Posted on 04/22/2012 6:33:41 AM PDT by lbryce
To what extent is demography destiny in politics? That’s the question that Ruy Teixeira and John Halpin’s much-discussed analysis of the 2012 presidential race puts front and center.
Teixeira and Halpin posit that the balance of two forces, “the shifting demographic balance of the American electorate, and the objective reality and voter perception of the economy in key battleground states,” will likely determine the outcome of Obama’s reelection. At that level of generality, it’s hard to disagree. But I would argue that while demography matters, it is not as significant as Teixeira and Halpin believe. Yes, it makes a difference that Obama’s winning 2008 coalition relied on growing segments of the electorate while the traditional, mostly white Republican base is fated to shrink, election after election. But other things matter at least as much—especially the impact of the past three years on the orientation and enthusiasm of the Obama coalition, for reasons not all of which are rooted in the economy. Put simply: If Obama’s margins shrink among young people, Hispanics, and other key parts of his base while disappointment depresses their turnout, the falloff in Obama’s support will swamp the modest post-2008 demographic shifts in his favor.
While Teixeira and Halpin don’t disagree with my thesis (it’s a matter of simple arithmetic, after all), they systematically underplay the evidence suggesting that it may well come to pass. To redress the imbalance, let’s look at the most recent Gallup numbers from the week of November 21 to 27. Obama’s overall approval rating stood at 43 percent, as it has for more than a month—a level inconsistent with a successful reelection campaign unless there’s a significant third party candidate on the right.
(Excerpt) Read more at freerepublic.com ...
Or a GOP nominee with a 34 percent approval rating.
Like Romney.
He’ll be alright. Plenty of Freepers are doing the dirty work for him already in opponent research.
As in 2008, Obama’s biggest strength is who the R’s put up against him, assuming Romney gets the nom.
Problem is, though I would never vote for Obama, I’m not so sure he’d be worse than Romney. Romney is much more competent and, looking at his track record, that is not a good thing.
Putting a loser up against someone who is in trouble when they both tote the same dogma can make a winner out of trouble in no time at all.
You have to got waaaaaaay back to before I was born to find a Democrat who won an election because people actually liked him. I think you might have to go back to JFK -- but plenty of people say he stole the election from Nixon. So maybe you have to go back to Harry Truman.
People just don't like Democrats. But we still get them.
Odd, ain't it?
Enter Ron Paul, who isn't running for reelection to Congress and would like nothing more than to destroy the party that rejected his nut-ball ideas for years.
Couldn’t use any off your links...circular reference.
Man do you have that right.
It’s a good thing for Zero that the GOP chose a gun grabbing socialist as their candidate, or else he would have been in trouble.
We got Johnson because Johnson had Kennedy hit. Oswald, the lone nut assassin, who was killed by a lone nut assassin (sure) is nothing but a fairy tale the msm has told the American people about for fifty years.
Just sayin’
But he's probably hijacked the vote-counting system, so it's all moot.
I am aware of the list of sources not welcome here at FR. In determining whether or not a news source is one that is approved, I will first do a search to see whether the publication has a posting history, then proceed with attempts at posting it. Banned or unapproved sources as you know quite well will prompt a message stating it as being unapproved.
My search turned up no history for the New Republic, which gave me cause to believe it wouldn't be posted but the subject matter, title was too compelling not to try.
Again, my sincerest apologies, will know better for now on.
Please see post #14.
Give out free marijuana and crack to the urbanites on election day and only the dead vote will show up.
Give out free marijuana and crack to the urbanites on election day and only the dead vote will show up.
We got Nixon because of Johnson and Vietnam (in 1968)
We got Ford because of Nixon
We got Reagan because of Carter (i.e. Carter sucked)
We got Bush 1 because of Dukakis
We got Bush 2 because of Gore
Ofcourse, you could point to Nixon-Reagan 49-state landslides, but those were re-elections.
"People just don't like Democrats" may be too simplistic, and perhaps ok in an echo chamber like FR, just like I can imagine similar observations ("People just hate Republicans") at Upper East Side cocktail parties...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.