For the first time in history...

[OCinBuffalo]

http://reason.com/bl...dent-re-elected

 

Barack Obama First President Re-Elected With Less Popular, Electoral Support Second Time Around

 

Ed Krayewski| Nov. 19, 2012 11:26 am

 

With just over 63 million votes this cycle and just under 70 million in 2008, President Obama became the first president to be re-elected to the office with less votes than he was first elected with since every state moved to deciding electors by popular vote. Prior to that, only George Washington got less votes in his re-election; he faced no opposition and only a few thousand people in a few states actually voted.

Yep. There are all kinds of observations of this data that just doesn't match history, and strongly indicate that 2012 was an outlier.

 

Unemployment, approval rating, demographics...all the same: 2012 was odd.

 

A lot of evidence for outlier, and very little for "normal". What evidence there is, per my link above in response to the OP...is inconsistent at best and flat out contradictory at worst.

 

But the key takeaway is down turnout. IF we were to believe that 2012 was indicative of a new norm, and that demographics and lack of support for things like Gay Marriage meant real problems for Rs, then the turnout would not have dropped as much as it did.

 

2012 appears to be 100% about who the candidates were, personally. Which is why the expected demographic turnouts weren't even close to being right.

 

IF that is true, then all Rs need to do is nominate somebody who can connect with a friggin voter. Because: look at the issue by issue polls, 33-37% support for the D position. The Democratic Agenda hasn't been this bad off since 1993, if not, 1979. You don't have guys like Joe Klein fearing for the future of "activist government" less than 100 days after winning a Presidential election...if it doesn't matter who the President is personally, because demographics means Ds will always win.

Edited May 10, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[Juror#8]

I don't believe blacks will come out nearly as high in numbers (% wise) for Hillary or any other white Democratic future nominee as they did for Obama, unless of course the candidate is black or has a strong "connection" with the black community.

 

I hate to think that black folks came out to vote simply because there was a black candidate.

 

And doesn't the Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Alan Keyes, etc. experiences belie that thought somewhat.

 

Kerry received the lion share of the black vote in 2004 even against a determined Sharpton candidacy (trying to find the stat sheet but I've seen them before).

 

EDIT

 

In the interest of fairness and willingness to admit being wrong (cause it goes completely against my thesis that 'black folks aren't going to turn out in greater numbers simply for a black candidate'):

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/13/us/jackson-share-of-votes-by-whites-triples-in-88.html

 

Apparently Jesse Jackson was the solid number two in the 88 Democractic primary largely on the strength of the black vote. He still had 2.1 million white voters in that contest but nearly twice as many blacks.

 

I guess my people WERE not as heterogenous and philosophically diverse as I may have deluded myself into thinking...

 

But the Kerry/Sharpton point still stands. As does the Keyes/Bush point. The black candidate didn't receive the majority of the black vote in those recent instances.

[Juror#8]

2 things:

 

First this: http://www.realclear..._a_mistake.html Clearly everbody, even Trende, is still a little weirded out by 2012, and he's right to say: we don't know, because we know there's a problem. In fact, it's quite possible that blacks voted the same as whites, or even less, but over-reported. Turnout was absolutely down from 2008-2012. That alone tells us we should be very skeptical of any "demographics means Ds win forever" predictions. Therefore, we should also be skeptical of any "Rs have to change" wisdom, because if the electorate is "normalized" in 2016, that simply isn't the case.

 

Then this: This election was unprecedented. Period. Anybody who says different is lying to themselves. IF the Gallup demo model was correct, then Obama loses. It wasn't, for the first time: ever. Saying you predicted that = saying you predicted the Bills comeback against the Oilers.

 

Gallup's demographic model is not a poll. It's a friggin huge dataset. It's purpose is to determine the expected demographic makeup of the electorate. It's supposed to set a baseline so that it can be used to correct polls that deviate from the expected demos. If it is wrong, then all bets are off. Thing is, it's never been this wrong, until 2012.

 

Nobody saw that coming. We are supposed to be able to count on a sample size of 20+k. Perhaps Gallup's error came from the same place that the link above describes? We can't know.

