Xenophon
Gone and forgotten
Red flag for a sinking Obama: Americans now prefer Hillary Clinton | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times
That can't be good for Barry...
That can't be good for Barry...
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Red flag for a sinking Obama: Americans now prefer Hillary Clinton
- Thread starter Xenophon
- Start date
VaYank5150
Gold Member
Red flag for a sinking Obama: Americans now prefer Hillary Clinton | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times
That can't be good for Barry...
Oh great....in addition to the Tea Baggers, Xeno is also a card carrying PUMA...
- Feb 12, 2007
- 59,384
- 24,018
- 2,290
^^^ Right on cue with his sexual fetish.
Please, go find a site where some guy will fulfill your fantasies for you.
Back on topic.
RealClearPolitics has a very interesting analysis of what 2010 means for the Dems. Most interesting point is how Obama is destroying the Clinton Coalition - alienating the fiscal moderates that gave the Dems a majority:
....The data show that in elections where two of these factors are present, the party that controls the Presidency loses about 50 seats. But in this election, all three factors are present. To get an idea what this means, imagine what 1974 might have looked like if 1972 had produced a Congressional landslide to go with the Presidential landslide, and Republicans had entered the year with 232 seats instead of 192 seats. What if the economy had been in recession in 1966? What if Eisenhower had followed a more partisan agenda before 1958? What if Roosevelt had enjoyed his typical coattails in 1944, instead of receiving the fairly narrow 242 seat majority?
Those elections probably would have looked like 1938, 1894, or 1874. In those elections, the American people took their vengeance out on a party that was perceived as incompetent, and that was predisposed to fall due to the massive size of its majority. What we're seeing in the polls is a manifestation of something similar. While the power of incumbency has increased significantly since the 1950s, it's also true that both the Republicans and the Democrats are national parties now for the first time in our history. If Republicans can win in Massachusetts, they can win just about anywhere. And remember, Republicans don't need to win in Massachusetts for a landslide; they could pick up seventy seats without winning a single one in a Democratic-leaning district.
Analysts also fail to appreciate the damage that Obama has done to the brand that allowed the Democrats to stay competitive in Congress during the 1990s, and win it in the 2000s. As I detailed last November, Bill Clinton's rebranding of the Democratic Party as a more libertarian party - culturally cosmopolitan and antipathetic toward the religious right, fiscally conservative and supportive of balanced budgets - allowed him to take what remained of the Party's historic Democratic base among Jacksonians and the white working class, keep minorities and white liberals, and then add on Northern suburbanites and voters in the Mountain West.
This brand filtered down to the Congressional level, where Democratic candidates could wrap themselves in the "New Democrat" label and win in places where Democrats had been losing ground. Today there are well over a hundred Democrats in these Mountain West/Jacksonian/northern Suburban/working class districts. This includes, by my count, about fifty such seats that the Democrats won from Republicans between 1996-2006, offsetting Republican gains in the Deep South and rural North and preventing Republicans from amassing big majorities during that time.
But Obama is shattering that coalition. As Jay Cost and I observed in early 2009, Obama lost the "Jacksonians" before he was even elected As I noted in my November piece on the Clinton coalition, the 2009 gubernatorial elections indicated that the Jacksonians are continuing to abandon the Democrats, both up and down the ticket.
But 2009 also demonstrated that other critical pieces of the Clinton coalition were abandoning Obama, pieces where Obama himself had actually improved upon Clinton's showings. Suburbia moved toward the Republicans in 2009 in both New Jersey and Virginia, and then did so again in 2010 in the Massachusetts election (Scott Brown handily carried the suburban Fifth, Sixth and Tenth Districts). The Massachusetts election revealed other problems for the Democrats as well. White working class voters in the Second, Third and Ninth Districts voted for the Republican.
The President is also showing real weakness in one more area that is critical to the Democrats' coalition: The Mountain West. For an idea of how the Democrats are faring in swing states, the map below illustrates a rough average of the President's approval in recent state polls. A dark red state has the President's net approval rating at negative 10 or less, while a dark blue state is positive ten or more.
