Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

WCGreen

(45,558 posts)
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 07:54 AM Sep 2012

Chuck Todd is flabbergasted that the polling has stratified so early in the process....

Usually, Todd claimed, there should be 5%-7% or more undecided voters showing up in the polls. but this time, there is less than 2%.

Well, what should we expect with a non stop campaign waged by the GOP that started before president Obama even took the oath of office.

I've been around a very long time and I can not remember any other presidency that started off with such vitriol and hate thrown at the new president. There was no Honeymoon period, there was no deference paid to the Obama victory only scorn and hate.

Then again, they tried to discredit president Clinton almost from the get go. And again it was personal. Of course most political people believe that Clinton only defeated Bush because of Ross Perot.

But over all, I think this has been the tactic of the Right because they know if you take the measure of the president based on actions and issues, the right loses. That is why, I believe, they personalize the attacks against democrats.

There was a book about the 1968 Campaign by a man named McGinniss called The Selling of the President

http://www.amazon.com/The-Selling-President-Joe-McGinniss/dp/0140112405

This might be the seminal tome about how modern campaigns are waged in the 24/7/365 media world that was settling in over the US.

46 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Chuck Todd is flabbergasted that the polling has stratified so early in the process.... (Original Post) WCGreen Sep 2012 OP
I think upChuck would bite one the Clydesdales couldn't pull if... Hubert Flottz Sep 2012 #1
I personally think romney's the reason. people just don't trust him ejpoeta Sep 2012 #2
And that is because he is so exposed due to the slogging nature of this campaign WCGreen Sep 2012 #7
I was scowling at the polls yesterday XemaSab Sep 2012 #35
to be fair, Bush wasn't exactly beloved when he came into office WooWooWoo Sep 2012 #3
Interesting how that was done by Ilsa Sep 2012 #9
A most important distinction. Interesting that your reply is seemingly ignored. Scuba Sep 2012 #29
I forgot about those tomatoes n/t goclark Sep 2012 #28
There is nothing ''fair'' about that comparison. A group of citizens reacting to a bloodless coup is Guy Whitey Corngood Sep 2012 #36
But Chuckie was quick to say that the Middle East protests could hurt Obama. charmay Sep 2012 #4
Chuck is a Rovian hatchet man... Hubert Flottz Sep 2012 #8
So is Snooki grantcart Sep 2012 #5
I voted for Perot, so I know the "Bush lost because of Perot" claim is invalid. Honeycombe8 Sep 2012 #6
but those rabid republicans would have never voted for Clinton. WCGreen Sep 2012 #10
I think they didn't vote. I do not think Perot took any more votes from Bush Sr than from Clinton. Honeycombe8 Sep 2012 #17
When I have a little more time I will go back and see how the numbers played out. WCGreen Sep 2012 #37
Those of us who voted for Perot probably paid more attention to him than others. Honeycombe8 Sep 2012 #41
Heh! I voted for Perot, too alcibiades_mystery Sep 2012 #25
i voted for perot too. it was my first election and I watched the debates ejpoeta Sep 2012 #44
Republicans are extremely sore losers Freddie Sep 2012 #11
that was because they were emboldened by the realignment of the voters WCGreen Sep 2012 #13
I agree with your posts aaaaaa5a Sep 2012 #21
And this is why the Repubs use the tactics they do to try and hold onto power. Jennicut Sep 2012 #46
Declining number of White males as the Boomers age and die off. Ikonoklast Sep 2012 #38
A decline in the White Males numbers should be stated as a decline of the WCGreen Sep 2012 #39
Yes, that's a real double whammy there. Ikonoklast Sep 2012 #40
Well the one sure thing is their motto of making Obama a one term president davidpdx Sep 2012 #16
It's going to be a long 8 weeks! Freddie Sep 2012 #19
Haha davidpdx Sep 2012 #24
Part of that was for Watergate! gopiscrap Sep 2012 #31
The 24/7 coverage means opinions are formed early smorkingapple Sep 2012 #12
Chuck wants to play with his toy until Nov. 6 BeyondGeography Sep 2012 #14
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball. nt msanthrope Sep 2012 #15
ROFL alcibiades_mystery Sep 2012 #26
I loved that skit! smirkymonkey Sep 2012 #42
Here you go-- msanthrope Sep 2012 #43
Thanks! smirkymonkey Sep 2012 #45
We have his back. wilt the stilt Sep 2012 #18
Well said I agree rbrnmw Sep 2012 #20
"Republican" is the "default" setting for the presidency SoCalDem Sep 2012 #22
The honeymoon ended before the inaugural ball. CanonRay Sep 2012 #23
I think the vitriol directed to Clinton was just as bad ChairmanAgnostic Sep 2012 #27
For Clinton, it was still before Fox was on a lot of Cable Systems... WCGreen Sep 2012 #33
Good points. ChairmanAgnostic Sep 2012 #34
Is this book still available? gopiscrap Sep 2012 #30
Yes it is.... WCGreen Sep 2012 #32

