Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama can NOT force the GOP to be reasonable. He's the President, not the Asshole Whisperer (637 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  i don't care about anecdotes (14+ / 0-)

    the exit polls showed self-described liberals showed up. the biggest drop was in young voters- people who showed up for obama, but not when he wasn't on the ballot. the other big factor- the biggest- was that independents went +15 for the gop, citing the economy as their number one issue. blaming liberals is just flatly false.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Thu May 02, 2013 at 02:38:03 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Typical recession and midterm election IOW, plus (0+ / 0-)

      racism for extra spice.

      Yep, sounds about right considering we won the House pop vote last year even with just a meh economy.

      •  no (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        YucatanMan, dfarrah

        it was not typical. it was a landslide. and if racism didn't stop obama from winning the white house, how did it cost democrats an atypical defeat when he wasn't even on the ballot? and how did he win the white house again last year, with democrats winning the house popular vote?

        the exit polls speak for themselves.

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Thu May 02, 2013 at 04:48:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So explain 1966. And 1994. All BOs fault too? (0+ / 0-)

          The reality is that CDs as a whole are heavily skewed to rural, conservative voter areas, even before the new high-tech gerrymanding.  As a result, when a D POTUS has a not good enough economy ('94, '10), even if he didn't cause it, Indies and 'swing voters' votes for Ds fall off enough that the usual 10-20 seat loss and 10-20 more close wins from huge younger and minority turnout fall off becomes 30-50 lossess of which 10 were very close.  1994 and 2010 IOW.

          Now, consider 1996.  Post Civil Rights and Voting Rights Act.  And Ds lost their shirts bc even tho the economy wasn't bad, the racists got extremely angry in the very areas where Ds had been winning for years despite being more liberal than the midterm electorate (in many cases, much more liberal).

          Now, put #1 and #2 above together: you get 2010.    

          Its really not that hard to see how it general developed to that pt.  The only way for Ds to have reduced the carnage was to go even more liberal/populist, which BO tried to get them to (especially on repealing Bush tax cts) but Ds let the Blue Dogs write their pre-election acts and thus electoral doom.

          I know its an inconventient truth among some in the Left, but many midterm voters saw what Ds - including BO - did in 2009-10 as pretty liberal (or often were propagandized into delusional belief that :: cough:: Faux).  And compared to the batshit Rights 'proposals' it was.

          •  wow (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ginger1, DeadHead, YucatanMan, dfarrah

            um. try again. did you read where i noted that indies went +15 gop, citing the economy as their number 1 issue? and if you actually bother to look at the exit polls, 1996 was very much about health care, and the 100 million the insurance industry had just spent trashing clinton. it's really not hard if you look at the exit polls.

            and no, obama didn't try to make the dems more populist. he ignored people like krugman and stiglitz who said that the stimulus was too small, and that it would peter out just in time for the mid-terms. but instead of trying for a second one, instead of spending the year telling us how the republicans had stopped him from getting a second one, he spent the year telling us the economy was turning around. it wasn't. and the dems got the blame for it. and young voters didn't turn out.

            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

            by Laurence Lewis on Thu May 02, 2013 at 05:36:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You're wrong on 94 (not 96) exit polls: see, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:


              for a more accurate analysis of what actually happened to the electorate: hint, it was the economy, specifically for non-college educated whites.  (And, not surprisingly, '96 was just fine despite all the money against Clinton... and health care still being an issue.  Bc it was 1) not a midterm and 2) the economy was good.)  Certainly, health care had an effect, but it was not the issue that swung most of the voters who actually cost Ds Congress in '94.  

              As for the 2nd pt, you confuse populist with progressive and even Keynesian imo.  Making the rich pay a fair share of taxes, i.e. 'soak the rich', by repealing the Bush tax cuts is populist both as policy and politics.  That is precisely what the WH asked Pelosi & Hoyer to has the House pass before the midtern so Ds could run on it.  They demurred bc the Blue Dogs whined and they decided to let the BDs run their 'run and hide' and Thug-lite campaign.  

              BTW, if you were correct about '94 being all about health care, then you are also saying Ds were doomed in '10 no matter what and even tho they passed reform (vs. failed in '94).  And if that were true, then '10 was akin to losing bc of the Voting and Civil Rights Acts.  I can live with that, as long as we build on ACA as we did those 2 (and indeed Social Security, itself.)  I don't buy your premise tho.