Almost all of the Bush states are 10 points or more against the President now, while Florida and Ohio are close to -10. The President is underwater in all of the Mountain West states except for New Mexico, and badly so. If we extrapolate to the Congressional level, we can probably assume that in the average swing district, Democratic incumbents are probably running into serious headwinds.
The President's weakness in these states reveals another problem for his party. Since he is weak in Republican areas and swing areas, and yet doesn't have horrible approval ratings overall, he must be very, very popular among his party's base. Some polls have his approval ratings among African Americans at 95%. Even in Massachusetts, Martha Coakley managed to win the First, Seventh and Eighth Districts, which are home to the state's liberals and minorities.
The problem for the Democrats is that these voters are packed into a relatively few states and Congressional districts nationwide, diluting their vote share. This is why the median Congressional district is an R+2 district. Thus, the President could have a relatively healthy overall approval rating, but still be fairly unpopular in swing states and districts. The increased enthusiasm that Obama generated among minorities, the young and the liberal is useful, but only if it is realized in conjunction with Democratic approval in a few other categories.
President Obama's policy choices to date are wreaking havoc on the brand that Democrats cultivated carefully over the past twenty years. Bill Clinton worked long and hard to make it so that voters could say "fiscal conservative" and "Democrat" in the same sentence, but voters are finding it difficult to say that again.
If brand damage is truly seeping over into Congressional races - and the polling suggests it is - then the Democrats are in very, very deep trouble this election. There is a very real risk that they could be left with nothing more than Obama's base among young, liberal, and minority voters, which is packed into relatively few Congressional districts. It would be the Dukakis map transformed onto the Congressional level, minus the support in Appalachia. That would surely result in the Democratic caucus suffering huge losses, and in turn produce historic gains for the GOP this November.
RealClearPolitics - How Bad Could 2010 Really Get For Democrats?
Please, go find a site where some guy will fulfill your fantasies for you.
Back on topic.
RealClearPolitics has a very interesting analysis of what 2010 means for the Dems. Most interesting point is how Obama is destroying the Clinton Coalition - alienating the fiscal moderates that gave the Dems a majority:
....The data show that in elections where two of these factors are present, the party that controls the Presidency loses about 50 seats. But in this election, all three factors are present. To get an idea what this means, imagine what 1974 might have looked like if 1972 had produced a Congressional landslide to go with the Presidential landslide, and Republicans had entered the year with 232 seats instead of 192 seats. What if the economy had been in recession in 1966? What if Eisenhower had followed a more partisan agenda before 1958? What if Roosevelt had enjoyed his typical coattails in 1944, instead of receiving the fairly narrow 242 seat majority?
Those elections probably would have looked like 1938, 1894, or 1874. In those elections, the American people took their vengeance out on a party that was perceived as incompetent, and that was predisposed to fall due to the massive size of its majority. What we're seeing in the polls is a manifestation of something similar. While the power of incumbency has increased significantly since the 1950s, it's also true that both the Republicans and the Democrats are national parties now for the first time in our history. If Republicans can win in Massachusetts, they can win just about anywhere. And remember, Republicans don't need to win in Massachusetts for a landslide; they could pick up seventy seats without winning a single one in a Democratic-leaning district.
Analysts also fail to appreciate the damage that Obama has done to the brand that allowed the Democrats to stay competitive in Congress during the 1990s, and win it in the 2000s. As I detailed last November, Bill Clinton's rebranding of the Democratic Party as a more libertarian party - culturally cosmopolitan and antipathetic toward the religious right, fiscally conservative and supportive of balanced budgets - allowed him to take what remained of the Party's historic Democratic base among Jacksonians and the white working class, keep minorities and white liberals, and then add on Northern suburbanites and voters in the Mountain West.
This brand filtered down to the Congressional level, where Democratic candidates could wrap themselves in the "New Democrat" label and win in places where Democrats had been losing ground. Today there are well over a hundred Democrats in these Mountain West/Jacksonian/northern Suburban/working class districts. This includes, by my count, about fifty such seats that the Democrats won from Republicans between 1996-2006, offsetting Republican gains in the Deep South and rural North and preventing Republicans from amassing big majorities during that time.
