According to an article in Politico, the GOP may have a bit of a problem going into the 2016 election, and it's not that all their candidates are morons who frighten the American people, though that is also an issue. Rather, it's that many of the people who make up their core voting base are Olds, which means statistically, they may die before they can bring Mike Huckabee the victory his heart desires:
The differences between presidential and non-Presidential years is mostly who does and doesn't vote, not people flip flopping from one side to the other.
You can define "financially stressed" however you want, but if you take the reasonable approach that the people who make less money have it tougher, then your proposition doesn't hold up.
That's not to say that many people don't react to poverty or financial setbacks that way, but just that it's not the dominant trend you seem to think that it is.
No, it's just reported income, as shown. Not sure what you are getting at, exactly.
There are confounding factors; on average minorities make less than whites, women make less than men, and young people make less than older people, and those are all reasons that people favor Democrats regardless of income. But, the fact remains, poor people vote bluer than average and rich people vote redder than average and there's probably an element of self-interest to explain that.
The real problem from my perspective is why people making as little as $75000 start thinking that the policies that favor the rich also favor them. That's the real delusional thinking here.
almost more important (at least equally important) is to get them to vote for state and local positions . . . gotta take the state lege and gov's offices before the 2020 census.
If you can get a person to vote for the same party over the first 12 years they're eligible, it is highly likely they will retain that party affiliation for the remainder of their life.
The issues is that traumatic events cause dramatic shifts in the electorates as they come of age, hence the cycle we see of lurches to the right and left, coupled with gerrymandering that creates the perception of shifts where they don't really exist.
That explains the Reagan Democrats and all the GOP crossover votes for Obama in 2008. We're not talking party affiliation, we're talking about a shift to conservative beliefs as people age. I do agree about the cyclical patterns, but people tend to get more conservative as seniors and start to vote personal pocketbook issues, rather than idealist 'save the world' issues. This is especially true when economic times are tough
Presidential elections, especially the last two, are poor yardsticks. You mention confounding variables, but dismiss them as if they don't count. In 2008 Obama ran before a war weary nation as the anti war fresh face against a decrepit chickenhawk warmonger who advocated staying long term in Iraq and was itching to involves us in yet more wars. Walnuts also blundered with the Wasilla Grifter VP pick- both of these assuredly played far more a role in his win than an economy that hadn't yet imploded at that point- people weren't panicked yet because they hadn't really start to feel the pain . In 2012 he ran against a bumbling plutocrat who failed to connect with the people of either party and openly disdained the middle class. Those elections are not representative.
In the meantime, congressional, state and local elections have been taking place far more often than presidential elections and liberals have been losing ground since 2008 all around. How do you explain white working class southerners consistently voting GOP? it's combination of wedge issues and conservatism's simple economic truisms- truisms that play especially well in tight economic times.
Of course the bottom quintile votes blue- they're the ones that the Dems have historically pandered to. Likewise, of course the top votes red- it's who the GOP caters to. I'm talking about the great big middle who are in play from both sides. When times are tough, Joe and Marge middle class hunker down. They spend less, count their pennies, worry more about their family and less about more abstract issues.They don't have the time to worry about ghey marriage or climate change when they're busy worrying about putting food on the table. That's how I'm defining financially stressed- the chronically poor aren't stressed, they're poor. The rich are well off and aren't particularly stressed at all. But when the economy abruptly shifts, middle class people can suddenly find themselves worried about finances in a way they weren't a few years before. That's when their attitudes change and the focus of their concerns becomes much closer to home. In times like this, a liberal candidate can give a dry academic dissertation about why according to Keynesian economics it's important that the government spends money to keep the wheels of commerce moving and stimulate spending to prime the pumps, etc etc blah blah zzzzz and Joe and Marge's eyes glaze over. Then the conservative candidate gets in front of the camera and says "I have to live within my means, why shouldn't the government?" ***mic drop*** "My family sits down at the kitchen table and balances our budget, why doesn't the government?" ***another mic drop*** "You should be able to keep more of your hard earned money, so I promise tax cuts to you people who are hurting" ***final mic drop*** Which candidate do you think is going to get their vote?
