Patterico's Pontifications

11/4/2010

Liberals grope to explain 2010 for 2012

Filed under: General — Karl @ 10:16 am



[Posted by Karl]

Pres. Obama’s post-election presser makes clear that he blames the shellacking of his party on the economy and not much at all on his policy agenda.  Other lefties are trying to be more realistic, but failing. Take Ezra Klein (please):

Most of the losses were predicted by structural factors, but not all of them. Democrats lost at least 15 more seats than the basic model would’ve predicted, and though you can try and explain that away (they were holding seats because of a demographically unique election in 2008, or the model doesn’t account for extreme economic conditions), it’s not really worth doing: Democrats lost a lot of seats. Even more than the economic conditions would’ve predicted [Link added].

Klein attributes this to the dropoff in the youth vote and increase in the senior vote, relative to the last election.  Kos goes further, promoting this analysis from The Guardian’s Michael Tomasky:

1. The 2008 electorate was 74% white, plus 13% black and 9% Latino. The 2010 numbers were 78, 10 and 8. So it was a considerably whiter electorate.

2. In 2008, 18-to-29-year-olds made up 18% and those 65-plus made up 16%. Young people actually outvoted old people. This year, the young cohort was down to 11%, and the seniors were up to a whopping 23% of the electorate. That’s a 24-point flip.

3. The liberal-moderate-conservative numbers in 2008 were 22%, 44% and 34%. Those numbers for yesterday were 20%, 39% and 41%. A big conservative jump, but in all likelihood because liberals didn’t vote in big numbers.

Add to these figures the fact that overall turnout was down by about a third, or more, from nearly 130 million to about 82.5 million. That’s at least 45 million no-shows, and the exits tell us the bulk of them were liberal, young, black, Latino. If 25 million of these no-shows had voted, Democratic losses would pretty obviously have been in the normal range, and they’d still control the House.

Of course, what a Brit like Tomasky might not get — but Klein and Kos certainly should — is that presidential elections historically have higher turnout, with different demographics, than midterms.  The comparison is apples and oranges.  A glance at the 2006 exit poll — marking a pretty darned good year for Dems — shows the racial makeup of the electorate was almost identical to 2010, and that the youth vote was almost the same.  Overall turnout increased in 2010 over 2006.  At TNR, William Galston (a New Dem even before the Clinton era) lays it out:

The conventional wisdom before November 2 was that seniors enraged or terrified by changes in Medicare would turn out in droves to punish those who voted for health reform while young people disillusioned by Obama’s failure to create the New Jerusalem would abstain. That did happen, but only to a modest degree. Voters of ages 18-29 constituted 12 percent of the electorate in 2006; 11 percent in 2010. Voters over 65 were 19 percent of the total in 2006; 23 percent in 2010—noticeable but hardly decisive. If 65 and overs had constituted the same share of the electorate in 2010 as in 2006, the Republicans’ share would have declined by only .7 percent—about one-tenth of their actual gains.

We get more significant results when we examine the choices Independents made. Although their share of the electorate was virtually unchanged from 2006, their behavior was very different. In 2006, Democrats received 57 percent of the Independent vote, versus only 39 percent for Republicans. In 2010 this margin was reversed: 55 percent Republican, 39 percent Democratic. If Independents had split their vote between the parties this year the way they did in 2006, the Republicans share would have been 4.7 percent lower—a huge difference.

But why did they change? Here we reach the nub of the matter: The ideological composition of the electorate shifted dramatically. In 2006, those who voted were 32 percent conservative, 47 percent moderate, and 20 percent liberal. In 2010, by contrast, conservatives had risen to 41 percent of the total and moderates declined to 39 percent, while liberals remained constant at 20 percent. And because, in today’s polarized politics, liberals vote almost exclusively for Democrats and conservatives for Republicans, the ideological shift matters a lot.

To complete the argument, there’s one more step: Did independents shift toward Republicans because they had become significantly more conservative between 2006 and 2010? Fortunately we don’t have to speculate about this. According to the Pew Research Center, conservatives as a share of total Independents rose from 29 percent in 2006 to 36 percent in 2010. Gallup finds exactly the same thing: The conservative share rose from 28 percent to 36 percent while moderates declined from 46 percent to 41 percent.

This shift is part of a broader trend: Over the past two decades, moderates have trended down as share of the total electorate while conservatives have gone up…

Read the whole thing, natch.  The basic demographics resembled 2006, but with a much different result because the electorate became more conservative — or perhaps more accurately, reverted to where they were circa 2004.  Galston framed this in terms of the Independent vote, while David Paul Kuhn framed it in terms of whites who voted Democratic in 2006 and 2008:

Those lost are not simply “soccer moms” or “NASCAR dads.” Only 35 percent of white men voted for Democrats compared to 40 percent of white women. That marks a 9-point Democratic loss with both blocs since 2006. Democrats performed especially poorly with white women compared to past House elections– 6 points worse than in 1994. In post-war congressional elections, 2010 signifies Democrats’ worst showing with white women and the floor of Democrats’ standing with white men.

Democrats also performed slightly worse with white independents than in any House contest since at least the Reagan era. Same story with college and non-college educated whites, as well as white seniors. The losses threaded the suburbs, small towns and rural areas. This was not a wave isolated to any swing vote trope or slice of whites.

***

Obama will not easily win these voters back. Whites constitute a smaller share of the electorate than in decades past. And their influence is greater in midterms than White House contests. Yet Ohio captures the presidential problem. The GOP swept every contest in the mega swing state. Obama cannot win back Ohio without winning back whites.

Galston similarly suggests that “[u]nless the long-term decline of moderates and rise of conservatives is reversed during the next two years, the ideological balance of the electorate in 2012 could look a lot like it did this year.”  I think that is likely an overstatement.  The general historical trend suggests that 2012, as a presidential election, will have higher turnout with demographics more favorable to Democrats than in 2010.  If the economy improves over the next two years, Dems will be able to get back some of those independents, but the rejection big government policies suggests some of those losses will not be reversible in 2012.

