« Brutal Calculus, Part One: What Price Freedom? | Main | Live Blogging the Defending The American Dream Summit »

Some More Thoughts On 2010

Rummaging around the innertubes yesterday I ran across this interesting exchange between blogger Brendan Nyhan and a commenter at his blog post which posited the question: "Will 2010 be like 1994?". As that has been a frequent topic here at Wizbang, readers might find the debate between blogger and commenter quite interesting.

Nyhan offers a reasonable estimation in his attempt to handicap the outcome of the 2010 midterm elections, including a look at actual contested races, an analysis of whether Republicans can actually field an effective opposition and the demographics of 1994 versus 2010. What caught his commenter's attention was this statement by Nyhan:

From a political science perspective, 1994 was the culmination of the long decline of Democratic dominance among whites in the South -- many incumbents were vulnerable on issues like guns, gays in the military, etc. because their districts had changed. There's no comparable regional partisan shift working against the Democrats right now.

As it turns out, his commenter was a guy named Charlie Cook, and he had this to say:

What I find interesting about this whole conversation is the lack of focus on actual Congressional districts. When you look at the 84 CD's currently held by Democrats, that went for either Bush 2004 or McCain 2008, the 48 Democratic seats that went for Bush and McCain, the 54 seats that were in Republican hands four years go, it is very clear that the party's vulnerability exceeds their margin of 40 seats.

I was interested in your comment, "There's no comparable regional partisan shift working against the Democrats right now."

Have you been in the South lately? The level of anti-Obama, anti-Democratic and anti-Congress venom is extraordinary, and with 59 Democrat-held seats in the region, 22 in or potentially in competitive districts, this is a very serious situation for Democrats. I have had several Democratic members from the region say the atmosphere is as bad or worse than it was in 1994.

This is not just about President Obama. It is anti-Congress and anti-Democratic Congress.

emphasis mine

There is a tectonic shift at work in American politics today. Regionalism is a part of this shift. But the change movement that is simmering now is the manifestation of larger issues that transcend regionalism, among them individual liberty (ObamaCare), State's rights (Cap and Trade), national security (Holder investigation of the CIA) and a sound dollar (Federal Reserve secrecy). Oh, and unemployment (look at all the charts at the link).

The American South has a long history of acting as something of a national barometer that measures the tension between citizens and their government. That barometer is clearly signaling a major storm. But the cause of this political storm is, and always has been, policy.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/36921.

Comments (43)

Have you been in t... (Below threshold)
Eric:
Have you been in the South lately? The level of anti-Obama, anti-Democratic and anti-Congress venom is extraordinary...

Before anyone chimes in with "this just shows that the South is racist".

1) Notice that Charlie Cook says that the anger is not just at Obama, but Congress and Democrats in general.

2) In the view of many Republicans and Conservatives, Barack Obama is similar to another Democrat President.

I'm thinking the Democrat a... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

I'm thinking the Democrat adoption of 'Progressive' thinking is turning into a real handicap for the Democratic Party.

Why? Because the current 'Progressive' ideology doesn't do a damn thing except make things progressively worse.

Look at California. Run BY Progressives, FOR Progressives, blessed with an incredible state with loads of room, abundant resources, and at one time a thriving economy.

Now it's close to $100 billion in debt, the economy is trashed, and the tax rates are so high that businesses aren't moving into the state - they're moving out.

They took the goose that laid the golden eggs, and killed it for a tasty dinner... then they're surprised the eggs don't keep appearing!

The left's response is that they've got to raise taxes, to get business and the rich to pay their fair share. It's kind of hard to do that when the rich can move out of the state, and businesses don't have to move into it.

The state's bleeding out - they know it, and their only answer is to open a few more veins. There's a 'progressive' ideology and they're going to follow it - and it doesn't matter one bit whether it actually WORKS or not, they're going to do what their ideology tells them is correct.

And people who don't buy into the ideology were pretty much content to let them muck around as long as they didn't screw things up too much. But since '06, they've been screwing up bigtime. And with Mr. Charisma getting into office in '08, things have gotten worse FAST.

Folks are seeing for themselves what 'Progressive' thinking has brought, and has in store for them if not stopped - and they're not going to be continuing this in 2010.