Americans like simple, concise answers to complex problems and conservatism offers them. Don't tell me those middle quintiles won't vote against their own interests- I watched Reagan beat Carter with bright , shiny bullshit. I watched an American public that was relatively content from Clinton's economic expansion get complacent about financial interests and vote for Bush over Gore because of those confounding issues- namely a BJ and the perceived moral decline of the country. I saw Bush get elected again over liberal elitist Kerry despite W's unimpressive economic record, because he scared the hell out of the middle class with the war. I watched the tea party take power in 2010 on the strength of economic uncertainty and middle class fright over a changing world. People will vote for the guy who they feel will keep them safe, they'll vote for the guy who assuages their feelings of powerlessness (does 'take back my country' ring a bell?) and they'll vote for the guy with the simple, easy to digest answers, even if those answers are wrong.
1) As I already said, the off year election results are not due to people flipping from red to blue, it's a result of blue voters staying home and red voters coming out. This is not my opinion, this is a statistical fact. It is also a problem, just not the problem you are claiming.
2) "Of course the bottom quintile votes blue- they're the ones that the Dems have historically pandered to." No, the Democrats aim at the middle class. The bottom quintile is loyal not because they are "pandered to" but because they know that at least the Democrats won't completely neglect them. Half or more of the top quintile do not really benefit from Republican policies. Those are the real idiots.
3) Both parties have used economic uncertainty to their advantage. Obama in 2008, but also Clinton in 1992 (their campaign strategy was "It's the economy stupid") for example.
1) blue voters who skip every election other than the presidential race aren't really blue voters- they're just LIVs who get caught up in the glamor and turn out for the rockstar race- like I said, they make a shitty yardstick. More importantly, I'm talking about the far larger demographic that doesn't consider itself red or blue. They're the ones who will swing one way or the other. They are less political and more susceptible to going with whoever does the best job of assuring them on kitchen table issues, again, ESPECIALLY when times are tough
2) Dems are for the middle class? Seriously? where have you been for the last 30+ years? The Dems made the decision to abandon the left wing of the party shortly after Reagan beat the tar out of them in 1980 and haven't looked back. They happily signed on to all the job killing free trade agreements and gladly tossed organized labor under the bus and lined up at the trough right next to republicans to slurp up all that sweet corporate cash. With very few notable exceptions, they've triangulated to stay just to the left of the GOP and stick to culture war issues, knowing that they could get away with that strategy. We're starting to see a revival of the original Dem middle class populism with people like Liz and Bernie, but the Democratic party is a hollow shell of the party that gave us FDR
3) Thanks for proving my point. One of Clinton's strengths was his ability to appeal to pragmatic conservatism on economic issues. He was a looong way from being a real liberal. He also signed Gramm-Leach-Bliley and NAFTA, as well as welfare reform.
1) It's another myth that there's a huge block of independent voters. About a third of voters call themselves independent, but only about a third of those (that's 1/9th) don't consistently vote for one party or the other. And as 1992 and 2008 demonstrate, even those voters don't always swing conservative in tough times. And your insistence that Presidential elections are weird outliers that don't matter is tiresome. They are half of all federal elections, and the discrepancy between Presidential and off year elections is completely explained by turnout issues and does not support your theory. Redefining unmotivated blue voters as "not really blue" is easily recognizable as the No True Scotsman Fallacy.
2) I said "aim at" as in "campaign for" not that every Democratic policy ever has been good for the middle class. The Democratic party platform and Democratic campaigns are clearly aimed at middle class concerns. Since I stated this obvious fact to refute your claim that Democrats "pander" to the lowest quintile, claiming the Democrats actually look out for the rich and not the middle class is hardly supporting your original claim.
3) Clinton did not run on NAFTA or Gramm-Leach-Bliley or wefare reform on 1992. He ran on healthcare and the lousy economy. And he was clearly the least conservative of the three candidates in the race, so voters did not turn, in their time of economic uncertainty, to the most conservative candidate they could find. (And before you say it, Perot took votes about equally from both parties, (again actual statistical evidence) so he didn't spoil the conservative victory your theory predicts.
Clearly we are going to have to agree to disagree here.
The differences between presidential and non-Presidential years is mostly who does and doesn't vote, not people flip flopping from one side to the other.
