Political & Elections

catahoula · Guru

RE: Romney won according to swing voters

winchester · Guru

This is from the far left magazine The New Republic.

The coalition that Obama assembled in 2008—and is relying on again for re-election—includes minorities (not only blacks and Hispanics but also Asians and those of other races), professionals, the highly educated, singles, women (especially in the preceding two categories), seculars, and members of the Millennial generation. (It also includes a chunk of the white working class, albeit a distinct minority.) Prior to the first debate, Obama was matching or coming very close to his 2008 levels of support among all of these groups, and so far it seems that Obama is keeping most of that support.

What is holding this coalition together? The crucial factor isn't anything that Obama has done over the past four years—though he does have some major accomplishments to his name—but rather how appalling the other side is from the perspective of the Obama coalition.

The so called Obama coalition fell apart years ago. Anyone who still believes it is intact is just not paying attention.

Within a year or so after the 2008 election I flew from DC to Albuquerque and ended up having a quite pleasant conversation with my seatmate who I’d never met before boarding the plane. He was a friendly guy who was easy to talk with. As it turns out he was a staunch liberal who was almost beside himself with disappointment and frustration with Obama. The new president, it turns out, was nothing like what my seatmate thought he would be.

I know my experience offers only anecdotal evidence, but having been exposed to the thoughts of my seatmate I was a little more sensitive to picking up on the vibe of those thoughts from that point onward. As it turns out, my seatmate was not alone in his frustration, not by a long shot. Disillusionment is common, and rampant, within Obama’s original coalition.

But with that said, I think the last bit of the quote above is correct. What’s left of the coalition is being held together by how appalled its members are with practically anything conservative. But what’s missing from the The New Republic's interpretation is that it says more about those who are appalled than it does about those who are causing them to feel that way.

The liberal psyche, with its fixation on maximization of care of, and for, the individual as the fundamental definition of what is “moral,” and “good” really is appalled by any notion of any limits on the “free will” of the individual to do whatever he or she pleases as long as it does not cause direct and immediate harm to any other individual.

But the essence of human nature, and of morality, is that some amount of exactly that kind of limit is essential to the existence of a safe, caring, and prosperous civil society. The needs and desires of the individual must be balanced with the needs and desires of the society as a whole if that society is to have any chance of existing, never mind flourishing, in the long term. Some amount of rules and norms which reduce selfishness and limit free riders on the backs of the rest of society is what makes cooperative society possible.

That balance is not only the essence of human nature, and what makes human society possible, it is also the essence of conservatism. This is the conservative argument: a healthy hive of society and culture is a necessary co requisite for the health and happiness of the individual bees.

But the liberal fixation on the individual prevents it from seeing the other half the equation of health and happiness, and instead causes it to interpret the needs of society as forms of oppression and repression, and thus, literally, sources of evil. Restrictions are evil. Conservatives and Republicans seem to advocate restrictions, so therefore Conservatives and Republicans are evil. They don’t “care.” They are cold hearted and unfeeling, and interested only in “profits.” They are “appalling.”

The Obama coalition may indeed be appalled at the other side, but the reason is not because the other side actually is appalling; the reason is that the myopic world view of the liberal coalition prevents it from seeing the whole picture, and leads it to misinterpret what it does see.

This election tilted toward Romney after the first debate because he successfully myth-busted the liberal meme of conservatives and republicans as cold hearted, uninformed, rubes. Instead he came across as somebody who does care, who does “get it,” and who, surprisingly, actually knows what he is talking about.
Of course, there will always be a significant number of people who cling to the liberal meme, but the ones who matter, the undecideds, the independents, those who actually listen with an open mind, when they got a chance to see the real human being rather than the caricature that is painted by Obama ads, realized that he is, well, human; and a human with a plan to boot.

The post-debate mood within the country was “Huh. Who knew?”

And the tide was turned.

Whether it was turned for good remains to be seen, but the trend is positive. And one thing is certain, the “Obama coalition” sure ain’t what it used to be, and if he is relying on it for his reelection he may be in for a rude awakening. The good news for the country is that that awakening will come the day AFTER the election.

pima · Guru

I agree anyone that is undecided at this point is probably a dem. and they can't accept that they can't get behind Obama logically.

JMPO, but I doubt in the end that voters like her will probably vote on election day unless there is something on the polls that they have a strong conviction...i.e. MD has gay marriage and Casino's that is up for a vote. This will get the D's out from a base perspective because MD will go PBO. Those issues are what is talked about daily here.

winchester · Guru

Regarding...

The interesting thing about this link, is the last question went to a voter from Ohio and she said she is waiting for the 3rd debate because she still needs more information. Seriously, if you need more info by now, I don't get it.