              •  that's weak analysis (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                because it makes a grand and condescending assumption, with no evidence to support it:

                Evidently, college-educated voters are more articulate and more willing to cooperate with exit polls, which accounts for their overrepresentation.
                it also offers no actual data on what issues were most important to the voters that abandoned democrats. it just assumes that it was the economy, because that demographic did poorest in that era's strong economy, even though, as he acknowledges, that demographic had been doing relatively poorly for decades. meanwhile, health care had been a political disaster for clinton, and clinton's own pollster cited it as devastating in the election.

                The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                by Laurence Lewis on Fri May 03, 2013 at 01:18:21 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  BTW, I think ur confused what I originally. (1+ / 0-)

              I did not say the 2010 results were a typical midterm.  I said the results were typical for a midtern in a recession, plus added losses from racism.

              Consider the following data on midterms during recessions:

              1946[1]: House-Ds lost 54 seats; Senate- Ds lost 12.
              1953-54: House-Rs lost 19; Senate- Rs lost 2 (but the majority and the pop vote was 55 vs 43%, far, far more D-held seats up than R)
              1957-58: House-Rs lost 48; Senate-Rs lost 12 (Ds pickup 16).
              1969-70: House-Rs lost 12; Senate-Ds lost 2
              1973-75: House-Rs lost 48; Senate-Rs lost 4(in 1974)[2]
              1981-82: House-Rs lost 26; Senate-Rs gained 1[2]
              2001: House-Rs gain 8; Senate-Rs gain 2[2]
              BTW 2010: House-Ds lost 63; Senate-Ds lost 6.

              Conclusion: the party with the WH in a midterm in (or shortly following) a recession year lost an average of 29 seats - actually 35 when the anomoly of '02 is excluded.
              But the deeper and longer recessions (i.e., like 2008) the bigger the losses.  So, a bigger loss in 2010 than 35 seats should have been expected, not even adding the effects of racism, etc.  The 1946, 1958, 1974 and 1982 midterms all took place in recession years and averaged losses of 44.  (BTW, 1982 midterm R losses were reduced in large part bc that is when the CivilRights chickens really started coming home against Ds in the South, so the losses that year and the average really should be higher).

              In addition, many of the 2010 D losses were Blue dogs who ran 'hide and run' and 'Thug-me-too' campaigns, and were in CDs won by McCain in 2008 too boot.  That added to the size of the losses in ways that were not BOs fault - not that he didn't get the blame tho - and in which a populist-tax campaign might have blunted imo.


              [1] '46 was not itself a recession year, but '45 was and the recovery was crap especially given strikes and problems with normalizing from war economy.
              [2] Yes, you can claim '74 was atypical bc of Watergate, but then '02 certainly was bc of 9/11, and '70, '82
              would also be bc Ds already had such large majorities in the House and Senate elections depend so much on how many of which party's seats are up and other non-reproducable factors.  The pt is, however, that the party that has

              •  take another look at your own numbers (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                2010 is more than double the average house loss, and almost 50% more than the average senate loss. we may have differing definitions of "typical."

                and you still have provided no evidence on racism, which flouts common sense anyway. people overcame their racism to elect obama twice, but voted against his party when he wasn't on the ballot, because of racism?

                The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                by Laurence Lewis on Fri May 03, 2013 at 01:28:21 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Different electorates bt P-elect and midterm. BO (0+ / 0-)

                  woulda lost with a typical midterm electorate.

                  As for proof of racism... have you even been paying attention?  What do you think the 'he's a Kenyan' and 'not sure' is?  Polls show anywhere from 30-40% iirc of voters say that.  Yet, Calgary Cruz who actually was born in another country... crickets.  BTW, you do know folks won't tell exit pollsters they are outright racist, right?

                  As for the #s: 63 is not 'almost double' 44.  The data show the depth and length of the recession affects the size of the loss.  The one BO inherited ain't called the Great Recession for nothing.

                  BTW, did you even read the linked exit polls study on the 1994 electorate, showing the 54 seat loss was due to the economy?  63 just isn't that much more than 54.  

                  •  um (0+ / 0-)

                    you didn't link a poll, you linked one interpretation of a poll. an interpretation that is flawed both in what it assumes without evidence, and in what it omits. as i showed you. meanwhile, clinton's own pollster, looking at his own polls, came to a very different conclusion.

                    and you continue to defy basic logic. let me ask this again: why would birthers and other racists vote FOR obama one year, vote against the democrats when obama isn't even on the ballot another year, then vote FOR obama again? the question isn't about the existence of racists, the question is about why obama won twice, and the party got hammered in the mid-term.

                    finally, try basic math.