You can define "financially stressed" however you want, but if you take the reasonable approach that the people who make less money have it tougher, then your proposition doesn't hold up.
That's not to say that many people don't react to poverty or financial setbacks that way, but just that it's not the dominant trend you seem to think that it is.
No, it's just reported income, as shown. Not sure what you are getting at, exactly.
There are confounding factors; on average minorities make less than whites, women make less than men, and young people make less than older people, and those are all reasons that people favor Democrats regardless of income. But, the fact remains, poor people vote bluer than average and rich people vote redder than average and there's probably an element of self-interest to explain that.
The real problem from my perspective is why people making as little as $75000 start thinking that the policies that favor the rich also favor them. That's the real delusional thinking here.
almost more important (at least equally important) is to get them to vote for state and local positions . . . gotta take the state lege and gov's offices before the 2020 census.
i'm safe there . . . i never had a butt.
[yup . . . pants just reverse wedgie without warning . . . occasionally embareassing]
hush, child.
you forgoto) Obama declares martial law and extends term indefinitely
[or declares marital law and puts Michelle on the throne]
i don't even know your sister.
so...
Except that you're wrong.http://www.nytimes.com/imag...
If you can get a person to vote for the same party over the first 12 years they're eligible, it is highly likely they will retain that party affiliation for the remainder of their life.
The issues is that traumatic events cause dramatic shifts in the electorates as they come of age, hence the cycle we see of lurches to the right and left, coupled with gerrymandering that creates the perception of shifts where they don't really exist.
That explains the Reagan Democrats and all the GOP crossover votes for Obama in 2008. We're not talking party affiliation, we're talking about a shift to conservative beliefs as people age. I do agree about the cyclical patterns, but people tend to get more conservative as seniors and start to vote personal pocketbook issues, rather than idealist 'save the world' issues. This is especially true when economic times are tough
BERNIE! BERNIE! BERNIE!
Presidential elections, especially the last two, are poor yardsticks. You mention confounding variables, but dismiss them as if they don't count. In 2008 Obama ran before a war weary nation as the anti war fresh face against a decrepit chickenhawk warmonger who advocated staying long term in Iraq and was itching to involves us in yet more wars. Walnuts also blundered with the Wasilla Grifter VP pick- both of these assuredly played far more a role in his win than an economy that hadn't yet imploded at that point- people weren't panicked yet because they hadn't really start to feel the pain . In 2012 he ran against a bumbling plutocrat who failed to connect with the people of either party and openly disdained the middle class. Those elections are not representative.
In the meantime, congressional, state and local elections have been taking place far more often than presidential elections and liberals have been losing ground since 2008 all around. How do you explain white working class southerners consistently voting GOP? it's combination of wedge issues and conservatism's simple economic truisms- truisms that play especially well in tight economic times.
Of course the bottom quintile votes blue- they're the ones that the Dems have historically pandered to. Likewise, of course the top votes red- it's who the GOP caters to. I'm talking about the great big middle who are in play from both sides. When times are tough, Joe and Marge middle class hunker down. They spend less, count their pennies, worry more about their family and less about more abstract issues.They don't have the time to worry about ghey marriage or climate change when they're busy worrying about putting food on the table. That's how I'm defining financially stressed- the chronically poor aren't stressed, they're poor. The rich are well off and aren't particularly stressed at all. But when the economy abruptly shifts, middle class people can suddenly find themselves worried about finances in a way they weren't a few years before. That's when their attitudes change and the focus of their concerns becomes much closer to home. In times like this, a liberal candidate can give a dry academic dissertation about why according to Keynesian economics it's important that the government spends money to keep the wheels of commerce moving and stimulate spending to prime the pumps, etc etc blah blah zzzzz and Joe and Marge's eyes glaze over. Then the conservative candidate gets in front of the camera and says "I have to live within my means, why shouldn't the government?" ***mic drop*** "My family sits down at the kitchen table and balances our budget, why doesn't the government?" ***another mic drop*** "You should be able to keep more of your hard earned money, so I promise tax cuts to you people who are hurting" ***final mic drop*** Which candidate do you think is going to get their vote?