–Karl

89 Responses to “Liberals grope to explain 2010 for 2012”

  1. 2012 Strategy for Conservatives: 1) Encourage Obamatrons to “Stay the Course”. 2) Republicans should push hard against any primary challengers to Obama.

    1773inBoston (d4485e)

  2. It will be interesting to see if Obama can rebuild his 2008 coalition. On the one hand, he is still personally very charming and charismatic, and young voters especially are drawn to his biography and the coolness factor.

    On the other hand, this time around he doesn’t get to run as a cipher who is all things to all people. He has an actual record which he will have to defend, and he will have disappointed a lot of people on all frequencies of the political spectrum. If I had to bet today, I would still put money on him winning reelection, but I don’t think his path in 2012 will be anything like the immaculation (if that’s even a word) of 2008.

    JVW (eccfd6)

  3. Anyone who doesn’t think this election was solely about the economy and had nothing to do with the Dem’s actual policies are obviously too stoopid and ignant to understand and fully appreciate how much better off they are for having teh one in charge of things. Now why can’t you all leave him alone and do his victory tour in India?

    Dmac (ad2c6a)

  4. It’s a huge shift that will take months to fully digest. I am pretty sure once these democrats start thinking about winning 2012 elections, they will absorb that the Tea Party has changed the landscape.

    Democrats and republicans who want to win elections will start talking about reducing the size of the government.

    JVW, you’re right, he’s not a cipher anymore. He’s the golfer bowing president who reacts to losing by doubling down. This is all on him. He easily could turn this around, rebuild his coalition, and even make gains, if he absorbs this election’s meaning.

    If he treats it as a blip on the radar, part of the normal midterm loss pattern, he’s an idiot.

    Loquacious D (b54cdc)

  5. If he doesn’t get the job done for the next two years, he will lose the election in 2012. We will have Republican President in the White House, and both US House and US Senate control by the Republican.

    m (8d321b)

  6. Whoa, whoa, whoa!

    Comment of the year on O’Donnell and what is wrong with the personal moral judgement of the (religious and other) conservative supporters of O’Donnell. This is, I will note, NOT a failing of our host, Patterico, who chose ethics and having personal standards of honesty as important criteria for candidates he would choose to support. O’Donnell failed that test for Patterico and obviously for Jeff B. as well:

    Seriously, f— Christine O’Donnell. I might have considered voting for Chris Coons had I lived in Delaware. Ultimately I’d have held my nose, but for god’s sake people she really was that bad. Not even just as a candidate, but as a person with serious character issues – you guys can vote however you please, but I personally don’t think it’s appropriate to send near-criminal serial liars to the U.S. Senate regardless of how reliable a vote for my party I think they’ll be.

    And if you disagree, then ask yourself: how did Alan Grayson lose by nearly 20 points on Tuesday? He haemorrhaged Democratic voters to the reasonable-seeming Dan Webster, just like Charlie Crist lost voters by behaving like such a d–chebag in the last week of the campaign. When O’Donnell is capable of losing people like ME — reliable Republican partisans who hate Democrats, but still can’t justify sending a shady grifter to Congress — then it’s no longer Karl Rove’s fault, now is it?

    Comment continues >>

    Christoph (8ec277)

  7. Not to quibble, Dmac, but isn’t the correct appellation “Teh One”? Or have you demoted him from capitalization because of his performance the past two years?

    JVW (eccfd6)

  8. Why the hell is Cristoph still talking about O’Donnell? There are 60+ new House members, a new Speaker, and at least 6 new Senators, as well as several new Governors, and over 600 new state legislators. Yet Christoph warns to whine about O’Donnell.

    I hope the leftist continue to think that this had nothing to do with their policies, their orgy of spending, and general misbehavior.

    Vestigial racism and stupidity. That’s it.

    JD (681598)

  9. She is wrong, Cristoph, but what do you expect. Ace basically nails what I was trying to say a couple of months ago, and I’m sure he was saying it then too.

    We had a sure vote against Obamacare and the Stimulus, heading for the US Senate in a seat the democrats otherwise certainly win. We should have taken Castle.

    But Castle lost for a reason.

    I think Cristoph somewhat mischaracterizes Patterico’s position on this. He was worried about winning the election with someone whose weaselly demeanor and conservative platform and thin resume were obviously going to lead to a loss. He saw O’Donnell as “our flawed candidate”. He was hoping she won, despite her flaws, over their flawed guy Coons.

    I think most of his disagreement was with pundits who refused to play fair with facts.

    Karl Rove worked for Castle, who was called a homosexual adulterer and an impeacher of Bush and a stimulus supporter and the rest of it. These lies poisoned any future hope of unity. O’Donnell running third party against the GOP in years past also poisoned that hope.

    But I think the O’Donnell problem will solve itself.

    Why? Because the Tea Party will attract lots more awesome candidates in the future who can beat the weaker ones. This was a brand new effort. Only a few people saw it coming early enough. O’Donnell simply runs every year and was positioned very luckily. That’s all this was. The Tea Party is not full of yahoos or losers or monsters. It’s pure America, and it’s becoming universal.

    Loquacious D (b54cdc)

  10. JD,

    I’m more commenting on the lack of moral judgement of O’Donnell’s enthusiastic supporters and less about O’Donnell herself.

    I don’t think the type of person that wholeheartedly supported O’Donnell despite her repeated dishonesty and hypocrisy is capable of seriously looking in the mirror today and asking themselves where they went wrong.

    So I am doing it for them.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  11. JD’s right. O’Donnell is old news and we need to move on. Like I said, she was just perfectly positioned because she always runs as a conservative.

    A lot of great people who think about running as a conservative are now going to go ahead and give it a shot. Now is the time to search for better candidates. I don’t think now is the time to really chew up Angle or O’Donnell.

    We’re making huge gains as a movement, and should try not to alienate people who supported O’Donnell (many for the right reasons). I note Cristoph’s characterization suggests O’Donnell supporters don’t care about honesty. That’s a load of crap. They made a tough choice.