 

What does this all mean? Well, either we are living in completely different times, over night, or, the 2012 election is an outlier. It's doubtful 2014 will help, because everything currently points to a repeat of 2010, in terms of the electorate. We'll see. Most likely, we won't really know if 2012 was an outlier, or if it truly does represent a new reality, until election night 2016.

 

A safe bet: 2012s demographic makeup is highly unlikely to happen again, because the Ds can't run a black guy for President for the first time, ever, again. It's just as unlikely as the Rs running a Mormon from the NE, whose personality is a liability, ever again.

 

I'm not going to say I predicted it, cause I didn't - but I mentioned in threads leading up to the election that a friend of mine was telling me that WH internals were showing Obama in a near landlside (check out some of those old election threads). I mentioned (because I was told) that they had VA and PA solid for BO a week out. That is what I was being told. So somebody knew something that was statistically accurate.

 

Literally, two weeks before election, I was being told that it was entirely turnout - that they had the mechanics and the preliminary numbers for the win...with a cushion.

 

I still remember Doc commenting something to the effect of: "Obama would think that because he is delusional..."

[Magox]

I hate to think that black folks came out to vote simply because there was a black candidate.

 

No, not just because he was black... They wouldn't of come out if Herman Cain was on the GOP ticket.

 

But let's be real here, the fact that there was a legitimate black candidate running for office (unlike Jesse Jackson), they came out in record numbers,and when they saw him under withering attack over the past few years primarily from white GOP voters, they stuck together and made damn sure that their voices were going to be heard through their votes, and you and I both know that by and large, if there is a "legitimate" black candidate that believes in policies that they believe in, it is a largely monolithic voting block....

 

If Hillary runs I assure you that they won't come out nearly in the numbers that they did for Obama.

[OCinBuffalo]

I'm not going to say I predicted it, cause I didn't - but I mentioned in threads leading up to the election that a friend of mine was telling me that WH internals were showing Obama in a near landlside (check out some of those old election threads). I mentioned (because I was told) that they had VA and PA solid for BO a week out. That is what I was being told. So somebody knew something that was statistically accurate.

 

Literally, two weeks before election, I was being told that it was entirely turnout - that they had the mechanics and the preliminary numbers for the win...with a cushion.

 

I still remember Doc commenting something to the effect of: "Obama would think that because he is delusional..."

2 weeks out....is not when the Gallup Demo Model was created. It starts for real at least a year in advance, so that it can be used to correctly weight poll samples. And, of course, it's an ongoing process over time. The entire thing comes down to: if you looked at the Gallup model, as we have since literally forever, it said that the polls were significantly biased. The process for buidling the demo model hasn't changed, and it has been consistently accurate. But not this time.

 

This is why I'm fairly certain that 2012 demo electorate will never happen again, because it contradicts too many long term trends.

 

As far as black people voting black? Are you kiddding me? Yeah Jesse Jackson. That's a lesson the Ds learned well.

 

Just like with Jesse J, a black president is a symbol, a trophy, really, that is a whole lot more important to black people that any other rational argument. Once they elected the man, doesn't matter who, they sure as hell weren't going to have him go down in flames as the Affirmative Action President(that he so obviously is), and have people like me say "I told you so"(because...like I wouldn't ). And, they absolutely did not want to issue a free license to people, not like me, to tell their kids horrible things like "see, black people can't be president". Whether that is real, in a large enough number to matter, or not?

 

No. They weren't taking any chances. The preservation of the symbol is far and away too important. That's the demographic that showed up in 2012, along with a whole lot of white people who didn't show up, for lots of reasons, and a whole lot of latinos that went aloing with the black people for the ride. And frankly, under those terms, I don't blame anybody for anything.

 

The country can endure 4 years of this clown, especially since he's already a lame duck, and therefore, there is little he can do to F things up worse. Currently there's more evidence for than against, that his FAIL = the Rs get the Senate in 2014. So, I say "have your symbol, that is ultimately irrelevant, whose failure ensures D defeats for the next 2 elections".

 

No, not just because he was black... They wouldn't of come out if Herman Cain was on the GOP ticket.

 

If Hillary runs I assure you that they won't come out nearly in the numbers that they did for Obama.

Yes they wouldn't have voted for Cain, but not because he was Republican.

