unofan
Well-known member
No, it's not that simple, because lower midterm turnout has been a thing at least as long as I've been alive (maybe longer, I don't know).
If it was just Obama, it wouldn't be part of a decades long pattern.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing
- Thread starter Kepler
- Start date
- Status
No, it's not that simple, because lower midterm turnout has been a thing at least as long as I've been alive (maybe longer, I don't know).
If it was just Obama, it wouldn't be part of a decades long pattern.
trixR4kids
Well-known member
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing
Well like most complex issues it probably only requires about 5 seconds of thought.
Well like most complex issues it probably only requires about 5 seconds of thought.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing
Good point. It has been a dependable pattern since the 1840s, which corresponds to the abolition of property requirements for the franchise.
We have two electorates. The midterm electorate is a conservative subset of the presidential electorate. That's nothing against them; indeed, it's to their credit. Democracy is non-compulsory, and conservatives are making a greater effort to determine our country's future than liberals. They deserve the power they just gained.
Good point. It has been a dependable pattern since the 1840s, which corresponds to the abolition of property requirements for the franchise.
We have two electorates. The midterm electorate is a conservative subset of the presidential electorate. That's nothing against them; indeed, it's to their credit. Democracy is non-compulsory, and conservatives are making a greater effort to determine our country's future than liberals. They deserve the power they just gained.
Last edited:
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing
Income figures taken from here: https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/2013/h03AR.xls
The President's problems, as with most Dems on the national level, is that though the economy is improving, the imrovement isn't being felt by most people. Since 2010 (year of the income trough) annual household income is up roughly two percent, a half to a full percentage lower than inflation rates over that same time period. Relatively speaking, people aren't feeling the improvement because their purchasing power is down during that period. Job growth has not been in areas where people are going to earn like they did ten years ago. Whether or not it's right to lay that at the feet of the politicians doesn't really matter, it's the only truly vocal outlet people have.
Income figures taken from here: https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/2013/h03AR.xls
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing
The irony is the problem for the Democrats is wealth inequality, and wealth inequality is increased by Republican policies. The voters blamed the fireman for the fire and gave power back to the arsonist.
But here's the thing: the Democrats had control of the Presidency and both chambers of Congress in the wake of the financial crisis, and they made no systemic changes. The Great Recession was caused by the speculation of unregulated financial markets, and the country would have supported dramatic re-regulation on the order of the New Deal. But the Democrats FAILED, MISERABLY to deliver. So really the voters blamed an incompetent fireman, and it's hard to fault them for it. At least the arsonist has swagger.
If it's any consolation (spoiler: it isn't), we'll have another chance very soon when the next wave of irresponsible casino capitalism causes another massive financial collapse.
The irony is the problem for the Democrats is wealth inequality, and wealth inequality is increased by Republican policies. The voters blamed the fireman for the fire and gave power back to the arsonist.
But here's the thing: the Democrats had control of the Presidency and both chambers of Congress in the wake of the financial crisis, and they made no systemic changes. The Great Recession was caused by the speculation of unregulated financial markets, and the country would have supported dramatic re-regulation on the order of the New Deal. But the Democrats FAILED, MISERABLY to deliver. So really the voters blamed an incompetent fireman, and it's hard to fault them for it. At least the arsonist has swagger.
If it's any consolation (spoiler: it isn't), we'll have another chance very soon when the next wave of irresponsible casino capitalism causes another massive financial collapse.
Last edited:
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing
My theory is that people haven't been satisfied with horse #A, so it's just time to change to horse #B, regardless of the color of their stripes (i.e. their stated policy goals). Hmmmm....now which prominent Democrat rode that sort of "change for change's sake" sentiment into the White House recently and somehow mistook that for appreciation of his stripes...? Can't quite put my finger on it...
Your theory is that people voted for REPUBLICANS (or stayed home) because they care deeply about these things? Interesting...
My theory is that people haven't been satisfied with horse #A, so it's just time to change to horse #B, regardless of the color of their stripes (i.e. their stated policy goals). Hmmmm....now which prominent Democrat rode that sort of "change for change's sake" sentiment into the White House recently and somehow mistook that for appreciation of his stripes...? Can't quite put my finger on it...
