BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: OTP November 2012 - Moneypoll! The Pundits vs. The Election-Data Nerds

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

OTP November 2012 - Moneypoll! The Pundits vs. The Election-Data Nerds

Come next Tuesday night, we’ll get a resolution (let’s hope) to a great ongoing battle of 2012: not just the Presidential election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, but the one between the pundits trying to analyze that race with their guts and a new breed of statistics gurus trying to forecast it with data.

In Election 2012 as seen by the pundits–political journalists on the trail, commentators in cable-news studios–the campaign is a jump ball. There’s a slight lead for Mitt Romney in national polls and slight leads for Barack Obama in swing-state polls, and no good way of predicting next Tuesday’s outcome beyond flipping a coin. ...

Bonus link: Esquire - The Enemies of Nate Silver

Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 31, 2012 at 11:42 PM | 11298 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: mr president, off-topic, politics, sabermetrics, usa

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 54 of 114 pages ‹ First < 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 > Last ›

5301. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:12 PM (#4297262)

There's obviously room for praising the Obama ground game - see Sasha Issenberg's "Victory Lab" series at Slate - but sending emails to email addresses given by contributors is something that Romney, and every contemporary campaign ever, did just as effectively.

5302. Steve Treder Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:12 PM (#4297263)

I strongly suspect there were millions of others just like me.

You don't have to suspect anything; the data demonstrate that the number of small donors to the Democratic Party this year was vastly larger than those for the GOP.

5303. GregD Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:13 PM (#4297264)

Even if it's a pendulum, getting your wins in your swing matters a lot since you can let open shots pass even when the momentum is with you. And winning lets you pass things you wouldn't get to pass, or prevent things you don't want to happen, or build deeper roots for what you've passed. So I don't think the Dems are going to go Calipari mode in politics but every win makes a difference. The 2000 loss still devastates me.

On Latinos, Monkey Cage has a study up based on a people who were asked in 2008 whom they were going to vote for and asked again in 2012. The numbers for the breakout groups have to be small, but still it's interesting that Dems and Republicans had virtually the same amount of loss (poll was done before the election so people could say undecided) but that the group of McCain voters who turned against Romney in the largest proportion were Latinos. That's among Latinos who voted for McCain, already a diminished group from those who voted for Bush 2. And that's leaving aside change in the composition of "Latinos" and new voters and so on. Even controlling for that, Latinos were more likely to bail on Romney than anybody else.

The other race effect--though one that is easier to combat--is the effect it has on educated white women and upon young voters, groups that dislike the association between Republican candidates and racism, who are wary of that much more than white men are. But that's where the opportunity lies for the party; Republicans aren't going to get a wave of black votes any time soon, and possibly not Latinos either (though I'm less sure) but shedding that image could help with other demographics who pay attention to that perception.

5304. you got a STEAGLES? you're gonna need a STEAGLES. Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:13 PM (#4297266)

Do people not see that this is simply a pendulum?

if that is the mentality of republicans coming out of this election, you're not gonna be in the white house for a long time.

5305. The Chronicles of Reddick Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:13 PM (#4297267)

Top leaders of Congress confer on "fiscal cliff"

Oh so now is a good time to try to fix this.

5306. McCoy Wilfong for Money Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:13 PM (#4297268)

What's Inauguration going to be like this time? Pretty toned down or batshvt crazy?

5307. Steve Treder Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:14 PM (#4297269)

sending emails to email addresses given by contributors is something that Romney, and every contemporary campaign ever, did just as effectively.

No, Andy's point was regarding their persistence in following up with even very, very small donors. This is not something that Romney, or most campaigns historically, have in fact done just as effectively.

5308. Steve Treder Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:15 PM (#4297270)

if that is the mentality of republicans coming out of this election, you're not gonna be in the white house for a long time.

Amen.

5309. Jolly Old St. Nick Done Jumped The Ship

Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:15 PM (#4297271)

Actually, I think the power analysis of Republican office-holders is right on. They aren't irrationally worried about losing the votes of the base in a general election - they are quite logically worried about losing the votes of the base in a primary election. Look at Dick Lugar - he's been a consistent partisan vote for years, but he lost a primary just because he moderated his rhetoric. Then there are the establishment Republicans who lost primaries in NV and CO and elsewhere. And to say nothing of actually moderate Republicans like Mike Castle in DE or Arlen Specter in PA. The base has been clear - do what we say, talk like we want you to talk, or you're going to be primaried. That's how a party base can access power, and they've been impressive and effective.

The problem, of course, is that there's a level of base pressure that's productive, and a point at which it becomes counter-productive. I think it's reached clearly that point on the right. It'll be interesting to see whether the elite realization of the problem translates to different behavior in the base.

That strategy works fine in states that are red enough that no Democrat has a prayer under any circumstances. It doesn't work so well in states like Delaware or Nevada, or even in states like Missouri or Indiana, if the wingnuttery becomes wingnutty enough. The net result is that the wingnuts gain firmer control over the hardcore red states, but at the same time wind up alienating the moderates and independents who make up the balance of power everywhere else. It's a classic case of stupid short term thinking that kind of reminds you of how certain corporations try to do business.

5310. DA Baracus is gritty and hits with RISP Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:15 PM (#4297273)

More proof of concept: Jeff Kazanow ran against my incumbent Congressman, Tom Price, and ran the laziest campaign I've seen. Never saw an ad for him, never saw a story in the media about anything he's done or is doing, never saw even a yard sign. His website is basically "hey, vote for me." His twitter account has 75 tweets, his Facebook page has 367 likes. He basically just got his name on the ballot and did nothing else.

He got 36% of the vote.

5311. Ron J2 Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:17 PM (#4297274)

I don't see POTUS -> SC Justice happening. Too radical. What's the highest-ranking politician who ever went on to be a SCJ?

Stanton and Chase were the first names that came to mind.

5312. Steve Treder Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:17 PM (#4297275)

That strategy works fine in states that are red enough that no Democrat has a prayer under any circumstances. It doesn't work so well in states like Delaware or Nevada, or even in states like Missouri or Indiana, if the wingnuttery becomes wingnutty enough. The net result is that the wingnuts gain firmer control over the hardcore red states, but at the same time wind up alienating the moderates and independents who make up the balance of power everywhere else. It's a classic case of stupid short term thinking that kind of reminds you of how certain corporations try to do business.

Yes, and it's an utter disaster in California and New York. Those might be important states for a national party to maybe think about.

