http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskins_Rule
The Washington Redskins were defeated today.
Update: November 7, 2012 12:45 AM So much for the Redskins Rule.
Sunday, November 4, 2012
The Redskins Rule
There's something called the "Redskins Rule” that says if the Washington Redskins win on the weekend before the election, the incumbent will win. If the Redskins lose, the incumbent loses. "This coincidence has been noted by many sports and political commentators and has held true since 1940."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskins_Rule
The Washington Redskins were defeated today.
Update: November 7, 2012 12:45 AM So much for the Redskins Rule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskins_Rule
The Washington Redskins were defeated today.
Update: November 7, 2012 12:45 AM So much for the Redskins Rule.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
55 comments:
Thank God.
Mitt is going to be a great president!
First, check 2004. Second, if that's all you've got to to on, good luck to you!
--Neil Berch
Yeah, Neil, I saw that. It is B.D. Before Dudley.
Can't wait for the calls to stop. Just one more day...
Elaine
Vote for revenge, right Neil?
Predictions: Obama gets 332 Electoral votes (all swing states but North Carolina). He wins popular vote by 3.6%. Other winners in PA:
Casey, Murphy, M. Smith, but Republicans sweep state row offices. Others with predictions?--Neil Berch
Neil my guess:
Romney
T Smith
Murphy
Freed
M Smith (Dudley a close 2nd) State Senate
M Smith state rep
All will be close and protested for weeks.
Q: why would the Rs let Matt Smith run unopposed for state representative?
Seems it would an easier time to get a republican in.
Because they dropped the ball. The Rs would get a second chance if Matt Smith beats Raja in the Senate race.
Elaine
Yes they did most definitely, can't imagine their strategy.
I might write in Scott Goldman, wonder if he'd accept.
Finally: a point of agreement! Republicans not nominating someone for State Rep is inexplicable.--Neil Berch
That is what I could've understand when I got the letter to vote for Raja. The complaint against Matt Smith was that If he wins the senatorial seat, it will cost the taxpayers $250,000 to hold a special election for his current seat. I see it as a second chance.
Elaine
*Couldn't, not could've.
Elaine
Is there an R volunteer?
Wouldn't that shake up the conventional wisdom, a write-in candidate appearing at the last minute and saving taxpayers $250,000.
Is the Republican Party dead in Mt. Lebanon (not counting rinos), statewide and nationally?
The Republican Party is not dead in the House. It certainly isn't dead with the popular vote nationally. Mt. Lebanon? That is another matter. The good old boys ruined it. I think it is time to regroup, guys. Next time, maybe you can support fellow Republicans who want to run for School Board or Commission instead of demonizing them.
Elaine
This should have been an R party cake walk.
High unemployment, stagnant economy, the embassy killings, national debt etc., etc.
Ifyou're only interested in a holding action and spending millions and millions of dollars and two years to be exactly at the same point you were two years ago - you're absolutely correct - the R party isn't dead.
Obama's popular vote margin will end up being about 3%, same as Bush's 2004 margin that Republicans claimed was a mandate. And the electorate in 2016 will again be 2-3 percentage points less white than the one in 2012. Unless Republicans fix their problem with people of color (especially Latinos), they will continue their slow fade nationally.--Neil Berch
Neil, I agree with you except on every issue regarding race the republicans are the party that have provided all the advancements.
The democrats have always fought against them.
Yeah, that's what Latino voters said yesterday, wasn't it? Or do they just not understand all the great "advancements" Republicans have provided?--Neil Berch
To be more accurate the North has provided all of the advancements. Southern Republicans and Democrats nearly unanimously opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act while the North and West were heavily in favor.
And if you are going to worry about the Republican party how aabout focusing on the character of people you pick. DeIullius and Goldman versus Fraasch and Bendel. Character matters, when the MLRC realizes it things might change.
Skip Ecole
Neil, this has been making the rounds. A few of the things I'm pretty sure are true. Others I haven't checked.
