Here's another view. Karl Rove was right.

[techs]

Lost in the whole GOP meltdown and debate about the future of the party, is the scary fact that maybe Karl Rove was right.
Think about the losses the Republicans had this year. They barely lost a few of the Senate races. With a little luck the Dems might have only picked up say 2-3 seats. That would have been fantastic considering the economic meltdown, the record low Bush/Republican approval ratings.
And McCain was actually ahead, right up til the economic meltdown and the Palin pick.

In what should have been a Lyndon Johnson type landslide the Dems only got a solid win.
Barely 5 percent of the electorate decided the election for Obama.

The Rove metrics system, where you build a coalition based on one issue voters did NOT fail. Despite a candidate who did not follow the Rovian campaign of fear and hate (or at least not as much as Bush) and whose idea of dirty campaigning was Bill Ayers and not terrorists want to kill your baby or gays want to marry your son, the Republican one issue voters came out strong.
Rove kept the base. In fact, the base is a built in firewall that prevented an FDR type victory. And if you consider McCains 48 million votes were just about 4 million short of Bushes 52 million, you see how few people deserted the Republican party in what should have been a landslide year. And if you take away the 'security moms' who voted for Bush in 2004 because the terrorists want to kill their babies, McCains deficit is probably a million or two smaller.

So in 2012 or 2016 the Repubs start with a good 45 percent of the electorate who will vote their single issue or groups of issues REGARDLESS of the GOP candidate as long as they are sufficiently motivated through fear and hate.

So, take away the economic meltdown, add in the loyal base and the GOP is not in as much trouble as they should have been.




Just looking at the election a different way.
What do ya think?

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: techs
So, take away the economic meltdown, add in the loyal base and the GOP is not in as much trouble as they should have been.

Just looking at the election a different way.
What do ya think?

Why would you remove all the realities of what actually happened? I just don't see what point you're making, outside of fantasy land.

 

[OCGuy]

It would have been closer without the meltdown, but Obama would have still won due to Iraq.

 

[Dufusyte]

All US presidential elections are surprisingly close, even when there is an electoral landslide. Reagan vs Mondale '84 was the largest electoral landslide in US history, but in the popular vote Reagan only got 59%.

The bottom line is that 40some% of the people are always going to vote for the "other guy" no matter what, apparently.

 

[StageLeft]

It's true, obama should have won by more, but a lot of people are just idiots.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: techs
And if you consider McCains 48 million votes were just about 4 million short of Bushes 52 million

Just looking at the election a different way.
What do ya think?

Nice lying, here's a reality check.

57,174,445

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: techs
And if you consider McCains 48 million votes were just about 4 million short of Bushes 52 million

Just looking at the election a different way.
What do ya think?

Nice lying, here's a reality check.

57,174,445

Actually my bad. I got McCains 57 million confused with 48 million (it was 47 the last I looked)
It doesn't change my post at all. But thanks for the correction.

 

[mshan]

60 Senate seats?: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com...008/11/07/1663095.aspx

McLame ran an absolutely inept campaign, and I suspect his closing surge was due to RNC, not him (holy trinity of Reed, Pelosi, Obama scare tactics).

"We?ve devoted a lot of attention the three-legged stool of support that Obama received from African Americans, Hispanics, and voters 18 to 29. NBC?s Ana Maria Arumi projects what would have happened if you had removed one of those legs. When Arumi re-ran the numbers to eliminate all voters under 30, the only states that switched into the McCain column were the narrowly won states of Indiana and North Carolina. If there were no Latinos voting, both New Mexico and Indiana would have switched into the McCain column. However, in the make-believe world where African Americans wouldn't have voted, Obama would have still won most of the states that he won -- but McCain would have taken the swing states of Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Those 107 electoral votes would have then been enough to flip the race. The most important thing to take away from this little experiment: Obama's coalition was much broader than the conventional wisdom suggests."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com...008/11/07/1662499.aspx

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: mshan
60 Senate seats?: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com...008/11/07/1663095.aspx

But my point is that it should have been 60 seats easy. The Dems squeaked by in a few, and the last 3 are thisclose.
Imagine if the economy had waited 2 months to tank?