5313. Jolly Old St. Nick Done Jumped The Ship

Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:18 PM (#4297276)

There's obviously room for praising the Obama ground game - see Sasha Issenberg's "Victory Lab" series at Slate - but sending emails to email addresses given by contributors is something that Romney, and every contemporary campaign ever, did just as effectively.

I strongly suspect there were millions of others just like me.

You don't have to suspect anything; the data demonstrate that the number of small donors to the Democratic Party this year was vastly larger than those for the GOP.

I think that what Steve says pretty much addresses the point that Matt's making.

5314. Morty Causa Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:18 PM (#4297278)

5297:

I do know that there is a recent book on the two and the author makes a claim, which is is also recorded by others: Eisenhower and Truman (along with, I think, Omar Bradley, witness) were riding in a car in Berlin in 1948, and Truman out of the blue just told Eisenhower that he thought so highly of him that if he wanted to run for president as a Democrat in 1948, he, Truman, would support him. Eisenhower was absolutely floored. He assured, Truman, though, that if he had a rival in the coming election it wouldn't be him.

Truman and Eisenhower worked hard and long to get the UN going, to get NATO started, and to re-arm Germany. After that, in 1950 or 51, Truman got word to Ike that his offer still stood, and not only that, but he offered to be Eisenhower's running mate. That's how highly regarded Eisenhower was (Truman even helped fix it with IRS that Eisenhower would get special dispensation for his memoirs, Crusade in Europe, a huge best-seller in 1948). Later they had a falling out, as people on different sides of the fence, especially people of their temperaments, will have. I believe there was at least a partial reconciliation beginning when they both attended JFK's funeral.

5315. Rickey Fredonia Fudge Duckery Precious Twiddle Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:19 PM (#4297279)

While I don't agree with the substance, of course, I do think that we've reached the end of the Reagan era "government is the problem". Most of those Reaganauts are now greying and the kids clearly have a different view of government.

We aren't so much exiting Reagan, as exiting the Children of Reagan. It goes back to the full quote of that 'government is the problem' quote. The full statement is "in the current situation, government isn't the solution, government is the problem." It was a very specific, practical policy proposal for a set of historic circumstances. The Reagan Worshipers then took that practical tool and attempted to turn it into one-size-fits-all holy writ.

5316. Jolly Old St. Nick Done Jumped The Ship

Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:19 PM (#4297280)

The other race effect--though one that is easier to combat--is the effect it has on educated white women and upon young voters, groups that dislike the association between Republican candidates and racism, who are wary of that much more than white men are. But that's where the opportunity lies for the party; Republicans aren't going to get a wave of black votes any time soon, and possibly not Latinos either (though I'm less sure) but shedding that image could help with other demographics who pay attention to that perception.

But first they'll have to get past the stage of denial, and act accordingly.

5317. Steve Treder Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:22 PM (#4297281)

Eisenhower and Truman (along with, I think, Omar Bradley, witness) were riding in a car in Berlin in 1948, and Truman out of the blue just told Eisenhower that he thought so highly of him that if he wanted to run for president as a Democrat in 1948, he, Truman, would support him. Eisenhower was absolutely floored. He assured, Truman, though that if he had a rival in the coming election it wouldn't be him.

That's exactly the way McCullough relates it. Maybe I'd read it before (was it in Michael Korda's Ike?), but I hadn't remembered it.

5318. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:23 PM (#4297283)

Also on the gay marriage front, the effort failed in Iowa to unseat Justice David Wiggins, one of the Iowa State Supreme Court justices that struck down a ban on gay marriage back in 2009, so I'd put that in the win column as well.

5319. Jolly Old St. Nick Done Jumped The Ship

Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:24 PM (#4297284)

No, Andy's point was regarding their persistence in following up with even very, very small donors.

In fact while I made several contributions of $50 and $100, I also got hit up more than once or twice for a ####### fin. It was impossible to refuse that modest a request when coupled with the usual "doubling" or "tripling" appeals, and after a while that kind of stuff starts to add up.

5320. Lassus Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:24 PM (#4297285)

Do people not see that this is simply a pendulum?

Syntax fail, Yoda.

5321. Steve Treder Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:25 PM (#4297287)

But first they'll have to get past the stage of denial, and act accordingly.

Yes, and while I know he's had his issues and his influence within the GOP has been very limited recently, Michael Steele in the radio today flat-out described GOP candidates' snarling rhetoric about immigration "stupid."

5322. Morty Causa Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:26 PM (#4297288)

Do people not see that this is simply a pendulum?

I brush this off earlier with a facetious remark. More seriously, it need only be pointed that it's never the same pendulum really. The party that comes back is changed from what it was before. The party of Reagan was not the party of Eisenhower or Nixon or Taft. Clinton and Obama's Democratic Party is not the FDR/TRuman/LBJ one. If a party doesn't adjust it is not assured that it will make a comeback as it is at all.

5323. Every Inge Counts Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:26 PM (#4297289)

I don't see POTUS -> SC Justice happening. Too radical. What's the highest-ranking politician who ever went on to be a SCJ?

William Howard Taft became Chief Justice in 1921 after his Presidency.

5324. Ray (RDP)

Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:28 PM (#4297292)

But first they'll have to get past the stage of denial, and act accordingly.

Yes, yes. Once Republicans abandon their principles and act like Democrats, they will start winning elections.

Is this the proper usage of concern trolling, or do I have that wrong?

5325. Steve Treder Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:28 PM (#4297293)

If a party doesn't adjust it is not assured that it will make a comeback as it is at all.

Oh, yes, and another Michael Steele quote today: "If we don't change, we will go the way of the Whigs."

5326. zonk Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:28 PM (#4297294)

Actually, I think the power analysis of Republican office-holders is right on. They aren't irrationally worried about losing the votes of the base in a general election - they are quite logically worried about losing the votes of the base in a primary election. Look at Dick Lugar - he's been a consistent partisan vote for years, but he lost a primary just because he moderated his rhetoric. Then there are the establishment Republicans who lost primaries in NV and CO and elsewhere. And to say nothing of actually moderate Republicans like Mike Castle in DE or Arlen Specter in PA. The base has been clear - do what we say, talk like we want you to talk, or you're going to be primaried. That's how a party base can access power, and they've been impressive and effective.

Not that I disagree on why Lugar lost, but he didn't "moderate" his rhetoric -- he was never a flamethrower... He was a genial purveyor of Indiana nice and his voting record on many conservative score cards was never particularly strong. He's almost always gotten D's and F's from the NRA, NARAL gives him pretty good marks (for a Republican), while he's not a 100%er for pro-life groups. He's been rather vocal about liberalizing relations with Cuba, he supported the DREAM Act, and he also voted for both Sotomayer and Kagan.

