Slaying the Boogeyman

By: sebastianjer , 2:23 PM GMT en Febrero 25, 2012

Share this Blog
0
+



Part One: Silly Numbers

The bogeyman among right leaning voters reinforced by the left leaning media is that President Obama is so popular and the GOP candidates are so unappealing that come November our heroic young President, Osama slayer his own self, will rise from the ashes of the economic disaster he is presiding over and beat his inept challenger, whoever it is, at the polls. I say nonsense and I am going to do a few posts to show you why Obama is not only on thin ice, the ice is cracked, the sun is out and it won't set until he is defeated in November.

Things can change, things can always change. But despite the Left's hype and the Right's fear there is, as things stand now, very little chance that Barack Obama will be reelected. Let's look at some facts, across the spectrum of what really matters electorally.

 The easiest way to do this is to look at the most recent elections and see how things look now. Though it may seem longer, it was only four years ago that the last Presidential election took place so as far as the make up of the electorate is concerned things have not changed all that much, and where it has it has gone against Obama being reelected.

The Census has changed the Electoral College vote It is often mentioned that if the 2008 election were repeated today, because of census reapportionment, Obama would  receive six less electoral votes. While this is not a significant number considering how many electoral votes he won 365-173 in 2008, if the election is close it could make a big difference. Remember 2000?

In 2000 Bush eked out an electoral win 271-267 over Gore. That same electoral map with the 2010 reapportionment would be 285-253. in other words Bush could have stolen even more with the same effort. The 2004 election which Bush won 286-251 today would be 296-242. To show how important this could be consider this, the Republican candidate could loose Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada, all states Bush won in 2004 and still win the election.

Turnout matters. To win a national election, especially a close one, turning out "the base" really matters. To give you an idea of how important this is in 2004 the voters were equally split between the parties, 37% of voters were Republican and 37% were Democrats with 26% Independents. Compare that to 2008 when the electorate was 32% Republican and 39% Democrats with 29% Independents.

In both elections 89% of Democrats voted for their party's candidates and 93% of Republicans voted for their party's candidate. But obviously 89% of 39% of the voters is far more than 93% of 32% of the voters. What did this turn out difference mean? Far more than you would think.  Probably more important than Obama's advantage with the Independents was the low turn out of Republicans. Not since 1980 when Reagan changed everything by not only beating Carter but doing it with only 28% Republican participation, not since then has the Republican Party failed to have at least 35% voter participation in a presidential election. Even with Perot in 92 and 96 even with the "hanging chad" thriller in 2000 not once had Republicans cast less than 35% of the vote, until 2008. That little know and hardly mentioned detail was also an historic consequence of the 2008 election.

Since all that we have is the exit polling and total votes what follow can not not be precise but it is  close enough to show how important turn out can be.

Considering the turn out difference I have pointed to above which gave Obama approximately 1.9 million more votes than if the turn out and vote ratio was the same as it was in 2004 and McCain received approximately 4.3 million less votes than if the turn out and vote ratio was the same as it was in 2004. A staggering 6.2 million vote difference. The number of Independents who voted for Obama over McCain was 3.1 million, So the turn out of base was twice as important as the difference in Independent's preference. To put it in actual numbers here is what the vote would have been in 2008 with the 2004 turnout ratio applied

2008 Total votes cast 131,239,456

2008 Election using 2004 percentages

Obama
89%  Democrats-       43,217,003
6%   Republicans -      2,913,506
50% Independents-    17,061,010

Total Obama using 2004 percentages 63,191,579

McCain
11% Democrats-        5,341,427
93% Republicans-    45,159,340
48% Independents-  16,378,621

Total McCain using 2004 percentages 66,879,394

McCain would have won by almost 3.7 million votes.

