Turnout in 2012

[Politico]

This is such BS. The nation is not nearly as right-wing as it was in the 1980s and 1990s. Those were great decades, especially the latter half of each decade. I'll take that any day over Obama's days of malaise. Bill Clinton could never win the support of liberals and progressives in this climate. And he was a great president. The problem is not the right, although some of them are a bit loopy on some social issues, but the left. They have this fantasy belief that government is some panacea that is the solution to any and every economic problem. I am scared where this fantasy will lead if it continues as is or, worse, is fully implemented to the greatest degree possible.

And this is coming from a former Gore and Kerry supporter (And a moderate Obama supporter in 2008).

You are right, our country is no where near as conservative as the 1980s.  That is why it is interesting to see the Republican party move further to the right.  Reagan wouldn't even stand a chance with the modern day conservative GOP base.  He would be labeled as a left wing liberal for having the audacity to slightly raise taxes.   He would be labeled a debt lover because of the increased national debt during the Reagan administration.  He would be labeled as an anti-Business politician because he lacked the utter hatred for unions the way the modern GOP base does.  The conservatives have this fantasy that the invisible hand of the market will magically fix everything.  That's why Texas has more than 27% of it's residents lacking health care insurance whereas Massachusetts has around 5% lacking health care insurance under the guise of a big government plan.

Bill Clinton is not nominated by Democrats in this environment. I think everybody can agree on that, right? As such, I believe the left that has moved too far from the center.

I strongly disagree that Reagan was to the left of Romney, for example (the man I think will win the GOP nomination). I think Reagan easily wins the GOP nomination in this environment. Bill Clinton, however, gets tossed aside like Joe Lieberman by the Democrats, though.

That sums things up for me.

[King]

Gosh, I don't think Mike Naso's heart could take Barack Obama being re-elected. 

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

Bill Clinton is not nominated by Democrats in this environment. I think everybody can agree on that, right?

Neither is Reagan

As such, I believe the left that has moved too far from the center.

Same with Reagan

I strongly disagree that Reagan was to the left of Romney, for example (the man I think will win the GOP nomination). I think Reagan easily wins the GOP nomination in this environment. Bill Clinton, however, gets tossed aside like Joe Lieberman by the Democrats, though.

That sums things up for me.

Reagan

1.  Raised taxes
2.  Negotiated with Democrats
3.  Signed amnesty for illegal immigrants
4.  Admitted that collective bargaining is great for freedom

That sums reality

[Politico]

Bill Clinton is not nominated by Democrats in this environment. I think everybody can agree on that, right?

Neither is Reagan

As such, I believe the left that has moved too far from the center.

Same with Reagan

I strongly disagree that Reagan was to the left of Romney, for example (the man I think will win the GOP nomination). I think Reagan easily wins the GOP nomination in this environment. Bill Clinton, however, gets tossed aside like Joe Lieberman by the Democrats, though.

That sums things up for me.

Reagan

1.  Raised taxes
2.  Negotiated with Democrats
3.  Signed amnesty for illegal immigrants
4.  Admitted that collective bargaining is great for freedom

That sums reality

1. Taxes were much lower in January 1989 than January 1981
2. Reagan largely got what he wanted because of southern Democrats who would be derided as DINOs today
3. The border was not a free-for-all in the 1980s, one of the most tense periods of the Cold War
4. Reagan single-handedly dismantled a major public union (i.e, PATCO). This had not been done before, and possibly never will happen again

This is reality, not spin. With that said, I am willing to cede that Reagan knew when he needed to be pragmatic. The same goes for Clinton. It is a common characteristic of good presidents. But if you really believe the GOP would not nominate Reagan, a man much further to the right of McCain and the Bushes, I do not know what else to say. I will add that I am not a registered Republican, and it appears we are both registered Democrats (although it is growing increasingly difficult to remain as such; the poles of the big tent are becoming wobbly)

[zorkpolitics]