    Loquacious D (b54cdc)

  12. Christoph’s hectoring moral superiority act never gets any less tiring.

    JD (681598)

  13. Or have you demoted him from capitalization because of his performance the past two years?

    I never gave him the capitalization to begin with – I said from the beginning that the guy was a machine party hack from Chicago who was the perfect example of the Peter Principle, and he actually underperformed my expectations.

    As for the O’Donnell supporters, I think they made a choice akin to the perfect is the enemy of the good, albeit in reverse. Let’s just call it one of those “teachable moments” and move on.

    Dmac (ad2c6a)

  14. Let’s just call it one of those “teachable moments” and move on.

    I’m cool with that.

    There’s more to this. Rove is being targeted for demonization because of 2012 considerations. This is probably about Palin 2012.

    The democrats will hold a lot of power. That’s part of why the right aren’t doing cartwheels despite the historical shift they benefited from in a landslide. The task of getting the nation’s spending under control looming large.

    So it’s smart to discuss how liberals grapple with 2010 without bashing O’Donnell, Rove, Palin, Angle, etc. The democrats are in control of their own destiny.

    Loquacious D (b54cdc)

  15. test

    Christoph (8ec277)

  16. 600 new state legislators.

    !!!!

    Loquacious D (b54cdc)

  17. (I have to break this into a few comments to get it past whichever filter.)

    I think Cristoph somewhat mischaracterizes Patterico’s position on this. He was worried about winning the election with someone whose weaselly demeanor and conservative platform and thin resume were obviously going to lead to a loss. He saw O’Donnell as “our flawed candidate”. He was hoping she won, despite her flaws, over their flawed guy Coons.

    Oh really? I wonder who wrote this:

    Christoph (8ec277)

  18. Cristoph, instead of harping on an offtopic rant, trying to cherry pick, just talk about how liberals explain 2010 and prepare for 2012.

    That’s the topic of the thread.

    Can you just be nice to people for once?

    Loquacious D (b54cdc)

  19. Here’s how O’Donnell pertains to 2012: Obama will win that state.

    We already knew that.

    Loquacious D (b54cdc)

  20. As for me, I hate weasels. If O’Donnell turns out to be a weasel on this — and it’s sure looking that way — I’m done. I’m not sacrificing my credibility to support a serial liar. I wouldn’t support Coons either, of course. I would just declare a pox on all their houses.

    Some were ready to lose the seat if it was necessary to make a point about needing conservative candidates. OK, fine. I’m ready to lose the seat if it is necessary to make a point about needing candidates who aren’t lying weasels. And if it is necessary to make a point that, in the future, candidates need to be vetted.

    P.S. Perhaps you think a conservative blog should never mention anything negative about a conservative political candidate — even if the negative information suggests the candidate may be embarrassing due to serial dishonesty or other disturbing qualities. If you are the type who cannot bear to read a blog that would dare to discuss widely disseminated information of that nature regarding a conservative candidate — in other words, if political viewpoints are more important to you than the truth — this may not be the blog for you.

    UPDATE: Steven L. Taylor has still more (if you can believe it) on her misrepresentation of her educational background. Sheesh.

    Yeah, that “moralizing” and really sucks, huh? It certainly has no place at Patterico’s Pontifications (Harangues that Just Make Sense).

    “O’Donnell is old news and we need to move on.”

    Only after learning the lesson, which you have not begun to learn; instead, your position is:

    A lot of great people who think about running as a conservative are now going to go ahead and give it a shot. Now is the time to search for better candidates. I don’t think now is the time to really chew up Angle or O’Donnell.

    We’re making huge gains as a movement, and should try not to alienate people who supported O’Donnell (many for the right reasons). I note Cristoph’s characterization suggests O’Donnell supporters don’t care about honesty. That’s a load of crap. They made a tough choice.

    Yeah, my position is that many O’Donnell supporters didn’t give a crap about honesty as long as she said the right things about their pet causes.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  21. There was another relevant sentence from Patterico (link) I also wanted to include, but it would just not get through the filter.

    Loquacious D, will you admit you and not I mischaracterized Patterico’s position?

    Christoph (8ec277)

  22. Cristoph, your proof is a failure. And I could explain why but I’m sure you already know why.

    You’re on a rant to prove your superiority to others, and it’s not clear what that has to do with how liberals prepare for 2012. There is no Senate race in DE in 2012.

    Relax. You can’t beat me in a debate, so be glad I’m just not going to bother with you.

    Loquacious D (b54cdc)

  23. “Loquacious D, will you admit you and not I mischaracterized Patterico’s position?”

    I didn’t think so.

    What Loquacious D said:

    I think Cristoph somewhat mischaracterizes Patterico’s position on this. He was worried about winning the election with someone whose weaselly demeanor and conservative platform and thin resume were obviously going to lead to a loss. He saw O’Donnell as “our flawed candidate”. He was hoping she won, despite her flaws, over their flawed guy Coons.

    What Patterico actually said:

    I’m ready to lose the seat if it is necessary to make a point about needing candidates who aren’t lying weasels. And if it is necessary to make a point that, in the future, candidates need to be vetted.

    Loquacious D alleges Patterico was concerned first and foremost with how O’Donnell’s dishonesty would reduce the GOP’s chances of picking up the Delaware seat. In fact, Patterico was willing to lose the Delaware seat rather than support a candidate who lied about her educational background.

    It is exactly this type of intellectual (and moral) dishonesty that you exhibit, Loquacious D, that was in evidence in the characters of many of those who enthusiastically supported O’Donnell despite her dishonesty.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  24. Loquacious D, will you admit you and not I mischaracterized Patterico’s position?

    You’re showing that Patterico is willing to criticize her. I said Patterico’s position was that O’donnell is our flawed candidate. I didn’t say Patterico would ignore the truth or refuse to report it… in fact, I think that’s summarized well in the ‘she’s our flawed candidate’ idea.

    The fact is, Patterico said he would vote for O’Donnell. So would I.