Since the Independents are considered such a big factor in the election let's assume that the 2008 vote stayed the same for Independents but the Republicans and Democrat turn out was the same as 2004. So we give Obama 52% of the Independents and McCain 44% which is what the exit polling shows. The balance as well as about 1% of the Republican vote having gone towards third party candidates,

If you leave the 2008 Independent percentages as it actually was in 2008 the results would be McCain 64,514,509 and Obama 63,879,394. So if Republicans and Democrats had shown up proportionality in 2008 as they had in 2004 even given Obama's larger percentage vote among Independents McCain would still have won, at least the popular vote.

This is all conjecture of course, for one thing since so few Republicans showed up to polls in 2008-32% compared to 39% for Democrats this meant the Independent vote made up the difference  29% in 2008 compared to 26% in 2004. However you look at it though, there is little doubt the bigger factor in Obama's win was the low turn out among Republicans not Obama's margin among Independents. Look at it this way if the 37% of Republican voters that turned out in 2004 had turned out in 2008 it would have added 4.3 million votes to McCain, exceeding the just over 3 million vote advantage that Obama had with Independents.

The question is, will this election be closer to a 2004 type turnout or more like a 2008? Remembering that 2008 was the lowest Republican turn out since 1980. The odds, based on not only the 2010 mid terms but party identification and party enthusiasm, that it is definitly headed towards a 2004 type turnout. Consider this article from Gallup earlier this month   More States Move to GOP in 2011, Seventeen states solidly or leaning Republican, up from 10 in 2010


Democrats have lost their solid political party affiliation advantage in 18 states since 2008, while Republicans have gained a solid advantage in 6 states. A total of 17 states were either solidly Republican or leaning Republican in their residents' party affiliation in 2011, up from 10 in 2010 and 5 in 2008. Meanwhile, 19 states including the District of Columbia showed a solid or leaning Democratic orientation, down from 23 in 2010 and 36 in 2008. The remaining 15 states were relatively balanced politically, with neither party having a clear advantage.

That is beyond a political adjustment, that is the beginning of a political realignment. When you see those types of shifts you are seeing something that happens once or twice a century. So you can be clear about how dramatic this change is, here are those "15 states... relatively balanced politically "




By party affiliation those are what are now considered the "purple states". Georgia? Arizona? Arkansas?  But everyone know that those state are really "Red" states. Also consider that since 2008 Virginia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Ohio have all become Republican dominated at the State level, meaning both their legislatures and governors are Republican, Florida and Arizona already were.

This change in the electoral make up of America since 2008, though significant, is just one small part of the mountain that Obama must climb to be reelected. I will post further on the "Slaying of the Boogeyman" in the days to come


************************************************* ****
Profile Visitor Map - Click to view visits
Create your own visitor map


()()()()()()()()(()())()()()()()()()()()

The religion of Climate Science

'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'

IPCC's Climate Models' Positive Feedback Assumption Proven To Be Incorrect, Per The Actual Empirical Evidence

Nobel Prize winning biochemist says ALL biofuels are “nonsense.”
()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()

NOT EXACTLY FRONT PAGE NEWS


US taxpayers to subsidise $40bn housing settlement

In Entitlement America, The Head Of A Household Of Four Making Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than A Family Making $60,000 A Year

Second gun used in ICE agent murder linked to ATF undercover operation

Two U.S. troops are shot dead by Afghan 'ally' as Obama expresses his 'deep regret' to Afghan President for Koran burning by American soldiers

Kagan Must Recuse Herself from Obamacare Case
By Sen. Jeff Sessions


***

CONSTITUTION 101

History in Pictures


###
TODAY'S QUOTE

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild, and government to gain ground."

- Thomas Jefferson

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 20 - 1

Page: 1 — Blog Index

19. theshepherd
1:58 PM GMT en Febrero 26, 2012
@ "You can jump up and down and stomp your feet and carry on about the economics of it all you want Jer. It doesn't matter what you think. It's the right thing to do and we will find a way to make it work."

************************************************* ********


Make it work?

What you're really talking about is what I consider Alchemy Economics.
Alchemy didn't work then, it won't work now and it won't work tomorrow.