This video put together by an African American historian left me almost dumbfounded as I did not know this about our history and that of our political parties. I didn't even know this about Martin Luther King.
http://stolenhistory.org/viral/
That paragraph about King came with the stolen history link and should've been in quotes.
Mr. Berch: when did the democrats wrestle away the perception of being the representatives of minorities and the poor over republicans.
From wiki:
"Disfranchisement
With the southern states "redeemed", Democrats gradually regained control of Southern legislatures. They proceeded to restrict the rights of the majority of Blacks and many poor Whites to vote by imposing new requirements for poll taxes, subjective literacy tests, more strict residency requirements and other elements difficult for laborers to satisfy.
By the 1880s, legislators increased restrictions on black voters through voter registration and election rules. Nonetheless, in 1888 John Mercer Langston, president of Virginia State University at Petersburg, was elected to the US Congress as the first African American fromVirginia (and the last for nearly a century.)[3]
From 1890 to 1908, starting with Mississippi, white Democrats passed new constitutions in ten Southern states with provisions that restricted voter registration and forced hundreds of thousands of people from registration rolls. These changes effectively prevented most blacks and many poor whites from voting. Many whites who were also illiterate were exempted from literacy tests by such strategies as the grandfather clause, basing eligibility on an ancestor's status as of 1866, for instance.
Southern state and local legislatures went on to pass Jim Crow laws that segregatedtransportation, public facilities and daily life. Finally, racial violence in the form of lynchingsand race riots increased in frequency, reaching a peak in the last decade of the century."
First US Black Senator - Republican Hiram Revels from Mississippi 1870.
And do you have an suggestions for Republicans fix this?
Dear Anonymous: While your observations from the end of Reconstruction (135 years ago) are interesting, they're probably not terribly relevant. The event that shifted Southern whites to the Republicans and African Americans to the Democrats was the election of 1964. Lyndon Johnson's support for the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act (despite being a Southerner) and Barry Goldwater's opposition to it both served to set the table for much of what's gone on in recent years. In the 60s (and into the 80s and 90s), this was not a fatal problem for Republicans, as demographics still favored them. Now, as the electorate becomes less white every election, this is an issue for them. It makes winning presidential elections more challenging. As for the Senate, they're currently down 55-45, but it could be much worse. Republicans are helped by the fact that smaller, more rural (and generally whiter) states are overrepresented in the Senate (in proportion to population, as a result, of course, of the compromise that set up the bicameral system in the first place). Republicans are probably OK in the House until 2016, as their big win in 2010, combined with their control of the redistricting process in many key states after the 2010 census and the likelihood that the 2014 midterm election year will be a good one for the out-party in Congress (although it depends on the state of the economy) will give them an advantage for a while.
So what can Republicans do? First, they need to make inroads with some minority voters. The most likely place is with Latinos. Republicans did better among Latinos when their party leaders (McCain and even George W. Bush) supported comprehensive immigration reform. At a minimum, they need to curb the harsh rhetoric on immigration that dominated the 2012 primary season (the Romney of the general election campaign sounded much more reasonable than the primary campaign Romney who tried to go to the right of Rick Perry on immigration).
Or, take another example: abortion. Leaving aside the Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock remarks on rape, the Republicans need to understand that their extreme position on abortion (the platform said no exceptions whatsoever, and that's Paul Ryan's long-held position). At the polling place at Temple Beth El on election day, there was a woman standing outside (on the street) with one of those massive dead fetus posters and a sign attached that said, "Obama supports... abortion is murder." I laughed when I saw that, and here's why. I can't imagine that there was anyone who agreed with that woman who wasn't already voting for Romney, and they didn't need the reminder. On the other hand, there were (by all accounts, and I talked to some of them) still some voters (predominantly women) who even at the last minute were torn between support for Romney on the economy and concern about the right wing of the Republican party on social issues. The only thing that poster was going to accomplish was to push those voters into the Obama column.