When trying to forecast turnout it might be useful to look at the past:
Year  Vote (millions)  % change from previous election
1976     81.5   
1980     86.3                  5.89%
1984     92.5                  7.18%
1988     91.4                 -1.19%
1992     104.3              14.11%
1996     96.0                 -7.96%
2000     105.1               9.48%
2004     122                 16.08%
2008     131.3               7.62%

First, its interesting that turnout has been increasing faster then voting age population growth since 1996.
Second, despite the hype about Obama spurring a surge in turnout, GW's 2004 election saw almost twice as large an increase over the previous election.
Third, turnout has actually decreased twice in the last 30 yrs and I think 2012 could see a reduced total vote as some disaffected "Hope and Change", low information voters skip voting and the GOP candidates fail to inspire...

[minionofmidas]

That's because 1996 was such a rock-bottom point... and because 2008's turnout increase came on top of 2004's, and 2004's increase (net, and not everywhere) benefitted Democrats.
Oh, and there's the one big exemption to 2008 as a high turnout year... the military. That had record turnout in 2004 and low turnout in 2008, a straight R-to-Not move of large numbers of voters. Wonder how army bases will vote in 2012... if Alcon was still here he could probably tell me how they voted in 2010.

[Guderian]

Political nihilism is definitely on the rise, number of Independents and other non-ideological voters will be lower than in 2008 or 2004 for that matter. Both bases will show up though, and combining that with voting age population growth I would guess about 120-125 million votes will be cast in 2012.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

2012 will likely help Democrats with the military, given foreign policy successes.

[Guderian]

Non-whites joining the middle class instead of "knowing their (subordinate and deprived) places".

 

Are you kidding? That's not a right-wing fear, that's a left-wing fear. Keeping non-whites in the ghetto is requisite for them to continue voting 90% Democratic. Look what happened with so-called white ethnics (that are now hilariously often called Anglos, just like they are WASPs) once they joined the middle class.

[nhmagic]

The left has a delusion that their policies are what the people want.  They always say its about the messenger and the messaging - not the actual policies themselves - when they are regarded as faliures.  Republicans get in trouble when they start acting like democrats and betray pledges they made to the base (like the republicans of 2000-2010).  Republicans that move further to the right are welcomed so long as they articulate (see Rubio).  Democrats get in trouble with the American people because their policies are destined to be failures even prior to implementation - like Obamacare.  The American people never punish democrats for moving to the center (like Clinton), rather it is when they move to the left.  Obama is the most radical, most socialist, left-wing president we have ever had in this country.  He is a true believer in the teachings of Karl Marx and company.  He wants to destroy the country and we will do anything and everything, even vote for people we don't like all that much to turn him out of office before he does anymore damage.  So understand that our intensity is beyond simple anger, its pre-revolutionary.  Rest assured, we will turnout and it won't be even close.

[milhouse24]

I'm starting to think a "Perry-Romney" ticket would be the dream ticket to maximize voter turnout for the GOP.  This is similar to the "Reagan-Bush" ticket.  I see a lot of parallels with the past, Reagan and Nixon were both from California and Perry and Dubya are both from Texas. 

Perry can win Southern Evangelical voters, he's a 3 term governor.  Romney is a single issue candidate, but focusing on the economy will be important as VP for voters and swing voters.  As only a one term governor, Romney doesn't have the conservative gravitas that Perry has, but Romney will be helpful to get skeptical northern white catholics in Ohio and other swing states. 

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The left has a delusion that their policies are what the people want.  They always say its about the messenger and the messaging - not the actual policies themselves - when they are regarded as faliures.  Republicans get in trouble when they start acting like democrats and betray pledges they made to the base (like the republicans of 2000-2010).  Republicans that move further to the right are welcomed so long as they articulate (see Rubio).  Democrats get in trouble with the American people because their policies are destined to be failures even prior to implementation - like Obamacare.  The American people never punish democrats for moving to the center (like Clinton), rather it is when they move to the left.  Obama is the most radical, most socialist, left-wing president we have ever had in this country.  He is a true believer in the teachings of Karl Marx and company. He wants to destroy the country and we will do anything and everything, even vote for people we don't like all that much to turn him out of office before he does anymore damage.  So understand that our intensity is beyond simple anger, its pre-revolutionary.  Rest assured, we will turnout and it won't be even close.