Democrats seriously misread... (Below threshold)
howcome:

Democrats seriously misread the election and now they will pay for it. They actually thought there was some shift in the beliefs of the American People. The election had more to do with the cult of personality created around Obama than with any lust for ultra-liberal policies. Now that actual results have to be shown, Obama is starting to show his weaknesses. Having a fancy education does not alter the basic realities of the world. Smooth talk does not curb a dictators desires nor allow slights at allies to go unnoticed. Obama better turn it around or he will be just another first in the history books.

Politicians appear to be op... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Politicians appear to be operating in an alternate state of reality. This morning, our wonder RINO Gov Arnie is talking about BILLIONS being spent on a high-speed bullet train between San Diego and San Francisco. Hell, the state doesn't have the money to maintain the infrastructure it has now. And he and others in Sacramento think it's a neat time to have a train 'just like the Europeans'. Both San Diego and LA have water main bursts on a daily basis because of aging pipes that should have been replaced years ago. Where the hell are they priorities?

2010 may be 1858 and 2012 1... (Below threshold)
epador:

2010 may be 1858 and 2012 1860.

Obama's personality had a l... (Below threshold)
Deke:

Obama's personality had a large impact on the election but there were other factors involved too. Don't forget there was HUGE Bush fatigue, the man refused to lead and show a clear vision on anything other than the war and the Republicans offered no alternative to the Democrats, they were much more concerned about what the New York Times and other publications said about them and their perceived "perception" than they were about principal.

The biggest problems the Republicans had is their leadership consists of the old blue blood, country club republicans, who are in safe little districts and been in there forever. They have no clue how to lead or communicate a vision and when Newt got into personal life trouble they refused to circle the wagons and defend him.

Even if the Republicans win a large number of seats in 2010, what does that mean? Boehner and crew will be back in charge sweating out and capitulating everytime the MSM accuses them of being mean or heaven forbid using the dreaded "R" word?

Until the 1960's the turnover rate in Congress was near 50%, it's now somewhere near 2. Congressional representaion was seen as a civic duty, it's now a career. Term limits are the only answer, our current system is not conducive to challenge, so don't use the argument "we have term limits it's called elections" the system is so stacked in favor of the incumbent it's not funny. I know our founders nvr intended for congressional service to be a career, they truly felt it was a duty that would be done and ppl would return to their real lives, that the house would be made up of members who had real knowledge and concerns for their constituents. We have gone far, far away from this model.

Newt and other real conservative thinkers have been making speeches lately about the anger of the American ppl with the progressive movement and they ususally conclude that basically it's fine to be upset but if your not going to do anything about it but elect a bunch of guys who will become just like their opponents in a short time, whats the point? Until we become activly involved, run for dog catcher, school board, challenge incumbents and pressure our state legislatures to call for a convention to add term limits for Federal Rep's. Then this movement, like 1994 is doomed to failure.

Deke

There are some people who f... (Below threshold)
AgCOtter:

There are some people who feel that the Democrats (and the President) have done sufficient damage to their political aspirations such that there will be a ground swell in the upcoming elections of 2010 that will "throw the rascals out."
If the MSM had done it's proper job of vetting both candidates, there is the possibility that we would not have Mr. Obama as President now.
My question is - what leads anyone to believe that the MSM will not again act as a fellow traveler with the Democrats? What makes you think that the MSM will do the job as watchdog for the country? What causes one to think that the press will do their job properly? My feelings are that they are still in the pocket of the President. The present track record does not fill me with any hope for a change in the MSM's approach to the absence of political leadership in the government. Our politicians are out for themselves (yes there are exceptions) and regardless of party affiliation, personal considerations seem to outweigh national consideration. The criminals in Congress seem to get away with just about anything, and the other Members of Congress appear to have not the slightest care about how those actions reflect on all of the government. Sad, really sad, and does not fill me with much hope for our country's future.

"Have you been in ... (Below threshold)
Victory is Ours:
"Have you been in the South lately? The level of anti-Obama, anti-Democratic and anti-Congress venom is extraordinary.."

