A question for Democrats

[Eraserhead]

Since we won't have to worry about our primaries, will you be able to take more pleasure out of the GOP's? For me, the answer is most certainly "yes". I'll have a lot more time to follow all of the amusing developments. Let's hope for a hard-fought and interesting 50 state contest.

[Joe Biden 2020]

It will sure be interesting to see who the Republicans select to face Obama.  Of course, I'll have to wait and see how Obama does before I automatically commit to supporting him in 2012.

[Countess Anya of the North Parish]

yes. That will be some good times

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I can't wait for the GOP primaries, although it kind of depends on who runs.  If someone great, like Petraeus, or Hagel, runs, then I'll be much more interested; but if only right wing conservatives run, I'll be less into it.

[Eraserhead]

Hagel isn't going to run against the guy he voted for.

[HappyWarrior]

Not at all, I think what made Obama such a strong candidate in this recently passed election was the fact that nothing was taken for granted and the extended primary season allowed him to build up his orginization in several key states like IN and NC.  Without this primary season we absolutely need to stay on our toes and I have a feeling the Republicans may nominate a strong candidate in this election.  I have a very bad feeling about '12.

[Joe Biden 2020]

I have a very bad feeling about '12.

History shows that Obama will not be re-elected in 2012.  We have not had three 8-year presidents since FDR/Truman/Ike and before that, IIRC, was Jefferson/Madison/Monroe.

That said, if 2008 was any guide, we can throw history out the window.  I mean who would have thought we would be electing either the first woman, the first black, or the oldest man ever to a first term.  Basically, history says we can throw history out the window.

I'm cautiously optimistic about Obama's chances in 2012, though I'm going to get a look at his Presidency before I make a decision to support him or the Republican candidate.

[Mr. Morden]

I have a very bad feeling about '12.

History shows that Obama will not be re-elected in 2012.  We have not had three 8-year presidents since FDR/Truman/Ike and before that, IIRC, was Jefferson/Madison/Monroe.

Of course, he could always die or resign before the end of his second term, in which case he wouldn't be an 8-year president.  Part of the reason why we haven't had many consecutive 8-year presidencies is because presidents used to die in office more frequently.

[Daniel Z]

I have a very bad feeling about '12.

History shows that Obama will not be re-elected in 2012.  We have not had three 8-year presidents since FDR/Truman/Ike and before that, IIRC, was Jefferson/Madison/Monroe.

Of course, he could always die or resign before the end of his second term, in which case he wouldn't be an 8-year president.  Part of the reason why we haven't had many consecutive 8-year presidencies is because presidents used to die in office more frequently.

Yes we went from 1932 to 1976 with out an incumbent President being defeated.

[Bacon King]

I have a very bad feeling about '12.

History shows that Obama will not be re-elected in 2012.  We have not had three 8-year presidents since FDR/Truman/Ike and before that, IIRC, was Jefferson/Madison/Monroe.

Of course, he could always die or resign before the end of his second term, in which case he wouldn't be an 8-year president.  Part of the reason why we haven't had many consecutive 8-year presidencies is because presidents used to die in office more frequently.

Yes we went from 1932 to 1976 with out an incumbent President being defeated.

Or, to state that in a different way, only a single incumbent Democrat lost reelection in the 20th century.

[Eraserhead]

These kind of historical precedents are meaningless anyway. Take a look at the "Show me" state, for example.

[Franzl]

It will sure be interesting to see who the Republicans select to face Obama.  Of course, I'll have to wait and see how Obama does before I automatically commit to supporting him in 2012.

I agree basically, but probably for different reasons.

[JSojourner]

We won't have to worry about our primaries.  I agree. 

But is the fact that a sitting President will run for re-election an automatic guarantor of NO inter-party challengers? 

I can't imagine running against a sitting President within my party, but it's not without precedent.

Still, you're right.  The fact that the primary process will be one-sided will make the whole ordeal a lot more entertaining.  It would be particularly interesting to watch if at least one Republican nominee is both moderate to liberal AND a serious contender.  I doubt, of course, that will happen.  But I'd love to see Olympia Snowe on the same debate stage as Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Piyush Bobby Jindal and John Thune.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I have a very bad feeling about '12.

I'm not as concerned.  All Obama needs to do, I think, is have an average term, with no major screw-ups, and he'll be fine.