On what planet are you residing?

He may be the most left-wing... but he's still to the right of David Cameron.

It'd be nice to have a political discussion without it dissolving into hysterical political hyperbole.

[Penelope]

The left has a delusion that their policies are what the people want.  They always say its about the messenger and the messaging - not the actual policies themselves - when they are regarded as faliures.  Republicans get in trouble when they start acting like democrats and betray pledges they made to the base (like the republicans of 2000-2010).  Republicans that move further to the right are welcomed so long as they articulate (see Rubio).  Democrats get in trouble with the American people because their policies are destined to be failures even prior to implementation - like Obamacare.  The American people never punish democrats for moving to the center (like Clinton), rather it is when they move to the left.  Obama is the most radical, most socialist, left-wing president we have ever had in this country.  He is a true believer in the teachings of Karl Marx and company.  He wants to destroy the country and we will do anything and everything, even vote for people we don't like all that much to turn him out of office before he does anymore damage.  So understand that our intensity is beyond simple anger, its pre-revolutionary.  Rest assured, we will turnout and it won't be even close.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVMib1T4T4

[nhmagic]

The left has a delusion that their policies are what the people want.  They always say its about the messenger and the messaging - not the actual policies themselves - when they are regarded as faliures.  Republicans get in trouble when they start acting like democrats and betray pledges they made to the base (like the republicans of 2000-2010).  Republicans that move further to the right are welcomed so long as they articulate (see Rubio).  Democrats get in trouble with the American people because their policies are destined to be failures even prior to implementation - like Obamacare.  The American people never punish democrats for moving to the center (like Clinton), rather it is when they move to the left.  Obama is the most radical, most socialist, left-wing president we have ever had in this country.  He is a true believer in the teachings of Karl Marx and company. He wants to destroy the country and we will do anything and everything, even vote for people we don't like all that much to turn him out of office before he does anymore damage.  So understand that our intensity is beyond simple anger, its pre-revolutionary.  Rest assured, we will turnout and it won't be even close.

On what planet are you residing?

He may be the most left-wing... but he's still to the right of David Cameron.

It'd be nice to have a political discussion without it dissolving into hysterical political hyperbole.

David Cameron is a result of a state of dependency that has existed in Britain for decades now.  And what riches has the welfare state you advocate brought the UK?  A burning civilization...all because David Cameron pushed his milquetoast "austerity" package which deprives morally bankrupt Brit Kids of their government subsidized gadgets and electronic devices. 

Evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUzuYoCkYAY

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Higher levels of education, longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality... you know stuff like that.

I don't like the law of the jungle being applied in Government policy...


You really are reaching trying to connect those two.

[J. J.]

  As only a one term governor, Romney doesn't have the conservative gravitas that Perry has, but Romney will be helpful to get skeptical northern white catholics in Ohio and other swing states. 

1.  He alsio has a business background that is impressive.

2.  I don't see a lot of "skeptical northern white catholics" saying, "I don't trust Evangelicals, but Perry must be okay, 'cause Romney is Mormon." 

[Politico]

Higher levels of education, longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality... you know stuff like that.

I don't like the law of the jungle being applied in Government policy...


You really are reaching trying to connect those two.

Nobody is calling for "the law of the jungle," or some sort of lawless society. Government has a role that cannot be fulfilled by the market (e.g, providing a legal structure that ensures law and order domestically, open competition, free flow of commerce, etc.; providing a military to ensure protection from outside forces; providing basic infrastructure such as interstate highways).