True - and it was triggered by the election of a African-American president. Democrats took control of Congress in 2006 and this shift didn't happen - it only happened after dat black man took office.

Tell me that racism isn't playing a part in this shift. Then tell me more lies.

And speaking of unemployment charts - notice the curve in the chart under my link.

Notice when it started the curve upward.

Notice that 9 months later the Republican Presidential nominee was still lying to the American people, pretending the economy was "fundamentally sound".

It started under Bush.

McCain lied about it trying to get elected.

Nice to see the right continue to hope that more Americans lose their job, but the fact is that the economic recovery has started, and the economy is starting to grow again. Employment always lags behind.

But the racists are celebrating the latest bad news about employment.

It's sad commentary on American politics.

Vic

And speaking of unemploy... (Below threshold)
Deke:

And speaking of unemployment charts - notice the curve in the chart under my link.

Notice when it started the curve upward.

Umm...Vic that exactly coincides with the housing/financial bubble a "bubble" created by both Dem's and Repub's, the Dem's for pushing for lower standard lending practices and the Reupub's for being complicit and afraid to stop it.

True - and it was triggered by the election of a African-American president. Democrats took control of Congress in 2006 and this shift didn't happen - it only happened after dat black man took office.

I'm sure your aware that the South was galvanized against Clinton also? I'm sure this was racism too seeing as he was, "the first black president" lol The South is conservative, I can promise you that if Obama was conservative then he would be supported in the region, the racism argument is old and tired, plz quit using it b/c it simply can not be qunatified.

It's Bush's fault..that's getting a bit tired too. Reagan took the heat, if your old enough to remember, for Carters horrible domestic policy. The difference between Reagan and Obama is simply that Reagen was pro-growth fromt the private sector and Obama is pro-growth from the public. Unfort., no matter how witty you are or how poignent your verbal quips, the evidence of government dominated economies being successful are nill. It just won't happen, to many examples to refute.

For my and my childrens sake, I hope your right and this is the one time in history that big, central government, solutions work and the economy booms, we all walk into doctors and get cured by a shot, there is no more racism, everyone has the same size house, and wants for nothing.

Oh wait, that's Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek universe, a utopia of perfection, where the human condition of insular comfort is taken out of the equation...yep can't wait!

Deke

Ag:-" My question is... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

Ag:
-" My question is - what leads anyone to believe that the MSM will not again act as a fellow traveler with the Democrats? What makes you think that the MSM will do the job as watchdog for the country? What causes one to think that the press will do their job properly? "-

Who said we think the MSM will actually do it's job? Nobody here (minus the trolls) thinks that. We all know the MSM is pro-Dem, anti-Repub.

-" The present track record does not fill me with any hope for a change in the MSM's approach to the absence of political leadership in the government. "-

With respect, no shit sherlock. Any victories we achieve, we achieve without the MSM's help. That's just the way it is. I don't think this is news to anyone on the Right/Con/Repub/Libertarian side of the aisle.

Best thing to do is let the TeaParty do the heavy lifting. Encourage and support them. If the GOP leadership stays out of it for a few months, then good. Until the GOP gets some more small-govt, pro-liberty leaders, they should just stay quiet. We really don't need much from the National GOP until we gear up in 2010 for the Prez election in 2012.

Let the Dems and the trolls keep screaming 'racism' and 'more taxes' and 'more govt takeovers' etc.. Most people are getting more and more skeptical of Obama and the Lefties.

Keep supporting the non-MSM media that is exposing the various corrupt Dem organizations (ACORN, czars, etc...)

LMAO!!Good Job Dek... (Below threshold)
Jameson:

LMAO!!

Good Job Deke!! I love when Vic gets slapped around like a little bitch

Obama may lose some support... (Below threshold)
davidt:

Obama may lose some support out here in his 'home' state of Hawaii.

There are large Samoan and Phillipino comunities out here, The Samoas and the Phillipines took massive natural disaster damage this past week, and the Obamas made the 'sacrifice' of traveling to Denmark to make a pitch for bringing the Olympics to their 'hometown' of Chicago instead of showing any great concern for the suffering Islanders.