...and yes, it does matter what we think.




Member Since: Septiembre 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10097
18. sebastianjer
6:06 AM GMT en Febrero 26, 2012
You know Lotis I am originally an Oregonian. Most of my family lives there. So I do not hold it against the state though most of my family is of the liberal persuasion as well.

I rib my mother telling her why I have not made it back in years is that if I wanted to visit a communist country, Cuba is much closer :)

Have a good evening
Jer
Member Since: Agosto 26, 2005 Posts: 1030 Comments: 11197
17. NumberWise
5:28 AM GMT en Febrero 26, 2012
Lotis75, I have fantasies about the USA being split into two countries. Some of the e-mail jokes about that are very clever!

I live in NY, and I'll use your words: Yes, New York is a blue state (unfortunately) but there are many here who are not and see the stupid choices they are making.
Member Since: Octubre 22, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1713
16. lotis75
5:15 AM GMT en Febrero 26, 2012
Two things:

1) I just want to make sure that it is understood by all who read Jer's blog, that just because someone has "Oregon" in their handle that those views are NOT necessarily reflective of all people from Oregon. Yes, Oregon is a blue state (unfortunately) but there are many here who are not and see the stupid choices they are making.

2) Can you imagine if the USA was split into two countries? A Liberal (or Democrat if you prefer) and Conservative (Republican) one and see how they fare? I imagine a North vs South Korea and/or East vs West Germany result. Oh wait, we kinda have that, it's called California.
Member Since: Septiembre 14, 2009 Posts: 2 Comments: 102
15. sebastianjer
1:57 AM GMT en Febrero 26, 2012
Oregon

What exactly is "the right thing to do"?
Member Since: Agosto 26, 2005 Posts: 1030 Comments: 11197
14. oregonbirdofprey
1:33 AM GMT en Febrero 26, 2012
Well thats a cute little story about the bears and all. You may have noticed that the grizzlys who once roamed most of north America are gone. Banished to a few small areas of Alaska and Canada. The problem for top predators is they can kill one or ten or twenty but they cannot kill one hundred or one thousand or one million. Remember my theory about numbers... ours and yours. The other problem for the grizzlys is that they are driven primarily by instinct. They do not think things through. Human animals have the ability and intelligence to reason and concider and choose. We can choose to make things better for each other, and so then, ourselves as well. We can choose to act together in defence of ourselves from the grizzlys of the world. You can jump up and down and stomp your feet and carry on about the economics of it all you want Jer. It doesn't matter what you think. It's the right thing to do and we will find a way to make it work.
Member Since: Septiembre 26, 2008 Posts: 1 Comments: 955
13. sebastianjer
12:36 AM GMT en Febrero 26, 2012
BTW that was written long before Sarah Palin came up with her Mama Grizzly theme :)
Member Since: Agosto 26, 2005 Posts: 1030 Comments: 11197
12. sebastianjer
12:26 AM GMT en Febrero 26, 2012


"One World" and the Grizzly

Rand Simberg has a nice column in Pajama Media about tax cuts. He makes the very real observation



"I view a reduction in my income tax as more of my own money, which I earned, that I am allowed to keep. Leftists start with the implicit assumption that all wealth, regardless of who actually earned it, is the property of the state, and any amount that we have after taxes is viewed as a gift from the state."



This got me thinking about how this "world view" about taxes gets so much credibility. It occurred to me that it really gets down to a basic over all world view, of life as a whole.

The idea is basically this, "Nobody owns the world, it is owned by everybody." This, at its core, is a very commendable ideal and in some ways very true.

You can, and it has been, expand on this ideal to this. "No species owns the world, it is owned by all living things." This is the basis for many environmental teachings and beliefs. Again a very commendable idealism and in many ways based in truth.