Just because the government is necessary to provide some things does not mean it is prudent to have the government provide for almost everything, or even have their hand involved in most things. I suggest exposure to Milton Friedman's work on "The Free Lunch Myth" if you really subscribe to such a bankrupt philosophy.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The left has a delusion that their policies are what the people want.  They always say its about the messenger and the messaging - not the actual policies themselves - when they are regarded as faliures.  Republicans get in trouble when they start acting like democrats and betray pledges they made to the base (like the republicans of 2000-2010).  Republicans that move further to the right are welcomed so long as they articulate (see Rubio).  Democrats get in trouble with the American people because their policies are destined to be failures even prior to implementation - like Obamacare.  The American people never punish democrats for moving to the center (like Clinton), rather it is when they move to the left.  Obama is the most radical, most socialist, left-wing president we have ever had in this country.  He is a true believer in the teachings of Karl Marx and company.  He wants to destroy the country and we will do anything and everything, even vote for people we don't like all that much to turn him out of office before he does anymore damage.  So understand that our intensity is beyond simple anger, its pre-revolutionary.  Rest assured, we will turnout and it won't be even close.

Goldmine material. It's like a parody of the Tea Party.

[Averroës Nix]

Republicans that move further to the right are welcomed so long as they articulate (see Rubio). 

What do they need to articulate? Or do you mean that they need to be articulate?

Democrats get in trouble with the American people because their policies are destined to be failures even prior to implementation - like Obamacare. 

Are the words "even prior to implementation" meant to add any content at all to this sentence?

The American people never punish democrats for moving to the center (like Clinton), rather it is when they move to the left.  Obama is the most radical, most socialist, left-wing president we have ever had in this country.  He is a true believer in the teachings of Karl Marx and company.

If you are willing to attempt to demonstrate through arguments and evidence that this is the case, I would be happy to engage with you. But it is extremely frustrating when someone makes highly provocative accusations and refuses to explain them or provide any reason why they should be taken seriously.

He wants to destroy the country and we will do anything and everything, even vote for people we don't like all that much to turn him out of office before he does anymore damage.  So understand that our intensity is beyond simple anger, its pre-revolutionary.  Rest assured, we will turnout and it won't be even close.

Glad to hear that you'll be taking your primal rage to the polling booth. But honestly speaking, would you (or, generally speaking, people similar to you) not be voting under other circumstances?

(Also, what does "destroying the country" entail, and why would President Obama make that his goal?)

[pbrower2a]

Non-whites joining the middle class instead of "knowing their (subordinate and deprived) places".

 

Are you kidding? That's not a right-wing fear, that's a left-wing fear. Keeping non-whites in the ghetto is requisite for them to continue voting 90% Democratic. Look what happened with so-called white ethnics (that are now hilariously often called Anglos, just like they are WASPs) once they joined the middle class.

No. The black middle class has long been more Democratic-leaning than poor blacks except on housing.  Perhaps such shows that blacks who have middle incomes are more likely to be union members, rely upon welfare recipients as clients or customers, or work for the government in some capacity.

Much the same seems to be happening among non-Cuban Hispanics. If one is a school teacher, one has good reason not to stand with the budget-cutters who would gladly lay one off if such made possible a pay-off to some special interest.

[nhmagic]

Higher levels of education, longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality... you know stuff like that.

I don't like the law of the jungle being applied in Government policy...


You really are reaching trying to connect those two.

How good would you be at micromanaging people's lives?  We are a free people even if that means that we get to choose to be less educated in favor of being wealthier or smoking ourselves to death - I'd take that any day of the week over what you social democracies offer.  You can't make people behave and it isn't your right.

Besides we aren't that far off from those other countries in the measures you mention (well maybe education, but that's another thing altogether).

You may not like the law of the jungle being applied to policy; however, these idiots are burning down their country because in order to save their country financially, the government had to take away some subsidies.  What's worse...they take pleasure in this destruction.  Go read The Time Machine and compare it to what's going on in the UK.

[King]

Nhmagic, have you ever read the Communist Manifesto? If you are going to claim Obama follows the teachings of Karl Marx, you should at least know what those teachings are.  Otherwise, you are just making an assumption.

