Skip to main content

View Diary: Daily Kos Elections Weekly Open Thread: What races are you interested in? (360 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Oh, also, Dave Weigel himself is ignorant (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    itskevin, Stephen Wolf, ArkDem14, propjoe

    This passage:

    But Republicans, increasingly, light a fire with whites. From 2008 to 2012, Barack Obama’s share of the white vote fell from 43 percent to 39 percent. Right after the election, the fact that Obama scored a smaller white vote than Michael Dukakis was cited as proof that the GOP needed to change. Flip the logic. If Republicans can build on the white trend but Democrats can’t build on the nonwhite trends, Republicans will be safe, for a while. If Republicans get back to the 66 percent white vote won by Ronald Reagan in 1984, they’re golden.
    Oy.  (And I'm not even Jewish.)

    This seems like Weigel's own take, not like his characterization of the GOP's take.

    And it's stupid.

    It's well-established that Democrats have been steady with white voters, performing in a pretty narrow band for a quarter-century.  Going from 43% to 39% in one election is not a "trend," it's just noise.  Rather, Obama's 43% tied with Clinton '96 for the all-time post-'76 Democratic high.

    To his credit, Weigel actually goes ahead and quotes Paul Begala's counter-take on his point, but really Weigel could've shown more curiosity himself by looking at the history before claiming a "trend."

    45, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

    by DCCyclone on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 09:39:57 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Dave (7+ / 0-)

      Weigel doesn't do curiosity.  He does sardonic commentary really well, at least the tone, and that's about it.  He hits as often as he misses, and probably less, if you ask me.

      My problem with Dave is that he seems wedded to the idea of being a contrarian first and foremost, so he builds everything else around it, instead of finding the truth and building snark around it.  It's often like he's trying to play a character, and hopes the facts don't get in the way, and if they do, too bad for the facts.

    •  This is more of the same Trende nonsense (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, itskevin, jj32

      Weigel is talking there like Reagan's 1984 performance was normal. Again, this argument is basically saying that Obama leaving the scene will have an impact on some demographics but not on others. Funny how both are supposed to favor Republicans.

      "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

      by conspiracy on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 04:12:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  noise (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DCCyclone

      Weigel neglects to mention that 2008 was a blue wave year across the board and 2012 wasn't, and that swing voters are overwhelmingly white.

      Obama also probably got a bit more than 39% of the white vote in 2012. If you add up the total vote share based on the ethnic breakdown from the exit poll, it works out to a 3 point win for Obama when in fact he won by 4.

      SSP poster. 43, new CA-6, -0.25/-3.90

      by sacman701 on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 12:18:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site