I've said this before, but it bears repeating

[socialist_n_TN]

The reason we lost Weiner's House seat is the same reason that the Republicans lost the upstate NY seat a few months ago. Incumbency.

When times are bad economically, the low information voter (most people in the USA) thrash about for someone to blame because they don't follow the issues close enough to actually KNOW who to blame. And that's ALWAYS the incumbent. Or in this case the incumbent's PARTY.

And although I blamed the USA for having low info voters in my second paragraph, this is actually a worldwide phenomena. Even in Europe you see left governments being replaced by right governments and vice versa because things are crappy economically. IOW with a LOT of voters worldwide, there's no consideration of and for platforms and stands on issues. It becomes a "throw the bums out" mentality. People try to vote for ANYTHING that might possibly improve their situation.

Extrapolating, it would probably be reasonable to assume that unless there are drastic changes, we should see a turnover in the House and Senate and PROBABLY the WH in '12. Possibly the Dems retake the House and the Republicans the Senate and the WH.

The ONLY thing that could POSSIBLY stop this would be energizing the base on each side. If the INFORMED or ideological voters show up in numbers, then it MIGHT be able to overcome the anti-incumbency mood of the general electorate. Or not. But it IS the only CHANCE to overcome this mood.

And that's why Obama's current strategy of triangulating is wrong. He'll never shift far enough to the right to capture the ideologues on the right. They will NEVER vote for a black Democrat, even if he's a DINO to the right of the Republican on the issues. Obama's only chance is to fire up HIS (former) base and SOMEHOW get them to the polls in numbers great enough to overcome the low info voters and ideologues on the right. But I suspect he won't do that and we lose the WH and the Senate. Possibly the House too, if the base can't even be motivated to show up.

In short, it's going to be VERY difficult to overcome the anti-incumbent mood in this country in '12.

[Denninmi]

1. What about the Republican redistricting effect.

They've gone out of their way to redistrict every state they can into completely safe Republican districts and eliminate as many Dems as humanly possible. All with virtually no challenges. They did it to me, my current guy, Gary Peters (D) Michigan 9th is a man without a district, basically, in 2012. Other Michigan Dems, Hansen Clark and the venerable John Conyers and Sander Levin, have had their districts shifted dramatically, while John Dingell had his shifted not quite as much, if I'm interpreting the new maps correctly.

[socialist_n_TN]

4. YEah, that will play a part in it too

especially if the turnout is low. But that ties back into the strategy for '12. The Dems MUST increase turnout by firing up THEIR ideological voters. And that ain't gonna happen by "triangulation". A massive turnout on the Dem side could overcome most of the effects of redistricting in most places.

[Cosmocat]

7. Just HORRIFIC timing

to have the 2010 elections be a pushback against the dem majorities and big rebound year for the Rs to be able to control redistricting. And, they KNEW it going in, and that was part of their urgency.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[izquierdista]

3. Political advertising also plays a part

In most countries, it is aimed at low-information voters and just gives them a smiling face and a nice slogan (or the negative ad of a mean looking face and a fear slogan). They have reduced political campaigning to "who do you like better, the Yankees or the Red Sox?" Coke or Pepsi? Window or aisle?

This plays into the hands of Republican business types, who have spent their lives getting people to buy products through advertising. To get their agenda accomplished, all they have to do is kick some more dollars over to the advertising budget.

[socialist_n_TN]

10. Yep. The less information you have

the easier you can be swayed by emotion and instinct. And that's what advertising does.

[TBF]

5. If he can't find some way to get folks back to work he will lose -

as Clinton's camp used to say "it's the economy, stupid".

Average folks know when the economy is bad and they cut back their spending. They have the general idea that someone has screwed up and they will blame whomever is currently in office. It doesn't go any deeper than that. He either gets that train back on the track or he's toast.

[socialist_n_TN]

11. Hence the "throw the bums out" mentality

of the electorate. Of course that doesn't mean they can hold on to power either. IF things continue to be economically crappy, they'll lose the next election on the horizen too.

[quinnox]

6. good analysis

I agree with most of it, except I think Obama is in the most danger of losing the presidency, while Democrats might retake the House and hold the Senate.

I am expecting Obama to make no changes in his strategy however, he seems determined to stay the course he has set and will most likely lose the presidency because of it.

[socialist_n_TN]

8. I agree. And that's why I would like to see

a primary challenge from the left. It would give the voters another view of the political situation, a view that they would most likely agree with. Especially since the "leftish" positions are the ones that a LARGE majority of Americans tell pollsters that they agree with.

If it did nothing else, it would set up a leftish Dem for '16. That is of course, if the Republicans ALLOW elections in '16 :) Who knows? We might wind up with our own Amurikan version of the Reichstag fire.

