May 16, 200917 yr I agree with hearsay 3 and 4 are spot on. Obama enjoys support of the electorate yes. But it is not overwhelming support. Slightly over half. 52.9% of voters voted for him. Here are the percentage votes from elections since 1980: 2008: Obama 52.9% McCain 45.7% 2004: Bush 50.7% Kerry 48.3% 2000: Bush 47.9% Gore 48.4% 1996: Clinton 49.2% Dole 40.7% 1992: Clinton 43.0% Bush 37.4% 1988: Bush 53.4% Dukakis 45.6% 1984: Reagan 58.8% Mondale 40.6% 1980: Reagan 50.7% Carter 41% I put this up because your dismisal of the percentage only being "slightly more than half" is a denial and/or misnomer. As you can see in the above, a nearly 3% majority is a large part of the voting. If you factor in the numer of people voting (particularly in the last few elections as opposed to the number in the 80's it is really "overwhelming." 52.9% is greater than the percentage of George Bush's last 2 election wins (by far), greater than Clinton's percentages, and 3 points greater than the Reagan percentage in 1980! I also believe that the GOP's problem in the populace are deeper than one election. In terms of the popular vote for President they have won only ONE election since 1992. (I'm not disputing 2000 I'm merely pointing out that they lost the popular vote) That's what is disturbing. The Republicans have gone from a stranglehold on the White house for 12 years (1980 to 1992) and control of the both Houses (From 1994 to 2006) to this term. I think all of Habib's points are worth noting. In the 80's the Reagan GOP went from an average of the mid 50's % in 3 elections to cracking the 50% barrier only ONCE. (and that was .7% over) If you think about that time, is their something that was different in the message then versus now? Can I throw out a thought? Talk radio really didn't explode until the 90's. Rush, when Clinton was elected, became a phenom then with both radio and TV shows daily. Could it be the extreme way in which the message of the GOP was interpreted and presented have anything to do with going from a majority base to a no plurality base?
May 16, 200917 yr What I meant to take issue with was Habib's sociological posit that "a President frames a generation." Now, I know that that is what is being studied in coursework and also being studied by some of the thinktanks, because I studied the same thing in 1990 about the Vietnam Era Presidents. However, the sociological coursework has not (like many things in school) bore witness in practice. I am very vested in numerous political circles both in and out of the state, and the crowds I run with (generally Republican supporters) claim to have been hard-core, Democrat-supporting, bra-burning, tie-die wearing hippies when they were younger, who were violently angry at conservative, stuffy, coat-and-tie wearing Republicans who went to church. What changed these people, and we talked about it, was a combination of 1) life, as in having kids, paying a mortgage, dealing with schools, and thinking about church, etc. and 2) general disgustedness with being dependent upon the party, and with politics in general. Therefore, I give no weight to the "President frames the generation" refrain. Life frames each generation, not politics or Presidents. Who you were inspired by (or disgusted by) in your youth loses its luster when you have a child and are paying a mortgage, its as simple as that. It may TAKE longer, depending upon the President or the political program, but in the end, one of things that sustains Republicans, no matter how much they foul it up, is that the coat-and-tie types generally look a little better by perception on family and money issues. Rightly or wrongly.
May 16, 200917 yr People are reading WAY too much into the current situation. These things run in cycles. The democrats went from having the white house, both houses of congress and the governerships in the late 70's to losing all of them over 15 years. Same thing is happening to the republicans now. With today's "satisfy me immediately" mentality I think the cycles will tend to be shorter in the future as both parties continue to display their ability to screw up when they're in power.
May 16, 200917 yr Here are the percentage votes from elections since 1980: 2008: Obama 52.9% McCain 45.7% 2004: Bush 50.7% Kerry 48.3% 2000: Bush 47.9% Gore 48.4% 1996: Clinton 49.2% Dole 40.7% 1992: Clinton 43.0% Bush 37.4% 1988: Bush 53.4% Dukakis 45.6% 1984: Reagan 58.8% Mondale 40.6% 1980: Reagan 50.7% Carter 41% I put this up because your dismisal of the percentage only being "slightly more than half" is a denial and/or misnomer. As you can see in the above, a nearly 3% majority is a large part of the voting. If you factor in the numer of people voting (particularly in the last few elections as opposed to the number in the 80's it is really "overwhelming." 52.9% is greater than the percentage of George Bush's last 2 election wins (by far), greater than Clinton's percentages, and 3 points greater than the Reagan percentage in 1980! I also believe that the GOP's problem in the populace are deeper than one election. In terms of the popular vote for President they have won only ONE election since 1992. (I'm not disputing 2000 I'm merely pointing out that they lost the popular vote) That's what is disturbing. The Republicans have gone from a stranglehold on the White house for 12 years (1980 to 1992) and control of the both Houses (From 1994 to 2006) to this term. I think all of Habib's points are worth noting. In the 80's the Reagan GOP went from an average of the mid 50's % in 3 elections to cracking the 50% barrier only ONCE. (and that was .7% over) If you think about that time, is their something that was different in the message then versus now? Can I throw out a thought? Talk radio really didn't explode until the 90's. Rush, when Clinton was elected, became a phenom then with both radio and TV shows daily. Could it be the extreme way in which the message of the GOP was interpreted and presented have anything to do with going from a majority base to a no plurality base? I don't think so, in fact I believe talk radio was what drove the GOP to gain their power from the mid 90's as they found outlets for their message that were not available to them prior. In todays world with both sides showing their colors on radio, internet and cable I think the messages are tending to get lost in all the "white noise" anyway. Only the true believers and the opposition are listening. I think the middle where the power truly lies has tuned out.