[Lincoln Republican]

Not a Democrat, but, the good news for Republicans in 2012 is that John McCain will not be running.

[HappyWarrior]

Not a Democrat, but, the good bad news for Republicans in 2012 is that John McCain will not be running.

[Psychic Octopus]

As an independent, oddly the GOP primary was more intresting to me the the Dem. I wanted Hillary to be the Democratic nominee, sorry, and was sad she lost. I was an early McCain supporter, but switched to Obama late into the Game.


2012 seems oddly boring to me as it is just a rematch of Mitt and Mike, with Sarah Palin, and possibly Tim Pawlenty, John Thune, Crist, and Sanford. If Petraeus, Hagel, or Giuliani runs it would be way more intresting.

I think if Obama fails I'll line up behind Romney, like the rest of my family already has. But Obama has a chance to be one of the Greatest Presidents, places usually reserved for Washington and Lincoln. He better not screw this up. And he won't because he is a very smart man.






Not a Democrat, but, the good bad news for Republicans in 2012 is that John McCain will not be running

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

All throughout the early primary season conservatives, especially Coulter, were raving about how McCain would not be a great candidate because he failed to excite the base, but she then supported Romney? Would he have fared much worse?

[pbrower2a]

All throughout the early primary season conservatives, especially Coulter, were raving about how McCain would not be a great candidate because he failed to excite the base, but she then supported Romney? Would he have fared much worse?

Can a d@mnyankee conservative win in the South? Sure -- if he is Ronald Reagan or George H.W. Bush seeming to carry on Reagan's legacy. That says much about Ronald Reagan. George W. Bush successfully became a Texan.

My opinion of Ann Coulter does not belong in a polite forum, so I shall keep quiet about her. It's nice to energize the Party base, but if doing so implies that one loses the rest of Americans or energizes the opponent's base, then that's not so good. Coulter is the sort who energizes the base of the opposition.

McCain was the most attractive candidate that the Republicans had, and he simply ran in the wrong year. He was the only one with a record of military heroism, and that did not hurt him. Unfortunately he was also old enough that the closest analogue to him was Bob Dole in 1996... who did not do well that year. McCain was not a d@mnyankee, but he still lost three southern states.  The conservative party cannot win without the South solidly behind one. Sure, one can argue that Virginia became more like Pennsylvania or New Jersey than like Alabama, Florida is suspect as a Southern state because of so many northern retirees... but North Carolina?

To see whether Romney would have been more successful in the general election, one needs to determine whether he would have done better in places in which the difference would have flipped a state or two. He won the Michigan primary, and he might have found more supporters among Mormons in Nevada and Colorado. But would he have flipped Michigan because of his father's reputation as a RINO governor? Or his reputation as Governor of Massachusetts? Enough to negate large double-digit leads in Michigan and Massachusetts, a 'small' double-digit lead in Nevada, and a 9-point lead in Colorado? Probably not:

With no effects outside Michigan, Colorado, or Nevada, Obama still gets 365 electoral votes. Virginia, Ohio, or Colorado decides the election.

But what sort of effect would Romney have outside the states that Obama won? A d@mnyankee corporatist can win in the South if he is Ronald Reagan or if he is George W. Bush seeming to carry on the Reagan agenda. I can't see how Romney would have been able to make a difference in Florida, Virginia, or North Carolina.  Unless he picked Huckabee as a running mate, he might have trouble holding onto West Virginia and Georgia, and perhaps South Carolina. Add to that, Romney would not have had the Favorite Son effect worth about ten points working in his favor in Arizona, and Missouri was close enough that people who respected McCain's military record enough to sway their votes... Note that Georgia has a large military presence that Romney could never exploit. I'm slipping in NE-01 as a shift.

 

   

Romney loses 46 electoral votes from those that McCain would have won while picking up nothing. Obama then wins the electoral college  411 - 127.

It could be that McCain's big mistake was in selecting Sarah Palin as a running mate. She might have done a superb impression of a Southern right-wing populist... which didn't work well in such non-Southern states as Nevada, Colorado, Indiana, and Ohio that McCain absolutely had to win. Besides, the economy melted down in late September, perhaps dooming any conservative Republican -- including McCain.