But there is a serious flaw in this thinking that can easily be tested. Find a Grizzly Bear den and go inside for protection from the weather. You will quickly find out that the Grizzly recognizes something that many on the left fail to undertand, the Grizzly believes in property rights.

In fact, to some degree or another, all living things do and man is no different. Even the most uneducated of human beings recognize this, though the more educated seem to have a harder time with it.

When you take the idealism of "Nobody owns the world, it is owned by everybody" and try to incorporate that into a political, economic and social structure, it fails. It fails simply because what is mine is not yours whether you are a grizzly bear, a nightingale or a Russian peasant.

A grizzly may allow you to share his den for a time and a Russian peasant can; by force be made to share his lands and his crops, but neither the grizzly or the peasant see it as either natural or required by the laws of nature.

This "One World" view can work successfully on small communal scales, simply because everyone knows one another and becomes dependent on each other for their common welfare, much like a family unit.

It also can even be somewhat successful on larger national level such as in some Scandinavian nations, successful being defined as it exists. This is because small countries like Sweden are pretty much a homogeneous society with shared culture, traditions and backgrounds. But the ideal begins to crumble when large segments of the population even if only a large minority is introduced into the society. We see this happening all over Europe. In England, France, The Netherlands, Belgium and even Germany the introduction of other cultures and traditions in large numbers creates a more heterogeneous society, which breaks down the common fabric that is necessary for the socialist system to work. Why?

Because people are no different than grizzlies in this respect, they are not willing to give up their beliefs and traditions for some unknowing, unseen common good. It is not just prejudices, if prejudice at all, it is survival. Why should a Muslim give up the traditions and societal structure that has been the basis for their community for centuries for the common good of a government entity that they have no connection to, the governments only real purpose is to standardize the whole.

This could be said of Jews, Christians or any secular group that is proud of their heritage and culture. That is why, in order to promote a "One World "agenda, you must either demonize the old beliefs, cultures and most important any pride in shared history or you must overly encourage all beliefs and cultures (multi-culturism) regardless of the obvious disparity in some cultures. Who for example could argue that large segments of Islam's treatment of women is preferable or more enlightened than most Western cultures? One way or the other this "One World" idealism must destroy distinctive cultural pride and tradition, or at least that is the current practice.

The problem is that people are animals, they do have survival instincts at the most basic level, the family unit. This is why it is also necessary to marginalize the family unit. This is done by empowering the child over the parent, a very obvious and increasing trend in western society today. This perhaps above all else is the most frightening, because it corrodes the very nature of our species or any species for that matter. The continuing attack on the family unit through promotion of youth and the belittling of age and experience is not only dangerous it is ultimately self defeating.

Will this "One World" view succeed? In my opinion yes and no. Ultimately man(kind) must evolve to a genuine "We are the world", Kum ba ya, Star Treck society. We must at some point reach a point in out development that we stand together as a species to preserve our planet and our species. But it will not happen based on the devaluation of the individual, this is doomed to fail.

As it currently stands the worlds' only governing body, The United Nations, is dominated by regimes that seek to control people rather than empower them. The current rush towards "One World" is being attempted by the use of power- economic, political, propaganda and plain brute force over the masses. When people feel disenfranchised from the government as they are more and more, they will revert back to the basic levels of trust, the family unit.

Ultimately to achieve this "One World" we must recognize that what is best about us must be encouraged, not discouraged or marginalized. When governments recognize that the empowerment of the individual rather than the control of the individual is the key to unity, then we will make real progress. The love a parent for a child is a far more powerful tool to the advancement of man than the suppression of birth. The burning creative desire of the entrepreneur is what allows for technological and economic advancement not the equal distribution of resources.

We have already learned these lessons, this is not something new, it is someting old and as deep as the spirit of Liberty that burns in every man. Yet here we are again, allowing ourselves to be sucked back down the drain of suppression of the human spirit by those whose true purposes are elitist governance and political power over us and our children.

