted people into the workforce faster than President Reagan.

“President Obama has achieved a 6.1% unemployment rate in his sixth year, fully one year faster than President Reagan did. At this point in his presidency, President Reagan was still struggling with 7.1% unemployment, and he did not reach into the mid-low 6% range for another full year. So, despite today’s number, the Obama administration has still done considerably better at job creating and reducing unemployment than did the Reagan administration.

“We forecast unemployment will fall to around 5.4% by summer, 2015. A rate President Reagan was unable to achieve during his two terms.”

So you can talk all you want about performance and results, but apparently a usually less than friendly to Obama publication such as Forbes feels differently. And oh, they have actual facts/states/graphs that aren't conveniently cherry picked to support absurd arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you want to misrepresent what I said and make up straw man arguments then that's your call. I guess if I didn't know what the fuck I was talking about I'd make shit up as well. I will say this Linguine, you know baseball very well. But you I cannot underscore how little you know about your own political system. It's one thing to disagree on something, it's completely another to argue points in which the person you're speaking to isn't making.

I didn't say that Democrats are more apathetic, but younger voters generally are more apathetic in their voting habits. Sure, you can find me a 19 year old who loves the political process, but by and large, the youth just aren't politically engaged as older people. That's not an insult, that's a fact, one that is backed up by a mountain of evidence. And again, that changes as people get older. This has no bearing on partisanship. But the reality is that most people do not leak from one party to the other. It does happen, but it's greatly exaggerated by the media.

Clinton won in 1992 because he was the change candidate when the electorate was demanding change. It had little to do with his partisan policy planks. The economy was crumbling in '92 and he represented for voters a viable alternative. But the country was still moving to the right on the political spectrum. Clinton governed from the left in his first two years, attempting to reverse the conservative movement that Reagan had started nearly twenty years ago, but was crushed in the '94 midterms, with the Democrats losing the House for the first time in 50 years. He then moved dramatically to the right, adopting almost wholesale the Republican's platform (when the Republican platform could still be considered relatively moderate). Your suggestion that Clinton invalidates my point about partisan inertia is absurd when we consider that Clinton very much continued many of the policy planks that was common day Republican ideology (Welfare Act, deregulated the banking industry, etc).

Voter intensity means what it means, those who hold their political beliefs with greater fervour than those who hold opposite positions will almost always be more engaged in lower-turn out elections. Youth plays a factor, but low-turn out elections are demonstrably important when considering reasons for why one party does better than the other. The governing party, especially one that's governed for six years, almost never does well in mid-terms. It's the nature of the beast. Reagan lost both mid-terms during his Presidency; Clinton lost the '94 midterm (would have lost the '98 had Republicans not overreached with impeachment). What we saw last night is typical. Supporters of the opposition party will almost always come out in bigger numbers when it comes to elections that are perceived as less important. There are exceptions to this precept ('98, '02), but it holds most of the time.

Republican candidates in battleground states always do better when fewer people vote. Why do you think it's Republicans who support voter suppression laws? You think that's simply a coincidence?

Obama won his election in 2008 because people wanted change. The economy was cratering and the Republican positions were not supported by the majority of Americans. That's why Obama won. Perhaps for a number of African Americans having a black person in the white house might have motivated them more than in previous elections, but the vast majority of Americans voted for Obama because they believed in the message he was offering. He was the change candidate in a change election. In 2012 voters again favoured Obama's policies to the Republican challenger. Admittedly, W. Bush's failed presidency still lingered and voters still hold W. Bush accountable for the debacle that were the financial collapse and the Iraq War. Let's not try to trivialize my positions by suggesting things that in no way would I ever support.

Generally when commodity prices are falling, the presiding President usually gets credit. It doesn't matter whether they were previously cheaper. Public sentiment generally associates with positive or negative momentum, and not in absolute terms. Gas, along with every other commodity, crashed as a result of the financial collapse. It was over $4 a gallon in the summer of 2008. You really think Obama is to be blamed because the price recovered from its financial crisis collapse? Does he then get credit for gas at $1.78 a gallon? No one would argue that (at least, no one of sound mind).

And are you seriously suggesting that the employment picture hasn't improved since Obama taking over as President? Yeah, unemployment was 6 percent in the summer of 2008, but it was also over 10 percent a month into Obama's presidency. Are you saying that Obama gets faulted for 10 percent umemployment? You're really not that daft, are you? I mean, you have heard of the lag effect, where generally it takes a year or more for policy outcomes to bear fruit?

The stock market crash wasn't all the Republicans fault (since Clinton played a hand in repealing Glass-Steagall), but they were the governing party at the time and hence gets most of the blame. It maybe unfair, but that's how it goes.

Fine, you want to take issue with what Letterman said, then consider what Forbes Magazine recently publishes: "Obama Outperforms Reagan on Jobs, Growth, and Investing." As the article notes,

”President Reagan has long been considered the best modern economic President. So we compared his performance dealing with the oil-induced recession of the 1980s with that of President Obama and his performance during this ‘Great Recession.’

“As this unemployment chart shows, President Obama’s job creation kept unemployment from peaking at as high a level as President Reagan, and promoted people into the workforce faster than President Reagan.