Dick Lugar went out being what he always had been -- a solid, but not rock-ribbed Republican who long played the role of Senate elder statesman and reasonable, dedicated public servant. It ought to be noted, too, despite the fact that he had a few bad news items this past cycle -- his office would regularly get top ratings from groups that rate things like transparency and office expenditures.

In short, I think Dick Lugar was a model Senator - despite the fact I disagree with him on about 80% of things.

I should say -- I met Dick Lugar many, many years ago in the 80s during a family vacation to DC. I insisted on going to one of those 'constituent breakfasts' (much to my parent's chagrin)... I was a rather naive, but politically precocious kid -- and also a Reagan admirer. At the time, ethanol was a big local issue - there was a big ethanol plant under discussion near our area, and my grandfather farmed (and obviously, supported it).

Trying to impress Lugar with my grasp of issues as a ~12 yo -- I asked him about an ethanol bill up in the Senate at the time... I was at first, crest-fallen -- because contrary to what I thought, Lugar actually kept raising counterpoints to the bill. He actually brought up the fact that producing ethanol wasn't energy efficient (i.e., it takes more energy to make ethanol than the product provides). He brought up the impact on grain prices and downstream impact on food prices. In short - he played devil's advocate very, very well.

Almost in tears, I asked him directly "So you're not voting for it?"

He responded that he was - but said it was absolutely critical to always try to see both sides of any issue, and never become so blindly certain that your view is the only valid view... he had been in the Senate for about 10-12 years by this time, and there are a lot of easier, more coddling ways to answer a question from a kid on something like this.

I was forever a fan at that point - in fact, my last Republican vote at a federal level was for Lugar in '94.

I admire the hell out of elected officials like Dick Lugar.

5327. Steve Treder Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:31 PM (#4297297)

Once Republicans abandon their principles and act like Democrats, they will start winning elections.

You have it precisely wrong: If Republicans don't abandon some of their principles -- such as, Gay Marriage is Evil, and Latinos Are Not Welcome -- they will not possibly win elections anywhere except safe red districts/states.

5328. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:32 PM (#4297298)

Also to add on gay marriage, from Dave Weigel over at Slate

Iowa: This is the victory few people were paying attention to. Republicans worked themselves raw to take the state Senate, targeting Democratic Senate Leader Mike Gronstal in his western Iowa district. Rick Santorum made nearly weekly trips to the state to stump for Republicans. The potential prize: A new vote on gay marriage, which conservatives figured they could win. But Democrats have held the state Senate. And Justice David Wiggins, one of those who affirmed gay marriage, was retained.

New York: And this is the surprise: Democrats will take the state Senate, edging past suburban Republicans who seemed to be locked in. The National Organization for Marriage had published a three-part plan for repealing gay marriage there, starting with wins this year. They didn't get them.

5329. Steve Treder Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:33 PM (#4297299)

I admire the hell out of elected officials like Dick Lugar.

So do I.

5330. Morty Causa Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:33 PM (#4297300)

That's exactly the way McCullough relates it. Maybe I'd read it before (was it in Michael Korda's Ike?), but I hadn't remembered it.

This is what I had in mind. I haven't read the book but I remember the interview, although I had heard the story from other places. I don't think anyone really made a secret of it. It may have been in Truman's memoirs, too.

5331. Tripon Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:36 PM (#4297305)

Yes, yes. Once Republicans abandon their principles and act like Democrats, they will start winning elections.

Is this the proper usage of concern trolling, or do I have that wrong?

Who say they have to act like Democrats to win? Republicans do have to realize, particularly on social issues that there is no reason to go as far right as they did. There was no reason to talk about rape and abortion, yet they did. There was no reason to talk about gay marriage, yet they did. There was no reason to talk about conterception, and claiming that their religious freedoms, yet they did.These aren't issues that liberals or democrats brought up. They were all issues that Republicans championed.

How 'Democratic' do you have to not not bring it up in the first place?

5332. Rickey Fredonia Fudge Duckery Precious Twiddle Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:39 PM (#4297307)

Yes, yes. Once Republicans abandon their principles and act like Democrats, they will start winning elections.

No, Ray. They just have to stop alienating a majority of the citizenry. How they do that and keep a coalition of principles and practical policy options is their business. But if they continue to fight against the sweep of history, they will continue to lose bigger and bigger margins.

5333. The Chronicles of Reddick Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:41 PM (#4297312)

According to a book by Stephen Ambrose about Eisenhower, one of the main issues that Nixon had with Eisenhower was that when Ike campaigned for him,he talked mostly about his past record and not what Nixon would do for the country's future.

5334. Ray (RDP)

Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:42 PM (#4297313)

Please do check the popular vote. There are plenty of people willing to vote Republican.

5335. Misirlou is bad, he's nationwide Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:44 PM (#4297316)

Please do check the popular vote. There are plenty of people willing to vote Republican.

And a republican has won the popular vote once in the last 6 elections.

5336. Tripon Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:45 PM (#4297317)

Please do check the popular vote. There are plenty of people willing to vote Republican.

But the issue is that not enough of them are doing it to elect a majority of Republicans.

5337. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:45 PM (#4297318)

He may have received only about 1 percent of the national vote, but Gary Johnson is already the most successful White House candidate in the Libertarian Party's nearly 41-year history.

"Ours is a mission accomplished," Johnson told FoxNews.com. "We put a true small-government, individual-freedom option on the ballot in virtually every state and have assembled an organization that will carry that message forward."

With final vote tallies still being calculated, Johnson's current total of 1,139,562 puts him significantly ahead of any of his party's nine other presidential candidates.

5338. Ray (RDP)

Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:46 PM (#4297321)

So? To listen to Steve and Sam and others here, one would think the Democrats have been getting some 85% of the popular vote, and only fringe elements would support the Republican platform, and so the Republicans must adopt the Democratic platform in order to become relevant again.

5339. Morty Causa Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:48 PM (#4297323)

Once Republicans abandon their principles and act like Democrats, they will start winning elections.

Well, that's what happened to the Democratic Party beginning, oh, about, with Reagan. I become a watered-down version of the Republican Party, and (since I've been posting on him) as Harry Truman said: "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time." It would apply the other way, too. However, the Democrats may be adjusting to demographics, but they have retained much of their governing philosophy. Republicans just have to find a way to take some of those constituents. Easing up on the illegal immigration bloviating and gay-bashing may not be that radical a change in philosophy.