It will fail, it will fail because the grizzly will be awakened and rise up to protect his/her den from those who would so naively believe that it is their job to share it, only the grizzly can make that choice and the grizzly always protects its den.
Member Since: Agosto 26, 2005 Posts: 1030 Comments: 11197
10. sebastianjer
12:07 AM GMT en Febrero 26, 2012
Re 5 & 6

Irregardless of the desires of the dependency class or whatever you wish to call it or the movement which seeks to be empowered by it, a simple fact remains, it is unsustainable.

People can wish and vote to be taken care of, politicians can promise and enact programs to meet these desires, but in the end they will always collapse. Whether they are enacted out of good intentions or whether they are means for the slothful to remain so, it makes no difference the laws of economics, the laws of nature, human and otherwise will ultimately cause such enterprises to collapse.

There is a reason that Europe is in the situation it is now, there is a reason that Cuba is a basket case as a nation, there is a reason that the Soviet empire collapsed in on itself. The reason is simple, there is no free lunch.

The takers must always be supported by makers and once you reach a certain point, the makers will rebel, usually by simply ceasing to support the system which then collapses. Greece is the outcome. Even the Norwegian nations which have handled a more socialist society better than most in history is beginning to move away from it. Britain raised taxes up to 50% in order to try to maintain their entitlement society and their tax revenues went down. Why, because people will avoid, hide or simply stop working as hard rather than have the fruits of their labors seized from them to support others, especially when those others not only don't work as hard but ridicule the very people who provide more to society.

America can face these truths and purge this "progressive" insanity out of our system now, or we can watch the nation collapse. One way or the other the "progressive" ideology is finished.

I will post something in another entry that I wrote a while back that sort of explains this. But the cold hard facts are these, you can not make something from nothing and when the makers quit making there is nothing left for the takers to take.
Member Since: Agosto 26, 2005 Posts: 1030 Comments: 11197
9. oregonbirdofprey
11:02 PM GMT en Febrero 25, 2012
Spathy this goes to a point I've made here before, but they think I'm crazy when I say there are alot more of us than there are of you. It's all those people, beyond just those who identify as liberals, progressives, and the independents and moderates who often vote with us.(and if Santorum should somehow win the nomination I can tell you exactly how they will vote) It's also why I think the polls are skeued, because I don't think the polls accurately reflect those people. This is why I'm so confident of the strength of the progressive movement, long-term, besides the fact that I believe it's just the right way to be.
Member Since: Septiembre 26, 2008 Posts: 1 Comments: 955
7. NumberWise
8:13 PM GMT en Febrero 25, 2012
Interesting analysis, Jer, and I agree with what you have said in your comment above (#6). Most of the people with whom I interact aren't politically engaged, but those who voted for Obama are becoming uneasy. Although some may agree with some of the liberal agenda - ObamaCare, green energy, a pass for illegals - many don't agree with the way that Obama has gotten what he wants. Even some of the MSM is becoming critical of the thug tactics of this administration.

Here in rural upstate NY, the rising gas prices are taking a serious toll on most people. We have some of the highest state taxes on gas, and most people drive a fair distance for work, so this is taking a big bite out of depressed incomes. Shelling out an extra $10 or $20 a week (or more) is a big part of the "self interest" that you mention.
Member Since: Octubre 22, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1713
6. sebastianjer
7:44 PM GMT en Febrero 25, 2012
Re 5

I suspect Shep that it has mostly to do with information and education. It is not like most people in the nation are politically engaged. They make political decisions based on snippets of information gathered during a very busy or very uninformed life.

We always say that there was no way that Obama could have won based on what he truly was or on what he intended to do, he was that blank slate and only those who paid close attention recognized him for what he truly was and what he would do. People are beginning to wake up to who he is and what he is doing and they don't much care for it. It is not like everyone is either a progressive or a conservative, most people are not much politically inclined at all and only make decisions based upon their self interest or their ingrained but not fully developed political philosophies.