[loyalsister]

9. I don't think anyone expects RW ideologues to vote for Obama

Right leaning voters who have no official party affiliation (sometimes referred to as independents) are another story. They make up a significant portion of the population in midwestern swing states.

[socialist_n_TN]

13. And they're the "throw the bums out" low info voters

that I was talking about in the OP. THEY won't be won over because the economy is crappy, so they'll be wanting to try something different because the "socialist" policies of Obama haven't worked.

Triangulating is a losing strategy at this time. During Clinton's terms, it might have been viable and it certainly worked. For CLINTON. I don't think it worked for the good of the American worker, but it won the election. Things are too bad for it to work today.

[Sherman A1]

12. There is never just one answer

it is always a combination of things, campaigns, individuals, issues and I firmly believe the hubris of The Esteemed Mr. W who created the situation in the first place with his actions. Had he not been so "Tweety" he would still be in Congress and there would be no thread discussing his seat being won by the GOP.

[socialist_n_TN]

14. Of course it's always somewhat individualized

by district. But I think that it's telling that some of the SAFEST districts for one party or the other, have been lost to the other party just in the last few months. That argues STRONGLY for a "throw the bums" out mentality among the electorate.

[txlibdem]

15. Anti-incumbent mood? With Obama turning his back on Democratic Principles he has zero chance

We want Campaign Obama back. We're sick of President Obama and his record of taking right wing policies and making them even *more* right wing, then begging and pleading with the GOP to help him pass it.

I'd rather get fired for doing the proper thing rather than throwing all my supposed principles out the window and getting fired for being too much like a Republican. Take my word for it; if Obama doesn't start acting like a strong and capable Democrat he is going to be fired by the voters. Guaranteed.

[socialist_n_TN]

16. I can't disagree with you, but yes

there IS an anti incumbent mood in the world because the economy sux. My argument is that the ONLY way that Obama MIGHT be able to overcome the anti incumbent mood is to do EXACTLY what you said. We'll see if he does it or not.

[txlibdem]

19. Every time he steps up to the mic I can't help but hope that *this* will be the time

... that he will finally become what he claimed he was during the campaign.

Only to be disappointed again...

PS, I agree that there is more worldwide anti-incumbent sentiment than I've seen in my lifetime. Obama is playing with fire and he seems either too stupid to know it... or complicit in the GOP plan to destroy the middle class.

[coalition_unwilling]

17. What those anti-incombents fail to consider is that the U2 unemployment

rate under a President Romney or Perry could easily reach 25%. Them's January, 1933 figures and ones the country has not seen since. If those low-information voters think things are bad now, they have no idea how much worse they can get.

This in no way constitutes any endorsement by me of Obama or the pathetic Demcoratic Party. I'll be voting Democratic Socialist in 2012 or for a newly emergent Labor Party launched in response to the Democrat's rendering themselves irrelevant to the interests of the working class.

[socialist_n_TN]

18. Totally agree with you

But that's the thing about low info voters, they DON'T think. They just automatically react to bad economic times with a "throw the bums out" attitude. And yes it WILL make things MUCH worse.

The only thing that might save Obama and the DINOs bacon is if the Republicans nominate someone who's SO extreme that even the low info types notice. But that doesn't mean that I think that things will get better even if that happens. The Dems and Obama have shown themselves incapable of leading or standing up to the exploiters and on the side of the working class. Until SOMEBODY does, things will get worse. It's just a matter of how MUCH worse and how fast.

Rough waters ahead my friend, rough waters.

[Zax2me]

21. 25%?! Okay....

whatever you say.

[Zax2me]

20. S it isn't vote fixing, lying polls steering Dem voters away,etc.....?!

Thanks for the reality shock to many that need it!
K&R

[socialist_n_TN]

22. Oh I think that's all a part of it too.........

The proto fascists are doing EVERYTHING they can to institute the Thousand Year Reich here in the good ole USA. But they can only get away with the crap they pull BECAUSE the low info voter DOESN'T PAY ATTENTION TO NUANCE. As long as it's SLIGHTLY hidden, only activists or political junkies notice.

I also think that the low info voter doesn't notice MOSTLY because he/she doesn't WANT to notice. It's so much easier to blame the bums in power than to think that the entire electoral system is a front for neofuedalism because then you have to get up off your proverbial couch and THINK about what needs to be done.

[sweetapogee]

23. your thinking is this:

After reading this thread I conclude thus:

Major premise: low information voters vote puke
Minor Premise: turn out in NY9 was low

Conclusion: informed voters in NY9 did not vote.

I don't think this is the message intended but this is what I'm getting out of it by a simple reading.