I keep hearing in many threads how the reason we lost in 2010 was because liberals stayed home.

[BzaDem]

That's how the story goes here anyway. That we didn't lose because moderates switched from the Democratic party to the Republican party -- we lost because liberals stayed home. Therefore, Obama has a problem with his base, that he needs to repair before 2012.

Yet whenever I hear this, it's cited as if it were the gospel. I never see any facts to back it up. So I decided to look on my own. I compared the national exit poll results of 2010 and the last midterm (2006). Both have roughly equal overall turnout (around 40% -- 2010 was slightly higher at around 41%). Note that 2006 was a very good year for Democrats -- we took back the House and the Senate. So I would assume no one would claim liberals stayed home in 2006 (which, if true, would make 2006 an invalid baseline).

What are the results? The liberals made up 20% of the electorate in 2010. And... 20% of the electorate in 2006.

How did they vote? In 2010, they voted 90-8 for the Democrat. In 2006, they voted... 87-11 for the Democrat. Even worse.

Looks like the "liberals stayed home" theory doesn't quite explain the election results now, does it.

Exit polls here:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#val=USH00p1

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html

[stray cat]

1. Those who voted for Obama in 2008 did not come out in similar numbers

[BzaDem]

4. And those that voted for Kerry in 2004 did not come out in similar numbers. And those that voted for

Gore in 2000 did not come out in similar numbers.

Hint: midterm elections ALWAYS have much lower turnout than presidential elections. The last two Presidential elections had about 60% turnout. The last two midterm elections had about 40% turnout.

[griffi94]

2. probly some of both

he lost a lot of indies, and some of the left sat out.
probly not an either or type thing.

[NNN0LHI]

3. Every liberal I know in real life and not on an anonymous web site voted

Some internet loudmouths tend to exaggerate their importance.

Don

[NRaleighLiberal]

5. I heard the other day that in NC, the youth really did stay home

relative to the 2008 pres - only 18% turned out in 2010. Again in NC, the angry old white republican males were the biggest group that turned out. don't know if this is a local, NC thing or is reflective in other states.

[BzaDem]

6. Can you point out any midterm election where the youth DIDN'T stay home?

Of course youth turnout plummets among low-turnout elections. It doesn't make sense to compare a high turnout affair (such as an-around-60% turnout Presidential election in 2008 and 2004) to a low turnout affair (an-around-40% turnout midterm election).

[Kaleva]

23. Comparing 2006 to 2010, there was a 3% difference in youth turnout.

[ddeclue]

7. moderates dont go work on campaigns and stroke big checks. liberals do.

That's how they stayed home.

[Kaleva]

26. Which would be an opinion and not a verifiable fact.

[AndyTiedye]

38. Corporations Write Much Bigger Checks to the Repiggies

Citizens United changed everything.

We were outspent 4 to 1 in some races.

It will be worse in 2012.

All the insurance companies have to do is write a check
and raise their rates to pay for it.

[bluestate10]

43. I beg to differ. I did not work on campaigns, but I wrote many checks.

As a moderate, I am not going to go around knocking on doors or putting up lawn signs, but I helped fund the activities of people that did do those activities.

[madfloridian]

8. Of course you are right. He does not need liberals.

The Democrats do not need liberals.

There is no need for liberals.

So there is no need for liberals to work their butts off and spend money on politics anymore.

Right?

[BzaDem]

9. I'm not saying he doesn't need liberals at all. I'm saying that the vast majority of liberals

support Obama (around 80% in most polls). Similarly, the vast majority of Democrats support Obama (around 80-85%), and this percentage is higher for Obama than any President in the last 50 years.

That is why they did not stay home relative to the previous midterm.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. Well look at who got those votes and who did not

Front page here today "DeFazio leads tax cut revolt" so our votes for him surely can not be twisted in to love poems to Obama. In many States and districts, I hear the Democrats more to the center and right lost. Here we elected Democrats who do not play cuddles with the President. We elected them. Obama was not on our ballots. Democrats were. Liberal Democrats. Not 'New Way' Semi-Republicans, hell if we wanted Republicans, we'd elect Republicans. And that is what Obama needs to remember....