5340. spike Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:48 PM (#4297324)

There are plenty of people willing to vote Republican.

But currently distributed in such a way that that it will be difficult to win a Presidency - Obama would have won last night - and this bears repeating - without VA, OH or FL, and by 4+ points in all of the remaining states in his column.

5341. formerly dp Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:50 PM (#4297327)

5342. Tripon Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:51 PM (#4297330)

So? To listen to Steve and Sam and others here, one would think the Democrats have been getting some 85% of the popular vote, and only fringe elements would support the Republican platform, and so the Republicans must adopt the Democratic platform in order to become relevant again.

No, but part of the failure of the Republican party is that the platform that they adopted is causing them to lost potential voters that may have identified with them. They may not have to 'adopt' the Democratic platform, but they can start by dropping off AND NEVER MENTIONING the most odious parts of their platform like the stance they have taken on rape.

5343. Rickey Fredonia Fudge Duckery Precious Twiddle Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:51 PM (#4297331)

Please do check the popular vote. There are plenty of people willing to vote Republican.

Please do check the method in which the United States actually elects Presidents.

5344. you got a STEAGLES? you're gonna need a STEAGLES. Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:51 PM (#4297332)

I admire the hell out of elected officials like Dick Lugar.

that's ####### horseshit. people like lugar have sat on the sidelines as the republican party has been overtaken by lunatics and nutters. what do you admire about him? that he was outmaneuvered by a man who thinks that rape is just god's plan for women?

no. lugar gets no credit for growing a spine only when he's past the point when it might have mattered.

5345. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:52 PM (#4297334)

Yes, yes. Once Republicans abandon their principles and act like Democrats, they will start winning elections.

Is this the proper usage of concern trolling, or do I have that wrong?

]Since this isn't a Republican-dominated site, and it's not being brought up in bad faith by someone pretending to be a fellow Republican, it's not exactly pure concern trolling. But it has affinities with full-on concern trolling.

Thing is, concern trolling isn't by definition wrong. If there were a party that endorsed a one-child policy, they would lose elections because of it. If I said I was concerned that they'd lose elections until they reversed course on the issue, I'd be concern trolling, but I'd also be right.

I don't think the Republicans need to moderate that much on most issues. They can probably win without purging any of the neocon crazies on foreign policy, and they only need to moderate in the smallest way on economics (keep pushing tax cuts and deregulation, de-emphasize privatizing Medicare). There's no need to stop being a pro-life party. But they need to understand why immigration-restriction rhetoric and policy are killing them and find a way to reverse course.

I'd like it if Republicans lost by a margin that demonstrates they need to change themselves wholesale, but that didn't happen. They just need to slightly moderate rhetoric in a few places and change course on one key issue.

5346. Lassus Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:53 PM (#4297335)

To listen to Steve and Sam and others here, one would think the Democrats have been getting some 85% of the popular vote

Keep thinking we actually think that, it will only help us.

BTW, I agree with whomever said that Republicans only need to do a few small things to win; but I also think things like accepting gay marriage and science are small things.

5347. formerly dp Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:54 PM (#4297336)

Easing up on the illegal immigration bloviating and gay-bashing may not be that radical a change in philosophy.

Right. That isn't becoming like Democrats, that's ceding ground to the other side where you've lost battles. If Obama announced he was going to push for gun control legislation in his second term, that definitely would have hurt the Democrats across the board.

5348. Ray (RDP)

Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:54 PM (#4297337)

but they can start by dropping off AND NEVER MENTIONING the most odious parts of their platform like the stance they have taken on rape.

What "stance"? As far as I know, one idiot - Akin - said something idiotic, after which everyone in the party scattered from him.

5349. Misirlou is bad, he's nationwide Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:54 PM (#4297338)

There are plenty of people willing to vote Republican.

But currently distributed in such a way that that it will be difficult to win a Presidency - Obama would have won last night - and this bears repeating - without VA, OH or FL, and by 4+ points in all of the remaining states in his column.

Obama won 5 states with 60% or more of the vote. Romney had 10 such victories. Getting more people to vote R in SC, AR, or TX ain't gonna help.

5350. spike Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:57 PM (#4297341)

well, that was rather my point. Concentration of Republicans in so few states, and the ability of Obama to create electoral majority coalitions even without purple states

5351. Slivers of Maranville (SdeB) Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:59 PM (#4297343)

But they need to understand why immigration-restriction rhetoric and policy are killing them and find a way to reverse course.

I think David Frum has it right here:

Any idea that the immigration issue - and the immigration issue alone - would enable Republicans to staple a good chunk of the Latino vote to the conservative coalition - without changing anything else - is a dangerous self-deception.

It's necessary of course to refrain from insulting Latinos, or, for that matter, anybody. But the crying need in the GOP is for a more middle-class orientation to politics, one that addresses concerns like healthcare as well as debts and deficits. But the ideas that dominated the past four years won't become more attractive if all conservatives do is translate them into Spanish.

5352. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 07, 2012 at 05:59 PM (#4297345)

Matt Yglesias has a good post on the GOP's minority problem:

Pundits are quickly turning to immigration to explain the Republicans’ Latino problem and to offer a possible cure, but the reality is that the rot cuts much deeper. The GOP doesn’t have a problem with Latino voters per se. Rather, it has a problem with a broad spectrum of voters who simply don’t feel that it’s speaking to their economic concerns. The GOP has an economic agenda tilted strongly to the benefit of elites, and it has preserved support for that agenda—even though it disserves the majority of GOP voters—with implicit racial politics.

Consider the GOP’s deeply racialized campaign against Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. What was so surprising about this—and I know I’m not the only fair-skinned English-dominant person with a Spanish surname who was genuinely shocked—was that conservatives could have easily opposed her purely on policy grounds. Sotamayor is a fairly conventional Democrat on constitutional issues, and that would have been ample reason for conservatives to criticize her. Indeed, Justice Elena Kagan was attacked on precisely those grounds. But rather than tempering opposition with at least some recognition that Sotomayor’s life story might be a great example for immigrant parents trying to raise children in difficult circumstances, the country was treated to a mass racial panic in which Anglo America was about to be stomped by the boot of Sotomayor’s ethnic prejudice. The graduate of Princeton and Yale Law, former prosecutor, and longtime federal judge was somehow not just too liberal for conservatives’ taste but a “lightweight” who’d been coasting her whole life on the enormous privilege of growing up poor in the South Bronx.