May 16, 200917 yr While I agree, it runs in cycles, your interpretation is off from the data and the comparison. Carter won the presidency in '76 and the Dems controlled Congress (as they had done I think since the 50's). But that was a 4 year blip. Nixon had won the 2 previous elections (after 2 Dem elections). Here are the facts to look at: 1. The GOP won the White House in Five out of Six elections from 1968 to 1992. (If not for Watergate they may have won six out of six) 2. Since 1992 the highest % of population voting for Republican Presidential candidate is 50.7%. (16 years and I might add they only won the Popular Vote that one year) 3. Whether we wish to argue that a President "frames" an era, the facts are that the message of the GOP is not getting out in a construct and way that strikes a chord with the majority of Americans when they vote for President. So I ask, "What is different from the message of 1980 to 1988, that is not resonating today?" If the GOP is ever going to regain the White House, they need to answer that question now.
May 16, 200917 yr I don't think so, in fact I believe talk radio was what drove the GOP to gain their power from the mid 90's as they found outlets for their message that were not available to them prior. In todays world with both sides showing their colors on radio, internet and cable I think the messages are tending to get lost in all the "white noise" anyway. Only the true believers and the opposition are listening. I think the middle where the power truly lies has tuned out. It worked on the Local level but not the National level. It translated into gains in Congress but did not play well to a National level. If not for the Lewinsky affair (just like Nixon and Watergate), I'm not sure Bush would have won in 2000. You are right about the Middle tuning out. I think they are tuning out from disgust. So when they see the rantings of anger, they tend to vote the other way.
May 16, 200917 yr While I agree, it runs in cycles, your interpretation is off from the data and the comparison. Carter won the presidency in '76 and the Dems controlled Congress (as they had done I think since the 50's). But that was a 4 year blip. Nixon had won the 2 previous elections (after 2 Dem elections). Here are the facts to look at: 1. The GOP won the White House in Five out of Six elections from 1968 to 1992. (If not for Watergate they may have won six out of six) 2. Since 1992 the highest % of population voting for Republican Presidential candidate is 50.7%. (16 years and I might add they only won the Popular Vote that one year) 3. Whether we wish to argue that a President "frames" an era, the facts are that the message of the GOP is not getting out in a construct and way that strikes a chord with the majority of Americans when they vote for President. So I ask, "What is different from the message of 1980 to 1988, that is not resonating today?" If the GOP is ever going to regain the White House, they need to answer that question now. I think Habib did latch on to the answer to this one, in that, the Republicans address too many issues. Democrats number one problem is that they really don't stand for anything concrete, they provide no substance or detail to anything they say, and frankly, it works for them. They don't have to address much. They talk generally, every election, about teachers, health care, and workers, and spend the rest of their time responding to statements Republicans make. Republicans, on the other hand, talk about every doggoned thing. Pick 5 issues and hit them hard. Gay marriage, abortion, stem-cell research and a plethora of other domestic agenda items are important to people, but have not become polestar items in the voting booth. If you want to win elections, stop talking about those things as part of your campaign. You can then address them, if you want, AFTER you win the election.
May 16, 200917 yr IMVHO As soon as the Obama Tax Increase hits the GOP will regain the White House. That's possible unless Obama can paint it as the answer to the Bush spending and economy issues under the prior watch. However, that is my problem with the GOP leadership right now. They are not constructing a proactive plan today that will be ready to show the way out. They are relying on outside events to propel them back into power (much as the Dems did) instead of articulating a new vision for America. Reagan constructed his gameplan over the years leading up to 1980. It helped create victory and the way events played out in 1980 helped widen the margin of that victory. But he did not wait to see "what would happen," his plan was ready and being revealed in advance so when elected it was because of a vision he had a leadership path he chose. Not sure if I'm making myself clear or not on this AllTell but one of the things that disgusts me about the current state of leadership is it is feeding off events rather than shaping them.