 

[First]

Originally posted by: techs
Lost in the whole GOP meltdown and debate about the future of the party, is the scary fact that maybe Karl Rove was right.
Think about the losses the Republicans had this year. They barely lost a few of the Senate races. With a little luck the Dems might have only picked up say 2-3 seats.

FYI, the Dems (including both I's who caucus with the Dems) have already netted 6 seats.

That would have been fantastic considering the economic meltdown, the record low Bush/Republican approval ratings.
And McCain was actually ahead, right up til the economic meltdown and the Palin pick.

In what should have been a Lyndon Johnson type landslide the Dems only got a solid win.
Barely 5 percent of the electorate decided the election for Obama.

5% is absolutely huge, and would change most elections in U.S. history drastically.

The Rove metrics system, where you build a coalition based on one issue voters did NOT fail. Despite a candidate who did not follow the Rovian campaign of fear and hate (or at least not as much as Bush) and whose idea of dirty campaigning was Bill Ayers and not terrorists want to kill your baby or gays want to marry your son, the Republican one issue voters came out strong.
Rove kept the base. In fact, the base is a built in firewall that prevented an FDR type victory. And if you consider McCains 48 million votes were just about 4 million short of Bushes 52 million, you see how few people deserted the Republican party in what should have been a landslide year. And if you take away the 'security moms' who voted for Bush in 2004 because the terrorists want to kill their babies, McCains deficit is probably a million or two smaller.

So in 2012 or 2016 the Repubs start with a good 45 percent of the electorate who will vote their single issue or groups of issues REGARDLESS of the GOP candidate as long as they are sufficiently motivated through fear and hate.

So, take away the economic meltdown, add in the loyal base and the GOP is not in as much trouble as they should have been.

Just looking at the election a different way.
What do ya think?

The election wouldn't have been a blowout without the economic collapse timed so well for Obama. But he still would have won. Also, not like we can pretend it didn't happen, woulda shoulda coulda doesn't matter if you don't learn from your mistakes

 

[techs]

But in 1984 Reagan got 58 percent and Mondale 40 percent.
In 1964 Johnson got 61 percent to Goldwaters 38.5

 

[jonks]

someone is messing with wikipedia...rove maybe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...dential_election,_2004
Popular vote
Bush 101,040,610
Kerry 98,028,444

That's some big turnout!

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: jonks
someone is messing with wikipedia...rove maybe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...dential_election,_2004
Popular vote
Bush 101,040,610
Kerry 98,028,444

That's some big turnout!

Dayum. I wonder how long it will take for them to fix it.

 

[smashp]

If you look at the demographics, The republican parties only voting block that they control the Majority of is the 65 and older crowd

every other voter block went to Obama.


Not the exact "demographics" you want to focus on in the future because who know how many elections they have left

 

[HomerJS]

The GOP has too many people like in Alaska who voted for a convicted felon.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: HomerJS
The GOP has too many people like in Alaska who voted for a convicted felon.

Eh, look at the felonies. He accepted gifts for his home and didn't report them, he didn't embezzle public funds or molest anyone. He was senator for 40 years so I can see people going into the voting booth and saying "he's been our senator for 40 years. I don't approve of his impropriety here, but this stuff isn't the most important thing to me given the state of the nation right now." It's fairly understandable imo. NYC re-elected tax-evading Charlie Rangel. No he wasn't convicted, but if he were I seriously doubt it'd make a difference given his constituency.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: techs
Lost in the whole GOP meltdown and debate about the future of the party, is the scary fact that maybe Karl Rove was right.
Think about the losses the Republicans had this year. They barely lost a few of the Senate races. With a little luck the Dems might have only picked up say 2-3 seats. That would have been fantastic considering the economic meltdown, the record low Bush/Republican approval ratings.
And McCain was actually ahead, right up til the economic meltdown and the Palin pick.

In what should have been a Lyndon Johnson type landslide the Dems only got a solid win.
Barely 5 percent of the electorate decided the election for Obama.

So, take away the economic meltdown, add in the loyal base and the GOP is not in as much trouble as they should have been.

Just looking at the election a different way.
What do ya think?

