62 million voted for George Bush. Nearly 60 million for McCain. Romney 58 million. If you're correct about the independents thing, then 2004 and 2008 weren't very different in GOP turnout. It was only this time the base didn't show up, but this was moreso the case for Obama.
2004 and 2008 shows a shift of 2 million votes. That's significant. 2004 and 2012 show 4 million - that's enough to swing the election.
Yeah, the base didn't show up. Exactly my point.
It's possible that, as you said, the base didn't show up because Romney was not conservative enough. I personally think they didn't show up because he was a bad candidate regardless. Too much about him was toxic to voters, even if he was the not-Obama candidate.
Except the exits don't really bear that out, either. Nor did the pre-election polling - the two were likable, and Romney won out on many of the issues. It turns out that his palatability was deflected on the base level.
Well, you're talking about seats that aren't the same seats from 2010, so we won't know what popular opinion is about that until 2016.
The House seats are up every 2 years.
The idea that we can cut our way out of a recession. That was the core belief of Romney and friends, a hallmark of fiscal conservatism.
And where, exactly, was that repudiated? Obama ran on a spending cut in 2008, after all.
I'm not surprised the "fuck you, got mine" crowd treats their volunteers and wage-level employees like shit.
I didn't realize that we were talking about Democrats.
It's also possible that a more conservative candidate would bring out more of Obama's base as well. The knife cuts both ways.
It's possible, sure. But it appears that Obama's candidacy severely depressed his initial support based from 2008. Maybe he'd claw some of that back with a better conservative candidate, but the independents would have swung harder toward the Republican as well as a result.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 9/11/12 19:46 (UTC)2004 and 2008 shows a shift of 2 million votes. That's significant. 2004 and 2012 show 4 million - that's enough to swing the election.
Yeah, the base didn't show up. Exactly my point.
It's possible that, as you said, the base didn't show up because Romney was not conservative enough. I personally think they didn't show up because he was a bad candidate regardless. Too much about him was toxic to voters, even if he was the not-Obama candidate.
Except the exits don't really bear that out, either. Nor did the pre-election polling - the two were likable, and Romney won out on many of the issues. It turns out that his palatability was deflected on the base level.
Well, you're talking about seats that aren't the same seats from 2010, so we won't know what popular opinion is about that until 2016.
The House seats are up every 2 years.
The idea that we can cut our way out of a recession. That was the core belief of Romney and friends, a hallmark of fiscal conservatism.
And where, exactly, was that repudiated? Obama ran on a spending cut in 2008, after all.
I'm not surprised the "fuck you, got mine" crowd treats their volunteers and wage-level employees like shit.
I didn't realize that we were talking about Democrats.
It's also possible that a more conservative candidate would bring out more of Obama's base as well. The knife cuts both ways.
It's possible, sure. But it appears that Obama's candidacy severely depressed his initial support based from 2008. Maybe he'd claw some of that back with a better conservative candidate, but the independents would have swung harder toward the Republican as well as a result.