[BzaDem]

18. Not quite. Defazio won in 2010 by 8 points. In 2006, he won by... 24 points. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

27. This is not horseshoes, winning is winning.

So 'not quite' what? Peter faced and exposed an out of State money machine funding a Tea Bag nut with endless sacks of cash. And yet, he won. He also won in 2008, an election you skip.
So as I never said a thing about the percentages, just that some won and others lost, not sure why you make that point, except that you can not address what I did post.

[BzaDem]

34. Perhaps the percentages can give you a clue as to WHY certain people won or lost?

Perhaps blue dogs living in Republican districts lost, because... their districts are Republican Districts?

Perhaps progressives living in Democratic districts won, because... their districts are Democratic Districts?

Perhaps if the national popular vote goes from +10 Democratic to +7 Republican, that will affect everyone, and the people living in more Conservative districts tend to lose?

[Bluenorthwest]

39. Any incumbent lost their own district.

You can call the district that had elected them the last time by any name you wish, but for each and every loser of a seat, the seat they lost they had previously won. They lost their Home Districts. Where they had won, just the last time. Rather than come up with names for districts to excuse those who failed to deliver just deal with the fact that they more 'moderate' and conservative Democrats lost in droves. Geographical and other excuses are for the playground, your little sister's softball game. They lost.
Here, we turned the vote out. 69%, highest midterm since 1990. And we elected Democrats, and also re-elected them. Liberal ones. As did California to our South. While the more conservative sort were replace by Republicans, because with anything, the real deal out sells a weak simulacrum.
Wins and losses. Those who lost what they were previously able to win, and those who won it again. The winners won. But sure, the losers all had the wind against them, sun in their eyes and the umpire hates them from Summer Camp.

[BzaDem]

40. That's like blaming it being hot out today on rabbits, and saying "that sun thing is just

an excuse. Stop it with your excuses. It has to be the rabbits, because I say so."

:rofl:

In reality, progressives AND blue dogs's margins PLUMMETED in this election. The ones in districts with massive numbers of Democrats WON, and the districts that didn't have massive numbers of Democrats LOST. Progressive Alan Grayson lost -- because he lived in district without massive numbers of Democrats. Russ Feingold LOST, because he lived in a state without massive numbers of Democrats. Blue dogs also LOST -- because they lived in districts without massive numbers of Democrats. Progressives WON -- because they lived in districts WITH massive numbers of Democrats. They could take a 20 point hit and still win, since they were in such safe districts in the first place. Blue dogs could not take the same 20 point hit and still win, since they were not in such safe districts in the first place.

You can continue to dismiss the ACTUAL reason in favor of your fantasy reason, but it doesn't bode well for your credibility.

[Kaleva]

51. Wonder then why liberals didn't turn out to defeat the blue dogs in the primaries?

Maybe there just weren't enough liberals in those districts to do such a thing.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

71. DeFazio's district has the university town of Eugene, BUT

it also has some fairly backwoods lumber towns, and he's popular there, too.

[hay rick]

21. Check back next week.

If he hasn't lost significant support with his tax compromise proposal, nobody's paying attention.

[BzaDem]

25. Or perhaps they are paying attention, and they don't see the world as you do? n/t

[walldude]

17. Hey liberals are useless...

Unless you count Unions, Social Security, the FDA, Medicare, Welfare, Unemployment, Grants, School loans, Infrastructure Spending, and Fair Pay practices those goddamn liberals haven't done anything good for this country.

Plus they never shut up. No matter how much you tell them to go away they keep harassing you to do the right thing, whether it's politically expedient or not. Yeah dump em' all.

[BzaDem]

20. Why do you assume I'm "dumping them?" Im merely stating that the VAST majority of them support Obama

and that the election results (where liberal turnout in 2010 was the same as in the great Democratic year of 2006) don't contradict that at all.

[walldude]

28. Was I talking to you?

Sorry I thought I responded to a post in your thread.... my bad :evilgrin:

[BeFree]

10. Exit Polls

So... did you know the exit polls showed Kerry beating Bush in 2004?

[BzaDem]

12. I thought the meme here was that the exit polls were right and the results were wrong.

But even if you acknowledge the exit polls were wrong in 2004, these polls did not differ significantly with the pre-election polls at all (whereas the exit polls in 2004 DID differ significantly with the pre-election polls).