    You’re a liar to pretend I got this wrong. What’s cute is that you’re pretending some kind of superiority to people who don’t “give a crap about honesty”.

    Why would you lie about my position, then? Everyone can read for themselves what it is, since it’s in this thread. This whole thing is your effort to troll this blog. You’ve been on a vendetta to do so since you were unbanned.

    I used to rail and rail and rail against trolls and I generally regret it because there are much better things to do.

    In this case, talking about how liberals prepare for 2012 is more worthwhile. You pointedly refuse to discuss it.

    Loquacious D (b54cdc)

  25. Cristoph, you’re cherry picking, and it’s clear by the degree you’re doing so that you must have seen Patterico noting he hopes O’Donnell wins.

    Hoping someone wins while acknowledging their flaws, or accepting that honesty discussion could hurt your preferred candidate’s chances, is simply being honorable.

    What you’re doing is trying to shut down discussion of the thread topic. You’re probably trying to instigate a blog war, since your dumb interpretation of Patterico’s post is based on another blog’s misinterpretation almost precisely.

    Do you agree that you’re wrong if Patterico said he would vote for O’Donnell?

    Can you explain what this has to do with the thread topic?

    And why do you so often do this in threads?

    Loquacious D (b54cdc)

  26. Loquacious D alleges Patterico was concerned first and foremost with how O’Donnell’s dishonesty would reduce the GOP’s chances of picking up the Delaware seat. In fact, Patterico was willing to lose the Delaware seat rather than support a candidate who lied about her educational background.

    There’s no contradiction.

    Someone can be concerned with O’Donnell’s baggage without hoping she loses. Someone can be willing to lose while hoping they don’t, when insisting on an honest discussion from the blog you’re ripping off.

    Do you agree that you’re wrong if Patterico said he would vote for O’Donnell?

    I don’t want a blog war and I don’t cite Protein Wisdom … you know what… forget it. I’m deleting the rest of this. You’ve been on there being a dick, and he was interpreting this incorrectly just as you are.

    I don’t want a blog war and I don’t even know why you were banned. I don’t care.

    What’s this got to do with how liberals prepare for 2012? There is no DE Senate race there. There is no O’Donnell there. Obama will win DE.

    A lot of great points are being raised about a massive sea change, where democrats lost ground in virtually every region of the country and among every demographic.

    They lost among whites and men and the poor. They lost among hispanics and women and the rich.

    This is more interesting than you generalizing all the people you don’t like as liars.

    Loquacious D (b54cdc)

  27. I wanna no why all the unpolled cell phone only pepl didn’t come out and vote for Team D.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  28. I wanna no why all the unpolled cell phone only pepl didn’t come out and vote for Team D.

    Comment by daleyrocks

    Cell phone bias!!!!11!!

    LOL.

    I kinda think many of them did vote, but split quite a bit to supporting Republicans. The Call phone bias idea was based on the notion the Tea Party’s appeal is limited to certain demographics, when the evidence shows it’s touching all segments of society.

    Loquacious D (b54cdc)

  29. You mean like this (September 14th)?

    Or this (September 19th)?

    Where Patterico finally broke with O’Donnell, despite his obvious disquiet with O’Donnell’s character on September 19th, was in his September 30th post, which I accurately quoted above.

    I do not know, frankly, if Patterico later came around to supporting her. I do know that your allegation Patterico was first and foremost concerned with winning this seat and by inference that he was not primarily concerned with having an honest candidate is entirely wrong.

    He said the opposite.

    If Patterico later endorsed O’Donnell after the 30th of September, let’s see that. I certainly haven’t.

    I believe you’re completely wrong in stating that he cared more about winning than in the candidate’s ethics. And further, I have proven that.

    You call me a liar. But it is you who lie.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  30. I didn’t quote anything at Protein Widsom above. I haven’t read his site in months, not least of which is because of certain unfair criticisms he made of Patterico (with whom I often disagree) and also because of his propensity to both be afraid of a certain middle-aged lady and also to threaten violence on various people, which is an interesting juxtaposition to say the least.

    Anyway. This has nothing to do with Protein Wisdom.

    I named the blog (Ace of Spades HQ) with regard to my first comment, referencing DrewM.’s post. Jeff B.’s comment (not “Jeff G.”) is also at Ace of Spades.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  31. Cristoph, I want a DIRECT answer to my bolded yes or no question in 27.

    You are stretching people’s views instead of simply reading them. I’m not doing that. You want to condemn my character? All I’m asking for is a yes or a no.

    Loquacious D (b54cdc)

  32. BTW, I want you to also explain how anything you’re saying relates to how liberals prepare for 2012.

    How many threads are you going to enter in order to condemn people’s character without even noticing what the discussion’s supposed to be about?

    I deleted my criticism of the PW post because it’s old news and I don’t want instigate.

    Loquacious D (b54cdc)

  33. I believe you’re completely wrong in stating that he cared more about winning than in the candidate’s ethics.

    I said he wanted our flawed candidate to beat their flawed candidate.

    You have to completely reword this (and P’s POV). That’s how you operate. Insisting other people meant an extreme and dumb version of what they meant, while refusing to take responsibility for your own words. You use weasel words or simply ignore when your facts turn out to be incorrect.

    You think it’s easy to wind debates with people like me to take clear positions on things by rephrasing my points and never taking one of your own.

    Answer my question, yes or no, in bold on comment 27.

    Loquacious D (b54cdc)

  34. Christoph – Why don’t you take an O’Donnell discussion to your own blog? She’s not part of how Democrats deal with 2010.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  35. The Callow Youth Vote has figured out that they were bullshitted, and the Geezer Vote has figured out that their survival is NOT priority #1.

    Both voted accordingly.

    mojo (8096f2)

  36. Sheesh, Christoph, go back to planning the orange drapes over the Arkansas River or something.

    SPQR (159590)

  37. Listen to daleyrocks, Cristoph. Start your own blog. I don’t even mean that as snark. You always want to condemn people as inferior, and you never seem to like what we’re talking about.