But Obama is shattering that coalition. As Jay Cost and I observed in early 2009, Obama lost the "Jacksonians" before he was even elected As I noted in my November piece on the Clinton coalition, the 2009 gubernatorial elections indicated that the Jacksonians are continuing to abandon the Democrats, both up and down the ticket.
But 2009 also demonstrated that other critical pieces of the Clinton coalition were abandoning Obama, pieces where Obama himself had actually improved upon Clinton's showings. Suburbia moved toward the Republicans in 2009 in both New Jersey and Virginia, and then did so again in 2010 in the Massachusetts election (Scott Brown handily carried the suburban Fifth, Sixth and Tenth Districts). The Massachusetts election revealed other problems for the Democrats as well. White working class voters in the Second, Third and Ninth Districts voted for the Republican.
The President is also showing real weakness in one more area that is critical to the Democrats' coalition: The Mountain West. For an idea of how the Democrats are faring in swing states, the map below illustrates a rough average of the President's approval in recent state polls. A dark red state has the President's net approval rating at negative 10 or less, while a dark blue state is positive ten or more.
Almost all of the Bush states are 10 points or more against the President now, while Florida and Ohio are close to -10. The President is underwater in all of the Mountain West states except for New Mexico, and badly so. If we extrapolate to the Congressional level, we can probably assume that in the average swing district, Democratic incumbents are probably running into serious headwinds.
The President's weakness in these states reveals another problem for his party. Since he is weak in Republican areas and swing areas, and yet doesn't have horrible approval ratings overall, he must be very, very popular among his party's base. Some polls have his approval ratings among African Americans at 95%. Even in Massachusetts, Martha Coakley managed to win the First, Seventh and Eighth Districts, which are home to the state's liberals and minorities.
The problem for the Democrats is that these voters are packed into a relatively few states and Congressional districts nationwide, diluting their vote share. This is why the median Congressional district is an R+2 district. Thus, the President could have a relatively healthy overall approval rating, but still be fairly unpopular in swing states and districts. The increased enthusiasm that Obama generated among minorities, the young and the liberal is useful, but only if it is realized in conjunction with Democratic approval in a few other categories.
President Obama's policy choices to date are wreaking havoc on the brand that Democrats cultivated carefully over the past twenty years. Bill Clinton worked long and hard to make it so that voters could say "fiscal conservative" and "Democrat" in the same sentence, but voters are finding it difficult to say that again.
If brand damage is truly seeping over into Congressional races - and the polling suggests it is - then the Democrats are in very, very deep trouble this election. There is a very real risk that they could be left with nothing more than Obama's base among young, liberal, and minority voters, which is packed into relatively few Congressional districts. It would be the Dukakis map transformed onto the Congressional level, minus the support in Appalachia. That would surely result in the Democratic caucus suffering huge losses, and in turn produce historic gains for the GOP this November.
RealClearPolitics - How Bad Could 2010 Really Get For Democrats?
xsited1
Agent P
Xenophon
Gone and forgotten
- Thread starter
- #5
Don't you ever grow tired of trying to suck your own dick?Red flag for a sinking Obama: Americans now prefer Hillary Clinton | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times
That can't be good for Barry...
Oh great....in addition to the Tea Baggers, Xeno is also a card carrying PUMA...
VaYank5150
Gold Member
Don't you ever grow tired of trying to suck your own dick?Red flag for a sinking Obama: Americans now prefer Hillary Clinton | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times
That can't be good for Barry...
Oh great....in addition to the Tea Baggers, Xeno is also a card carrying PUMA...
Don't you ever grow tired of being jealous of those of us who can?
Xenophon
Gone and forgotten
- Thread starter
- #7
No, I would not be jealous of that, but its interesting to hear that you would love to do so, and that you actually believe that penis in your mouth is really yours.Don't you ever grow tired of trying to suck your own dick?Oh great....in addition to the Tea Baggers, Xeno is also a card carrying PUMA...
Don't you ever grow tired of being jealous of those of us who can?
Similar threads
- Replies
- 40
- Views
- 355
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 63
- Replies
- 49
- Views
- 432
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 270
- Views
- 980
- Replies
- 1K
- Views
- 14K
- Replies
- 20
- Views
- 50
- Replies
- 2K
- Views
- 69K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8037
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 468
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-