                    54 + 19 + 48 + 12 + 48 + 26 - 8 = 199

                    199 / 7 = 28.4285714286

                    28.4285714286 x 2 = 56.8571428572

                    63 is more than 56.8571428572

                    the 2010 house loss was more than double the average.

                    as for the senate (which is problematic, anyway, given that only a third of the seats are up, every election, and therefore different states are in play):

                    12 + 2 + 12 + 2 - 4 - 1 = 23

                    23 / 7 = 3.28571428571

                    3.28571428571 + 3.28571428571 = 6.57142857142

                    6 / 6.57142857142 = 0.91304347826.

                    i'm guessing most people would consider 91% to be almost.

                    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                    by Laurence Lewis on Fri May 03, 2013 at 01:20:07 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I know u know far fewer voters vote in midterms (0+ / 0-)

                      terms than P-elects, and those who do show up are much more likely to be Thugs, old, rich, white and, yes, racist.  What do you think they meant when they said they 'wanted their country back'?  (And btw, you do not address the related pt about 'Kenyan'.)  They didn't "vote FOR obama one year, vote against the democrats when obama isn't even on the ballot another year, then vote FOR obama again".  Most of those voters always voted against BO in all 3 elects.  Its the voters who voted for BO/Ds in P-elects that didn't show up in the midterm.  Turnout is consistently 35-50% lower (high 30s vs 55+) in midterms vs P-elelcts, and the voters who don't show up are consistently D voters, i.e., the young, minorities.  That was even more the case in comparing the '08 and '12 electorates to '10.  Remember all that data and analysis about demographics?  

                      I know you're not stupid or usually abtuse.  I've read your diaries.  

                      Second, at least I linked my citation (whic btw, I expressly said was an analysis when I first cited it, and an "exit poll study' in the immediately prior post, so shove your implication).  You didn't bother nor did you link or cite anything to support your dismissal of it or other mere assertions.  It provides citations to its supporting data, which is more than I can say for your assertions that its 'flawed'.  I am tempted to conclude you just don't like it cause it explains why Indies - who are mostly the white, non-college educated voters the analysis notes voted for Clinton in '92 and against Ds in '94 - did so in a way that is not your preferred  Hillarycare explanation.  And btw, so now its not "exit polls" (as stated in your 1st post), its "Clinton's pollster", who of course had absolutely no conflict of interest...  And apparently was so good he didn't see any of it coming.

                      Third, as for 'math', f-off.  Read what I f'g wrote: "lost an average of 29 seats - actually 35 when the anomoly of '02 is excluded."  I specifically explained how and why I got the figures I used.  The fact you chose to ignore this and attack instead your strawman says volumes to me about how weak your position is here.  

                      I further explained - and you completely ignored, of course - how in a more apple to apple comparison of midterms in deep, long recessions, the more accurate typical # of seats lost in the House* is 44.  Given that 1) the economy already meant an anti-D wave, and 2) we are talking about 19 seats more than average wave of 44 in the most similar circumstances, the additional losses seem easily explainable as a bad situation made worse by a feckless Democratic campaign and hardly sui generis to BO.

                      And oh, btw, I am still the only one of us to actually provide a link and show the data and analysis for his arguments.

                      Frankly, I'm also beginning to think your agenda is simply more about blaming a particular person than trying to understand what really happened.  

                      And, while I have been repesectful you have not bothered to extend me the same.  
                      * As I originally explained and you now appear to accept, the Senate results depend on so many other atypical variables as to not yeild meaningful numbers.  Consequently, we should focus on House only.

                      •  you get the respect you earn (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        DeadHead, catilinus

                        i did address the kenyan garbage- that's what birthers are. and you still haven't explained why they would have been more of a factor, or turned on the democrats, when obama wasn't on the ballot. it defies basic common sense.

                        and i don't care how you attempt to unskew polls and results, the fact is 2010 was an extreme result. even if i play your game, 63 is just a tad more than 44. i know this is hard. and clinton's own pollster's analysis is just a tad more credible than someone whose analysis is deeply flawed both by what it gratuitously and extraneously includes and the elephant in the room- health care- that it ignores.

                        and yes, the economy was the key factor in 2010. i kinda mentioned that at the very beginning. it was a bad campaign for the democrats because the president had spent the past year telling everyone that the economy was turning and around, and it wasn't. so independents, who were the real deciding factor, turned on the democrats. and too many young voters didn't turn out when obama wasn't on the ballot. but lo and behold, liberals overall did turn out- at the same proportion of the overall vote as when democrats won back congress in 2006. and they even voted democratic at a higher level than in 2006.

                        let me repeat: yes, turnout is lower in mid-terms, but other than young voters, liberals turned out in comparable numbers to the previous mid-term, as a percent of the overall electorate. and voted for democrats in higher numbers than in the previous mid-term. zombie lie debunked. deal with it.