“President Obama has achieved a 6.1% unemployment rate in his sixth year, fully one year faster than President Reagan did. At this point in his presidency, President Reagan was still struggling with 7.1% unemployment, and he did not reach into the mid-low 6% range for another full year. So, despite today’s number, the Obama administration has still done considerably better at job creating and reducing unemployment than did the Reagan administration.

“We forecast unemployment will fall to around 5.4% by summer, 2015. A rate President Reagan was unable to achieve during his two terms.”

So you can talk all you want about performance and results, but apparently a usually less than friendly to Obama publication such as Forbes feels differently. And oh, they have actual facts/states/graphs that aren't conveniently cherry picked to support absurd arguments.

Perhaps you misunderstood what I wrote, perhaps not. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I brought up Clinton in response to your claim that those who voted for Obama twice will most likely continue to vote Democratic. Obviously that theory didn't hold true after Clinton won consecutive elections, because a Republican won the very next election in 2000. How you missed my point, I haven't a clue. I know the past 24 hours has been a difficult one for you, but please pay attention. :P

You wrote "younger voters generally are more apathetic in their voting habits. Sure, you can find me a 19 year old who loves the political process, but by and large, the youth just aren't politically engaged as older people. That's not an insult, that's a fact, one that is backed up by a mountain of evidence. And again, that changes as people get older."

That is EXACTLY what I wrote earlier, you did nothing more than agree with me. YES the vast majority of young voters don't know the issues, don't know the candidates, and basically don't give a crap about elections. That's how Obama won the last election! And YES that changes as people get older, because they become more engaged and knowledgeable and therefore make wiser voting decisions. THAT's why midterms aren't swayed by apathetic voting habits the way Presidential Elections are! :P

As for gas prices, only you can attempt to give Obama credit for bringing down prices after a spike that occurred in the middle of his 6 years in office! When you intentionally start a fire in your apartment, and then you put out that fire, are you a hero for putting out the fire you started? Same thing with unemployment.

YOU are the one (through Letterman) who bragged about the price of gas being below $3 now, but you refuse to give credit to Bush for the price of gas being well below $2 shortly before he left office? Double standard much?

I'm sorry, I really have no interest in bringing the Reagan administration into this discussion. I went all the way back with Clinton, I think that's sufficient. :lol:

So to summarize what you're saying ... When voters show their support of Obama and his administration through election results, they've got it right. And when they overwhelmingly show their dissatisfaction of Obama and his administration through election results, they've got it wrong. Okay- got it. :wacko:

Sorry, wasn't clear, was trying to get to the point that Clinton did not represent that much of a change by the time 2000 role around. He was still a continuation of Reagan's policy ideals (for the most part, though I'd still argue that his tax increase and '93 and '94 budgets played a bigger role for the 90's economic expansion). And let's not forget that more Americans voted for Gore than they did Bush.

But this is the point I cannot stress enough because the data proves it to be so: people's partisanship does not change as they get older. It's a myth that people start off liberal and end up being conservative. True, a younger person's allegiance to a political party is less than an older person's, but generally speaking, most young people who vote for one particular party will more than likely continue voting for that party as they get older. I wrote my master thesis on the effects of family and partisanship. Almost all of the subjects I studied gave me the same line as you're doing now: they vote the person, they don't vote the party. But a vast majority of them voted Republican when they were younger, and are even stauncher in their partisan ties decades later. Look, I know you're at a disadvantage as this isn't something I expect you to have studied thoroughly, but there is a strong correlation between partisan bias between who you start voting for and who you end up voting for most of your life. The data doesn't lie, as much as you might want it to.

I'm not going to give Bush credit for sub $2 gas because he did it by watching over a crashed economy. LOL. Seriously??? WTF?

Sorry, can you explain to me how Obama cause oil prices to spike during his Presidency? I can explain how Bush let oil prices rise (hint: the Iraq War), but I have a hard time understanding how Obama gets blamed for a short period spike?

I'm not surprised you don't want to talk about Reagan. I mean, he is considered one of the greatest modern presidents with respect to his economic record. Why would you want to contrast him with Obama, who's record on growth, employment, and investment has been even better :P

No, it's not a matter of being right or wrong as it relates to election results. It's about acknowledging historical patterns and not reading too much into them. It's about understanding when real partisan realignments happen (generally, every thirty to forty years). It's about accepting the fact that elections do not always illustrate general voter sentiment/preferences as they do about measuring the intensity of one voting block (to give you another example, 96 percent of American support universal background checks, but such a law won't be passed because 4 percent of Americans care way more on this issue than the 96 percent). It's about seeing the fault lines between generations and demographics and acknowledging that the playing field will be souring greatly for Republicans if previous documented voter phenomenons continue. That's what I'm discussing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gas was $1.75 a gallon when Obama was first elected President.

Not where I live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not forget that more Americans voted for Gore than they did Bush.

Guess that explains why you can still get away with blowing somebody's head off on network TV but need cable to see a pair of tits. :lol:
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gas was $1.75 a gallon when Obama was first elected President.

Not where I live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.