Sadly unless we can stop the vile ant-American propaganda machine from Rove, Rush, Hannity, the religious and the resident Republicans we will be right back to 2001 all over again.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: techs
Lost in the whole GOP meltdown and debate about the future of the party, is the scary fact that maybe Karl Rove was right.
Think about the losses the Republicans had this year. They barely lost a few of the Senate races. With a little luck the Dems might have only picked up say 2-3 seats. That would have been fantastic considering the economic meltdown, the record low Bush/Republican approval ratings.
And McCain was actually ahead, right up til the economic meltdown and the Palin pick.

In what should have been a Lyndon Johnson type landslide the Dems only got a solid win.
Barely 5 percent of the electorate decided the election for Obama.

The Rove metrics system, where you build a coalition based on one issue voters did NOT fail. Despite a candidate who did not follow the Rovian campaign of fear and hate (or at least not as much as Bush) and whose idea of dirty campaigning was Bill Ayers and not terrorists want to kill your baby or gays want to marry your son, the Republican one issue voters came out strong.
Rove kept the base. In fact, the base is a built in firewall that prevented an FDR type victory. And if you consider McCains 48 million votes were just about 4 million short of Bushes 52 million, you see how few people deserted the Republican party in what should have been a landslide year. And if you take away the 'security moms' who voted for Bush in 2004 because the terrorists want to kill their babies, McCains deficit is probably a million or two smaller.

So in 2012 or 2016 the Repubs start with a good 45 percent of the electorate who will vote their single issue or groups of issues REGARDLESS of the GOP candidate as long as they are sufficiently motivated through fear and hate.

So, take away the economic meltdown, add in the loyal base and the GOP is not in as much trouble as they should have been.




Just looking at the election a different way.
What do ya think?

Things will be different in 2012 and 2016 though. That's a simple statement, but it's true. Let's see what happens in the meantime.

For instance, if a few years ago I said that a black man with the name Barack Hussein Obama would beat out the Clintons in the primary and the highly popular McCain in the presidential, by a substantial margin, people would have been highly skeptical.

You could be right, but I expect some significant shifts are likely to occur, and accounting for them isn't yet possible

 

[chrisho]

Originally posted by: HomerJS
The GOP has too many people like in Alaska who voted for a convicted felon.

of course the DNC can celebrate that fact they have a former KKK grand wizard in their party.

 

[Skitzer]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
It's true, obama should have won by more, but a lot of people are just idiots.

Man you are so funny!! I love reading your posts ...... they're always good for a laugh.
Your hatred of anything/anyone to the right of center is astoundingly stupid.
You do realize that you just called almost half the population of the US idiots?

 

[Polish3d]

Stop the pettiness guys its problematic in itself

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Skitzer

Originally posted by: Skoorb
It's true, obama should have won by more, but a lot of people are just idiots.

Man you are so funny!! I love reading your posts ...... they're always good for a laugh.
Your hatred of anything/anyone to the right of center is astoundingly stupid.
You do realize that you just called almost half the population of the US idiots?

Have you ever considered the ideat that almost half the population of the US ARE idiots?
I mean, for goodness sakes, GWB x2?

 

[NeoV]

remember this is the same country that elected GWB - not once, but twice.

Also, when you consider that the two top Democratic candidates were a black man and a polarizing woman, I'm not surprised at all there was still some doubt as to who would win.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Skitzer

Originally posted by: Skoorb
It's true, obama should have won by more, but a lot of people are just idiots.

Man you are so funny!! I love reading your posts ...... they're always good for a laugh.
Your hatred of anything/anyone to the right of center is astoundingly stupid.
You do realize that you just called almost half the population of the US idiots?

Have you ever considered the ideat that almost half the population of the US ARE idiots?
I mean, for goodness sakes, GWB x2?

i dont think GWBx2 has as much to so with stupid people as it has to do with the dems not even trying in 2004

 

[LordSnailz]

Originally posted by: Dufusyte
All US presidential elections are surprisingly close, even when there is an electoral landslide. Reagan vs Mondale '84 was the largest electoral landslide in US history, but in the popular vote Reagan only got 59%.

The bottom line is that 40some% of the people are always going to vote for the "other guy" no matter what, apparently.

Doesn't this beg the question that there is some flaw in your election system? I don't see why we don't use a majority win type of system vs our current one.