                        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                        by Laurence Lewis on Fri May 03, 2013 at 08:29:02 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Since I didn't say liberals didn't turnout or that (0+ / 0-)

                          2010 wasn't an 'extreme' result, I don't understand the passion with which you attack the strawmen you make out of what I did say.

                          My pt was quite simple: given that 'extreme' losses are the typical result of midterms elections in recession years, the additional losses were mostly explainable by racism, i.e., irrational hatred and fear of the black POTUS (the 'other') that the voters who did not show up in the midterm did not share.

                          I never said the voters who didn't show were 'liberals'.  I said they were young and minority voters, as they always are in midterms.  

                          The pt of the study I linked and my analysis and rbuttal of your assertions re: exit polls, was simply to pt you at the abundant evidence that your claimed counter-example ('94) - for which you have still nto provided anything but an assertion - in fact fit this pattern, i.e., an 'extreme' loss in the midterm with the additonal losses (10 seats) not significant enough to draw the lesson Clinton - or his pollster apparently - did, i.e., hire toe-sucker, panic and move Right.  Rather, it explains the margin of the shift in independents is really a product of the recession, and not surprising they shifted back when it boomed in '96.

                          The same is true of those who pick over the 2010 losses looking to blame it on BO for not, in your case, apparently giving full throat to Stiglitz and channelling DarthCheney by yelling that 'deficits don't matter' especially when he believes (and told us before 2008) that he believes long term debt does matter (and, frankly, it does, just not the way the deficit peacocks and Thugs claim).

                          There is almost no historical evidence that you can get enough young and minority voters who voted in P-elects to turn out in midterms in sufficient numbers to overwhelm the much more conservative electorate that reliably does turn out ('06 was somewhat unique bc the '6 year itch' had added to it the wars, Katrina and Dumbya).

                          'Racism' doesn't just mean extras from Deliverance.  It is the context in which those who voted in 2010 and were not happy viewed Ds as a whole, both increasing the number who blamed Ds and the intensity of Thug voters.  It also exxacerbated historical racist trends that have seen Ds ghetoized to black-only districts in the South (there is 1 non-urban district D Congressperson in the South now) and biblebelt by both encouraging and playing on a toxic mix that all has as a common nexus 'othering' of opponents and which are particularly prevelant in those areas and intense among the 'hard core' that votes in midterms, e.g. hyper-religiosity, authoritarian 'christianity', survivalism, gun nuts, black helicopter nuts, etc.,  - and racists.  In fact, experience and polls show many of these types are actual racists.

                          Campaigning for a 'second stim' would not counter that or its effect on the midterm.  The only thing that would is to provide a different villian, the 'rich' to use a convenient short-hand.  Which is pretty much what the good part of populism means in US political history (the bad parts being e.g., anti-intellectualism, nativism, etc.).  I argued - and stand by it - that BO tried to do that by getting the House to frame the election on the Bush tax cuts (as he did in 2012 and won).  Now whipping up some class populism would not have avoided the 'extreme' result in 2010 built in bc of the economy, but it might have avoided the addtional 19 seat loss.  And IMO it had a damn sigh better chance of doing so than fighting Thugs on their terrain, i.e., spending.  Bc of House D timidity we will never know, tho we clearly won this issue in 2012 even with a lot of the 'midterm electorate' types.

                          Frankly, I find your (apparent) position just a liberal version of the  'conservativism never fails, its just never really tried', and as noxious, bankrupt and ultimately irrelevant.

                          Finally, you have gall saying 'respect is earned' when I have both explained and given both reasona and citations for my postiions but your comments have been nothing but mere assertion and insult.  IMO you have in short been an ass and I shall waste no more time on you.

    •  Yup n/t (0+ / 0-)

      Just because the government keeps a record of real property transfers, it doesn't mean that the government wants to confiscate your home.

      by NCJan on Thu May 02, 2013 at 06:27:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not just anecdotes (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sharman, artmartin

      Turnout was substantially down in the most progressive districts in NC.

      It doesn't matter which progressive votes didn't show up--young and independent voters who voted for Obama but didn't show are an important part of the coalition.

      So this is not really an argument.

      Just because the government keeps a record of real property transfers, it doesn't mean that the government wants to confiscate your home.

      by NCJan on Thu May 02, 2013 at 06:30:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, they didn't. (0+ / 0-)

      See my link below.

      Lo que separa la civilizacion de la anarquia son solo siete comidas.

      by psilocynic on Thu May 02, 2013 at 06:46:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site