Americans like simple, concise answers to complex problems and conservatism offers them. Don't tell me those middle quintiles won't vote against their own interests- I watched Reagan beat Carter with bright , shiny bullshit. I watched an American public that was relatively content from Clinton's economic expansion get complacent about financial interests and vote for Bush over Gore because of those confounding issues- namely a BJ and the perceived moral decline of the country. I saw Bush get elected again over liberal elitist Kerry despite W's unimpressive economic record, because he scared the hell out of the middle class with the war. I watched the tea party take power in 2010 on the strength of economic uncertainty and middle class fright over a changing world. People will vote for the guy who they feel will keep them safe, they'll vote for the guy who assuages their feelings of powerlessness (does 'take back my country' ring a bell?) and they'll vote for the guy with the simple, easy to digest answers, even if those answers are wrong.
Three quick points.
1) As I already said, the off year election results are not due to people flipping from red to blue, it's a result of blue voters staying home and red voters coming out. This is not my opinion, this is a statistical fact. It is also a problem, just not the problem you are claiming.
2) "Of course the bottom quintile votes blue- they're the ones that the Dems have historically pandered to." No, the Democrats aim at the middle class. The bottom quintile is loyal not because they are "pandered to" but because they know that at least the Democrats won't completely neglect them. Half or more of the top quintile do not really benefit from Republican policies. Those are the real idiots.
3) Both parties have used economic uncertainty to their advantage. Obama in 2008, but also Clinton in 1992 (their campaign strategy was "It's the economy stupid") for example.
1) blue voters who skip every election other than the presidential race aren't really blue voters- they're just LIVs who get caught up in the glamor and turn out for the rockstar race- like I said, they make a shitty yardstick. More importantly, I'm talking about the far larger demographic that doesn't consider itself red or blue. They're the ones who will swing one way or the other. They are less political and more susceptible to going with whoever does the best job of assuring them on kitchen table issues, again, ESPECIALLY when times are tough
2) Dems are for the middle class? Seriously? where have you been for the last 30+ years? The Dems made the decision to abandon the left wing of the party shortly after Reagan beat the tar out of them in 1980 and haven't looked back. They happily signed on to all the job killing free trade agreements and gladly tossed organized labor under the bus and lined up at the trough right next to republicans to slurp up all that sweet corporate cash. With very few notable exceptions, they've triangulated to stay just to the left of the GOP and stick to culture war issues, knowing that they could get away with that strategy. We're starting to see a revival of the original Dem middle class populism with people like Liz and Bernie, but the Democratic party is a hollow shell of the party that gave us FDR
3) Thanks for proving my point. One of Clinton's strengths was his ability to appeal to pragmatic conservatism on economic issues. He was a looong way from being a real liberal. He also signed Gramm-Leach-Bliley and NAFTA, as well as welfare reform.
1) It's another myth that there's a huge block of independent voters. About a third of voters call themselves independent, but only about a third of those (that's 1/9th) don't consistently vote for one party or the other. And as 1992 and 2008 demonstrate, even those voters don't always swing conservative in tough times. And your insistence that Presidential elections are weird outliers that don't matter is tiresome. They are half of all federal elections, and the discrepancy between Presidential and off year elections is completely explained by turnout issues and does not support your theory. Redefining unmotivated blue voters as "not really blue" is easily recognizable as the No True Scotsman Fallacy.
2) I said "aim at" as in "campaign for" not that every Democratic policy ever has been good for the middle class. The Democratic party platform and Democratic campaigns are clearly aimed at middle class concerns. Since I stated this obvious fact to refute your claim that Democrats "pander" to the lowest quintile, claiming the Democrats actually look out for the rich and not the middle class is hardly supporting your original claim.
3) Clinton did not run on NAFTA or Gramm-Leach-Bliley or wefare reform on 1992. He ran on healthcare and the lousy economy. And he was clearly the least conservative of the three candidates in the race, so voters did not turn, in their time of economic uncertainty, to the most conservative candidate they could find. (And before you say it, Perot took votes about equally from both parties, (again actual statistical evidence) so he didn't spoil the conservative victory your theory predicts.
Clearly we are going to have to agree to disagree here.
https://media3.giphy.com/me...