People are changing due to their sense that this is not the way it is supposed to be in America even if they can not identify either what is exactly wrong or what is the way it is supposed to be. They just know this isn't it and they are adjusting accordingly. IMHO
Member Since: Agosto 26, 2005 Posts: 1030 Comments: 11197
5. theshepherd
7:22 PM GMT en Febrero 25, 2012
@ "More States Move to GOP in 2011, Seventeen states solidly or leaning Republican, up from 10 in 2010


Democrats have lost their solid political party affiliation advantage in 18 states since 2008, while Republicans have gained a solid advantage in 6 states. A total of 17 states were either solidly Republican or leaning Republican in their residents' party affiliation in 2011, up from 10 in 2010 and 5 in 2008. Meanwhile, 19 states including the District of Columbia showed a solid or leaning Democratic orientation, down from 23 in 2010 and 36 in 2008. The remaining 15 states were relatively balanced politically, with neither party having a clear advantage.


That is beyond a political adjustment, that is the beginning of a political realignment. When you see those types of shifts you are seeing something that happens once or twice a century. So you can be clear about how dramatic this change is, here are those "15 states... relatively balanced politically ""

************************************************* *****


I'm curious as to how the numbers may be affected by the actual circumstances of the people involved.

I don't see an abundance of the population relocating from 2008 to 2010. So what actually changed their perceptions that in turn changed their persuasion?

Does the racial and ethnic aspect enter in? Are these two segments less apt to lean Republican?
That the Democrat cache of states has been cut by half in three years must surely point to something. That would mean that once comrades have become polar opposites.

Who are these people?





Member Since: Septiembre 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10097
4. latitude25
5:39 PM GMT en Febrero 25, 2012
Member Since: Agosto 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 3654
3. sebastianjer
3:24 PM GMT en Febrero 25, 2012
Re 1

Oh by the way given your reasoning, last I heard Chris Christie's approval ratings in New Jersey were somewhere in the mid 50% range, does that mean tha Obama can not win New Jersey?
Member Since: Agosto 26, 2005 Posts: 1030 Comments: 11197
2. sebastianjer
3:19 PM GMT en Febrero 25, 2012
Kieth

Blue states do not elect Republican governors and legislatures. Living in Florida where there are more registered Democrats than Republicans and where we have a "unpopular" governor, I can assure you that Obama has very little chance of winning here.

When people vote for President especially an incumbent they are voting on him not the governor. As of January 31 of this year Obama's approval in Gallup was only above 50% in ten states including the District of Columbia. None of the states you mentioned are on that list,in Florida it was 43.8% and in Ohio it was 42.1%. If you want to believe an unpopular Republican Governor is going to offset those kind of numbers if they remain that low, go ahead, you will be disappointed.
Member Since: Agosto 26, 2005 Posts: 1030 Comments: 11197
1. tkeith
3:04 PM GMT en Febrero 25, 2012
Also consider that since 2008 Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Ohio have all become Republican dominated at the State level, meaning both their legislatures and governors are Republican, Florida and Arizona already were.

With the exception of Arizona, I think this will help Obama not hurt him. These Governors are all pretty unpopular last time I looked, and these states will, IMO, decide the election.

Obamascare worked well in the 2010 midterms for the republicans, with the help of the Tea Party. But I think the emphasis the the current candidates are putting on social issues and the fact that the economy, like it or not, is slightly improving. At some point soon the asset managers sitting on the sideline are gonna have to jump back in the market. A rising market and even slightly falling unemployment is gonna be all the "middleoftheroaders" need to come out in droves for Obama....again JMO, which is worth less than nothing.

A shooting war with Iran involved may change the dynamic, or a total collapse of the European Union. I dont see either happening.

Member Since: Noviembre 1, 2004 Posts: 25 Comments: 8936

Viewing: 20 - 1

Page: 1 — Blog Index

Top of Page

About sebastianjer

Local Weather

Mostly Cloudy
85 ° F
Muy nublado