What happens with the political bases of the parties if it's Romney vs. Obama?
|
What happens with the political bases of the parties if it's Romney vs. Obama?
|
10-07-2011, 04:11 AM
"Candidates who raise more money usually win the general election, Bill Clinton in 1996 being the only upset in recent history."
http://mydd.com/2008/4/5/does-the-candid...l-election Things that make you go "Hmm." 
10-07-2011, 04:38 AM
Acer wrote: And that's where the Citizens United decision of 5 of our 9 SCOTUS justices comes into play. It's almost an insurance policy that will keep the far right in power for the foreseeable future. That we are devolving into a world class banana republic bothers the upper income class not at all.
10-07-2011, 05:33 AM
Kiva wrote: or the candidate the media chooses to write their narrative around... These are not mutually exclusive, and in fact, are historically complementary or tightly correlated. (not sure which causes which)
10-07-2011, 02:00 PM
Seacrest wrote: or the candidate the media chooses to write their narrative around... These are not mutually exclusive, and in fact, are historically complementary or tightly correlated. (not sure which causes which) I think something similar - not sure which causes which - is the case with the candidate that raises the most money wins. It seems that it could be just as likely that the big money people especially want to make sure they ingratiate themselves to the person who looks most likely to win the presidency (based on things like the condition of the economy) and then give that person more money so that is why the candidate with more money wins (that is, the candidate that is likely to win gets more money). IOW, perhaps it is the prospect of being the likely winner that opens the taps of more money rather than that being able to raise more money is the reason that they win. I think it's hard to tell which is cause and effect.
10-07-2011, 03:41 PM
I think that the economy is going to drive this election. If things stay the way they are the Republican will win. Unless the Republican is someone like Perry or Bachmann in which case tbe Democratic base will stream to the polls to prevent a travesty.
The GOP knows this. Look for more "migraine" and "******head" type stories to come out about all the nut jobs , as the Party hoses them off the front porch.
10-07-2011, 06:22 PM
Ted King wrote: or the candidate the media chooses to write their narrative around... These are not mutually exclusive, and in fact, are historically complementary or tightly correlated. (not sure which causes which) I think something similar - not sure which causes which - is the case with the candidate that raises the most money wins. It seems that it could be just as likely that the big money people especially want to make sure they ingratiate themselves to the person who looks most likely to win the presidency (based on things like the condition of the economy) and then give that person more money so that is why the candidate with more money wins (that is, the candidate that is likely to win gets more money). IOW, perhaps it is the prospect of being the likely winner that opens the taps of more money rather than that being able to raise more money is the reason that they win. I think it's hard to tell which is cause and effect. Certainly a portion of the front-runner's money is people piling on the apparent winning side. Perhaps your question could be answered by the timing of the campaign income, especially further out when the winner was not so clear. Think of Obama in June, when he had wrested the nomination from Clinton, but was far from a certain winner of the election. What were his finances then compared to McCain? During how much of the general campaign were his finances ahead of McCain? Did they balloon in October when McCain was melting down? Or, more simply "Who had more money on Labor Day, compared to to who won?" That may control for piling on the winner. Could well be the same outcome, of course, but I wonder.
10-07-2011, 08:28 PM
$tevie wrote: Why didn't they "stream" to the polls last November?
10-12-2011, 04:01 PM
IIRC, Obama had tons of money almost from the beginning. He received the most Wall Street money, in fact. Ergo, he won. We the proles are in reality an afterthought in any election. Even if you vote for the person who has best [mis]represented your own personal values and hopes, it's for naught as the big money writes the script. And the media will turn the current protests into yet another R vs. D thing with lies and disinformation (as they've already been doing), so fear not if you're against the protesters.
But just for fun: what could be considered the true Left (progressive vote) is entirely pissed at Obama and views him as a sellout if not worse. But that's not the base, it's only about 5-15% would be my guess. The base of around 15-20% rank and file Dems are still pretty enamored with him. Amazingly so. Again, I call Obama "Bush Lite." I still don't get why the R's hate him. He's done a truly wonderful job with their bidding. Wars still on, defense spending still up, Gitmo still open, corporate giveaways and loopholes increased all around. No reform, no help for the regular folks or small biz owners. Done! But just follow the money. Sickening on both sides. Agreed, Romney brings his own set of issues to the R side, but I also agree that TP voters will do anything to avoid having a "brown person" as CIC again. And the economy is completely hosed thanks to business-as-usual corruption. So all in all, I'd guess Romney will likely win the popular vote by a few hairs even if it takes a little help from the voting machine makers.
10-13-2011, 05:58 AM
Way too early for those sort of prognostications. As I recall Pres. Clinton was even lower in his public perception at this time in his first term. He also had a Republican Congress to deal with. Difference was, when he conceded GOP points, that Congress didn't refuse to vote for compromise.
It also helped that he wasn't Black and that Bob Dole turned out to be the GOP nominee. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
