Indecision 2014

[LMNO]

I can solve that contradiction: Obama is not a liberal president and the Democrats are not a liberal party, therefore liberals did not for them.

I bet if we compared the 2008 Presidential election turnout demographics and the 2014 Senate elections, we'd see a drop in younger voters in particular, and in Democratic votes generally, not an increase in Republican votes.

People have finally wised up after 6 years of bullshit.

From what I've heard from the pundits, this was indeed the case.  Lowest turnout of young people/minorities in quite some time.

I think this should become a talking point.  It dovetails quite nicely with explaining the poor reception for the ACA, in that a big chunk of conservative thought it went too far, and a big chunk of progressives thought it didn't go far enough.

[trippinprincezz13]

This morning one of my friends send me a screenshot from his Facebook wall - According to this person, low voter turnout was due to......Honey Boo Boo! Yes, isn't it convenient that the child molester boyfriend turned up RIGHT BEFORE elections? Another ploy by those dastardly Democrats! And I quote, in part,

What am I saying half of you didn't even know there was an election lol another ploy by the democrats DIDN'T WORK THIS TIME CHIEF

Also, why do you hate punctuation and grammar so

[Cain]

I can solve that contradiction: Obama is not a liberal president and the Democrats are not a liberal party, therefore liberals did not for them.

I bet if we compared the 2008 Presidential election turnout demographics and the 2014 Senate elections, we'd see a drop in younger voters in particular, and in Democratic votes generally, not an increase in Republican votes.

People have finally wised up after 6 years of bullshit.

From what I've heard from the pundits, this was indeed the case.  Lowest turnout of young people/minorities in quite some time.

I think this should become a talking point.  It dovetails quite nicely with explaining the poor reception for the ACA, in that a big chunk of conservative thought it went too far, and a big chunk of progressives thought it didn't go far enough.

Not a bad guess then, given I'd read no post-voting analysis or demographic data.  Nate Silver may have post-game numbers, but I have pre-game political nous.

In regards to the ACA, there was that polarization, but there were two further factors.  Obama dithered, squandered his political capital from the initial point he took office.  That was the time to make changes, while he had a popular mandate and the opposition were still reeling.  So, ACA is a reminder that Obama is incompetent.

That incompetency is further reinforced by how badly the ACA website launch was handled, which was objectively atrocious.

[Trivial]

I can solve that contradiction: Obama is not a liberal president and the Democrats are not a liberal party, therefore liberals did not for them.

I bet if we compared the 2008 Presidential election turnout demographics and the 2014 Senate elections, we'd see a drop in younger voters in particular, and in Democratic votes generally, not an increase in Republican votes.

People have finally wised up after 6 years of bullshit.

From what I've heard from the pundits, this was indeed the case.  Lowest turnout of young people/minorities in quite some time.

I think this should become a talking point.  It dovetails quite nicely with explaining the poor reception for the ACA, in that a big chunk of conservative thought it went too far, and a big chunk of progressives thought it didn't go far enough.

Not a bad guess then, given I'd read no post-voting analysis or demographic data.  Nate Silver may have post-game numbers, but I have pre-game political nous.

In regards to the ACA, there was that polarization, but there were two further factors.  Obama dithered, squandered his political capital from the initial point he took office.  That was the time to make changes, while he had a popular mandate and the opposition were still reeling.  So, ACA is a reminder that Obama is incompetent.

That incompetency is further reinforced by how badly the ACA website launch was handled, which was objectively atrocious.

It was so bad I had to ask people at work if we did it...

[Cain]

It was fun though, watching Obama cheerleaders try to come up with ways to defend it.  I think my favourite was Mike Grunwald's infamous "a bad website does not destroy the case for government" argument.  Because when you're down to comparing a badly executed policy with the destruction of a political system in order to defend it, you've pretty much abandoned all hope or reason.

[LMNO]

I really shouldn't be surprised, I really shouldn't at this point, but I keep being stunned and staggered by the realization at the appearance that the majority of the electorate decidesto vote based upon superficialities rather than truths, common goals, or even ideology.

It was really summed up with the W elections when an actual talking point was "who would you rather have a beer with".  As if that had something to do with whether that made someone an effective candidate.


ITT: Every two years, LMNO's optimistic view of humanity suffers.

[LMNO]

This is more than a bit polemical, but it reflects my current thoughts somewhat.

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/11/08/significant-role-stupidity-republicans-winning-control-congress.html#.

[Cain]

The thrust of that article appears to be "Democrats are idiots for not voting for a party that don't deliver their promises".  Not to mention a whole lot of Obama excusing. Yes, in theory there are three branches of government and if those branches were truly independent then punishing the Senate for the President's (in)action would not make much sense.

But c'mon now.  All roads lead to the White House.  You know that.  I know that.  Everyone else knows that.  Obama is the leader of the Democratic Party, the most visible member of the party and the one with the largest amounts of sticks and carrots to get the rest of the party to act as he wants.  I've seen arguments against that model of politics existing in America, but that they come from Democratic Party partisans is rather...remarkable.  Obama can set the agenda, if he so wishes.  Especially in a second term.

It's an imperial presidency in an imperial system, but Obama aint no Imperator.

[LMNO]

I totally missed this: New Hampshire elected a confirmed Rationalist, who namechecks LessWrong on her blog.

[Doktor Howl]

I totally missed this: New Hampshire elected a confirmed Rationalist, who namechecks LessWrong on her blog.

That's a sign of the Goddamn apocalypse, that is.

[Cain]

Not entirely surprising, that.  Less Wrong and New Hampshire both skew strongly in a Silicon Valley-esque libertarian direction.

Though it could be worse - it could've been a Neoreactionary.

[LMNO]

Also, I'm pretty sure Cain has seen this, but here's a clever little bit of evilness that will delight hard-core leftists:

The fundamental recommendation: Shore up the symbolic radiance of the Presidency, and then avoid it like the plague. Aim to win everything except the Presidency, until the whole machinery comes apart. In other words, a GOP pursuing the OS would (furtively) renounce presidential office for the remaining duration of American Democracy.

What would be in it for them? Everything except the Presidency. That's almost everything already. Pursue the Strategy, incrementally gut the powers of the executive, and the proportion of political prizes lying outside the Whitehouse steadily grows.