In fact, you can't really say you are against writings you haven't even read, either.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

Bill Clinton is not nominated by Democrats in this environment. I think everybody can agree on that, right?

Neither is Reagan

As such, I believe the left that has moved too far from the center.

Same with Reagan

I strongly disagree that Reagan was to the left of Romney, for example (the man I think will win the GOP nomination). I think Reagan easily wins the GOP nomination in this environment. Bill Clinton, however, gets tossed aside like Joe Lieberman by the Democrats, though.

That sums things up for me.

Reagan

1.  Raised taxes
2.  Negotiated with Democrats
3.  Signed amnesty for illegal immigrants
4.  Admitted that collective bargaining is great for freedom

That sums reality

1. Taxes were much lower in January 1989 than January 1981
2. Reagan largely got what he wanted because of southern Democrats who would be derided as DINOs today
3. The border was not a free-for-all in the 1980s, one of the most tense periods of the Cold War
4. Reagan single-handedly dismantled a major public union (i.e, PATCO). This had not been done before, and possibly never will happen again

This is reality, not spin. With that said, I am willing to cede that Reagan knew when he needed to be pragmatic. The same goes for Clinton. It is a common characteristic of good presidents. But if you really believe the GOP would not nominate Reagan, a man much further to the right of McCain and the Bushes, I do not know what else to say. I will add that I am not a registered Republican, and it appears we are both registered Democrats (although it is growing increasingly difficult to remain as such; the poles of the big tent are becoming wobbly)

That doesn't change the fact that Reagan raised taxes.  He negotiated with Tip O'Neil, hardly a southern DINO.  Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants.  The bottom line is that Reagan violates so many modern day conservative principles he wouldn't stand a chance.  If any GOP candidate for the 2012 took his stances they would have no chance.  

"Where Collective Bargaining Is Forbidden, Freedom Is Lost"

Imagine any GOP candidate today actually saying that.  This all goes back to your initial point.  Yes the country is nowhere near as conservative as it was in the 1980s.  Yet the GOP keeps moving to the right.

[nhmagic]

Nhmagic, have you ever read the Communist Manifesto? If you are going to claim Obama follows the teachings of Karl Marx, you should at least know what those teachings are.  Otherwise, you are just making an assumption.

In fact, you can't really say you are against writings you haven't even read, either.

Actually yes I have and I can say I am against those writings.  In addition, I've even read many analyses about the Marxian view of public administration - being a grad student in the subject myself.  However, I'm not going play 20 questions with liberals on this board in order to prove my competence.  It's a tactic used to marginalize and smear people.  I don't participate in it.  "Follows the teachings" is hyperbole.  I freely admit it, but this is the internet, a place where it's fun to engage in hyperbole.  President Obama does agree with much of the subject matter within the Communist Manifesto.  In fact, to pun, it's "manifest" within his own rhetoric and the policy choices he makes.  So when I use the phrase "follows the teachings", I use it to a)make it sound dark and malevolent (kind of like Anakin following the teachings of Palpatine, as that is how I feel about it) and b)to illustrate that he indeed does hold a worldview that is relatively in line with Marx.

[Averroës Nix]

Turnout depends on the GOP nominee. I agree that the dem base are likely to be less motivated, but if the nominee is Perry they will turnout because he is scarier than Bush to them. I think GOP turnout will be low if Romney is nominee. The base comprimised last time with McCain and got nothing in return. Plus there are republicans that wont vote for a Mormon.

So with Perry it will be a high turnout election overall, and if Romney a low turnout.

You don't think that Obama will motivate the base by casting Romney as a coastal elitist corporatist with an awkward personality who wears weird jeans?

More seriously, I think that a Perry nomination might keep a lot of swingy voters who aren't willing to vote for Obama again at home but I doubt that this would fully counteract the  positive effect that a Perry nomination would have on turnout among strong Democrats and strong Republicans. (Though I do doubt that there are actually that many Republicans who would stay home rather than vote against Obama.)