Here's my interpretation of why she needs more information.

She's a Democrat at heart. She likes Obama. She is having a difficult time accepting the idea of voting for Romney. Voting for a Republican just rubs her the wrong way. She is desperately seeking a straw, anything, to grasp which will allow her to rationalize her logic and ease her conscience so she can vote for Obama and still sleep at night.

But things are bad. Really bad. Obama has had four years to make things better and he has failed. And miserably, because not only has he failed to make things better, things are actually worse.

So she's hoping Obama will pull it out in the last debate the way the Seahawks pulled it out in the next to last minute against the Patriots last weekend.

( Stupid Patriots. Talk about losing sleep! They've lost three games by a total of four points. Here's an idea: Defend the pass!!! Jeez. If they could do that they'd have won the last two Super Bowls they were in, the Ravens game earlier this year, and the Seahawks game last weekend. (I didn't see the Cardinals game, maybe that one too.) At least RGIII, covered locally, is fun to watch. )

winchester · Guru

Although snap polls conducted by CNN gave Obama a win, the underlying numbers for him were bad - 58 to 40 per cent in Romney's favour on the economy, 49 to 46 per cent on health care, 51 to 44 per cent on taxes, 59 to 36 per cent on the deficit.

Supporting my earlier post, this next quote is, I think, the consensus that is emerging not just about the debates but about Obama's record in general.

Obama had no response to this litany of economic woe that virtually every American has experienced personally in some way over the past four years.

That, in a nutshell, was Obama's biggest problem: despite the improvement in style, he still has neither an economic record he can defend nor a discernible plan for doing things better if American voters give him a second chance.

After all the rhetoric and spin has played out, and the votes that count are counted, this will be the epitaph of the Obama presidency.

http://harndenblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/10/a-new-improved-barack-obama-shows-up-for-the-second-debate-but-fails-to-halt-mitt-romneys-momentum.html

pima · Guru

I believe it was a tie, neither won, neither loss, but according to the media today it appears swing went with Romney.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/16/luntz_focus_group_of_mostly_former_obama_voters_switch_to_romney.html

A Frank Luntz focus group made up mostly of former Obama voters say they now support Mitt Romney.

"Forceful, compassionate, presidential," one participant said.
"Confident and realistic," said another.
"Presidential," another told Luntz.
"Enthusiastic," another reacted.
"Our next president," one man said.
"Dynamo, winner," said one more.

"He's lied about everything. He lied to get elected in 2008, that's why I voted for him. I bought his bull. And he's lied about everything, he hasn't come through on anything. And he's been bull****ting the public," one member of the focus group said.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/msnbcs-undecided-voter-panel-swayed-romney_654728.html

The interesting thing about this link, is the last question went to a voter from Ohio and she said she is waiting for the 3rd debate because she still needs more information. Seriously, if you need more info by now, I don't get it. Next week is the foreign policy debate, IMPO this is where Obama is really going to get hit. Libya, Syria, Iran, and Israel are not his shining moments. MR is going to hit him about being on the View and not meeting with Netanyahu. He is going to hit him on Libya and the Arb Spring. Anyone that is in tune with this election knows this is going to not be pretty for PBO.

Than again, she also said she likes Obama, but thinks he has failed, thinks MR will do better, but not sure about him personally...i.e. who she would rather have burgers with at Five Guys is playing into her equation. yawn

As for the female college sophomore, and for that fact many Americans, the Pell Grant issue is a diversionary tactic. It sounds great because it is not a loan, it doesn't need to be paid back, the fact is it is tied to the parents income. Why are there more students receiving Pell Grants? They are receiving them because of this economy. If their folks are not making enough money they are eligible, and it is a sliding scale. If their folks make too much money, not talking 200K a yr., talking much, much, much less they are ineligible. Granted he put more money into the system, but someone needs to inform them why and it was more about supply and demand issues because 23 million are un/underemployed.

The next big bubble has been predicted and the next president will see the bubble burst. Student loans. I wished the college student or the Mom regarding deductions last night asked that question

~~~ Currently the student loan industry is a TRILLION dollar industry, how will you make sure we won't live through the same crash that we did with the housing crisis. How will you make sure this won't mean they will be able to buy a home when they are 30 if they had to default on the loans when they were 25?

I also can't believe that the girl didn't hear MR state 50% of current college grads are not working FT. When DS graduated college in May, he had his exit interview. He was in the scholars program (this program only takes top 20% of the class when they entered), his advisor said only 25% of students had a job, they are required to intern. As you all know he went AD Air Force, so really you can't put him into the equation for employment. He interned on the Hill for a Sen. The office was filled with externs. If this student thinks jobs are going to open up before she graduates, she is right, regardless of who is president. The problem is many of those students before you are externing now, and they will get the job, hence placing you in their extern position. How will you pay for those loans?