Polling suggests that the Latino problem for the GOP is deeper than immigration. John McCain got a scant 31 percent of the Latino vote despite a long record of pro-immigration policies. The best evidence available on Hispanic public opinion, a big election even poll from Latino Decisions and ImpreMedia, makes it clear that this is just a fairly liberal voting block. Just 12 percent of Latinos support a cuts-only approach to deficit reduction, and only 25 percent want to repeal Obamacare. Only 31 percent of Hispanics say they’d be more likely to vote for a Republican who supports the DREAM Act. This isn’t to say Latinos aren’t eager to see immigration reform, it’s just that the lion’s share have bigger reasons for rejecting the GOP.

Indeed, perhaps the most telling exit poll result about Hispanics is the almost identical thumping Romney took with Asian and Jewish voters, and even more so with black voters. ... Gerald Ford got 17 percent of the black vote while losing overall, while Romney won less than 10 percent. As Tom Scocca wrote last week, all kinds of people vote Democratic, and it’s the Republicans who rely on a narrow ethnic niche to win. The real issue isn’t Democrats courting minority “special interests” (indeed, as an economic matter Latin American immigration is good for everyone except Americans who primarily speak Spanish), it’s Republicans who use targeted outreach to help boost their share of the white vote despite a generally unpersuasive message. Viewed in that light, the anti-Sotomayor demagoguery becomes far more comprehensible. Far from an unforced error, it’s part of a reasonably effective strategy to ensure the loyalty of white voters without altering an economic agenda that’s relentlessly biased toward the rich.

This is, I guess, how you make the argument that the GOP's electoral / demographic problem is much bigger that I currently think it is. If the Republicans let go of cultural majoritarianism, will they lose white voters to the economic majoritarian message of the Democrats? That's not implausible, at least.

5353. Misirlou is bad, he's nationwide Posted: November 07, 2012 at 06:00 PM (#4297347)

What "stance"? As far as I know, one idiot - Akin - said something idiotic, after which everyone in the party scattered from him.

Plus the other 2 guys in Indiana and North Dakota. 3 idiots opened their yaps and cost them 3 senate seats.

5354. Slivers of Maranville (SdeB) Posted: November 07, 2012 at 06:00 PM (#4297348)

What "stance"? As far as I know, one idiot - Akin - said something idiotic, after which everyone in the party scattered from him.

They didn't scatter from him quickly enough to prevent him winning the primary.

5355. Misirlou is bad, he's nationwide Posted: November 07, 2012 at 06:00 PM (#4297349)

well, that was rather my point.

yes. I was just reinforcing it.

5356. Danny Posted: November 07, 2012 at 06:01 PM (#4297350)

5357. bob gee Posted: November 07, 2012 at 06:01 PM (#4297351)

i thought akin won the primary, said something stupid, didn't drop out by the "deadline"? also, some of the outside groups came back to support him late in the race, didn't they?

5358. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 07, 2012 at 06:05 PM (#4297354)

It's amusing reading the gloating on the left here, amidst the fantasy that the election result confirmed everything they thought about the Republican Party and how people view it.

Do people not see that this is simply a pendulum?

The Whigs probably said stuff like that, too.

5359. Rickey Fredonia Fudge Duckery Precious Twiddle Posted: November 07, 2012 at 06:06 PM (#4297355)

So? To listen to Steve and Sam and others here, one would think the Democrats have been getting some 85% of the popular vote, and only fringe elements would support the Republican platform, and so the Republicans must adopt the Democratic platform in order to become relevant again.

Let me clarify my position, then.

The GOP platform is a cobbled together mess of 1980s era "big tent conservatism." The three poles of that 1980s winning coalition was "fiscal conservatism" (tax cuts and trickle down economics), militarist aggressiveness (aggressive, offensive "defense" against the Russian Evil Empire), and social conservatism (alignment with the burgeoning "religious right.")

Of those three poles, the citizenry has watched trickle down economics fail miserably for 30 years; it's not a net-positive for them any more. Tax cuts are no longer the panacea for the majority of the electorate. A decade of Afghanistan/Iraq/War on Terror has exhausted the nation's interest in expansive militarist foreign policies. Check the cross tabs from last night. The people trust Dems over Reps on FP for the first time in decades. And the social con right now defines and leads the party, at exactly a point in time that liberal social mores are again ascendant. The right wing social cons are probably the party's biggest long term weakness projecting into the future.

Me, I don't care if the GOP fades to irrelevance. It can save itself. It can adopt a more libertarian foreign policy (and attack the Dems from the left on that issue.) It can return to real fiscal conservatism (rather than pretending that tax cuts for the wealthy are going to fund services, and certainly rather than promoting Paul Ryan's brand of Randianism.) It can put the religious nutters back in a box. Or it can not do that and continue to lose. I don't really care.

I'd rather see Gary Johnson's foreign policy, Barack Obama's fiscal policy, personally. On social issues, well, I wouldn't mind if the box full of religious nutters was buried or thrown into the sea.

5360. Tripon Posted: November 07, 2012 at 06:07 PM (#4297356)

What "stance"? As far as I know, one idiot - Akin - said something idiotic, after which everyone in the party scattered from him.

ABORTION:

The party states that "the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed." It opposes using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or to fund organizations that perform or advocate abortions. It says the party will not fund or subsidize health care that includes abortion coverage.

"a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed." You may say well, this pretains to abortions only, and not rape. But this is what Akins and others like him say when asked on the subject, that they wish to protect the life of the baby, and besides its a miracle anyway even if its rape. Its a discintion without difference. There is no reason to take this stance other than the fact that the Republican party wanted to. Leaving stuff like this out would go a long way and take away ammo from the Democrats as well.

5361. Misirlou is bad, he's nationwide Posted: November 07, 2012 at 06:07 PM (#4297357)

What "stance"? As far as I know, one idiot - Akin - said something idiotic, after which everyone in the party scattered from him.

Oh, and I'm forgetting Romney's running mate:

"I'm very proud of my pro-life record, and I've always adopted the idea that, the position that the method of conception doesn't change the definition of life."

This in response to a question about why he doesn't support aborting for rape victims.

5362. spike Posted: November 07, 2012 at 06:09 PM (#4297358)

yes. I was just reinforcing it

Sorry 'bout that - hard for me to keep up sometimes

5363. Jolly Old St. Nick Done Jumped The Ship

Posted: November 07, 2012 at 06:10 PM (#4297359)

But first they'll have to get past the stage of denial, and act accordingly.