May 16, 200917 yr I think Habib did latch on to the answer to this one, in that, the Republicans address too many issues. Democrats number one problem is that they really don't stand for anything concrete, they provide no substance or detail to anything they say, and frankly, it works for them. They don't have to address much. They talk generally, every election, about teachers, health care, and workers, and spend the rest of their time responding to statements Republicans make. Republicans, on the other hand, talk about every doggoned thing. Pick 5 issues and hit them hard. Gay marriage, abortion, stem-cell research and a plethora of other domestic agenda items are important to people, but have not become polestar items in the voting booth. If you want to win elections, stop talking about those things as part of your campaign. You can then address them, if you want, AFTER you win the election. Exactly. :thumb: Reagan chose to hammer the Cold War and the Economy. The Moral issues were picked up by surrounding people (i.e. Moral Majority) but he was hitting the core issues that would win. Nixon did this well in '68. He hammered "Peace with Honor" which was a pledge to get out of Vietnam but not the "how to." Humphrey never answered for fear of Johnson until it was too late in the election.
May 16, 200917 yr Here are the percentage votes from elections since 1980: 2008: Obama 52.9% McCain 45.7% 2004: Bush 50.7% Kerry 48.3% 2000: Bush 47.9% Gore 48.4% 1996: Clinton 49.2% Dole 40.7% 1992: Clinton 43.0% Bush 37.4% 1988: Bush 53.4% Dukakis 45.6% 1984: Reagan 58.8% Mondale 40.6% 1980: Reagan 50.7% Carter 41% I put this up because your dismisal of the percentage only being "slightly more than half" is a denial and/or misnomer. As you can see in the above, a nearly 3% majority is a large part of the voting. If you factor in the numer of people voting (particularly in the last few elections as opposed to the number in the 80's it is really "overwhelming." 52.9% is greater than the percentage of George Bush's last 2 election wins (by far), greater than Clinton's percentages, and 3 points greater than the Reagan percentage in 1980! I also believe that the GOP's problem in the populace are deeper than one election. In terms of the popular vote for President they have won only ONE election since 1992. (I'm not disputing 2000 I'm merely pointing out that they lost the popular vote) That's what is disturbing. The Republicans have gone from a stranglehold on the White house for 12 years (1980 to 1992) and control of the both Houses (From 1994 to 2006) to this term. I think all of Habib's points are worth noting. In the 80's the Reagan GOP went from an average of the mid 50's % in 3 elections to cracking the 50% barrier only ONCE. (and that was .7% over) If you think about that time, is their something that was different in the message then versus now? Can I throw out a thought? Talk radio really didn't explode until the 90's. Rush, when Clinton was elected, became a phenom then with both radio and TV shows daily. Could it be the extreme way in which the message of the GOP was interpreted and presented have anything to do with going from a majority base to a no plurality base? It is a majority of slightly more than half. Sorry that is not overwhelming support. I also never claimed that the Republicans had overwhelming support. The only one in your list that can probably lay claim to having overwhelming support was Reagan in 1984. You mention 1980 was a slight majority in the popular vote but electorally it was three times the "landslide" that 2008 was (2008 was a win, but no where near the landslide that 1980 was). Reagan won 44 states to Carter's 6. That is a far cry from Obama winning 28 states. Interesting that in your list only one democrat has managed over 50%.