 

 

   

[The Ex-Factor]

Any other Democrats up for our own version of Operation Chaos?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Republican primaries could be interesting, but potentials candidates appear to be habitual conservatives : Palin, Romney, Huckabee...
In fact' I could be happe that GOP hasn't still understood that ultraconservatism has no more a future today : they will make themselves unable to be elected for at least a decade, as democrats did with progressives like Mondale and Dukakis.

[Smash255]

All throughout the early primary season conservatives, especially Coulter, were raving about how McCain would not be a great candidate because he failed to excite the base, but she then supported Romney? Would he have fared much worse?

Can a d@mnyankee conservative win in the South? Sure -- if he is Ronald Reagan or George H.W. Bush seeming to carry on Reagan's legacy. That says much about Ronald Reagan. George W. Bush successfully became a Texan.

My opinion of Ann Coulter does not belong in a polite forum, so I shall keep quiet about her. It's nice to energize the Party base, but if doing so implies that one loses the rest of Americans or energizes the opponent's base, then that's not so good. Coulter is the sort who energizes the base of the opposition.

McCain was the most attractive candidate that the Republicans had, and he simply ran in the wrong year. He was the only one with a record of military heroism, and that did not hurt him. Unfortunately he was also old enough that the closest analogue to him was Bob Dole in 1996... who did not do well that year. McCain was not a d@mnyankee, but he still lost three southern states.  The conservative party cannot win without the South solidly behind one. Sure, one can argue that Virginia became more like Pennsylvania or New Jersey than like Alabama, Florida is suspect as a Southern state because of so many northern retirees... but North Carolina?


   

As far as North Carolina goes I don't think not having someone from the base of the Party is what hurt the GOP there.  In fact someone within the base of the GOP may have fared worse.  Keep in mind its not that the base didn't turn out or did not vote GOP heavily, they did.   North Carolina has seen a large influx of those coming from the northeast and it has impacted the state.  Look at what happened in the Research Triangle area.  An area which has seen large growth over the past few years McCain just got slaughtered and it has very little to do with him not being conservative enough.   Cary, NC which is right outside of Raleigh is a city with over 100,000 and one of the fastest growing cities in the U.S, has less than 30% of its residents born in N.C   It has been called "Containment Area of Relocated Yankees". 

 The Charlotte area also swung heavily towards Obama.  Mecklenburg county has also seen very large growth over the past few years, much of it from the northeast, it went to Bush in 00, Obama won it by around 25.  The suburban counties, which have also seen large growth heavily influenced by the northeast did go to McCain, but by much smaller margins than they have recently.

Also take a look at the Asheville and Greensboro areas, which while not seeing the growth as large as the Triangle & Charlotte have also experienced decent sized growth from the northeast.

NC is basically turning into the new Florida when it comes to people from the northeast relocating.   McCain lost NC, because he got demolished among moderates (63-37)  I don't see any Republican that could have done better than that.

[pbrower2a]

All throughout the early primary season conservatives, especially Coulter, were raving about how McCain would not be a great candidate because he failed to excite the base, but she then supported Romney? Would he have fared much worse?

Can a d@mnyankee conservative win in the South? Sure -- if he is Ronald Reagan or George H.W. Bush seeming to carry on Reagan's legacy. That says much about Ronald Reagan. George W. Bush successfully became a Texan.

My opinion of Ann Coulter does not belong in a polite forum, so I shall keep quiet about her. It's nice to energize the Party base, but if doing so implies that one loses the rest of Americans or energizes the opponent's base, then that's not so good. Coulter is the sort who energizes the base of the opposition.

McCain was the most attractive candidate that the Republicans had, and he simply ran in the wrong year. He was the only one with a record of military heroism, and that did not hurt him. Unfortunately he was also old enough that the closest analogue to him was Bob Dole in 1996... who did not do well that year. McCain was not a d@mnyankee, but he still lost three southern states.  The conservative party cannot win without the South solidly behind one. Sure, one can argue that Virginia became more like Pennsylvania or New Jersey than like Alabama, Florida is suspect as a Southern state because of so many northern retirees... but North Carolina?