Yes, yes. Once Republicans abandon their principles and act like Democrats, they will start winning elections.

Yes, the sacred principles of Dog Whistling and "givers and takers" rhetoric.

EDIT: Cokes to everyone, though admittedly that was one of Ray's Hughesian hanging sliders.

So? To listen to Steve and Sam and others here, one would think the Democrats have been getting some 85% of the popular vote,

Hot tip 1: Study an electoral map that's broken down by demographics.

Hot tip 2: You can't win a national election just by piling up states where boll weevils, tumbleweeds and mountains outnumber people.

5364. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: November 07, 2012 at 06:19 PM (#4297361)

The real issue isn’t Democrats courting minority “special interests”

"special interests" = those who vote for my oppponent

"voice of America" = those who vote for me

5365. McCoy Wilfong for Money Posted: November 07, 2012 at 06:22 PM (#4297362)

If you can't defeat a black guy with a crummy economy you're doing something wrong. Plain and simple.

This whole coalition thing is nonsense. Romney lost because he couldn't convince women to vote for him.

5366. spike Posted: November 07, 2012 at 06:29 PM (#4297365)

To take that a step further, he couldn't convince a majority of any race/gender demographic except white men to vote for him.

AP Demographic exit poll

5367. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: November 07, 2012 at 06:31 PM (#4297367)

Reading the blamestorming among the RW sites gives me a happy.

Every plea for self-reflection and moderation is met with two angry responses, with Christie at fault, with the "Media Brotherhood" at fault, with America at fault...

Keep at it, GOP. Maybe you'll figure it out. Maybe.

5368. SteveF Posted: November 07, 2012 at 06:31 PM (#4297368)

If you can't defeat a black guy with a crummy economy you're doing something wrong. Plain and simple.

Woof, woof!

5369. Jolly Old St. Nick Done Jumped The Ship

Posted: November 07, 2012 at 06:32 PM (#4297370)

Chris Cillizza on 2012 contenders...

Dems: Clinton, Biden, Cuomo, O'Malley, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Warren
GOP: Christie, Bush, Rubio, Jindal, Ryan, Paul

Paul and Warren seem the least likely to me, as they'd both get killed in the general election. Gillibrand probably won't run if Cuomo or Clinton run, and either Cuomo or Clinton is very likely to run.

Biden's too much of a retread, Cuomo has personality issues, O'Malley's not very impressive up close (and he's in the pocket of the gambling lobby), Gillibrand hasn't much of a track record, and Warren could get sidetracked by side issues. I don't know much about Klobuchar. I'd say this is Hillary's nomination almost for the asking, as her intra-party enemies of 2008 now mostly have a far more positive view of her. If not her, then some relatively unknown who's yet to jump into the picture.

Of the Republicans he mentions, Rubio has the most superficial appeal, and he'd deflate the Republicans' anti-immigration baggage to an extent**. Beyond that, how much he goes beyond standard issue TP rhetoric is an open question. Christie will have personality issues that can bubble up on a moment's notice. Bush is still a Bush, and is getting dumpier looking by the week. Jindal is a tiny (5'9" standing on his tiptoes) little piece of nothing, Ryan is a fiscal right wing ideologue, and Paul is simply a loon. And by the time the winner gets through the primaries sawmill, it's an open question of how many limbs they'll have left. That problem isn't going to go away until the problem of the base's extreme ideology is confronted and somehow neutralized. Their only crutch is likely to be a bad economy, and if that's not helping them, then forget it.

**To the extent that he doesn't try to conflate Cubans' immigration problems with the immigration problems of other Latinos.

5370. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: November 07, 2012 at 06:33 PM (#4297371)

But on the other side of the fight, Herman Cain, the former presidential candidate who still has a robust following via his popular talk radio program and speaking tours, today suggested the most clear step to open civil war: Secession. Appearing on Bryan Fischer’s radio program this afternoon, Cain called for a large faction of Republican Party leaders to desert the party and form a third, more conservative party.

“I never thought that I would say this, and this is the first time publicly that I’ve said it: We need a third party to save this country. Not Ron Paul and the Ron Paulites. No. We need a legitimate third party to challenge the current system that we have, because I don’t believe that the Republican Party…has the ability to rebrand itself,” Cain said.

Fischer, a social conservative leader, noted that he predicted this summer that if Mitt Romney loses, evangelical conservatives would start a third party. “If Barack Obama wins this election the Republican Party as we know it is finished, it is dead, it is toast,” Fischer said in September at the Values Voter Summit in Washington.

Rush Limabugh, two months ago, echoed the sentiment. ”If Obama wins, let me tell you what it’s the end of: The Republican Party. There’s gonna be a third party that’s gonna be oriented toward conservatism,” he said.

“It is more viable today than it has ever been,” Cain told Fischer today of a third party.

5371. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: November 07, 2012 at 06:33 PM (#4297372)

Dem Ann Kirkpatrick wins AZ-1.

5372. Rickey Fredonia Fudge Duckery Precious Twiddle Posted: November 07, 2012 at 06:35 PM (#4297373)

Every plea for self-reflection and moderation is met with two angry responses, with Christie at fault, with the "Media Brotherhood" at fault, with America at fault...

I just got my first Facebook friend posting about possible secession! (From a BTF'er at that.)

5373. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: November 07, 2012 at 06:35 PM (#4297374)

“It is more viable today than it has ever been,” Cain told Fischer today of a third party.

Pleasepleasepleasepleaseplease...

5374. Steve Treder Posted: November 07, 2012 at 06:35 PM (#4297375)

Fischer, a social conservative leader, noted that he predicted this summer that if Mitt Romney loses, evangelical conservatives would start a third party. “If Barack Obama wins this election the Republican Party as we know it is finished, it is dead, it is toast,” Fischer said in September at the Values Voter Summit in Washington.

Rush Limabugh, two months ago, echoed the sentiment. ”If Obama wins, let me tell you what it’s the end of: The Republican Party. There’s gonna be a third party that’s gonna be oriented toward conservatism,” he said.

“It is more viable today than it has ever been,” Cain told Fischer today of a third party.

Best of luck with that.

5375. spike Posted: November 07, 2012 at 06:37 PM (#4297376)

Tell me where to donate.

