Skip to main content

View Diary: Forget 'independents.' The path to Democratic victory is through our base (226 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't see how this jives with the data (4+ / 0-)

    showing that the "base" turned out in 2010 and yet we lost the House.  It can't be argued that all you have to do is appeal to the base to win, and yet not win when the base showed up.

    "Harass us, because we really do pay attention. Look at who's on the ballot, and vote for the candidate you agree with the most. The next time, you get better choices." - Barney Frank

    by anonevent on Fri Oct 25, 2013 at 10:57:03 AM PDT

    •  The DIEHARDS turned out The Base was turned off (5+ / 0-)

      Obama's pick of Rham Emanual, Emanual's attitude toward the base,  and Geithner, and his failure to use the money in TARP appropriated for home owner relief, and his choice not to do a general WPA type jobs program, and the ACA ( Insurance Company Continued Ungodly Profits Act) de-energized the base like letting air out of a balloon.

      To Goldman Sachs in according to their desires, From us in accordance with the IRS.

      by Bluehawk on Fri Oct 25, 2013 at 11:20:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The base DID NOT TURN OUT (14+ / 0-)

      you can look at the data here.

      Claiming otherwise is asinine. For example, 48.5 percent of young voters turned out in 2008. 41.2 percent did in 2010. 18-44s went from 47 percent of all voters in 2008 to 36 percent in 2010.

      •  Problem of definition (3+ / 0-)

        Do we define the "base" as voters who identify with the Democratic party and almost always show up at the polls? Or do we define the "base" as demographic groups that lean heavily toward Democratic candidates whether or not they identify with the party?

        By the first definition, I've never seen any evidence that 2010 was a worse year for turnout among reliable Democratic voters than any mid-term. I've heard a lot of moaning by centrists that "progressives" didn't turn out in 2010 (usually expressed as "well, that sort of gerrymandering is what you can expect when progressives sit on their hands because they didn't get everything they wanted," or something similar). But I haven't seen polling that says that liberal Democrats didn't hold their noses and vote.

        Even by the second definition, the record is mixed. Looking at the charts in the diary you referenced, I see that in 2010 youth, Asian-American, and Hispanic turnout was down slightly from 2006. But African American turnout was up. And compared to 2002, Hispanic turnout was up and Asian-American turnout was about even.

        So if the question is "did the demographic 'base' turn out in 2010," then I think the answer is, "about as much as they ever do in off years." Which suggests to me that 2010 was more about Republicans turning out more strongly than expected, something that we can probably attribute to their success at fomenting Obama Derangement Syndrome.

        •  there are two "bases" (0+ / 0-)

          An ideological base--progressives who given an opportunity would probably vote Social Democratic--and a demographic base made up of young people, African-Americans, and Hispanics. The two overlap, but are not identical. If I had a Venn diagram handy I could clear this thing up right away.

          "Something has gone very wrong with America, not just its economy, but its ability to function as a democratic nation. And it’s hard to see when or how that wrongness will get fixed." Paul Krugman and Robin Wells

          by Reston history guy on Fri Oct 25, 2013 at 03:02:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly. (0+ / 0-)

            And of course the demographic bases overlap as well. Do we have a problem with turnout among all unmarried women? Or do we have a much more serious problem with turnout among young minority women who happen to be unmarried?

    •  You're right about the base turning out in 2010. (0+ / 0-)

      I hate to say it, but Markos is wrong. We've had many diaries on this point. The only part of the base that didn't turn out, arguably, is the liberal or progressive young. Because the young didn't turn out generally.

      The thing is, on the issues that people really care about right now--jobs, wages, a solution to the mortgage crisis, education, Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid--liberals and progressives are pretty much in line with independents, so the binary isn't really a problem. Support Social Security and Medicare, say you're going to fund a vigorous jobs program with a transaction tax on Wall St, and come up with a way to fully fund public education, and you'll come up with numbers over 55%.

      I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Fri Oct 25, 2013 at 02:51:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (135)
  • Community (62)
  • Elections (40)
  • 2016 (38)
  • Environment (36)
  • Bernie Sanders (36)
  • Hillary Clinton (31)
  • Culture (30)
  • Media (29)
  • Republicans (29)
  • Climate Change (27)
  • Education (23)
  • Spam (23)
  • Congress (23)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Barack Obama (21)
  • Labor (21)
  • Law (20)
  • Texas (20)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site