    Maybe your blog will be a huge success, or maybe none of us will read it, but if you have an open comments section, I will probably reply to you there.

    And I know I’m feeding the trolls too much, guys. I always come to regret it, but I’m pretty stupid about this.

    Loquacious D (b54cdc)

  38. Loquacious D, you haven’t answered my direct question about who mischaracterized what Patterico said (you shifted away from it as quickly as you could: “… Relax. You can’t beat me in a debate, so be glad I’m just not going to bother with you.”), so I will not play your game.

    Answer my question first:

    He was worried about winning the election with someone whose weaselly demeanor and conservative platform and thin resume were obviously going to lead to a loss. He saw O’Donnell as “our flawed candidate”. He was hoping she won, despite her flaws, over their flawed guy Coons.

    And certainly “weaselly demeanor” was something he was concerned might lose the election. However, upon learning more about her, it because apparent she had a pattern of serial dishonesty that went far beyond that. And Patterico plainly stated his willingness to lose the election rather than his credibility by supporting such a dishonest candidate.

    Do you deny that?

    Since you think a bolded question is particularly important: Will you admit it was you, and not I, who mischaracterized Patterico’s position?

    Christoph (8ec277)

  39. Loquacious D, you haven’t answered my direct question about who mischaracterized what Patterico said

    I quoted this question in comment 25 and then explained how you mischaracterized what Patterico said. I’ve answered this three times and explained it in detail.

    Loquacious D (b54cdc)

  40. Am I unfair to guess he’s not even reading my responses?

    Loquacious D (b54cdc)

  41. I have read all of Patterico’s posts since September 30th looking for any hint he supported O’Donnell and hoped she’d win. Not seeing it.

    I can’t possibly search every comment he might have made. If he said he wants her to win, when and where did he say it after he expressed his willingness to see her lose the seat to send the message Republicans shouldn’t nominate serial liars?

    Christoph (8ec277)

  42. LD – please refer to earlier flame war regarding regular commenter Dustin – that will explain a lot, I think.

    Dmac (ad2c6a)

  43. Just answer the question instead of being a slimeball about it. Your answer shouldn’t be ad hoc.

    It sure sounds like you’re saying your characterization is accurate whether or not Patterico said he’d vote for O’donnell.

    Loquacious D (b54cdc)

  44. Dmac, I am Dustin and poking fun at myself.

    Loquacious D (b54cdc)

  45. Karl

    nice post. but when the i saw the words “liberals grope” i thought we were about to talk about Bill Clinton.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  46. “I want a DIRECT answer to my bolded yes or no question in 27.”

    It would show that he changed his mind. That’s about it. It wouldn’t necessarily prove your contention he cared more about winning than honesty, unless winning was his reason for changing his mind. Possibly he would have changed his mind for another reason and I’d be willing to look at the reason with an open mind before concluding Patterico was a cynical hypocrite.

    Thus far, I’m maintaining he chose his position based on integrity.

    But you haven’t shown that he changed his mind. So let’s see it.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  47. But you haven’t shown that he changed his mind. So let’s see it.

    You’re asking me to disprove a negative. Very typical.

    Karl wrote an amazing post and you’re refusing to offer anything on the topic. I’m going to stop replying to you now.

    Loquacious D (b54cdc)

  48. Dustin, i.e., Loquacious D, you lied and showed a lack of honor on a previous discussion we had. I wouldn’t have let myself get this far into it if I had realized you were “Loquacious D”.

    I was, at least at the beginning of this, under the impression he may have had a different opinion than I, but was not dishonest. It is unsurprising that I discovered his dishonesty before realizing that he is in fact you.

    Show me again where Patterico said he wants Christine O’Donnell to win after September 30th.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  49. I’m not a liar, Cristoph.

    You are unable to point to anything I actually said that isn’t accurate. Patterico did say he wanted our flawed candidate to beat theirs. He did say he was going to vote for her. He also noted he wasn’t willing to ignore ethics problems (some of these problems he credited me for initially bringing up, btw).

    You have repeatedly noted you’re better than me. You’ve insulted me many times. You construct these amazingly specific things I have to prove to exonerate myself, while you refuse to back up your own points.

    Repeatedly, I’ve asked you questions you think you are above answering. Can you answer my question with a yes or a no? What’s this got to do with Sept 30?

    You’re saying I need Patterico to log in and note he prefers our flawed candidate beating their flawed candidate every single day for the rest of time? If you’re saying he preferred O’Donnell to lose, that’s a huge change from when I said he would vote for her. Why should I have the burden of proof when you’re the one insisting on this change? I’m relying on the fact Patterico said he would vote for her despite her baggage and never took that statement back.

    My argument is very reasonable and direct.

    Now, please stop invading every thread to insult people. Let the record permanently reflect that you think I’m the scum of the universe, because I had the audacity to point out you have been incorrect in a few threads that you had the last word on (you always have the last word).

    Loquacious D (b54cdc)

  50. BTW, the NYT link I posted way way up plots on a graph the shift from 2006 to 2010, which Karl is right to note is a more reasonable measure than the comparison of presidential election to a mid term.

    Democrats who actually have to win office in 2012 are probably going to start making a lot of noise about reducing the size of the government. Obama may not have Clinton’s sense of survival, but plenty of other democrats do.

    Loquacious D (b54cdc)

  51. “What’s this got to do with Sept 30?”

    You’re not stupid. You’re disingenuous, Dustin.

    I’ve spelled it out with a timeline above (and links to the relevant posts).

    At one point, Patterico congratulated O’Donnell and wished she’d win the general (September 14th). Later, he had begun to develop serious reservations about her (September 19th) and wanted to talk about her past and character. By September 30th, he had grown disgusted by what he had learned, and was willing to throw in the towel on her candidacy rather than support her candidacy.

    So when he knew more about her, he didn’t want her to win anymore. Further, he believed she should be an object lesson on how not to select a candidate, both for strategic reasons and also ethical. That is the key point.