Anyone remember those furby... (Below threshold)
Staylor:

Anyone remember those furby dolls that burst out with precanned words and phrases when given certain stimuli? Annoying damn things. I think that VIO is when of those that had been given the ability to type and has been programmed with liberal talking points.

Vio
"True - and it was triggered by the election of a African-American president. Democrats took control of Congress in 2006 and this shift didn't happen - it only happened after dat black man took office.

Tell me that racism isn't playing a part in this shift. Then tell me more lies."

Any oppostion to Obama is racism. Dear lord, can't you at least come up with something original? The South is anti-muslim, anti-progressive, anti-hampster, anti-teleprompter would all be acceptable in their originality. And if being opposed to Obama and the Democrats make one a racist then I guess that makes me a proud racist if that is what it takes to throw these bums out.

VIO

"And speaking of unemployment charts - notice the curve in the chart under my link.

Notice when it started the curve upward."

You can read a graph, good for you. Everyone knows that unemployment started ticking upwards under Bush; in fact it is often posited as one of the reasons that the Republicans lost so badly. So can you please stop thinking you are some distributer of seceret knowledge that only you can understand.

VIO
"Notice that 9 months later the Republican Presidential nominee was still lying to the American people, pretending the economy was "fundamentally sound"."

What does McCin have to anything? What he siad during the campaign has no bearing on how much Obama sucks or how the Dems will get drubbed in 2010. I mean if you want to talk about McCin, who I personnally think was a terrible canidate, can we at least talk about how he warned about the sub prime loan crisis in 2005 and was shouted down by the oh so smart Dems who lied about there being, "no immenent crisis at Fannie May or Freedie Mac." Heh, I can do it to.

VIO
"It started under Bush."

Yes we know. And it got way worse under Obama. Get over it.

VIO
"McCain lied about it trying to get elected."

And Obama did not lie about anything to get elected? Cough (closing Gitmo, no lobbyists, pull troops out of Iraq, sunlight before signing, bipartisanship, no middle class taxes, coherent foreign policy) Cough. Who knew?

VIO
"Nice to see the right continue to hope that more Americans lose their job, but the fact is that the economic recovery has started, and the economy is starting to grow again. Employment always lags behind."

As a right wing American who is losing is job I feel compelled to tell you to FOAD. Nice to no that the largly across the board crash of economic indicators is a figment of my imagination because Obama and some asshole on the internet say so.

VIO
"But the racists are celebrating the latest bad news about employment."

Yup as we speak there is a Klan member chuckling evily under my bed.

VIO
"It's sad commentary on American politics."

Not as sad a commentary as you are on our education system.

"...it only happened after ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"...it only happened after dat black man took office...."

Are we going to have to listen to this bullshit for another 3 years, 4 months?

Got news for you VIC, the ENTIRE BLACK VOTE of the US would not have been enough to get Barry elected President.

According to your unicorn logic, any whites who now have 'buyer's remorse' have suddenly turned RACIST? After voting for Barry in the first place?

And speaking of RACIST! Doesn't that fact that 95% of Blacks voted for Barry indicate some type of RACISM?

"It's Bush's fault..that... (Below threshold)
Victory is Ours:

"It's Bush's fault..that's getting a bit tired too."

As is the propensity for Republicans to not take responsibility for the failure of the Bush administration to (a) prevent the recession, (b) acknowledge the recession when it started (it was an election year, so the GOP was in full-blown denial mode), and (c) take action to stem the severity of the recession while Bush was still in office.

Add to that the fact that McCain/Palin carried the denial/do nothing plan forward as the 2008 election approached and what you have is GOP responsibility for the start of the recession, for the severity of the recession (by not taking action sooner to stem the recession) and a 2008 Presidential candidate who lied about condition of the economy in an effort to get elected.

Started it...

Did nothing to stem it...

denied it was happening...

Lied about it in an attempt to gain power.

Nicely done, Republicans. In case you haven't noticed, you've lost all credibility on this subject.

And still no acknowledgment that the backlash in the south stems from racism to some extent. When is one of you going to buck up and admit to that, and quit denying it and lying about it?

Nothing but lies from liars.

Like this one from Staylor:

Vic: Tell me that racism isn't playing a part in this shift. Then tell me more lies."