Hubert Flottz

(37,726 posts)
1. I think upChuck would bite one the Clydesdales couldn't pull if...
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 07:57 AM
Sep 2012

it was GOP/Jim Jones Kool-Aid flaveored.

ejpoeta

(8,933 posts)
2. I personally think romney's the reason. people just don't trust him
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 08:00 AM
Sep 2012

and can't see him dealing with foreign policy. Every time he opens his mouth he seems to make it worse.

XemaSab

(60,212 posts)
35. I was scowling at the polls yesterday
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:47 PM
Sep 2012

and Romney seems to have been pretty flat at 45% for months. Obama's gaining in the polls because the undecideds are all breaking his way.

/this is based on less than 5 minutes of cogitation, so if you've got a competing theory then it's all good

WooWooWoo

(454 posts)
3. to be fair, Bush wasn't exactly beloved when he came into office
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 08:01 AM
Sep 2012

that was due to the circumstances surrounding him getting there, but the prescident was set then. I can't remember seeing a president getting pelted with tomatoes and garbage as he drove up to get sworn in.

Ilsa

(61,802 posts)
9. Interesting how that was done by
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 08:08 AM
Sep 2012

The people. Four years ago, it was party leadership. Not saying either was right, just thinking about the differences in who they are and the power they wield.

Guy Whitey Corngood

(26,549 posts)
36. There is nothing ''fair'' about that comparison. A group of citizens reacting to a bloodless coup is
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:53 PM
Sep 2012

nothing like some of the most powerful figures in government and media conspiring to sabotage a president they considered illegitimate for no reason. I don't know what a prescident is but a precedent was set when the right wing decided to go after Clinton even though he also won a legitimate election.

charmay

(525 posts)
4. But Chuckie was quick to say that the Middle East protests could hurt Obama.
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 08:01 AM
Sep 2012

He had to get some negatives in there.

Hubert Flottz

(37,726 posts)
8. Chuck is a Rovian hatchet man...
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 08:07 AM
Sep 2012

He belongs on FOX along with Wolf and Candy. At least Mourning Joe admits he's a dumb ass repub. I have more respect for Joe than for Chuck. And I have yet to stand Joe, any longer than it takes to change the channel.

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
6. I voted for Perot, so I know the "Bush lost because of Perot" claim is invalid.
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 08:05 AM
Sep 2012

My choice was between CLINTON and Perot. Not Bush Sr. and Perot. I can't imagine I was in the minority. I was one of those independents in the middle, a moderate, leaning decidedly left.

I think it was the fact that Bush Sr. had raised taxes when he had promised not to. You know how rabid Republicans are about their taxes.

WCGreen

(45,558 posts)
10. but those rabid republicans would have never voted for Clinton.
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 08:13 AM
Sep 2012

If Perot wasn't in the mix, many people would have voted for Bush.

Perot took votes away from Bush. The blue collar middle class white guys who had voted for democrats until Reagan, turned to Perot instead of Clinton.