    Many knew about O’Donnell’s personal dishonesty (lack of accomplishments, etc.) and went, “Meh.” Then they even attacked Coons’ based on a bearded commie jest, which Patterico described as mendacious.

    It didn’t work nor should it have.

    Jeff B. is entirely right.

    Patterico maintained his integrity throughout and you case aspersions on his integrity by maintaining he really wanted to win and his problems with her honesty were substantially because it increased the odds of her losing. On the contrary! When he learned just how dishonest she was, he was entirely willing to see her lose rather than support that.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  52. * Patterico maintained his integrity throughout and you cast aspersions on his integrity by maintaining he really wanted to win and his problems with her honesty were substantially because it increased the odds of her losing. On the contrary! When he learned just how dishonest she was, he was entirely willing to see her lose rather than support that.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  53. The NYT link is in comment 5, btw. It’s probably the best example of journalism out of the New York Times in ages, and the sobriety probably means a lot for democrats who are worried about their futures.

    Loquacious D (b54cdc)

  54. So when he knew more about her, he didn’t want her to win anymore.

    That is a very bold statement that you won’t back up, but please stop this argument, or at least have the argument in a thread about O’Donnell.

    Loquacious D (b54cdc)

  55. Democrats lost because the President and crew refused to get out of bed with “Wall Street”. People can understand that fixing a crashed economy can take a long time but they want at least some (ok as many as possible) of the people who crashed it to suffer like they are suffering and the Dems just would not/could not do that.

    If President Obama and the Dems had spent the last two years “cleaning up Wall Street”, publicly putting fraudulent lenders in jail, pushing new banking/housing regulations, and generally publicly giving “Wall Street” even a symbolic beat down I think Dems would have done better.

    But they didn’t and now way fewer people trust them.

    Someone on the radio today said that in 2012 Obama will have to remind Americans that Republicans are the “party of Wall Street” and all I could think was “how is he going to do that when Americans have watched the Democrats be “the party of Wall Street”, even in their “main street” health care bill, for the last 2 (will be 4) years?

    EdWood (c2268a)

  56. I think the GOP wins in 2012 if it doesn’t nominate Palin.

    Same with the Democrats if they don’t nominate Obama.

    😉

    And for the same reason: Neither one are popular with centrists.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  57. I think the GOP wins in 2012 if it doesn’t nominate Palin.

    Same with the Democrats if they don’t nominate Obama.

    That’s deep, man.

    Maybe instead of spending 4000 words proving I lied, you should think about how the GOP nominates someone other than Palin. That’s a complex problem. Who did you vote for in the GOP 2008 primary? Who did you vote for Tuesday? I notice you never explain your experiences with American politics directly, and I wonder if that’s because you have none.

    Loquacious D (b54cdc)

  58. The thing I liked the most about this election is that a lot of incumbents went down. Score one for the people.

    The other thing is that money did not necessarily carry the day. The party that spent the most (Dems) did not win the most, and most (all?) the super wealthy self funded candidates also did not win.
    Score another for the people.

    EdWood (c2268a)

  59. bents went down. Score one for the people.

    The other thing is that money did not necessarily carry the day. The party that spent the most (Dems) did not win the most, and most (all?) the super wealthy self funded candidates also did not win.

    Money means less in 2010 than it did before the advent of the internet. I wonder is robocalls make any effect whatsoever if they aren’t dirty trick types.

    Angle was extremely well funded, and I also think she had the better argument, but she just didn’t connect with the center. I’m not dinging her for that, but it shows Ed has a point. Money is less important than candidate selection.

    The RNC was completely unprepared for 2010 being a shift right. I think they would have been under a different captain. But mostly, the kind of great candidates we need in the future simply didn’t see this coming early enough to prepare for a major primary campaign.

    That’s the problem that solves itself for the right. For the left, 22 old guard democrats lost and will be replaces with younger, smarter blank slate types. I think that’s the only advantage the dems have.

    Loquacious D (b54cdc)

  60. I wanna no why all the unpolled cell phone only pepl didn’t come out and vote for Team D

    Daley, here’s some actual data about cellphone vs landline polling. Yes, I know it’s that blog, but…at the bottom of the table you can see a direct comparison of landline only vs. landline plus cellphone polling. The figures show that landline only skews slightly to the Republican side compared to landline plus cellphone–1% to 2%.(Not the 3-4 percent in the quote that a certain gay British expatriate blogger prefers to give us.) IOW, it makes a difference only in the very closest of contests.

    kishnevi (2d88a8)

  61. most (all?) the super wealthy self funded candidates also did not win.

    Rick Scott spent (according to the report I heard) $73 million of his own money. He won.

    kishnevi (2d88a8)

  62. Kishnevi,

    That 1-2% sure makes a lot more sense than the doom and gloom predictions I kept seeing a week ago.

    Even then, demographics cannot be relied on strictly. Some thought hispanics and blacks would polarize to the left on Tuesday, but they moved several percent to the GOP. We’re seeing a shift that could turn demographic predictions on their ear. I wonder what would have happened if Clinton had decided to have a huge health care fight, and move for higher spending, in 1995 or 1997.

    Loquacious D (b54cdc)

  63. Oh goody – troll wars. That’ll help.

    mojo (8096f2)

  64. Oh goody – troll wars. That’ll help.

    Comment by mojo

    Yeah, I suck. My inability to keep my mouth shut explains my joke moniker today.