If maintaining ideological purity is that important to you, then you will have to settle for slowly becoming a minority party. Polling data shows that Romney got somewhere in the neighborhood of 80% of Southern white men. That's an incredibly large number, but that's not enough to win national elections if you can't bring at least some minority voters (and a greater percentage of unmarried women) into your coalition. Your choice!--Neil Berch
I agree with your comments on the abortion issue. Why the Republican Party is fixated on this is unfathomable to me. I've worked R candidates running for minor local offices that insist on making this a main issue in their campaigns and it usually ends up costing them votes.
As for Johnson's Civil Rights turning the tables, it is my understanding that the republican's in Congress were actually instrumental in getting that legislation thru over democratic objections. I'll stand corrected if that isn't true.
Your may be correct that Goldwater erased the public's awareness of the voting on the act.
Mr. Berch, regarding Johnson's Civil Right s Act from Wiki (granted not the best resource but it's quick and convenient):
:The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage.[10] Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."[11]
The most fervent opposition to the bill came from Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC): "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress."[12]
After 54 days of filibuster, Senators Everett Dirksen (R-IL), Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), and Mike Mansfield (D-MT) introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would attract enough Republican swing votes to end the filibuster. The compromise bill was weaker than the House version in regard to government power to regulate the conduct of private business, but it was not so weak as to cause the House to reconsider the legislation.[13]"
So again how did the dems become the protector of minority interest?
Vote for Civil Rights Act 1964.
"
Also, an article on Salon.co:
"According to Congressional Quarterly, the Civil Rights Act of 1964
passed the House 290-130, and Republican support for the bill was much
stronger than Democratic: 61 percent (152-96) of the Democrats
supported the legislation while 80 percent (138-34) of the Republicans
backed it. These numbers were similar in the Senate -- 69 percent of
Democrats (46-21), backed the bill along with 82 percent of
Republicans (27-6)."
In 2012 we're seeing a similar scenario.
Which party is setting up road blocks to educational reforms that will give minorities and the poor a path out of poorly performing public schools.
Why of course, democrats financed by the NEA unions interested only in protecting the status quo.
Anonymous (or the two of you anonymi): I won't argue with you about who produced the votes for the Civil Rights Act in the Congress. However, the shift in public positions of the parties in the aftermath of its passage (due first to Johnson and Goldwater and later to platform positions, etc. taken in the decades that followed) clearly had an impact. Renewal votes on the Voting Rights Act also showed a shift between the parties (in the 80s & 90s), with Democrats supporting renewal and Republicans often opposing it.--Neil Berch
Not so fast Mr. Perch. You're playing it fast and free with the facts once again.
Why do you give credit to President Johnson and the democrats yet fail to mention that President Bush signed the 2006 Voting Act Renewal with support from Congressional Republicans?
"For weeks, the outcome of the battle to extend the act had been in doubt. Republican leaders had planned a vote in June. But they abruptly canceled it after conservative lawmakers objected to several provisions of the act, including one that requires the Justice Department to review any proposed changes to voting procedures in states covered by the law, most of them in the South. They said the provisions were unnecessary.
The rebellion was an embarrassment for the Republican leadership. In early May, House and Senate leaders of both parties assembled on the steps of the Capitol to pledge their support for the act and celebrate what they described as its imminent approval. President Bush had also thrown his support behind it.
To mollify those conservatives, House leaders agreed to allow them to offer four amendments on Thursday, including one that would have required the Justice Department to demonstrate why the voting procedures in certain states should still be under federal oversight.
Representative Phil Gingrey, Republican of Georgia, argued that his state, for one, had made great strides in voting rights for minorities. “A lot has changed in 40-plus years,” Mr. Gingrey said. “We should have a law that fits the world in 2006.”
But in the end, Republicans joined with Democrats to defeat the amendments, allowing both parties to cast themselves as champions of minority voters."
Anonymous 10:01: On Tuesday, Latinos said by about a 3-1 margin that they disagree with your analysis. Are they wrong? Do you know what's best for them? If so, how will you convince them? If you don't Republicans face an uphill struggle.--Neil Berch
Oh, and to anonymous 9:15: while you note the fierce opposition from Democratic Senator Strom Thurmond, you fail to note that he left the Democratic party over this issue. He became a Republican after Goldwater turned Republicans into the anti-civil rights party.--Neil Berch
I'm not arguing the Latino or Black vote tally.
I'm only querying why the democratic party gets the credit all the time for being the great protector of minorities.
And you Mr. Berch failed to mention that Martin Luther King was apparently a registered republican... so what!
Where I think we agree:
#1. Republicans need to knock off the abortion issue, they're not doing themselves any favors.
#2. they also need to reestablish their record for standing up for minorities. The dilemma is that their seems to be a leaning towards a nanny state in this country. It's tough to battle against a group that promises every day will be sunny.
So, anonymous, Mr. Bush signed the extension of the Voting Rights Act after it was watered down due to the demands of conservative Republicans (some of whom voted against it, as the votes against it in the House were from Republicans). And, as this USA Today article explains, the final vote doesn't really reflect the roadblocks that Republicans put up to extending the Voting Rights Act. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-07-27-bush-votingrights_x.htm
Anyway, enough is enough. If you honestly believe that the Republicans are (currently) the party that extends rights to minorities, who just totally misunderstand things (non-white voters went for Obama about 84-16), and that Republicans don't need to change anything to appeal to minorities (especially Latinos), then I will sleep much easier. Tuesday night's scene will be repeated over and over again until Republican moderates can't take it any more and form a third party. In the meantime, good luck to you!--Neil Berch
"If Republicans Have A War On Women And Minorities, Why Am I Seeing So Many Of Them In Positions Of Power Within The GOP?"
From The Washington Times--
"A number of Republican governors have won office in recent years on promises of education reforms, and highlighting education before a Hispanic audience could help Mr. Romney make inroads with that important group of voters.
Raul Gonzalez, director of legislative affairs for the National Council of La Raza, the largest umbrella organization for Hispanic groups, said Hispanics do consider education to be a major civil rights issue and that Mr. Romney’s push for vouchers likely will play well.
Still, he said, other than Mr. Romney’s push for school choice, and Mr. Obama’s Race to the Top program that rewards innovative schools, the two men share many similarities on education. Both favor moving away from some of the accountability provisions in Mr. Bush’s No Child Left Behind legislation, and have stressed teacher effectiveness as a solution for poor schools."
Apparently, Romney and republican governors never made a compelling case or could it have been overwritten by the pro-democratic contributions of the NEA.
I Believe ... The proper function of government is to do for the people those things that have to be done but cannot be done, or cannot be done as well, by individuals, and that the most effective government is government closest to the people.
I Believe ... Good government is based upon the individual and that each person's ability, dignity, freedom, and responsibility must be honored and recognized.
I Believe ... The free enterprise and the encouragement of individual initiative and incentive have given this nation an economic system second to none.
I Believe ... Sound money management should be our goal.
I Believe ... In equal right, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, age, sex or national origin.
I Believe ... We must retain those principles of the past worth retaining, yet always be receptive to new ideas with an outlook broad enough to accommodate thoughtful change and varying points of view.
I Believe ... That Americans value and should preserve their feeling of national strength and pride, and at the same time share with people everywhere a desire for peace and freedom and the extension of human rights throughout the world.
I Believe ... The Republican Party is the best vehicle for translating these ideals into positive and successful principles of government.
Mr. Berch, point me to the paragraph in the republican Principles that says they should exclude minorities from the American Dream?
There is a big danger to paint a portrait of any group with too large a brush.
From a gentleman on Newsvine.com.
Who's the Real Racist; A Brown Man's Perspective
Mon Oct 22, 2012 2:05 PM EDT
"I know that I've made some outlandish claims in this article accusing Democrats of racism. I did so purposely to demonstrate how outlandish the accusations of Republican racism sound to those of us on this side of the political spectrum. Do I think that Democrats are racist? No, not really. At best I think that they are just a bunch of opportunistic slime ball politicians who will do and say anything to get a vote. That's all. Other then that I think their great bowlers. My ultimate purpose is to stir up a serious discussion within the Hispanic community and hopefully other minority groups as well concerning what drives our political affiliation. I was prompted to write this article after having a conversation with one of my fellow coworker who happens to be Hispanic as well. He was surprised to hear of my Republican leanings. Like me, he was led to believe that Democrats were looking out for us poor minorities while Republicans where just a bunch of rich white racists out to get us.I explained to him how I arrived at my positions and began to dispel some of the misconceptions on this issue by pointing out how Democratic policies have hindered rather then helped our communities. To his total surprise I also gave him a brief History of Hispanic firsts into political offices, e.g. U.S. Representative: Romualdo Pacheco, U.S. Senator: Octaviano Larrazolo, Treasurer: Romana Acosta Bañuelos, cabinet member: Lauro F. Cavazos, Surgeon General: Antonia Coello Novello, Attorney General: Alberto Gonzales. All Republican or appointed by one. By the end of our conversation he conceded his misconceptions and was considering changing his Party affiliation. Not because I convinced him that Democrats are a bunch of opportunistic slime ball politicians but because for the first time he was able look at the issues without the bias of subjective labels."
To bad Neil the main stream media doesn't publish this kinda of stuff.
Mr. Berth, just managed to get into your USAToday article. That's it, that's your proof that today's republican party is anti-Hispanic or anti-minorities?
How do you figure the article states: "The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 98-0 and the House 390-33. The overwhelming majorities belied the difficulties getting to that point."
Last I heard the Senate has 100 members. Are we to believe that 2 are those big, bad republicans?
Now if your argument is that the republicans need to improve their message, then we agree, but don't keep spreading the democratic line that Republicans are bigots.
See you on the campus, Neil.
1. If you think the list of Republican Latino "firsts" (and you may have forgotten the first Latino Supreme Court justice) is your answer, good luck. Tokenism doesn't replace policy.
2. Again, 75% of Latinos disagree with you. Are you saying they don't know their interest? Cuban-born Americans went 55-45 Romney, but American-born Cubans went 60-40 Obama. You figure out which way the train is moving.
3. The rest of the USA Today article (and that's just one piece of evidence) talks about conservative Republican resistance to extending the VRA. It notes that the overwhelming final vote is not reflective of the process.
4, If you really think things are OK and Republicans just need to do a better PR job, that's OK with me. There will be more scenes with stunned Republicans on election night.
5. "See you on the campus". What a mature response. You got me. You figured out I'm a college professor who teaches about elections. If that doesn't disqualify me from this discussion, then I don't know what will.--Neil Berch
First of all, it is Berch, not Berth. Second, when you talk about his USA article, do you mean that he wrote it or Neil was not citing his sources, 6:27 AM?
Last night, I attended the second municipal budget meeting. I realized that there are no Republicans seeking office for wards 2 or 4. Matt Kluck, the only Republican serving on the Commission, was not endorsed by the MLRC when he ran for office. Matt Smith ran unopposed for his Rep seat. I have not heard of any Republicans running for School Board. Folks, I think the Republicans here have bigger problems than worrying about minority votes.
Elaine
Who is planning to run in Wards 2 & 4?
Brumfield for one. I don't think the other one is ready to make the announcement. If you attend Commission meetings, it is pretty easy to figure it out.
Elaine
Elaine: I believe they were referring to the USA Today article that I cited on renewal of the voting rights act. I clearly cited my source, as I didn't even quote from the article (just included a link). Thanks for providing this space for people to debate!
--Neil Berch
Berth was auto spell check so the misspelling wasn't intentional.
As for the campus remark that was in retort to hour smarmy "good luck."
We don't disagree Neil that the republicans have a problem with their marketing, but I'm not so sure it all their neglect. I'll think if one digs deep you find the liberal media, and the democratic party, unions play a significant role.
K don't know the answer to this, but I know there are 3 Latino governors. How many democrat Latino governors are there?
The democrats alignment with the teacher's unions opposition to charter schools. Is that in the best interest of minorities and the poor to lock them into sub- performing schools? Or does it serve the teachers unions?
You're absolutely right - the repuican party needs to get their message out, on the history of the party and what they've done for minorities and the poor.
Wonder how many Wasp, let alone Latinos could pass a test on the party voted on the Civil Rights Acts?
It appears both parties need to pay close attention to Latinos, Neil.
"Poll: Conventions didn't increase Latino enthusiasm
By Emily Schultheis - 9/10/12 @ 11:50 AM ET
New numbers out from the polling firm Latino Decisions show that despite the attention paid to the Latino vote at both conventions, the demographic really hasn't seen much movement as a result:
Despite two weeks of widespread political coverage in which both parties made an effort to reach out to Latino voters, enthusiasm about November is still very much in question. Wave 3 of the impreMedia/Latino Decisions tracking poll did not find any noticeable increase in levels of enthusiasm or certainty to vote, and to the contrary, the poll found a small decrease compared with two weeks ago. While general election campaigning is just getting started and enthusiasm may peak in late October, as of today, more Latinos say they were more enthusiastic back in 2008 than they are in 2012. Still, President Barack Obama continues to maintain a large lead among Latinos following the DNC Convention with 66% support to 29% for Mitt Romney.
The one thing that did see some movement is the favorability ratings for each party — and not in the direction they'd like:
Further, after two weeks of national convention outreach, both parties have seen decreases in their favorability ratings. In week 1 of our tracking poll congressional Democrats registered 64% favorability and in week 3 they stand at 53% (however, Obama continues to perform better than congressional Democrats with 72% favorability). Likewise, when asked about how good or bad a job they were doing at outreach to Hispanics the Democrats fell from 59% approval in week 1 to 49% approval in week 3 following the DNC. The news for Republicans is far worse. GOP favorability among Latinos was 32% before either convention and is now just 26% (and Romney tracks quite similarly with 27% favorability). The percent rating Republicans positive on outreach actually increased, but from an anemic 14% to only 19% today who say Republicans are doing a good job reaching out to Hispanics."
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/house-races/266979-democrats-face-tough-election-fundamentals-in-2014
"The party also has the problem of relying on a “boom-bust” coalition of young and minority voters who often show up in presidential years, only to stay at home during midterm elections. Getting those voters to the polls could once again cause problems for Democrats."
Those Latino votes may not be as important as you bisect Neil.
Thanks to all (or is it just the one; this anonymous thing drives me crazy!) who responded to me. In the spirit of non-snarkiness, I will discuss some points of agreement as well as disagreement:
Let me start, though, by responding to the person on the other thread who posted a seeming response to me that was a long quote from Sheldon Adelson on why the Democrats left him, and not vice versa. If you're going to give credit to analysis from Adelson, who spent $60 million of donations to defeat Democratic candidates (after he finished spending millions to try to defeat Mitt Romney in the Republican primaries), then you're not really getting at the Republicans' problem with swing voters. Adelson also discusses at some length (here and in other places) the problems that Obama and the Democrats have with Jewish voters. Jewish voters gave Obama 70% support this time around, down from 74% in 2008. Not sure Adelson has much to say that's useful or insightful. Finally, you can find similar pieces written from the other side ("why the Republicans left me"); they largely focus on the emphasis on social issues.
On to the more serious comments in this thread (and I guess I'll refer to them by timestamp, even though I'd rather talk to my neighbors "face-to-face"). First, about 4:11's use of the analysis from Latino Decisions. The work that Latino Decisions has done is really excellent. It's a little odd that you refer only to their comments from early September. They did weekly polls of Latinos with analysis all through September and October, and a bigger poll on election eve. Their later work suggested that Latino support for Obama had increased over the course of the campaign, that standard pollsters were probably underestimating that support (for multiple methodological reasons, the biggest of which was that traditional pollsters don't offer the option of being interviewed only in Spanish, and that Latinos who prefer to be interviewed in Spanish were more likely than others to support Obama), and that enthusiasm among Latino voters had increased significantly in the weeks leading up to the election. It appears that they were right on all of those items. Indeed, in both 2010 (a Republican landslide year nationally) and 2012 traditional pollsters underestimated Latino turnout in Colorado and Nevada in particular, and this helps to explain why they missed Harry Reid and Michael Bennet keeping their US Senate seats in 2010, and missed significantly on Obama's margin in those states in 2012. And you can even make the argument that missed Latino voters (especially non-Cubans) explain why Obama narrowly won Florida while most pre-election polls had him narrowly losing there.
Even if we assume that the earlier analysis is correct, however (that Democrats did not generate enthusiasm among Latino voters), that only demonstrates the depth of the problem Republicans face with Latinos. Even with a lack of enthusiasm for Democrats (and disappointment on Obama's failure to achieve comprehensive immigration reform), Romney was able to get only about a quarter of the Latino vote. Certainly some of that was due to the particular candidate (the Spanish-speaking George W. Bush did much better in 2004), but some of it was undoubtedly due to the harsh tone of the immigration debate during the Republican primaries.
Actually, I'll stop there and address 4:27's comments about the prospects for 2014 in a separate response in a few minutes.--Neil Berch
As to 4:27's comments on the prospects for 2014, I largely agree with her/him. In my comments in this thread, I've been talking primarily about presidential elections. It's too early to tell for sure, but Democrats face several hurdles (and only have a couple of things going for them) in 2014.
As for the hurdles:
1. I agree with 4:27 that the Democratic electorate is more sporadic than the Republican electorate.
2. The incumbent president's party always faces a difficult task in midterm election years. However, that's especially true when the incumbent party has controlled the White House for more than just those two years. Voters get sick of whichever party is in power. Examples include the Democratic victories in 1986 and 2006 in Reagan's and Bush's second terms. Clinton confounds this "rule" (as he does with many rules). He got clobbered in his first midterm election year (1994) but did better than expected in his second midterm (1998, perhaps due to the electorate thinking impeachment had been an overreaction). If you accept the premise that Obama "should" have lost this year due to the economy (models based just on the economy show it should have been a close election, with some coming down on each side) but managed to win only because Romney was a lousy candidate, you would expect some significant backlash in 2014).
3. Democrats again hold the vast majority of the Senate seats up for grabs in 2014, so Republicans start with an edge (in 2016, it will be the other way around, as the Republican Senators elected in the 2010 landslide will have to defend their seats--in a year where those sporadic voters might be back and the demographics will have shifted some more).
4. The Republicans start with a comfortable edge in the House, and so many districts (for members of both parties) are drawn in a way that competition is unlikely.
5. Finally, the Obama For America campaign apparatus (the highly sophisticated computer models that advanced the properly-ballyhooed Obama "ground game") will be on the sidelines.
To be continued, as I've rambled too long (insert long-winded professor joke)
Sorry, left my name of the previous one. Hopefully, Elaine will publish anyway.
On the other hand, the Democrats have a couple of things going for them:
1. Republicans have, for two cycles now, given away US Senate seats by nominating inferior general election candidates, mostly due to the Tea Party candidates winning primaries. Think of Delaware, Colorado, and Nevada in 2010 (Delaware should have been a lock for Republicans, and the other two presented them with great opportunities, but they turned down more electable candidates in the primary. This time, Republicans easily would have won in Missouri and Indiana with less extreme candidates (Lugar would have gotten 70% of the vote if he'd been renominated), and they had a real chance to win with a better candidate in Connecticut. Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin is no extremist, but he was a bad candidate (seemed disinterested in the campaign this time; maybe he should have deferred to a more energetic candidate). They also would have kept the Maine seat if Olympia Snowe hadn't gotten disgusted with her own party on social issues. Challenger quality is the biggest determinant on most congressional election results, and the Republicans show no signs of stopping this habit of self-inflicted wounds.
2. Some may disagree with me, but the economy is likely to be better in 2014. Why? Not because of anything Obama does or does not do. Just because the economy is cyclical. The real secret is that presidents only impact the economy at the margins, though they get credit or blame for the results. George H.W. Bush was unlucky in 1992 because the recovery was only just starting when election day arrived. Obviously, we can't say for sure, but most likely the economy will still be on the upswing in 2014.
All in all, 2014 is likely to be a challenging year for Democrats in congressional races (maybe less so in gubernatorial races since many of the Republican governors elected in 2010's landslide will be up for reelection). Some of these factors shift from election to election. My earlier analysis, though suggests a more enduring problem for the Republicans. For whatever reason, they're not connecting with minority voters (almost any racial or ethnic minority you can think of; they're down to around 50-50 with Cubans!), and minority voters are increasing as a proportion of the electorate. Until they address that, they're going to have trouble winning presidential elections.--Neil Berch
Interesting observations Neil,it is much more pleasurable to discuss things without the snakiness.
I don't disagree with much of what you write.
The Jewish turnout for Obama baffles me.
You observations of the numbers regarding Latino support for Obama and the democratic party are spot on, but I'm baffled by that as well.
Considering the history of the civil rights movement, the republican party's participation in it and the party's principal's listed above it seems that Latinos, blacks and immigrants should embrace republicans.
Especially considering the democrats efforts to handcuff immigrants and the poor to failing inner city public schools.
You may be right the hard-line conservatives may be killing the republican party. I suspect ithere's more to it than that.
The catholic support for Obama was odd considering the birth control funding requirement for catholic institutions and the aforementioned abortion issue.
How can a catholic vote democrat and remain a true catholic?
I maintain that voters are swayed more pby polished Political marketing and advertising than by principals.
As I said I agree with you that the republicans need to re-evaluate. I'm not sure if as you state they should move to the middle or should they get better presenting their principals.
Thanks for the debate. Glad we could get back to a cordial discussion.
Maybe the problem for todays election process lies in the vast amounts of money spent on these campaigns. Maybe the voter is overwhelmed and votes in herds because its simply easier.
I read somewhere that straight party voting for both parties is up substantially.
Agree with your analysis, the only thing I disagree with is your assessment that the republicans need to become mote moderate.
My opinion is they need to stand for their basic principals and find a way to get out the message.
Hope you right on the economy rebounding. If it doesn't then the usual fix for the past 100 years has been a. war. After the recession in the 1890s we had WWI, followed ny the roarin' twenties. Then after the Great Depression the arms race started and we went into WWIi follow by the Wonder Years. Which was supported in part by the Cold War build up.
Mr. Berch, it seems a PG article today supports both our positions. Mine that the GOP nerds to return to their cote principals and improve their message. And yours that they connect with young and Hispanic voters.
How the GOP recovers: patience and virtue
By Ruth Ann Dailey / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
"The Democrats were patient, and they played a very long game. Republicans should do exactly the same: After they get the breast-beating, the where-did-we-go-wrong post-election recriminations out of their system, they should recommit themselves to their core principles, start thinking about a presidential candidate who can expand their base (think: young and Hispanic) and build the operation necessary to win."
Post a Comment