Now I know that is probably not your reasoning, but if you look at the trends that started in 1980, you will see that the 1992 election was an aberration. The realignment of the various constituencies were trending toward the GOP since 1980 and were derailed by Perot. Remember, the very next Congressional Election produced the Gingrich era. The votes for the new political coalitions solidified when Perot was not on the ticket.

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
17. I think they didn't vote. I do not think Perot took any more votes from Bush Sr than from Clinton.
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 08:36 AM
Sep 2012

There have been no studies, that I know of, to show that. It's all about taxes, IMO. Bush Sr says that himself. He knew when he raised taxes he was signing his presidential death warrant, figuratively speaking.

Why I and many others voted for Perot: NAFTA. Many liberals then, like now, did NOT want NAFTA signed. Clinton campaigned that he was gung ho for NAFTA, and that's what Perot was about in large part - no NAFTA.

WCGreen

(45,558 posts)
37. When I have a little more time I will go back and see how the numbers played out.
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:57 PM
Sep 2012

I remeber going to a rally for Clnton Gore here in Cleveland in 1992 where 35k showed up.

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
41. Those of us who voted for Perot probably paid more attention to him than others.
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 05:31 PM
Sep 2012

I watched him two or three times on Larry King. Once was a debate format with Gore. If Perot hadn't run, I would've voted for Clinton. I had already determined I was NOT going to vote for Bush.

There's a lot out there on this subject, with no absolute answers. I think it's a catchy Republican explanation for why one of the Bush dynasty didn't win. But I don't think it's true. Without Perot, Clinton would've won by a larger margin, or the same, since Perot took from either Clinton or both.

Here's what makes sense to me. Actual numbers that give you a sense of who the Perot voters were:

******

In the Governor's races, Perot's voters cast 18% of their ballots for the Republican candidates; 56% of their ballots for Democratic candidates, 17% for independent candidates, and 8% did not bother to vote for Governor. If Perot's voters had voted for Bush and Clinton in the same proportion that the voted for the Republican and Democratic candidates for Governor, Clinton's lead would have increased by 7.5 million votes.


In the Senate races, Perot's supporters voted 27% for the Republican candidates, 24% for the Democratic candidates, 23% for the independent candidates, and 24% skipped the Senate races entirely. (This does not include states that did not have Senate races.)

In the House races, Perot's voters cast 22% of their ballots for Republican candidates, 19% for Democratic candidates, 18% for independent candidates, and 40% did not vote in House races.


Perot's voters voted overwhelmingly for Democratic Governor candidates, and only marginally in favor of the Republican candidates for the House and Senate. Perot's voters favored Republican Senate candidates by 2.28%, and Republican House candidates by 2.69%. Because Perot's voters were only 1/5th of the total, that translates into about another 500,000 votes or 0.5% for bush if they had voted in a two way presidential race the same way they voted for the Senate and House. That is about 1/7th of the margin by which Bush lost.

If Perot cost Bush the election, the proof must lie somewhere else. On a statistical basis, it's essentially impossible to make a case for Perot costing Bush the 1992 presidential election. The election results show that Perot took many voters from Clinton among his supporters who demonstrated a low interest in politics by voting only for President and Governor, while taking marginally from Bush among those who demonstrated more commitment by casting ballots for Congress.

This analysis can be further confirmed by comparing the 1992 and 1996 results where Perot's vote dropped by 10 million compared to 1992. By comparing the vote totals for Clinton in both years with Bush's and Dole's (assuming Dole voters and Bush voters were the same voters) it is possible to conclude that in 1992 Perot's presence on the ballot cost Bush: Montana, North Carolina, Colorado and Georgia. However, Perot cost Clinton: Florida and Arizona in 1992. So, in 1992, Perot cost Clinton 32 electoral votes while costing Bush 37 electoral votes. Bush lost by 100 electoral votes, so 5 more would not have given him victory.

http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm
*****************
If Mr. Perot had not been on the ballot, 38 percent of his voters said, they would have voted for Gov. Bill Clinton, and 38 percent said they would have voted for President Bush.
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/05/us/1992-elections-disappointment-analysis-eccentric-but-no-joke-perot-s-strong.html?pagewanted=print&src=pm

ejpoeta

(8,933 posts)
44. i voted for perot too. it was my first election and I watched the debates
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 07:29 PM
Sep 2012

and paid attention as much as I could. I think you are right.... it was that no new taxes thing. Read my lips.....