    Loquacious D (b54cdc)

  65. Yes focusing on unverified Zoominfo profiles, and Maher’s garbage, instead of Coon’s actual record of abuse of power, it was covered, but nowhere in proportion, relying on staffers that went to Soros’s
    CREW, (where did that investigation go, I wonder)

    like last time ‘I can see Russia from my House’ and whatever other idiocy creative editing could conjur up. instead of say his time on the CAC board with former terrorist Ayers, Obama’s only previous executive position. Coons is a horror show, and you will see it with every vote, in this lameduck session, and beyond. The same attitude that drove him to raise property taxes
    60% in four years, will inform his respect for people’s rights. McMahon was a better candidate than the ‘false bloosy shirt waving’Blumenthal, someone who like Spitzer before him, abused his power, through malicious prosecution, Boxer is yet another horror show,

    ian cormac (c07a45)

  66. We’ll see if the Democrats focus on immigration reform and cap and trade, continuing to pursue Obama’s agenda, or actually work on things their constituents want, like getting the economy moving again so some job growth can resume. That might entail undoing some of the uncertainty gridlock created by the overhang of Obama’s policies and demagoguery of his various enemies on others.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  67. This was just a racist temper tantrum, Daley. This had nothing to do with his policies.

    JD (c8c1d2)

  68. Coons really was a horror show, Ian. Sadly, that’s only inaccurate insofar as he just got a massive promotion to the US Senate. But that’s what Delaware wanted, and I don’t think O’donnell could have won no matter what her ethical or experiential record was. Just as I was willing to support her despite baggage, because of her excellent policy positions, the left was unwilling to vote for her for the same reason. DE is just too left.

    This campaign communicated a lot of hard right ideas, and she won 40%. I think that’s progress we can build on.

    There’s a huge rift on the O’donnell issue (or the Palin issue) for the right, which makes it very tempting for trolls to exploit. I think we have to try to be charitable if possible. Instead of pretending to be able to read into people’s character when we can’t, let’s be charitable. O’donnell supporters didn’t want to elect someone with poor ethics. They wanted the Senate votes (that’s exactly how Patterico justified his support when noting the problems). O’Donnell’s opposition didn’t want to hurt her chances… they just wanted those same Senate votes and were a chagrined about the situation.

    There are scumbags in politics, and they were out in force on either side of this debacle. But unless you clearly see an example, it’s not helping us to use this issue to demonstrate our superiority to other people.

    My take on that race is that there are two electability tests rather than one, and they affect incumbents and challengers equally. O’Donnell couldn’t pass the general election and Castle couldn’t pass the primary. I don’t think we can talk sense to people enough to change these rules, so the best solution is to identify candidates that can pass both tests.

    I know I was told I was disrespectful of Patterico to suggest he would support someone with ethics problems (against someone with ethics problems, I realize). I feel I was more disrespectful of Karl. Karl obviously puts more effort into his detail oriented analysis than most bloggers, and feeding a troll is just plain disrespectful.

    Democrats in 2012 will have an additional problem, because Tea Party conservatives who were not running in 2010 have much more time to decide and prepare to win. I hope they beat those other candidates who talk the talk but are unlikely to win the general election. And as much as people bash O’Donnell, I feel we should thank her. She stood up for some good things and was absolutely demonized in an absolutely horrible way, and she probably saw it coming. Her Zoominfo profile did not justify that at all, so I thank Christine for giving it her best shot.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  69. JD – I agree. The ignorant voters have yet to understand his awesomeness.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  70. actually work on things their constituents want, like getting the economy moving again

    I suspect the recent money generation move was designed for political impact, as it has softened any confidence indicators that could have been linked to the recent election. I think it’s pretty obvious, and politically timed.

    So don’t count on Obama to think big picture, daleyrocks.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  71. Wow, what a disappointing thread. This Christoph fellow has some sort of fixation on this O’Donnell woman. I hope the State Police know about it, he sounds like some kind of stalker.

    Now, lets eat some popcorn and talk about how clueless liberals explain this devastating loss and how they will further self destruct between now and November 2 2012….

    November is coming.

    Don’t Tread On Me

    red (7b5f67)

  72. In today’s Washington Post, George Will presents a very nice summary of the liberal side of the election. I excerpted a few paragraphs below:

    “Actually, as the distilled essence of progressivism, he should feel ratified by Tuesday’s repudiation. The point of progressivism is that the people must progress up from their backwardness. They cannot do so unless they are pulled toward the light by a government composed of the enlightened – experts coolly devoted to facts and science.

    The progressive agenda is actually legitimated by the incomprehension and anger it elicits: If the people do not resent and resist what is being done on their behalf, what is being done is not properly ambitious. If it is comprehensible to its intended beneficiaries, it is the work of insufficiently advanced thinkers.

    Of course the masses do not understand that the only flaw of the stimulus was its frugality, and that Obamacare’s myriad coercions are akin to benevolent parental discipline. If the masses understood what progressives understand, would progressives represent a real vanguard of progress?

    Of course the progressive agenda must make infinitely elastic the restraints imposed by the Founders’ Constitution and its principles of limited government. Moving up from them – from the Founders and their anachronistic principles – is the definition of progress.”

    daleyrocks (940075)

  73. red – Christoph has a habit of bravely staking out positions on both sides of an issue and trying to provoke fights. It is just what he does.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  74. I don’t think the big ethical panjandrums that were blown up over the last few months are all that, most of them were readily explainable. To promote a candidate that has shown as far as we can see, an extreme nonchalance on the war on terror, who doesn’t understand the bill of rights, who thinks apparently the government only lends you their money, from his fiscal policies, is much more serious. If you cared about the integrity of the courts and the Constitution, this temper tantrum will come out very poorly in retrospect.

    Now if Rove and the NRSC had chosen to challenge Coons with 1/100th of the vituperation that they rained on Christine, if they had taken away the punchbowl from Lisa, instead of empowering every
    abuse of power, like the sacking of Fagan, which
    instilled a ‘very enemy of my enemy sentiment’

    ian cormac (c07a45)

  75. Daley – that Will column was excellent. Especially the very first sentence.

    JD (c8c1d2)

  76. So it’s a bit early, but who will they consider to take on Carper in 2012, who knows maybe Tom Ross can show us how to run a proper campaign

    ian cormac (c07a45)

  77. ian, what’s done is done. Karl Rove is but a man. He was on a campaign that took a lot of damage that is similar, however far far milder, than what O’donnell just suffered from.