 

As I said, a black president was a trophy. You don't let somebody tarnish your trophy by saying "see, he actually just an affirmative action president", and have him be a 1 term guy. They've proven that the symbol was more important to them than any policy.

 

Going to Cain, even though he is black, tarnishes the trophy. Now, if Cain comes out and runs for 2016? Hmm. That's a completely different ball game.

 

And I say, if the trophy truly was that important to them, what's wrong with them having it? Certainly it goes a long way towards healing the psychological divide. And, if it lulls the Democrats into believing that most people like their policies, which merely sets them up to be squished in 2014 and 2016, where's the problem?

Edited May 10, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[Juror#8]

2 weeks out....is not when the Gallup Demo Model was created. It starts for real at least a year in advance, so that it can be used to correctly weight poll samples. And, of course, it's an ongoing process over time. The entire thing comes down to: if you looked at the Gallup model, as we have since literally forever, it said that the polls were significantly biased. The process for buidling the demo model hasn't changed, and it has been consistently accurate. But not this time.

 

This is why I'm fairly certain that 2012 demo electorate will never happen again, because it contradicts too many long term trends.

 

As far as black people voting black? Are you kiddding me? Yeah Jesse Jackson. That's a lesson the Ds learned well.

 

Just like with Jesse J, a black president is a symbol, a trophy, really, that is a whole lot more important to black people that any other rational argument. Once they elected the man, doesn't matter who, they sure as hell weren't going to have him go down in flames as the Affirmative Action President(that he so obviously is), and have people like me say "I told you so"(because...like I wouldn't ). And, they absolutely did not want to issue a free license to people, not like me, to tell their kids horrible things like "see, black people can't be president". Whether that is real, in a large enough number to matter, or not?

 

No. They weren't taking any chances. The preservation of the symbol is far and away too important. That's the demographic that showed up in 2012, along with a whole lot of white people who didn't show up, for lots of reasons, and a whole lot of latinos that went aloing with the black people for the ride. And frankly, under those terms, I don't blame anybody for anything.

 

The country can endure 4 years of this clown, especially since he's already a lame duck, and therefore, there is little he can do to F things up worse. Currently there's more evidence for than against, that his FAIL = the Rs get the Senate in 2014. So, I say "have your symbol, that is ultimately irrelevant, whose failure ensures D defeats for the next 2 elections".

 

 

Yes they wouldn't have voted for Cain, but not because he was Republican.

 

As I said, a black president was a trophy. You don't let somebody tarnish your trophy by saying "see, he actually just an affirmative action president", and have him be a 1 term guy. They've proven that the symbol was more important to them than any policy.

 

Going to Cain, even though he is black, tarnishes the trophy. Now, if Cain comes out and runs for 2016? Hmm. That's a completely different ball game.

 

And I say, if the trophy truly was that important to them, what's wrong with them having it? Certainly it goes a long way towards healing the psychological divide. And, if it lulls the Democrats into believing that most people like their policies, which merely sets them up to be squished in 2014 and 2016, where's the problem?

 

I can't comprehend this idea of an "affirmative action" president.

 

What makes him that? Because he is black? His experience?

 

Do you really think that an entire nation of voters would put a man in office because of his racial identifcation? And then re-elect him? Your premise is built on the idea that he was initially an affirmative action candidate - but then he was re-elected to preserve the image.

 

I think that you're losing sight of a plain evidentiary truth - more people thought he did a good job than thought he did a bad job. And in order to reconcile that reality with your vision of the archtypal commander-in-chief, you've created this fancy about "preserving the symbol."

 

Let's just call it what it is...there are people who feel that the guy is competent and knows what he's doing.

 

And count me in with those folks. I differ with Obama supporters in that I think that there are folks who could do a better job and I'm not willing to settle for just "ok." That is why I voted for someone else.

 

But let's go back to his "experience" (which is what I assume predicates your case for the "affirmative action president" characterization).

 

Why do we pick presidents? Because of their "resume" or because they are more persuasive?

 

If it is strictly "resume," why did it take McCain so long to get the nomination? How did Kennedy beat Nixon? How did a man with extensive military experience, CIA background, ambassadorships, VP, and US presidential experience, lose to a two term governor from the arm pit of America? How did an ambassador, a senator, wife to a two term president, and someone who had dealt intimately with the machinations of legislative politics, lose to a first term US Senator from Illinois?