[BeFree]

41. No

In 2004 the exit polls were manipulated to back-up what the counted vote was.
IOW, the raw data of the exit polls was aborted and finally altered to match the official count.

What is fact is that exit polls AND the voting apparatus can be manipulated to back-up whatever the count is needed to be, by the people who control the two. People like Rove.

[BzaDem]

44. And all the pre-election polls that say the same thing? Many run by Democrats?

Let me get this straight. To you, Republicans didn't just win 2010. They lost. The exit polls also said they lost (but they were manipulated). So did all the public polls, including the ones run by Democrats.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[BeFree]

46. so

You are claiming that the all pre-polls picked all the winners?
You have links to all those polls you cite? Or are you just blabbing?

I mean, you must have access to at least a whole bunch of the polls you are claiming, right?

[BzaDem]

47. I'm saying that even Democratic firms predicted huge Republican wins.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/surveys.asp

Similarly, they projected huge Democratic wins in 2008.

According to you, this firm is secretly conspiring with both the exit poll fixers and the result-fixers from all around the country.

:rofl:

[BeFree]

50. Ever hear of Rove?

And the millions Rove has raised and his connections to politics?

Or are you just in denial?

[BzaDem]

53. "Or are you just in denial?"

:rofl:

[BeFree]

54. Well

You attempt to put words down that I never wrote, and you deny that the exit polls can be manipulated. And you seem to be in denial that polling can be manipulated, so that stupid little picture of you really does look like you from where I sit.

[Marr]

11. You're right-- it's not worth pursuing "moderates".

I mean-- you think Obama's done a bang-up job, right? Then it follows that the self-described "moderates" are unreliable and not worth pursuing. Even with a dreamy leader like Barack Obama, those moderates still abandoned the party when we needed them.

That's the line of argument I hear from "moderates" when they say liberals lost this or that election because they got mad and stayed home. They say we aren't reliable... not worth courting... and the party must move right.

So I accept your argument. The party better move left to pursue more reliable voters.

[blondeatlast]

15. +1. That was beautiful! nt

[StarsInHerHair]

76. +1,000,000

nt

[BzaDem]

16. Your basic premise is incorrect.

You think that just because I think Obama did a "bang-up job" means a moderate would think so. But that is obviously not true. A moderate is obviously, well, more moderate than I am. They are not as far to the left. A policy that I like would not necessarily be a policy they like.

As I pointed out, Obama is already doing a fine job with liberals -- either looking at telephone polls (where most say around 80% support him), or the exit polls (which show liberal turnout the same in 2010 as in the great 2006 Democratic year).

Your statement about reliability is hilarious. Obama shouldn't go after moderates who always vote -- he instead go after liberals so irrational and so unreliable that they would actually EVER think about staying home, allowing Republicans to take power? If he were making such a calculation, it wouldn't make ANY sense to go after people who think there is actually another option that doesn't enable Republicans.

[griffi94]

13. i will say

that in the end it doesn't really matter who stayed home or why they did. the bottom line is the gop made some substantial gains.

if the economy is still dragging in 2012, i expect they'll make even bigger gains.
neither democrats nor the repubs can elect a president without swing voters, and swing voters were the first ones to have doubts about obama.

[BzaDem]

19. I would fully agree that post. n/t

[sendero]

22. And if you think those doubts..

... were because he was too "liberal", you'd better think again.

[BzaDem]

24. Oh yeah. Swing voters who voted for the REPUBLICANS by 18 points are doing it because he's not

liberal enough.

:rofl:

[sendero]

37. You really don't understand..

... what is going on and no amount of polling will help you.

This is all about TOSSING OUT THE ASSHOLES WHO ARE IN. The Republicans will likely see the same thing in 2012.

If you are elected and YOU GET NOTHING USEFUL DONE, your days are numbered. That is the message.

[leveymg]

29. No. We turned out and voted. We just didn't convince our neighbors to do the same, as we did in

'08. Without us at the doors of the unwashed, undecided and apolitical, being earnest and enthusiastic Democrats, it all turned to shit.

That's what happened. And, it'll be worse in '12.