5376. Slivers of Maranville (SdeB) Posted: November 07, 2012 at 06:37 PM (#4297377)

As a sign of the way social issues are hamstringing the Republican party, the fates of the NY Republican state senators who voted for gay marriage:

[Last night] Democrat Ted O’Brien successfully claimed a Rochester seat previously held by Republican Jim Alesi. Mr. Alesi, facing a likely primary challenge after voting in favor of gay marriage in 2011, opted to not run for reelection. Another pro-gay marriage Republican senator, Poughkeepsie’s Steve Saland, survived a primary challenge only to have his opponent run against him on the Conservative line in the general election, allowing Democrat Terry Gipson squeak by in a 43%-to-42% plurality surprise win. This was despite Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo providing a cross-party endorsement to Mr. Saland. (With Republican Roy McDonald losing a primary challenge of his own, only one of the four Republican votes for same sex marriage will be in the State Senate next year, Buffalo’s Mark Grisanti.)

5377. Jolly Old St. Nick Done Jumped The Ship

Posted: November 07, 2012 at 06:39 PM (#4297378)

Someone mentioned this last night, and that demographic exit poll confirms it: Asians skew Democratic even more than Latinos. It's utterly amazing how narrowcast the Republicans' appeal is in an election where the PV spread was in the neighborhood of only 2%, though it's only really amazing if you overlook how they've addressed just about every demographic group other than wealthy or racially challenged white men.

5378. bunyon Posted: November 07, 2012 at 06:41 PM (#4297380)

A Tea Party organized around fiscally conservative principles is a force to be reckoned with. A Tea Party organized around stop abortions, limit access to birth control, hate on the gays, get the darkies to self-deport, poor people are lazy, the president's a illegal immigrant Muslim socialist, and oh by the way we're all about smaller government-- that is a party that rightly deserves to be mocked, and won't win national elections. As someone on the left, that they keep embracing the latter identity. There's no fake concern here.

Indeed. The Republicans don't have to abandon their principles. Unless you define "principles" as every last detail of every last thing a Republican has ever supported. The Republicans have to figure out what is most important to them: what are the "principles"? They're going to have to give somewhere - personally, I hope they give on the social stuff. But they could also give on economics a bit - be more inclusive of the middle class and the working class and keep hammering away on the Christian right stuff. That would win in some places. But the current set of "principles" as communicated by their platform and candidates is not winning. I agree that it's close, but not close enough.

5379. Steve Treder Posted: November 07, 2012 at 06:43 PM (#4297381)

Someone mentioned this last night, and that demographic exit poll confirms it: Asians skew Democratic even more than Latinos.

And, on average, Asians are significantly more affluent than Latinos. No serious national brand would consider ceding the Asian population to the competition to not be a dumb move.

5380. bunyon Posted: November 07, 2012 at 06:45 PM (#4297382)

If the far right really does create this third party challenge for 2016, I'm registering as a Democrat and running for President. Whoever wins that nomination can probably get permission from the Obamas to start moving their stuff in in July.

In fact, Michelle should run - keep them from having to move. She can let Barack keep on governing.

5381. Jolly Old St. Nick Done Jumped The Ship

Posted: November 07, 2012 at 06:45 PM (#4297383)

Rush Limabugh, two months ago, echoed the sentiment. ”If Obama wins, let me tell you what it’s the end of: The Republican Party. There’s gonna be a third party that’s gonna be oriented toward conservatism,” he said.

Walls around the borders, a moat around every white neighborhood, 50,000 sharks in the Caribbean, and keep the government out of my wallet, my holster, and my Medicare! How can they lose?

5382. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: November 07, 2012 at 06:45 PM (#4297384)

Christie will have personality issues that can bubble up on a moment's notice.

his other problem (as someone pointed out in the Sandy thread) is that he bears an uncanny resemblance to this guy

5383. Tripon Posted: November 07, 2012 at 06:47 PM (#4297385)

Just want to give a word of warning. The Asian demographic is by no means a monolith. They don't have a unifying language like Spanish for instance.

5384. Steve Treder Posted: November 07, 2012 at 06:48 PM (#4297386)

But the current set of "principles" as communicated by their platform and candidates is not winning. I agree that it's close, but not close enough.

And losing the Presidential election close this time has just cost them the next four years of Supreme Court and other judicial nominations. As a liberal who had to sit through Republican executive branches in five of the first seven Presidencies of my adult life, I can attest that not having the party of your preference in the White House is not where you want to be.

5385. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 07, 2012 at 06:49 PM (#4297387)

A Tea Party organized around fiscally conservative principles is a force to be reckoned with. A Tea Party organized around stop abortions, limit access to birth control, hate on the gays, get the darkies to self-deport, poor people are lazy, the president's a illegal immigrant Muslim socialist, and oh by the way we're all about smaller government-- that is a party that rightly deserves to be mocked, and won't win national elections. As someone on the left, that they keep embracing the latter identity. There's no fake concern here.

See, I totally disagree with this. Fiscal conservatism is not very popular. White Christian cultural majoritarianism remains very popular. The GOP needs to downshift the cultural majoritarianism a bit, but that won't make fiscal conservativism any more of a vote-winner.

5386. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: November 07, 2012 at 06:50 PM (#4297388)

That’s because the GOP bubble remained as tight as ever: Only white people voted for Mitt
Romney.

Or not quite only. Romney won 48.1 percent of the overall vote. White people who voted for Romney made up 42.5 percent of the overall vote. That works out to 88 percent of Romney voters being white.

Using the same method, we find that 2 percent of Romney's voters were black, 6 percent were Latino, 2 percent were Asian, and 2 percent had some other ethnic classification.

Obama's support was 56 percent white, 24 percent black, 14 percent Latino, 4 percent Asian, and 2 percent other.

5387. Steve Treder Posted: November 07, 2012 at 06:50 PM (#4297389)

The Asian demographic is by no means a monolith. They don't have a unifying language like Spanish for instance.

The Latino demographic is hardly a monolith either.

5388. Don Malcolm

Posted: November 07, 2012 at 06:51 PM (#4297390)

Anyone else notice this? Romney apparently had his own CARMINE-like playtool that he was relying on (and kept him as confident as ol' Joe...) right up to the time (and a bit beyond...) that Ohio fell.

If you can't defeat a black guy with a crummy economy you're doing something wrong. Plain and simple.

So elegantly put (NOT). But true. Pollsters suggested that Obama probably lost 1-2% because he's black. It would make for a very interesting study.