 

While we're at it, how did Dwight Eisenhower even become president - he was just a general? Ulysses Grant too. What about Grover Cleveland, Buffalo's favored son? Was Lincoln qualified? Were there even qualifications back then? Woodrow Wilson was a governor for two years. Teddy Roosevelt, one of my favorite presidents, had to have been a lifelong politician to be so effective once he ascended to the presidency, right? No, he was a state governor for half a term, and a VP for 7 months. Surely Roosevelt, the younger, was a prior beheamoth of national politics? He was one of the singularly greatest and most influential presidents that we've ever had.

 

Alas, he was only a one term governor.

 

Carter was more qualified than Reagan. How did Reagan defeat him? Reagan was a two term governor of California and an actor before that. Jimmy Carter was the president, and governor before that, and a state senator prior to that. Jimmy Carter was substantially more qualified under the circumstances to BE president.

 

And while we're on the topic, how does any challenger beat an incumbent absent reckless behavior or dereliction of duty on the part of the incumbent. The incumbent is doing the job. Who can be more experienced than that?

 

Obama had MUCH MORE political experience than Eisenhower did prior to becoming president. Eisenhower is my favorite president.

 

Why isn't Eisenhower an affirmative action president? He can represent the contingent of old white guys with male pattern balding.

 

Obama had as much experience as Teddy Roosevelt (though you'll make the distinction of executive vs. legislative experience).

 

Is Teddy Roosevelt similarly an "affirmative action" president? And if so, what class would he represent? How about the big game hunter, wilderness, thrill seeking, class?

 

Why is Obama the only affirmative action president? If it's cause he's black, then ok. It would invalidate the thrust of your argument but at least we'd know that you think that black canadidates who don't conform to your philosophical political persuation HAD TO HAVE BEEN elected based on their skin color.

 

Cause otherwise, OC, Obama is just another in a long trend of folks (Eisenhower, Roosevelt, Roosevelt, etc.) who were elected because they appealed to the electorate as refreshing and better than the next guy at the debate table.

 

The point that I was making, am making, have made, (best expressed in the "incumbent vs. challenger" portion above) is that there is some reason that the electorate chooses a less qualified person over a more qualified person.

 

Why do you assume that the reason is any different than the same reason that the electorate has relied on for the last 200+ years to justify their votes for inexperience over experience in that exact same scenario?

 

Just because he's black?

 

Was Clinton secretly "black"? Was Eisenhower a mulatto? How about Lincoln? He did free the slaves. Could there have been some personal motivation there to free *his* people? Black folks do come in all colors, and hues. Mariah Carey could pass as white but she is black. Wentworth Miller, Maya Rudolph, and Rashida Jones, Vin Diesel, and Slash (of Gun's and Roses fame) are all black. My brother's close friend (and I think he's screwing her), Karen Finney, could also pass as white. Nope, she's black.

 

Maybe all those comparatively inexperienced presidents were affirmative action hires too. They just had the Vin Diesel ambiguity going on so you assumed they were white.

 

All jokes aside, absent some creative explantion, it seems like the only one preoccupied with color is you (and please don't respond with "you can bring up history all you want, but you know..." Cause no, I don't know).

Edited May 13, 2013 by Juror#8

[OCinBuffalo]

I can't comprehend this idea of an "affirmative action" president.

 

What makes him that? Because he is black? His experience?

 

Do you really think that an entire nation of voters would put a man in office because of his racial identifcation? And then re-elect him? Your premise is built on the idea that he was initially an affirmative action candidate - but then he was re-elected to preserve the image.

No, I don't think any of that. You'll see....

 

I think Obama et al used to work at the same hospital in Chicago, and that this group of opportunists did a very fine job of taking advantage of the opportunity that no WMDs in Iraq created. Then, I think these opportunists created the "we don't want people to think he's an AA President" inculcation. Which nobody was saying. That nobody was saying that, until the opportunists posited the "some people hate Obama because he is black" ? That's the "take advantage" part.

 

Bill Clinton, not me, said as much a long time ago.