[Stinky The Clown]

30. We must be in parallel universes. I heard *accusations* that liberals stayed home, But no facts.

I think liberals voted as they always do and in numbers they always do. I think the moderates are the ones who left Obama.

So you see, we agree. Not on your assumptive preamble, but on your basic conclusion..

[kenny blankenship]

31. I've heard that BS only from people who habitually bash liberal/left Democrats

[LiberalAndProud]

32. I don't think liberals stayed home.

However, there were Democratic voters who went MIA on that day in November. Republican voters, on the other hand, showed up -- 2006 in reverse. By the same measure that I detest GWB*, Republicans detest Obama. Never mind that he has enacted mostly conciliatory legislation; they hate him.

They hate him because he carries a (D) behind his name -- policy be damned, he's a Socialist Muslim Democrat ; even though he is oft criticized here because his compromises reek of RepubliCon.

Although I think TeaBaggers and legacy Republicans are brain addled, I can empathize with the emotional distress they are experiencing, having experienced it myself.

Obama v. (???). For lack of a viable (R) opponent, I expect that Obama will serve a second term -- as both Clinton and GWB* did. Though in 2016 I will expect a Republican sweep. Politics and pendulums.

[StarsInHerHair]

77. yes and they said the GOP was OVER, like them now, WE can WIN 2012

it's not over for the "professional left".

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. Well, that illustrates that his "centrist" ideology was a flop.

If the idea of moving to the center was to attract "moderate", "Independent", votes you can mark is a super fail.

[BzaDem]

36. Perhaps moderates didn't believe Obama was centrist in the slightest bit?

I mean, we don't believe Bush was centrist just because he called himself a "compassionate conservative."

Just because you believe Obama moved to the center doesn't mean there is a non-negligible portion of the population that agrees with you.

[NorthCarolina]

62. Obama would have to move left to be 'centrist', so maybe they didn't consider him to be one. nt

[NorthCarolina]

64. delete

wrong spot

[BzaDem]

68. That is what you think. But you think isn't really relevant to what they think.

In fact, even if you were to state your opinion as objective truth, it still isn't necessarily relevant to what Independents and moderates think.

At a certain point, if "centrist" is defined in such a way that "centrist + liberal" doesn't even come close to a majority, then the word basically loses all practical meaning.

[Kaleva]

45. Repubs in my area were attacking the Dem candidates as "Pelosi Democrats".

[Bluenorthwest]

35. Liberals never stay home.

Moderates and other semi-engaged types, who vote at random when an image grabs them stayed home. Liberals are far too engaged in local and State politics to sit out an election over some DC political player. It is the snivvling center that gets all out of sorts and goes shopping on election day.

[Capn Sunshine]

42. your primary error

assuming you and the audience here are "liberal" I think working liberals have a problem with that definition.

Someone stayed home, the press calls them liberals, but either way, someone stayed home. What bothered me was that many who did that did so knowing the Right wing would gain power.

But they did it anyway, totally fucking over the poor, the indigent, the disabled, and every other disenfranchised person in this country.

And THAT is the opposite of "Liberal" in my book.

[The Magistrate]

49. Certainly Someone Stayed Home, Captain: 2008, 66,000,000 Democratic House Votes; 2010, 35,000,000

Republican totals in 2008 were 52,000,000, and 44,000,000 in 2010.

[BzaDem]

52. You are comparing a 60% Presidential year to a 40% midterm year.

Midterm years have much lower turnout, and the "drop-off" voters (who show up in Presidential years but not midterm years) usually skew Democratic.

[The Magistrate]

55. Yes, Sir, And It Demonstrates That Many People Stayed Home, Who Could Have Been Turned Out

Had there been real leadership by Party sachems, from the President on down.

Note, also, that what is being touted by the chattering classes as some kind of decisive mandate for Republican policies mustered only about two thirds as many votes as the Democrats received two years ago.

[BzaDem]

57. But that happens frequently between Presidential years and midterm years.

Since this happens quite often, I don't think Obama was the cause.

Similarly, I don't think a voter who rarely bothers to show up for a midterm follows politics very much, so I don't anything Obama could have done would have changed their repeated voting behavior.

If liberal turnout in THIS midterm were lower than liberal turnout for past midterms (suggesting normal midterm voters were turned off), that would be a different story.