It was incredibly important for the future of the country that the first non-white president be a two-term president. Everyone here who wants to simply impersonate a "sophisticated pol" and elide the wrenching issue of the terrible crisis of character that has overtaken the US over the past half-century is simply making some variant of an ostrich play. As a nation, we finally passed a big character test last night--even though 48% (or is it 47%...) of the country will dismiss this idea out of hand as they attempt to justify the desperate cash-grabbing they been surrounded by or complicit in or somehow brainwashed into endorsing.

The pundits spent a great deal of time on several networks talking about how the landscape is trending toward a long-term situation where the Republicans will have an extremely difficult time in the Electoral College. And they have a good point. States like PA and WI have already built a long-term connection with voting Democratic, and similar trends are emerging on the edges of the South and portions of the Basin and Range. Right now it looks as though there's a solid 284 EV base for the Democrats, leaving out IA, VA and FL. About twelve-sixteen more years of that should get rid of enough of the detritus on the SCOTUS, which will help save us from most of the Randian ######## that has plagued us in one form or another for the last thirty years.

Another effect of this outcome (hope, hope, hope...) will be to take some of the wind out of the incessant Republican wind machine. Obama outspent McCain by ~1.6 to 1 in '08, but Romney outspent Obama this time thanks to the SCOTUS giving the billionaire boys' club an open season. Even with that, it didn't seal the deal--even with all of the obstructionism, and all of the efforts after the mid-term elections to re-crash the economy and slow job creation. Maybe there is a God after all.

5389. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 07, 2012 at 06:51 PM (#4297391)

Just want to give a word of warning. The Asian demographic is by no means a monolith. They don't have a unifying language like Spanish for instance.

I think the danger for the Republicans is that virulent white majoritarianism will produce among Asian-Americans a stronger sense of shared identity against a cultural opponent. This is pretty clearly happening with Latino voters, and has little to do with language - see the importance of the culturally based attacks on Sotomayor and the way they sparked a backlash among Mexicans almost as much as among Puerto Ricans.

5390. YR Misses Reggie Bars Posted: November 07, 2012 at 06:55 PM (#4297392)

Maybe there is a God after all.

There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet. Obama told me that.

5391. The Chronicles of Reddick Posted: November 07, 2012 at 07:00 PM (#4297395)

Maybe there is a God after all.

There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet. Obama told me that.

I can't wait until they start building Gulags for all the good christians and replace churches with mosques.

5392. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: November 07, 2012 at 07:00 PM (#4297396)

As a sign of the way social issues are hamstringing the Republican party, the fates of the NY Republican state senators who voted for gay marriage:

NOM, amazingly, said those two GOPers getting bounced was a silver lining.

Two Repubs replaced by Dems, and they think this is progress. (holds up drawings of bats in a belfry; a screw and a baseball...)

5393. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: November 07, 2012 at 07:03 PM (#4297398)

that's ####### horseshit. people like lugar have sat on the sidelines as the republican party has been overtaken by lunatics and nutters. what do you admire about him? that he was outmaneuvered by a man who thinks that rape is just god's plan for women?

no. lugar gets no credit for growing a spine only when he's past the point when it might have mattered.

What the hell are you talking about? What spine do you think he suddenly grew?

As an Indiana Democrat who's cast several votes for Lugar, I think Zonk's description is pretty much spot-on.

5394. Rickey Fredonia Fudge Duckery Precious Twiddle Posted: November 07, 2012 at 07:06 PM (#4297400)

Can I get a link to the quotes from 5370?

It's utterly amazing how narrowcast the Republicans' appeal is in an election where the PV spread was in the neighborhood of only 2%, though it's only really amazing if you overlook how they've addressed just about every demographic group other than wealthy or racially challenged white men.

I've been told by very concerned people that it's wrong and problematic to suggest that the GOP is becoming a single-issue party of angry, white men.

5395. formerly dp Posted: November 07, 2012 at 07:08 PM (#4297401)

See, I totally disagree with this. Fiscal conservatism is not very popular.

White Christian cultural majoritarianism remains very popular. The GOP needs to downshift the cultural majoritarianism a bit,

I'm not sure what you mean here. With the decline in religious affiliation, it seems like tying specific policies to a Christian identity will be a losing proposition, at least at the national level. Anyone know how the Catholic vote broke this time around?

==

The Latino demographic is hardly a monolith either.

Not according to Joe and the woman in line behind me at the polling place yesterday.

5396. bunyon Posted: November 07, 2012 at 07:10 PM (#4297402)

I guess I'm speaking more to the Tea Party rebranding in the wake of Bush-- "bush was not a true fiscal conservative, in a recession like this we need to trim government and union-bust. Balance budget like you balance your checkbook." That sort of pitch has an appeal, in a folksie wisdom sort of sense.

And the idea that there is, for want of a better word, a lot of corruption. The original tea party sentiment wasn't all that different than the Occupy movement, though the two groups would offer up vastly different solutions.

I actually think this is why the TP got overtaken by Kochs and other very rich and the focus turned to social and religious issues.

5397. Slivers of Maranville (SdeB) Posted: November 07, 2012 at 07:11 PM (#4297405)

Two Repubs replaced by Dems, and they think this is progress. (holds up drawings of bats in a belfry; a screw and a baseball...)

I know a couple of liberals who were so deluded they were praying for a Romney win last night.

5398. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 07, 2012 at 07:14 PM (#4297406)

White Christian cultural majoritarianism remains very popular. The GOP needs to downshift the cultural majoritarianism a bit,

I'm not sure what you mean here. With the decline in religious affiliation, it seems like tying specific policies to a Christian identity will be a losing proposition, at least at the national level.

My point, which was not expressed terribly well, is that cultural majoritarianism still wins votes. It wins fewer and fewer, and needs to be re-calibrated to be a bit less white and (evangelically) Christian, but it's a classic part of a winning strategy in democratic elections. Fiscal conservatism, on the other hand, has never won votes.

The reason the Tea Party was successful is that it was a cultural majoritarian movement. That's where the votes are.

5399. Steve Treder Posted: November 07, 2012 at 07:17 PM (#4297407)

The reason the Tea Party was successful is that it was a cultural majoritarian movement.

You've still got quite a way to go to get to persuasive for me on this one.

5400. Steve Treder Posted: November 07, 2012 at 07:17 PM (#4297408)

flip

Page 54 of 114 pages ‹ First < 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 > Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

OTP November 2012 - Moneypoll! The Pundits vs. The Election-Data Nerds

Reader Comments and Retorts

BBTF Sponsor

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics