The Democrat Thread

[bmags]

No, I'm not. If unemployment is terrible in november 2012, the independents will swing away from the incumbent.

[Balta1701]

And yet you've ignored the single most key component in the general elections in recent history - where the independents go.

Independents have been important in recent general elections?

[NorthSideSox72]

No, I'm not. If unemployment is terrible in november 2012, the independents will swing away from the incumbent.

Only if the candidate is someone they are willing to even vaguely consider.

 

I think your idea only works for a GOP candidate that an independent could find SOMETHING to line in... Romney is seen by Dems as relatively moderate... Gingrich is seen as a smart, driven guy... something, anything. Palin's support in that crowd is laughably bad.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Independents have been important in recent general elections?

LOL

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Weiner on TV, and he's admitting it! It was his weiner!

 

[Balta1701]

LOL

I'm entirely serious. 2004 and 2008 were entirely base turnout elections. The Democratic Base turned out overwhelmingly in 2008, and Bush won in 2004 despite losing so-called independents.

[bmags]

I'm entirely serious. 2004 and 2008 were entirely base turnout elections. The Democratic Base turned out overwhelmingly in 2008, and Bush won in 2004 despite losing so-called independents.

 

But you also had a huge growth in electorate identifying as 'democrats' that are probably best considered independents.

[Jenksismyhero]

No, I'm not. If unemployment is terrible in november 2012, the independents will swing away from the incumbent.

 

But Republicans won't go crazy and nominate Palin, even in Democrat fantasyland. She might win a primary or two, but at the end of the day I think she gets destroyed by others, especially since other candidates like Bachmann will split the extreme vote.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm entirely serious. 2004 and 2008 were entirely base turnout elections. The Democratic Base turned out overwhelmingly in 2008, and Bush won in 2004 despite losing so-called independents.

100% disagree.

 

2008 was all about Obama convincing the non-base people to look for CHANGE. The base GOP all hated him, the Dems were going to vote for him anyway.

 

2004, the Dems ran out such an awful candidate that even though W was a buffoon, the independents still went to W in large numbers, along with the election (though that was also in part due to him still having some wartime support).

 

I think you are confusing month-to-month party affiliation with real bases. The real bases are tracked over time, and the leftovers are the moderates/independents. Basically, barring landslide elections, the party bases vote for their party's candidate, in slightly higher or lower turnout values. The non-party affiliated, in the current model, are always the difference maker.

 

[bmags]

But Republicans won't go crazy and nominate Palin, even in Democrat fantasyland. She might win a primary or two, but at the end of the day I think she gets destroyed by others, especially since other candidates like Bachmann will split the extreme vote.

 

Trust me, I don't want Palin to win the nomination. There is a very big chance that a Republican wins in 2012. For all the ideological differences, they at least seem to take the role of governing more seriously.

 

But prior to 2008 there was a very big "momentum" aspect to primaries. Where if a candidate won the first few primaries, they were considered the frontrunner and people began to get behind them. With the GOPs winner take all states, Palin's hardcore base will definitely vote and if the rest of the field shows no real promise, those votes will get split.

[Balta1701]

2004, the Dems ran out such an awful candidate that even though W was a buffoon, the independents still went to W in large numbers, along with the election (though that was also in part due to him still having some wartime support).

 

I think you are confusing month-to-month party affiliation with real bases. The real bases are tracked over time, and the leftovers are the moderates/independents. Basically, barring landslide elections, the party bases vote for their party's candidate, in slightly higher or lower turnout values. The non-party affiliated, in the current model, are always the difference maker.

No, I'm not confusing affiliation with real biases, I'm actually going to exit poll data rather than attempting to find the appropriate anecdote. In both 2000 and 2004 the self-described independents were essentially a non-factor. They split, with a small win to Kerry in 2004.

2000 45% 47% 7%

2004 49% 48%

 

The last Presidential Election where Independents mattered was 1996. If you go to "Moderate" voters, as classified in the exit polls, the Dems have won those soundly every year since 1992. That includes in 2004 when the Dems ran an "Awful" candidate and you said Independents went to W in large #'s (which they didn't).

[NorthSideSox72]

LOL, this Weiner press conference is a train wreck, I can't stop watching. Someone actually asked him how his wife felt. She was "disappointed and unhappy". REALLY?!?!?!

 

[NorthSideSox72]

No, I'm not confusing affiliation with real biases, I'm actually going to exit poll data rather than attempting to find the appropriate anecdote. In both 2000 and 2004 the self-described independents were essentially a non-factor. They split, with a small win to Kerry in 2004.

 

 

The last Presidential Election where Independents mattered was 1996. If you go to "Moderate" voters, as classified in the exit polls, the Dems have won those soundly every year since 1992. That includes in 2004 when the Dems ran an "Awful" candidate and you said Independents went to W in large #'s (which they didn't).

Exit polls? Those people just voted, of course they show a tiny percentage as independent. Do you really think it makes any logical sense that just 1% of voters are independents?

 

[Balta1701]

Exit polls? Those people just voted, of course they show a tiny percentage as independent. Do you really think it makes any logical sense that just 1% of voters are independents?

You have misinterpreted the label on those tables. Those 1-5% numbers are people voting for "Independent" candidates. There's a reasonable share in 2000 because there were several "Independent" candidates on the ballot...Nader and Buchanan, who drew non-trivial support. 92 and 96 involved Ross Perot as an independent candidate. The full table is how all self-identified "Independents" voted and how self identified "Moderates" voted in the last 30 years can be found in the other.

[NorthSideSox72]

You have misinterpreted the label on those tables. Those 1-5% numbers are people voting for "Independent" candidates. There's a reasonable share in 2000 because there were several "Independent" candidates on the ballot...Nader and Buchanan, who drew non-trivial support. 92 and 96 involved Ross Perot as an independent candidate. The full table is how all self-identified "Independents" voted and how self identified "Moderates" voted in the last 30 years can be found in the other.