I think that you're losing sight of a plain evidentiary truth - more people thought he did a good job than thought he did a bad job. And in order to reconcile that reality with your vision of the archtypal commander-in-chief, you've created this fancy about "preserving the symbol."

I think the people who created this 1st black President = warm and fuzzy positive meme = "vote for Obama and self-congratulate for being: enlightened", are the same people who have created the "Agenda About Nothing". Following Seinfeld's example, you can't be criticized for an agenda about nothing, and just like Seinfeld, the important...is whatever we happen to be talking about today.

 

Once in office, you can't be criticized for doing nothing, after the initial things you did, Stimulus, Obamacare, were horrible...since doing nothing now is an "improvement" over that. Hence, the 2012 Agenda About Nothing.

 

Thus, the only tangible thing was "the symbol", and, since that was the only thing there is to know about Obama, why would anybody vote against that?

Let's just call it what it is...there are people who feel that the guy is competent and knows what he's doing.

Sure, let's call it what it is: I am sure there are lots of people who feel that, but very few who actually think it.

And count me in with those folks. I differ with Obama supporters in that I think that there are folks who could do a better job and I'm not willing to settle for just "ok." That is why I voted for someone else.

Only an idiot doesn't know that, never mind think it.

But let's go back to his "experience" (which is what I assume predicates your case for the "affirmative action president" characterization).

 

Why do we pick presidents? Because of their "resume" or because they are more persuasive?

Neither, with Obama.

 

Look the Iraq/WMD thing created a unique opportunity. The far left saw an opportunity to one of theirs into the WH. The soaring speaking skills are the icing, not the cake. The cake is that you have an intelligent black guy who thinks socialist, but is able to speak/behave moderate, and that is his appeal to the far left. Nobody wants their ideas, so, you have to have a guy who can disguise them.

 

They win the election. But, what they didn't count on him being an empty suit. I honestly did not. I figured that he would learn on the job, and that the beginning would be rocky, but that he'd improve.

 

Who expected him to be lazy? To refuse to take his job seriously? To refuse to immediately start working Congress, which by LBJ's account, is job #1?

 

The left bought their shiny new toy, came home and found an empty box with a note inside that said: "I got this".

If it is strictly "resume," why did it take McCain so long ...Eisenhower... Teddy Roosevelt

A wonderful recollection of history.

 

It all means: the great ones, however they get there, lead once they do.

The weak ones, who got there as a preordained symbol: are utterly feckless once they do. Or, is Obamacare, Obamacare, or is it "SomethingCongressMadeUpACare"?

 

Would Teddy Roosevelt stand for this thing, created without his having a say on every detail, being called TeddyCare?

 

Eisenhower was a symbol too. He could have run for either party and won. The difference between Eisenhower and Obama? Eisenhower led something a little bit bigger than a parade prior to taking the job. Same question: IkeCare?

 

Obama doesn't care, because he doesn't know enough to know that he should.

Why is Obama the only affirmative action president? If it's cause he's black, then ok. It would invalidate the thrust of your argument but at least we'd know that you think that black canadidates who don't conform to your philosophical political persuation HAD TO HAVE BEEN elected based on their skin color.

I said that to make a point, but not the one you thought. (I tend to do that, you see, ) And, I see that it has worked perfectly.

 

 

----->Look how agitated it has made you. Not crazy, not unhinged. Agitated. Your post is written in the language of the agitated.

 

 

Now, take that same agitation, and transfer it to every black American voter. What do you get? Is anybody thinking about Obama's results/qualifications/issues anymore?

 

 

Nope.

 

 

I am saying that Axelrod, not me, called him the Affirmative Action President long before any of us even knew who Obama was. Axelrod created the inference, and left it around for everybody to pick up. What is it exactly? Imagine a memo that says: "Hey, Obama's great and all but what if people say he doesn't have enough experience, and call him the Affirmative Action President" with "From the Desk of David Axelrod" written at the bottom.

 

Now, every single black person in the country knows that memo, and the feeling that comes from it. Especially the white collar people. The notion that "well you really don't belong here, but, since you're here, we might as well give you something to do, so..." is feared, and people have heard about it from their friends.

 

It is the basis(at least in part) of your agitation, isn't it?

Edited May 13, 2013 by OCinBuffalo