[The Magistrate]

63. So It Is A Problem the Party Needs To Address, Sir

The way to address it is to behave, when elected in a Presidential year, in a manner which inspires people who roused themselves to vote Democratic to do it again.

People who vote for a Democrat do so in the desire that when in office, he or she will do things differently then a Republican. When what occurs is, in broad outline, not too different, they cease to see much point in the exercise.

Bear in mind, the problem is not confined to President Obama. The legislative contingent bears a heavy responsibility. This has, after all, happened twice now, and is becoming one of thesignal features of post-Reagan political life here, that the Democratic Party will forfeit Legislative dominance when it achieves control of the Executive. Refusal of the legislative contingent to act as a Party bloc with the Administration has been the proximate cause, in both instances. The center of this refusal is not persons on the left of the Party, but persons on its right. That this can occur, however, is a failure of the President to fulfill his function as Party leader. In the final analysis, it is never the troops who fail; it is their officer who fails.

[BzaDem]

66. That might help somewhat. But many people (a plurality in some polls) have no idea who actually

controls Congress. They simply don't follow politics, and have 1000 things more important in their life than following politics. Many of these were brought up in Democratic families and will always vote Democratic in a Presidential election (since that's basically much of what's on the news for months), but they aren't very ideological and don't follow politics sufficiently to get them interested in voting in off-year elections.

So even if Obama could succeed in moving the government to the left, many wouldn't even realize it.

"Refusal of the legislative contingent to act as a Party bloc with the Administration has been the proximate cause, in both instances."

That is absolutely true in general. Our parties rarely act as a bloc. However, it is important to realize how much they have acted in a bloc this year over prior years. HCR passed with unanimous Democratic support in the Senate. Sure, it was watered down significantly by the likes of Lieberman and Nelson, but the mere fact that Ben Nelson voted for it (knowing it would certainly cost him his re-election bid in right-wing Nebraska) shows that occasionally the party does unite.

Unfortunately, the reason the party doesn't unite has much to do with geography (which is somewhat out of our control). Our Constitution cares too much about land, and not enough about people. Therefore, while our country is roughly evenly split at the moment, Republicans get a huge advantage, because they are much more spread out and can therefore take many more Congressional districts (while too many Democrats are in too few urban Congressional districts). The average congressional district is R+3, and the Senate provides a gigantic bonus to tiny right-wing states (at the expense of huge Democratic states like California). So many blue dogs come from districts that have too few liberals for a liberal to ever win.

[The Magistrate]

70. No One Would Accept That, Sir, From Someone Whose Sales Figures Came In 20% Under Projections

It is the job of political leaders, of Party leaders, to get a sufficient portion of the public engaged and keep it motivated; saying, 'oh, people just don't care' is no excuse for failure to do that.

You pick an unfortunate example to claim there was real Party discipline and unity this past Congress. Nelson insisted on removing from the Bill items polling indicated a majority of voters in Nebraska favored. Note, too, you say voting for even the watered-down version will, you are sure, cost him re-election: well, then, why not be hanged for a sheep rather than a lamb and actually vote for what the majority of Democrats in the country wanted passed? The problem with the course adopted by the 'blue dog' types is that it does not get them more votes among people willing to vote Republican, it just costs them votes among people who want a Democrat to behave differently than a Republican. Even on its own terms, it is a failure, and the casualty lists of the recent election demonstrate this. Trying to pass for a Republican is just no way for a Democrat to get elected.

The only way to move the mush in the middle is to fight. The mush in the middle gravitates towards passion, towards fire and vigor, and does so because really all it wants is to identify with the winner, and it views passion as the best predictor of who will win. Do not imagine for a moment there is anything rational in the behavior of the unthinking elements of the mass. You do not reason with them, you do not argue with them. They have no opinions, they have no judgement or even basis on which to judge. They are impressed and swayed by emotion, and emotion only. They respect fight; they despise weakness.

[TexasObserver]

79. We got our asses kicked because a large percentage of our voters from 2008 stayed home.

They stayed home as a vote of "no confidence" in the performance of the president and congress since January 2009. The election was a referendum, and we lost. The most telling votes were the ones who stayed home, as your posts make clear.