Freddie

(9,362 posts)
11. Republicans are extremely sore losers
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 08:14 AM
Sep 2012

They go totally apeshit when not in power. The reaction to Obama's presidency is worse than most for obvious reasons, but remember how they took every opportunity to take down Clinton too. The whole Monica thing was pure Repug apeshittishness.

WCGreen

(45,558 posts)
13. that was because they were emboldened by the realignment of the voters
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 08:22 AM
Sep 2012

that started with Nixon and culminated in the Gingrich Congress.

I believe that the solidification of the Democratic base, at least nationally, is signs that a realigning election period where coalitions shift and alignments breaks down has begun.

I had a post about it yesterday. There is a significant generational move toward the democrats that hasn't happened since FDR. The last big realignment started in 1972. The presidency always leads the realignment with legislative and judicial change lagging behind. This makes sense when you look at it.

aaaaaa5a

(4,667 posts)
21. I agree with your posts
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 08:57 AM
Sep 2012

The Presidential map changed post civil rights.

There was a brief exception in 1976 because Carter was (at the time) considered an old era southern Democrat. But outside of that, the alignment was growing and was firmly put in place by the end of the Reagan era. 1992 and 1996 were aberrations because we had a strong 3rd party candidate that divided the GOP vote. This allowed us to carry states we never would have won in a straight 2 party race. I love Bill Clinton, but he never once won 50% of the vote (1992-43%, 1996-49%) In the year 2000, even with a southerner on top of the ticket, without a strong 3rd party challenge, the realignment was set.


This "realignment" helped the GOP put an electoral stranglehold on the Presidency.

From 1968 to 1992, the GOP won 5 of 6 Presidential elections. And the only Democratic win was razor thin (Carter 49.5%/Ford 49%-1976). Many of the GOP wins were blowouts. However because of the demographic changes to the country, the expansion of suburbs, and more well educated Northeast residents moving south, we are now entering an era where we will have an advantage. This is why Virginia is now competitive. North Carolina is marginally competitive. And Sshh... don't tell anybody, but South Carolina isn't as far away as we think. (Obama had 22% of the white vote in S.C. in 2008. Thats a good number for the traditional south.) Texas will be in play in 2020.

Very quietly since 1992, Democrats have now won the popular vote in 4 of the last 5 elections. And in 2004, Bush won the popular vote narrowly, 51%/48%. The trend lines are clear. We are entering an era where Democrats will enjoy the electoral college advantage for a generation the way the Republicans did a generation ago.

Jennicut

(25,415 posts)
46. And this is why the Repubs use the tactics they do to try and hold onto power.
Sun Sep 16, 2012, 12:21 PM
Sep 2012

The demos of America are going to change elections in the next 30 years and the Repubs know this. They are scared out of their minds but by being so nutty they have set themselves up for their own failure. They have already lost most people under the age of 45. The south will not be a stranglehold forever with the increasing hispanic population. They are done in for eventually unless they improve their brand. Their main voters are getting older and whiter.

Ikonoklast

(23,973 posts)
38. Declining number of White males as the Boomers age and die off.
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 02:03 PM
Sep 2012

Theose numbers brought the Republicans into power, and they will now take them out...for a very, very long time, or until the Republican Party changes dramatically.

WCGreen

(45,558 posts)
39. A decline in the White Males numbers should be stated as a decline of the
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 02:13 PM
Sep 2012

voting percentage of White Males...