Ah, I see that now. Still no different in my view though, as you seem to be confusing a split among independents as meaning they have no effect. Furthermore, people also forget, since independents as a group are pretty similar in size to the base following of either major party... a few % points there are just as important as a few % points of base voters. Finally, and importantly, independent and moderate are not the same. A bunch of people today who probably are tea-partiers would call themselves independents, but they are not swing voters or moderates.

 

[Steve9347]

LOL, this Weiner press conference is a train wreck, I can't stop watching. Someone actually asked him how his wife felt. She was "disappointed and unhappy". REALLY?!?!?!

The accidental tweeting of his bulge is one of the more epic fails of the digital age.

[Balta1701]

Ah, I see that now. Still no different in my view though, as you seem to be confusing a split among independents as meaning they have no effect. Furthermore, people also forget, since independents as a group are pretty similar in size to the base following of either major party... a few % points there are just as important as a few % points of base voters. Finally, and importantly, independent and moderate are not the same. A bunch of people today who probably are tea-partiers would call themselves independents, but they are not swing voters or moderates.

But if independents are split down the middle, as they were in 2000 and 2004, then the election turns entirely on base turnout. Which has been entirely the case for the last 3 elections now.

 

Which is why I scoffed at the notion that independents had any impact on recent presidential elections. Because they didn't.

[NorthSideSox72]

But if independents are split down the middle, as they were in 2000 and 2004, then the election turns entirely on base turnout. Which has been entirely the case for the last 3 elections now.

 

Which is why I scoffed at the notion that independents had any impact on recent presidential elections. Because they didn't.

Oh come on, you are a scientist, you have to know stats better than that. You have two groups will will vote for their party pretty much exclusively (again, barring a landslide, which we haven't had in a long time), who vary based on turnout. You have a third similar size group that also varies on turnout BUT is fully undeclared going in. How can you say that third group doesn't have an impact? It has, by nature, the same impact at a base level, and effectively more impact due to volatility.

 

[Balta1701]

Oh come on, you are a scientist, you have to know stats better than that. You have two groups will will vote for their party pretty much exclusively (again, barring a landslide, which we haven't had in a long time), who vary based on turnout. You have a third similar size group that also varies on turnout BUT is fully undeclared going in. How can you say that third group doesn't have an impact? It has, by nature, the same impact at a base level, and effectively more impact due to volatility.

Because if the fully undeclared vote splits itself evenly every time, or basically redefines itself such that it winds up being a split every time because different groups of people move into the "Independent" group (which you already allowed) then the term itself is meaningless, except in the sense that the median voter is probably somewhere within it.

[NorthSideSox72]

Because if the fully undeclared vote splits itself evenly every time, or basically redefines itself such that it winds up being a split every time because different groups of people move into the "Independent" group (which you already allowed) then the term itself is meaningless, except in the sense that the median voter is probably somewhere within it.

First, it doesn't split evenly every time. Second, even if it does, the makeup changes, so its still important in that sense. Third, if it splits evenly all the time and the parties vote their parties every time, we'd always have elections going nowhere, wouldn't we? By purely the nature of their size being similar to each party base, a % point change in independents is just as important as a % point change in a party's turnout. So already you are at an even level. Now add to that the shifting, and the fact that moderates are not the same as independents as I said before, and its clear with basic stats that they have huge importance.

 

[Balta1701]

Third, if it splits evenly all the time and the parties vote their parties every time, we'd always have elections going nowhere, wouldn't we?

No, and I can't believe you're not getting this, this is the whole point I'm making. Turning out of the base has been the dominant force in elections since 1996 at the least.

 

98, Democratic turnout was pumped by the Impeachment hearings.

00, Democratic turnout was suppressed and Republican turnout pumped by the Clenis and evangelicals.

02, the Iraq war turnout

04 was the gay marriage amendment base turnout election

06-08 Dems turned out like gangbusters to oppose the wars, while Republicans didn't really show up because they weren't enthused about voting for Bush's war.

10, the Tea Party turned out like gangbusters to oppose the Muslim Socialist, while Democrats flat out stayed home because they'd spent 2 years being kicked in the mouth and told to shut up for their own good by the White House.

 

Edit: another thought. This is also why the Republicans stress so much about "Voter Fraud", "ACORN", etc., it turns out their base (elderly white people) but also legally suppresses the Democratic base by making it illegal for poor people to vote because they don't have the proper ID or they're intimidated by messages that they'll get arrested.

[Steve9347]

FOX News accidentally uses picture of Tina Fey instead of Sarah Palin.

 

 

[lostfan]

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politi...orical_account/

 

 

Edit: She probably still overplayed his role, but the fact that there's some much hatred and anger over what she said just speaks volumes about the people that don't like her. Get over it. Geesh. If people stopped reacting that way she'd fade away and never be heard from again (something I'd like to happen).

That's like... technically true, but I'm pretty sure he was detained and questioned by the British (who did not shoot him on sight because he was unarmed). Quite different from deliberately WARNING them. Also only a western Republican in 2011 would try to frame any part of the Revolutionary War as some kind of 2nd Amendment rights thing and ignore the part about the rebel colonies wanting to break from the mother country and place sovereignty in the people

[lostfan]

Did Anthony Weiner's last name really have to be Weiner? It's like he WANTS to be mocked relentlessly. Daily Show and Colbert Report are must-watches tonight

[Steve9347]

Did Anthony Weiner's last name really have to be Weiner? It's like he WANTS to be mocked relentlessly. Daily Show and Colbert Report are must-watches tonight

He's a personal friend of Jon Stewart's... Stewart told him to tell the truth.