   

As far as North Carolina goes I don't think not having someone from the base of the Party is what hurt the GOP there.  In fact someone within the base of the GOP may have fared worse.  Keep in mind its not that the base didn't turn out or did not vote GOP heavily, they did.   North Carolina has seen a large influx of those coming from the northeast and it has impacted the state.  Look at what happened in the Research Triangle area.  An area which has seen large growth over the past few years McCain just got slaughtered and it has very little to do with him not being conservative enough.   Cary, NC which is right outside of Raleigh is a city with over 100,000 and one of the fastest growing cities in the U.S, has less than 30% of its residents born in N.C   It has been called "Containment Area of Relocated Yankees". 

 The Charlotte area also swung heavily towards Obama.  Mecklenburg county has also seen very large growth over the past few years, much of it from the northeast, it went to Bush in 00, Obama won it by around 25.  The suburban counties, which have also seen large growth heavily influenced by the northeast did go to McCain, but by much smaller margins than they have recently.

Also take a look at the Asheville and Greensboro areas, which while not seeing the growth as large as the Triangle & Charlotte have also experienced decent sized growth from the northeast.

NC is basically turning into the new Florida when it comes to people from the northeast relocating.   McCain lost NC, because he got demolished among moderates (63-37)  I don't see any Republican that could have done better than that.

Heck, I have been thinking of emigrating from "Michigrim", myself.  I have never been in North Carolina, so of course I don't know it well.

The New York Times had a device for connecting demographic patterns to voting patterns -- and one of the strongest correlations to the vote split was population density. The areas of densest population tended to go for Obama. Even income was a weaker correlation (although Staten Island, New York; Orange County, California; Monmouth County, New Jersey; Cobb County, Georgia; and Tarrant County, Texas went to McCain they didn't go by much. In contrast the counties with the lowest population densities went strongly for McCain as a group.

Rural areas are clearly right-wing. The sixteen most thinly-populated counties in America voted about 80-20 for McCain; the sixteen-most densely-populated counties (that includes some tiny "independent cities" in Virginia) voted about 80-20 for Obama. Of course far more people live in Manhattan than live in Loving County, Texas...

Explanation? Unless rural areas are incredibly poor and have minority-majorities,  they are very conservative. Two of the poorest counties in America are in Kentucky and they are lily-white -- and they voted for McCain. (The other poorest counties were Indian Reservations, largely-Hispanic counties on the Mexican border in Texas, and largely-black counties in the Mississippi Delta -- and they voted for Obama). Rural areas have relatively low costs of government except perhaps welfare. Government buildings don't need to be renovated; government services (even education) are comparatively cheap due to low labor costs (consider education: much of the cost of education is teachers' salaries, and where teachers have no other jobs competing for them they stay put and don't draw high salaries). Transportation costs are usually slight because the community rarely needs any high-priced roads. Sure, there are Interstate highways in some thinly-populated areas, but those are built by the federal government and paid for by the state; little of the traffic on them is of local origination.

But contrast a great urban area. OK, northeastern New Jersey is unglamorous, but it is very urban. An eight-lane expressway that would be ludicrously excessive anywhere in the Dakotas can be ludicrously inadequate in New Jersey. Costs of expanding an eight-lane expressway in northeastern New Jersey are huge because such an expansion demands the condemnation of expensive properties abutting the expressway and huge costs of rebuilding bridges and overpasses. A few expressway miles added to the state's highway log in the Dakotas would be extremely inexpensive because land acquisition is cheap and few bridges or overpasses would have to be built. But where would one need to build new expressway?

Employees in public services in rural America don't get paid well even if they are good. Note well that the states that score highest in educational achievement are in the most rural of states -- the Dakotas, Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas. These are not the sorts of places likely to attract highly-educated people; culture in such places is cable TV, satellite radio, the Internet, and whatever one can pick up on a trip to (names not shown; I give no free advertising) that requires one to travel 100 miles each way.  Someone trained to teach who lives there has few obvious alternatives to teaching if that person stays there. A teacher has plenty of attractive alternatives to teaching if in San Francisco, a place with dreadful schools. There's plenty of office work, and there are plenty of opportunities in sales. Teaching is much like selling, and the skills needed for teaching are very similar to those appropriate for selling automobiles or furniture. Police? Cops have to be paid well enough that they rely upon the public payroll instead of deriving most of their income from bribes from organized criminals. Such is true also in Suburbia.

The connection between population density and voting for Obama was true in all regions of the country. That, I think, explains Dallas County, Texas -- and Mecklenburg County, North Carolina or "Containment Area for Relocated Yankees".