May 16, 200917 yr It is a majority of slightly more than half. Sorry that is not overwhelming support. I also never claimed that the Republicans had overwhelming support. The only one in your list that can probably lay claim to having overwhelming support was Reagan in 1984. You mention 1980 was a slight majority in the popular vote but electorally it was three times the "landslide" that 2008 was (2008 was a win, but no where near the landslide that 1980 was). Reagan won 44 states to Carter's 6. That is a far cry from Obama winning 28 states. Interesting that in your list only one democrat has managed over 50%. 1. I did not say anything about overwhelming support either. The truth is that the candidate who has had the MOST popular votes in four of the last five elections were Dems. Therefore the GOP has not done a very good job of representing more of America than the other side. 2. I never claimed anything about a "slight majority", I compared and contrasted the percentage points (your argument stance on Obama's %) between Reagan's '80 and Obama's '08 victories. It's just the numbers. We can play with stats all you want. 2008 Obama's "Little more than half" equals to 9.5 MILLION more votes than McCain. 1980 Reagan's margin was 8.5 MILLION votes more than Carter. Electoral College does NOT reflect the MAJORITY of the populace. They are 2 different things. Maybe you are under the impression I'm a Democrat in all of this. I've voted about 50/50, maybe 60-40 to the GOP side in my Presidential elections. The truth is that we can spin anyway you want but 53% is still 9.5 Million votes. It's not that easy to make up 9.5 Million. It sounds easier when you say, "Well, we only have to make up 4%." But anyone will tell you the percentage points in a larger pool are weighted heavier than in a smaller pool. Now that's where the EC comes in and strategy is needed in order to win but that is a different game than saying the "people support or disapprove." (actual votes of the whole) That's all I'm trying to point out. The GOP is having a hard time representing the majority of Americans. At one time they did. Now they have to refocus their energy on what are couple of Core things (as Hearsay pointed out) and hammer just on those, articulate a plan for them and recover the leadership role. What happened (IMO) in 2008 was actually from a classic Michael Douglas line, "When people are dying of thirst they will follow anyone and if need be drink the sand. Not because they are thirsty, but because they don't know any better." That's what happened IMO.
May 16, 200917 yr 1. I did not say anything about overwhelming support either. The truth is that the candidate who has had the MOST popular votes in four of the last five elections were Dems. Therefore the GOP has not done a very good job of representing more of America than the other side. 2. I never claimed anything about a "slight majority", I compared and contrasted the percentage points (your argument stance on Obama's %) between Reagan's '80 and Obama's '08 victories. It's just the numbers. We can play with stats all you want. 2008 Obama's "Little more than half" equals to 9.5 MILLION more votes than McCain. 1980 Reagan's margin was 8.5 MILLION votes more than Carter. Electoral College does NOT reflect the MAJORITY of the populace. They are 2 different things. Maybe you are under the impression I'm a Democrat in all of this. I've voted about 50/50, maybe 60-40 to the GOP side in my Presidential elections. The truth is that we can spin anyway you want but 53% is still 9.5 Million votes. It's not that easy to make up 9.5 Million. It sounds easier when you say, "Well, we only have to make up 4%." But anyone will tell you the percentage points in a larger pool are weighted heavier than in a smaller pool. Now that's where the EC comes in and strategy is needed in order to win but that is a different game than saying the "people support or disapprove." (actual votes of the whole) That's all I'm trying to point out. The GOP is having a hard time representing the majority of Americans. At one time they did. Now they have to refocus their energy on what are couple of Core things (as Hearsay pointed out) and hammer just on those, articulate a plan for them and recover the leadership role. What happened (IMO) in 2008 was actually from a classic Michael Douglas line, "When people are dying of thirst they will follow anyone and if need be drink the sand. Not because they are thirsty, but because they don't know any better." That's what happened IMO. We are both splitting hairs. The Republicans had control of the senate and the house and the white house just 6 years ago. Now the flip side has occurred. Either way, the country is pretty evenly divided along party lines and will probably continue to be that way for years to come.
May 16, 200917 yr Political parties always fascinate me. The Republicans are indeed in trouble and in need of a reorientation. Just a few of my thoughts: Republicans lost this last election not because of message, but because no one believes them anymore. Even now, criticizing the Obama administration for spending is a bit difficult when Republicans presided over drastic increases in spending when they had control. This may be the most accurate point you make. Plenty of people lean toward the Republican side but have a hard time getting energized about candidates who rail against "Democrat spending" and do it themselves.
May 16, 200917 yr While I agree, it runs in cycles, your interpretation is off from the data and the comparison. Carter won the presidency in '76 and the Dems controlled Congress (as they had done I think since the 50's). But that was a 4 year blip. Nixon had won the 2 previous elections (after 2 Dem elections). Here are the facts to look at: 1. The GOP won the White House in Five out of Six elections from 1968 to 1992. (If not for Watergate they may have won six out of six) 2. Since 1992 the highest % of population voting for Republican Presidential candidate is 50.7%. (16 years and I might add they only won the Popular Vote that one year) 3. Whether we wish to argue that a President "frames" an era, the facts are that the message of the GOP is not getting out in a construct and way that strikes a chord with the majority of Americans when they vote for President. So I ask, "What is different from the message of 1980 to 1988, that is not resonating today?" If the GOP is ever going to regain the White House, they need to answer that question now. The message these days is meaningless. It's all about the presentation and the messenger. The GOP will be ok as soon as the DEMs screw up and they have a decent candidate again. It will happen, and sooner rather than later. Then the democrats will be wailing about what they have to do to regain power.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.