Ikonoklast

(23,973 posts)
40. Yes, that's a real double whammy there.
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 03:26 PM
Sep 2012

They need to get an increasingly larger number of that declining demographic to vote their way just to stay even.

If I held stock in a company whose business model depended only upon that declining demographic to sell to, to the exclusion of all others, I would sell it short.

davidpdx

(22,000 posts)
16. Well the one sure thing is their motto of making Obama a one term president
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 08:32 AM
Sep 2012

will be out of date after he whoops Romney's ass.

davidpdx

(22,000 posts)
24. Haha
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 10:03 AM
Sep 2012

Don't we all. Except I'm kind of enjoying the drama. I'm so far away I don't have to list to the constant TV commercials and news very often. Watching it from a far is actually pretty interesting.

smorkingapple

(827 posts)
12. The 24/7 coverage means opinions are formed early
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 08:17 AM
Sep 2012

and stick longer. This is the new normal in Presidential politics. Even as recently as 2000, the Internet was dialup, there wasn't this 24/7 update of the latest development in the race. You either watched TV all the time to get updates or you only saw the basic highlights before conventions, watched the convention and maybe a debate or two and then voted. Now you know what underwear each candidate wore two days ago and will know every thing about them from the time they announce to election day.

 

smirkymonkey

(63,221 posts)
42. I loved that skit!
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 05:52 PM
Sep 2012

Thanks for the chuckle.

I think that will be my new name for Mitt - "Happy Fun Ball".

 

wilt the stilt

(4,528 posts)
18. We have his back.
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 08:37 AM
Sep 2012

Many many people on the left have watched this man be attacked like no other. We see the hatred and we know it is skin tone. We are protecting our own like he is our offspring. It has made us stronger in his defense.

rbrnmw

(7,160 posts)
20. Well said I agree
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 08:46 AM
Sep 2012

I also think some people who were moderate Republicans or Fiscally Conservative are turned off by the obvious racism and will vote for President Obama or will be sitting this one out.

SoCalDem

(103,856 posts)
22. "Republican" is the "default" setting for the presidency
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 09:00 AM
Sep 2012

It's been this way for a while now.. Democratic presidents are treated (by the media) as an aberration...a glitch.. something went wrong and "that" guy got in.,., He did not "win"..

Carter was demonized from day one and was perceived as weak..and was run out after 1 term

Clinton was harangued and tormented into "going along" with republicans, and even then he was impeached.

We all got Reaganized..and the default was reset as republican...

Business (and media by default) have always favored republicans..

When a democrat is elected, they get no "honeymoon".. they start out behind the 8-ball and stay there as long as they are in office...once out of office, their "successes" are always ripe for "unraveling"...republican policies are sacrosanct.

ChairmanAgnostic

(28,017 posts)
27. I think the vitriol directed to Clinton was just as bad
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 10:23 AM
Sep 2012

The only difference was the honeymoon was from the media.

With Obama, at least in terms of a media honeymoon, it was the opposite. They were so used to (and quite possibly ashamed of) being little more than lapdogs for the Cheney Bush administration, that even those who were not secretly on Cheney's payroll realized that they had to be stronger and most forceful. So, the easiest path to reclaiming journalistic independence was to attack, or at least, not support Obama.

There were few stories about how the GOP was stopping everything, threatening, bullying, and even risking the credibility and credit of the USA. Instead, by being fair and balanced, they attacked Obama and followed the lead of GOP spokesnakes.

The GOPers hate anyone who may disagree with them. They routinely practice kneecapping, especially if one of their own, dares act, think, or speak independently.

WCGreen

(45,558 posts)
33. For Clinton, it was still before Fox was on a lot of Cable Systems...
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:44 PM
Sep 2012

CNN was still a News Network and the big three networks were still the big three News Outlets.

WCGreen

(45,558 posts)
32. Yes it is....
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:42 PM
Sep 2012

For my first College Poli Sci Class, this was an assigned book.

It really explains the birth of the modern campaign.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Chuck Todd is flabbergast...