~~~ See that is why it is the next bubble.

winchester · Guru

It's the economy, stupid.

"It's the economy, stupid" is a slight variation of the phrase "The economy, stupid" which James Carville had coined as a campaign strategist of Bill Clinton's successful 1992 presidential campaign against sitting president George H. W. Bush.

Carville's original phrase was meant for the internal audience of Clinton's campaign workers as one of the three messages to focus on, the other two messages being "Change vs. more of the same" and "Don't forget health care."
Wikipedia entry: It's the economy, stupid

Works equally well against the incumbent this time around too.

-- Edited by winchester on Wednesday 17th of October 2012 09:56:41 AM

winchester · Guru

Three things:

1) This is not exactly on topic, but this thread seems to be the closest my comment.

This may seem obvious in a Duh! sort of way, but I'll say it anyway.

If you don't know the political leanings of a columnist you can get a pretty solid idea by who he/she says won last night.

If a columnist says Obama won, look up the columnist. He or she is probably liberal.

And vice versa.

2) I'm sticking with my prediction that Romney will win this election, and handily. For evidence I submit the 2010 election and the recall election in Wisconsin. Both of those elections exposed a very strong undercurrent of dissatisfaction with the way things are. I think this undercurrent does not show up in the current polling, at least not completely. Sure, there are enough conservative-hating Wisconsinites to assemble the required number of signatures to force a recall election, but when both sides got to have their say in the election the haters were in the minority. And the media is, what, 80% liberal? 90%? No matter how "fair" members of the press try to be, or think they are, it is simply impossible for a person's ideology NOT to influence their reporting. I think the reporting, as well as the polling, does not completely see the undercurrent.

As further evidence I submit not the performace of the candidates last night but the questions that were asked. People are very worried about the economy, which Obama now owns, and his idea for fising it is more of the same thing that made it this bad in the first place. Despite the incessant left wing criticism of success and accomplishment - as if those are bad things in America - Romney in fact does have economic experience, and he has ideas that are different from Obama's same old same old.

When the undecideds decide, whether it is before the election or at the moment they walk into the voting booth, it just seems to me that they're more likely to think "Well, the current path ain't workin' so I may as well give the other guy a shot at it" than they are to think "Yeah, stimuls spending is working, all we need to get us over the hump is more of it." I think the undecideds are going to break for Romney.

3) And yes, liberals are haters; much more so than those from the other mainstream ideologies. Liberals, as a group, when compared with conservatives and libertarians, are the least tolerant and the least inclusive. R. R. Reno correctly summarized the latest findings of scientific studies of the liberal psyche when he said "Liberalism is blind in one eye--yet it insists on the superiority of its vision and its supreme right to rule. It cannot see half the things a governing philosophy must see, and claims that those who see both halves are thereby unqualified to govern." ( http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/05/our-one-eyed-friends )

Reno is right. If you take a step back and look at what's really going on with the arguments that are lobbed back and forth across the political divide you see two very different views. The liberal view is that care, above all, is the greatest good, and the fundamental object of that care is the individual. End of story. Anything outside of that is bad, even evil, and righteously deserving of hatred. The conservative view is that while we agree that care of the individual is important, and we have no quarrel with that, what must also be understood is that it takes more than just that sort of care to create and maintain a healthy society which does the most good for the most people; care of the society as a whole is just as important, and the two types of care must be pursued in equal balance. The fundamental objects of care are the individual AND the society as a whole. But the liberal view, with its single minded fixation on the individual, tends to see - almost inevitably can ONLY see - care for the society as antithetical to care for the individual. Anything, anything at all, that places any sort of restriction AT ALL on miximization of individual autonomy is, practically by definition, oppressive, and is therefore wrong, and should be eradicated from society. It follows then that conservatism, with it's concern for the protecting not only the individual but also the society as a whole is thus, also practically by definition, oppressive, wrong, and deserving of righteous hatred.

This basic theme - the liberal fixation on care of the individual and its tendency to see anything else as cold-hearted, uncaring, and even evil, and the conservative view that care for the individual, while a good thing, must be balanced agaist care for the society as a whole - underlies practically everything that happens in politics, including the debates. Step back and look, from the 30,000 ft. level, at the fundamental difference between liberalism and conservatism, and between the messages of Obama and Romney, and that's what you see. From the differences between the French and American revolutions, to the differences between the Occupy and Tea Party movements, the fundamental contrast between the two world views have been ever thus.

-- Edited by winchester on Wednesday 17th of October 2012 09:28:19 AM