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing
I think you are right, Clown. But it should not be lost on many of those voters that in the economy Ob took over, people were losing their jobs, homes and pensions at a rate that made people talk of 1929. There is a difference between a recovery you can't feel and a disaster you must live with.
I think you are right, Clown. But it should not be lost on many of those voters that in the economy Ob took over, people were losing their jobs, homes and pensions at a rate that made people talk of 1929. There is a difference between a recovery you can't feel and a disaster you must live with.
trixR4kids
Well-known member
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing
They stayed home because they realized that even when dems had control they didn't make any meaningful systemic changes. They have every reason to be cynical at this point.
They stayed home because they realized that even when dems had control they didn't make any meaningful systemic changes. They have every reason to be cynical at this point.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing
In part. There was about a 15-point difference in turnout between the presidential and midterm elections during the FDR presidency, which was the most dramatic liberal addressing of the country's fundamental concerns in our history, creating the American middle class and the greatest economic success story in world history. There was a 20-point difference between 2012 (58%) and 2014 (38%). So we're talking about a 5-point drop between FDR's maximal action and BHO's presumptive maximal inaction.
Even if we posit all 5 points being liberal (which is almost certainly not the case), that still leaves a lot of key races that would have gone to the bad guys.
The greatest trick the conservative devil ever pulled was to convince liberals that liberal is a bad word. The Democrats have been on the ideological defensive ever since. My biggest hope for Obama was that he would embrace liberalism fully and unapologetically, preaching from the bully pulpit the record of success of liberalism and merrily tossing onto the ash heap of history all the righty lies that have cowed the mainstream left since 1980. But that didn't happen.
So the hope I'm left with now is that Hillary is actually a stealth liberal who has been lying in wait all these years, aping the rhetoric of conservatism but waiting to be a socialist sleeper cell. That's a pretty faint hope...
In part. There was about a 15-point difference in turnout between the presidential and midterm elections during the FDR presidency, which was the most dramatic liberal addressing of the country's fundamental concerns in our history, creating the American middle class and the greatest economic success story in world history. There was a 20-point difference between 2012 (58%) and 2014 (38%). So we're talking about a 5-point drop between FDR's maximal action and BHO's presumptive maximal inaction.
Even if we posit all 5 points being liberal (which is almost certainly not the case), that still leaves a lot of key races that would have gone to the bad guys.
The greatest trick the conservative devil ever pulled was to convince liberals that liberal is a bad word. The Democrats have been on the ideological defensive ever since. My biggest hope for Obama was that he would embrace liberalism fully and unapologetically, preaching from the bully pulpit the record of success of liberalism and merrily tossing onto the ash heap of history all the righty lies that have cowed the mainstream left since 1980. But that didn't happen.
So the hope I'm left with now is that Hillary is actually a stealth liberal who has been lying in wait all these years, aping the rhetoric of conservatism but waiting to be a socialist sleeper cell. That's a pretty faint hope...
Last edited:
trixR4kids
Well-known member
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing
Well yeah, I probably should've noted that turnout usually isn't very good for midterms to begin with.
Well yeah, I probably should've noted that turnout usually isn't very good for midterms to begin with.
Sure! I'm right. You're wrong. And if you don't agree with me, you're a racist or a socialist.
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing
quite a few people who have commented here, and many opinion writers as well, have summarized the election as "change....and (guarded) hope."
It seems that the electorate is totally disgusted with both parties.
2006 - 8: "Repugnicans, we're done with you!"
Democrat "wave"?
2010 and 14: "Dummycrats, we're done with you!" Republican "wave" --- not.
"We gave one of you a chance and you screwed up. Get lost. Now we are giving another of you a chance, please don't mess it up. If you do, you'll be gone soon enough as well."
Except for die-hard party loyalists, it seems like there is no affiliation with either party any more:
"Forget about principles and platforms, just deliver competent governance. Is that so much to ask, really?"
quite a few people who have commented here, and many opinion writers as well, have summarized the election as "change....and (guarded) hope."
It seems that the electorate is totally disgusted with both parties.
2006 - 8: "Repugnicans, we're done with you!"
Democrat "wave"?2010 and 14: "Dummycrats, we're done with you!"
Republican "wave" --- not."We gave one of you a chance and you screwed up. Get lost. Now we are giving another of you a chance, please don't mess it up. If you do, you'll be gone soon enough as well."