[PVnRT]

48. What website is it that you're reading?

The general theme from you guys has been that it was the liberals saying not-nice things about Obama that sank the party during the midterms. In fact, many of the critics of the administration around here have been saying just what you posted - that it was independents who abandoned the party.

So, it begs the question, what in the world are you talking about?

[mmonk]

56. Fine we'll leave. I'm not a right winger anyway,

When you get rid of all us and still loose, it will because the righties stayed home then. Good enough?

[BzaDem]

58. If you think the current Democratic party is right-wing

then you are in for a life of disappointment.

It's funny that you are telling the Democratic party that it can't win without you, as if you could somehow win without them.

I never said anything about leaving (my main point was that even the vast majority of liberals are satisfied with Obama's performance, and that the election of 2010 doesn't undercut that at all). But if you want to talk about leaving, let me put it this way. You need the Democratic party FAR more than it needs you. The Democratic party can always find more voters in the middle to replace the tiny portion who thinks we are ever going to elect a Nader. (This wouldn't be a preferable outcome, but it is a possible outcome if necessary.) You? Not so much.

[EstimatedProphet]

59. Big big gap in your reasoning

You are forgetting that because only about 40% of the people vote, those proportions can change from people who wouldn't usually vote but are motivated to do so. So it isn't that the change in voting trend came from liberals now voting repub, it's that more liberals stayed home and more nutjob teabillies came out.

[BzaDem]

60. In my OP, I specifically stated that the percentage of the electorate has been 20% liberal in 2006

and 20% liberal in 2010. So my post covers that.

[EstimatedProphet]

61. Then I guess I don't understand what you are trying to say

Are you trying to say that the repubs won because dems decided to vote for them instead? Because the evidence in your post contradicts that.

[BzaDem]

67. No. I'm trying to say that Repubs won because Independents and moderates swung towards them.

Whereas the percentage of liberals making up the electorate stayed roughly about the same.

[The Magistrate]

73. But On The Numbers, Sir, that is Not Really the Case, Not By the Absolute Numbers

The 'independents' and 'moderates' who voted Democrat two years ago stayed home, and did so because Democrats in the past two years disappointed most of their expectations of what voting Democratic would bring about.

[NorthCarolina]

65. The Youth stayed home in 2010, and yes they are predominatly Liberal

- THANK GOD.

[BzaDem]

69. Is there any midterm or off-year election where they don't stay home? n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

72. Two points:

1. Obama wasn't running this time.

2. Some of us had GREAT Dems to vote for. I had Mark Dayton for governor, Keith Ellison for Congress, and two wonderful and approachable leftists for state legislature. My votes for them had nothing to do with Obama, whom I do NOT approve of.

However, I can totally understand why a liberal would stay home if they had no one to vote for except a Republican who said "We need to cut taxes, increase defense spending, and privatize everything" and a Blue Dog who said the same.

[fishwax]

74. I'm seeing that the percentage of both democrats and liberals was lowest in 2010

2006 -- Democrats = 36% of those polled
2008 -- Democrats = 40% of those polled
2010 -- Democrats - 35% of those polled

Liberals
2006 -- Liberals (20%)
2008 -- Liberals (22%)
2010 -- Liberals (20%)

Meanwhile, the turnout of those who identify themselves as ideological moderates was lowest in 2010, by far
2006 -- Moderates (47%)
2008 -- Moderates (44%)
2010 -- Moderates (38%)

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=USH00p1
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#val=USH00p1

[DearAbby]

75. Why are liberals being blamed for the loss of midterms

According to some on this board, there isn't enough liberals to effect an election, Bah humbug!

[jtuck004]

78. So is this saying the people who voted were unhappy with how

things are going? Maybe they were losing or had lost their job or home, and figured a change in direction
might be needed, 'cause no one was paying attention to the issue most important to them -

Like a job?

[quaker bill]

80. Inflated self importance

is chronic on our side of the table.

The donation numbers, volunteer hours, and results at the polls do not bear out the notion that Liberals withdrew anything from anyone. Grayson had plenty of donations and volunteers, and the Liberals showed up at the polls. He lost because the young voters from 2008 did not show up and the middle shifted to Webster and the republicans.