    If we relitigate Rove’s decision, that implicates a lot of horsecrap from the awful primary. He held a grudge. Blame him if you want, but men holding grudges is a law of nature best considered in advance rather than in hindsight. You mention the retrospective as ‘see the big picture and stop Coons’. I think that shows we’re all on the same side and just didn’t work well together. It just doesn’t work, IMO, to distill that primary down to disagreements on policy. It was a tactical dispute born from two choices that sucked.

    With Lisa you have such a good point. I’m sick at the thought she’s going to return to the Hill, and this the ‘establishment’ impacted.

    What do you think of my idea about how this relates to 2012 elections? I think O’Donnell ran every election, and was lucky to be in place for a thirst for an alternative to RINOs. And I think there will be many conservatives who are more electable (not intended as disrespect) who run in 2012.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  78. Well I’m looking ahead, I’m still a little apprehensive about the top of the ticket in the pan handle, Rubio was a great example of how you do things, he started at the city council level, then
    moved to higher office, he fought the Greer regency,
    at the party level. At the national level, Cornyn needs to go, as does a good part of the NRSC staff,
    The best candidates like Johnson, really won on their own merits,

    ian cormac (c07a45)

  79. The snotty wording in the George Will article was hysterical.
    I don’t think any of ‘the people” gave a crap about progressive or conservative idealogy in this election tho. Since they can’t have a job they wanted some blood in the gutters and since the Dems weren’t going to provide it from “Wall Street” the people settled for their Dem (and a few Republican)representatives.

    Now I think we the people are all hoping the Tea Partiers will make some heads roll and if they don’t then in a perfect world it will be
    SSSSSEE YA! to them too. I for one am hoping they make good on their opportunity tho.

    EdWood (da93ec)

  80. You don’t think, that is clear. Ideology and policies were the primary factors in the migration of the independent voters.

    JD (c8c1d2)

  81. Obama will lose the election in 2012. Hillary Clinton might be run the 2012 primary Presidential election. We will have a Republican President in the White House if Obama doesn’t get the job done in two years.

    ml (fc559b)

  82. JD
    “Ideology and policies were the primary factors” etc.
    I only said idealogy didn’t count. Policy obviously counted, ie. the (percieved?) policy of coddling Wall Street instead of kicking some butt. I think that really counted a lot.

    EdWood (c2268a)

  83. Ed Wood

    Check this article out.

    This election was more than anti-incumbent backlash.

    The last couple of slides get around to asking what the voters intended to do with their votes.

    We are definitely looking at a major ideological shift of a historical proportion. It’s surely true that many of these people are merely giving the GOP a second chance, and not becoming partisan Republicans. But they have been convinced to vote for conservatism.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  84. In other words, you note these people are angry about the present situation. This election shows they are associating the situation with ideology. They don’t just want ‘more jobs’, though obviously that’s a big driver of sentiment.

    They want smaller government.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  85. The ultimate dishonest yahoo (in a class with Dustin a.k.a. Loquacious D).

    Christoph (8ec277)

  86. I don’t think you are in a very good position to be passing judgment on other people’s character, Christoh.

    JD (0c5de4)

  87. Oh, and once again Jeff B. nails it:

    By the way, you know what I’m REALLY not in the mood for? People saying “oh noes, this is so divisive, you have to stop this!”

    I’m glad to see that Christine O’Donnell’s supporters care so much about divisiveness now. Now that it doesn’t actually matter. No…they just want to be shielded from facing the consequences of their immense f-ckup.

    Conservatives here and elsewhere on the blogosphere feel self-righteous in making any attack and using any over-the-top rhetoric at “RINOs” a.k.a. Republicans who can win in blue states and who listen to what their constituents want and try to steer that in a semi-conservative direction rather than pretending they are representing the good people of Galveston, TX.

    Well, back at you. You supported a liar with no accomplishments and a shaky, shaky record (indicating very little actual conservatism — her own former campaign manager said she didn’t give a damn about conservative causes and was just in it for the money! — except for some prudishness, which is conservative in a sense, I suppose.

    The ultimate takeaway point for O’Donnell herself, for a candidate with such a record of personal dishonesty as Patterico outlined in his posts, is this:

    I want a strict accounting of how her campaign donations were spent. Know what I mean? I’d like to know if any money was squirreled away for “future campaigns.”

    — Ace

    Christoph (8ec277)

  88. “they have been convinced to vote for conservatism.”
    I’m not sure what you mean by “conservatism”, that’s a broad and heavily debated word. I am assuming you mean the “small (federal?) government (except for the military, homeland security, ATF, DEA, and all the other SS)”, low-no taxes, way fewer regulations on businesses, etc”… definition of conservatism.

    I suppose you are right that many people did vote idealogically, certainly Tea Party members did, but I think a lot of the people who threw out the Democrats weren’t converting to “conservatism” and voting for the “tax cuts fix everything” agenda;

    I think they were voting the “where’s the Hope and Change motherfu–ers?” agenda. I’m not talking about the economy although that factored into (but apparently does not completely explain) the sweeping Republican and Tea Party gains. I’m talking about how the Democrats came in and it was business as usual.

    Even in their big “social safety net” program the Dems dumped the popular but radical public option for a more industry friendly scheme that included mandatory health coverage! (OK I bet a lot of people did vote small gov. conservative on that issue!)
    So all those people and businesses who felt like they were being gouged and shafted by their health insurers and who thought they were going to get to watch the Dems kick those insurer bastards in the balls, instead got the S.O.S. with a twist of populism and a sprinkling of attempted DADT repeal.

    When everyone thought Hillary Clinton was going to get the nomination I watched a speech she gave and it was the same old worn out rehashed rhetoric and rah rah and I was convinced that even if her name wasn’t Clinton there was no way a majority was going to be interested in her coz she was all about the Same old Same old. The Dems were about the SOS for the last two years and now way fewer people are interested in them too. If the Republicans and Tea Partiers don’t kick some fat cat butt, and instead just go back to their same old same old I don’t think they are going to last either, no matter how “conservative” the electorate has become.

    EdWood (c2268a)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.8192 secs.