Except for die-hard party loyalists, it seems like there is no affiliation with either party any more:
"Forget about principles and platforms, just deliver competent governance. Is that so much to ask, really?"
Last edited:
trixR4kids
Well-known member
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing
Seems like the type of commentary you'd see on most news article comment sections
Seems like the type of commentary you'd see on most news article comment sections
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing
This would be an improvement, but it's just not the case. All the data says that by the time a voter is 30 his/her affiliation is basically hard-wired for life. And for that matter, that the affiliation was pre-determined by parents and peers in the first place.
Voting is a tribal exclamation, not a rational decision. Elections are not about changing minds anymore (if they ever were); they are about getting your guys to the polls and keeping the other guys at home.
This would be an improvement, but it's just not the case. All the data says that by the time a voter is 30 his/her affiliation is basically hard-wired for life. And for that matter, that the affiliation was pre-determined by parents and peers in the first place.
Voting is a tribal exclamation, not a rational decision. Elections are not about changing minds anymore (if they ever were); they are about getting your guys to the polls and keeping the other guys at home.
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing
I don't think its the same people changing their minds. Its more like a group of people show up in Presidential years and vote Dem, but stay home in mid-term years. The GOP voters are always there - they get drowned out in the Presidential race but magnified in the midterms.
So, as to why do some people vote for Prez and not during the mid-terms, I'd say its what people alluded to which is a lack of decisive action or a big issue to motivate them. The Dems with Obama really didn't give you a reason to come out FOR them this time around. Realistically aside from maybe blocking a few judicial appointments I doubt we'll see much difference the next two years vs the previous 4. Essentually people are thinking if I want change I have until the 2016 election to enact it.
I did see a funny comment somewhere about this past election with some of the ballot initiatives that passed - "Americans voted for legalized weed, increased minimum wage, protecting abortion rights.....and a Republican Congress". Seems like people feel either the courts (gay marriage) or the statewide initiative process will accomplish for them what the Prez and Congress cannot.
Your theory is that people voted for REPUBLICANS (or stayed home) because they care deeply about these things? Interesting...
My theory is that people haven't been satisfied with horse #A, so it's just time to change to horse #B, regardless of the color of their stripes (i.e. their stated policy goals). Hmmmm....now which prominent Democrat rode that sort of "change for change's sake" sentiment into the White House recently and somehow mistook that for appreciation of his stripes...? Can't quite put my finger on it...
I don't think its the same people changing their minds. Its more like a group of people show up in Presidential years and vote Dem, but stay home in mid-term years. The GOP voters are always there - they get drowned out in the Presidential race but magnified in the midterms.
So, as to why do some people vote for Prez and not during the mid-terms, I'd say its what people alluded to which is a lack of decisive action or a big issue to motivate them. The Dems with Obama really didn't give you a reason to come out FOR them this time around. Realistically aside from maybe blocking a few judicial appointments I doubt we'll see much difference the next two years vs the previous 4. Essentually people are thinking if I want change I have until the 2016 election to enact it.
I did see a funny comment somewhere about this past election with some of the ballot initiatives that passed - "Americans voted for legalized weed, increased minimum wage, protecting abortion rights.....and a Republican Congress". Seems like people feel either the courts (gay marriage) or the statewide initiative process will accomplish for them what the Prez and Congress cannot.
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing
Based on the young/old voter differential you referenced between 2012/2014, that question may simplify down to, why are older voters always there while younger voters only come out for presidential years?
Based on the young/old voter differential you referenced between 2012/2014, that question may simplify down to, why are older voters always there while younger voters only come out for presidential years?
walrus
Wind up workin' in a gas station
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing
Pretty faint hope that she will be elected to begin with.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing
I'm not happy about it, but I think you are so, so wrong on that.
I'm not happy about it, but I think you are so, so wrong on that.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing
Maybe. I suggest we go ask them. I can think of two reasons. (1) Young people are doing stuff; old people have a lot of time on their hands. (2) Young people like shiny stuff. Presidential elections are shiny.
Maybe. I suggest we go ask them. I can think of two reasons. (1) Young people are doing stuff; old people have a lot of time on their hands. (2) Young people like shiny stuff. Presidential elections are shiny.
- Status