Staylor: "Any oppostion to Obama is racism."

No you moron, I said part of the shift in the south stems from racism.

"Not as sad a commentary as you are on our education system."

lol - Check the spelling of "opposition" in your comment then get back to me on your assessment of our "education system," Staylor.

I swear - some of you guys don't realize how stupid you look at times... other among you realize it and just throw profanity and insults instead.

Vic

I watch the weekly demograp... (Below threshold)
rory:

I watch the weekly demographic and geographic breakdown in Obama's ratings at Gallup.

Why wouldn't Obama and Dems with the high unemployment rate start losing the West? Particularly since states like Colorado and Nevada-only recently went Democrat.

It also be interesting to look at levels of unemployment geographically and compare that to trends in political polls.

According to Vic the only r... (Below threshold)
jim m:

According to Vic the only reason to vote either for or against Obama is race.

For if the only reason to oppose him is racial animus it follows that the reason that someone would then vote for him would be the lack of said animus.

It only took Vic 8 posts into this thread to cry "RACISM!"

That's the problem when you look at the world through racism colored glasses. Everything looks racist....and ultimately you prove not that your opponents are racists but that at the very least you are.

The problem Vic is that you never allow that people have other reasons for rejecting Obama. Eventually every debate results in your returning to the racism argument. What it tells me is that you ultimately see the issue in racial terms and that you automatically vote in favor of a given candidate because of your own racial calculations.

Everyone else talks about policy. Tax policy, spending policy, health care policy etc. You end up talking racial attitudes and posturing.

Would it matter if someone disagreed with Obama and had reasoned stands on all these issues AND was also racist? Would that person oppose him for solely racial reasons? Can you point to people who agree with Obama on all these issues and yet oppose him solely on the basis of race?

Those last people are the racists. I don't know of any. There aren't any on this board that I have ever seen.

I said part of the shift... (Below threshold)
jim m:

I said part of the shift in the south stems from racism.

Vic - I'm waiting for that detail of the numbers of people who agree with Obama on health care, the stimulus, Afghanistan, Iran, the European missile shield, taxes, the budget, the courts etc and yet vote against him.

They don't exist. some people are one issue voters: guns (both pro and con), abortion (both pro and con). If someone disagrees with barry on such an issue and is also racist does that mean that their single issue voting has no effect and their decision is purely on race?

Let's flip this around. Black support remains in the high 90's. does the fact that every other racial demographic is declining in support mean that every one else is racist or that the black population is racist?

Please answer that last one. because it is really hard for me to understand that when the black community for the most part disagrees with Barry on things like abortion and school choice etc, that they still vote for him because of his race and they're not being racist. Why can they say that they voted for him because they wanted to see a black man in the Oval Office and not be voting for racist reasons?

Come on VIC. You've got to have an excuse.

Or are you so racist yourself that you can't see it?

And still no acknowledgm... (Below threshold)
Deke:

And still no acknowledgment that the backlash in the south stems from racism to some extent. When is one of you going to buck up and admit to that, and quit denying it and lying about it?

Again Vic, I point to the 1994 election cycle and the South's galvanization against Clinton and his policies, an argument you forgot to notice in my post btw. Of course this probably had something to do with Racism in that Clinton had the support of liberal black leadership and Southerners are all in-bred hicks who hate one of thier own too.

Also, in every post I think I've ever read on this blog I have yet to see a conservative writer deny Bush and the Republicans have equal blame in the current mess, thus your consistent labeling of comentators as "liars" and blind syncophants may..I say MAY just be a case of the pot calling the kettle black!

Again it comes down to what is the solution? Myself, and like minded people, feel a freeing up of the private sector, through tax breaks and less government involvement is the key, you and your supporters feel strong central planning with re-distribution is it. I would ask that you PLEASE look at history and see which of the 2 has worked most often for the longer period of time. I know it's an argument you can't win on facts and evidence..but hey name calling works too :)

Deke

Really Vic is that all you ... (Below threshold)
Staylor:

Really Vic is that all you got? "You spelled a word wrong and your a liar cause I said part. (paraphrase)" You truly are pathetic at his aint yuh. And yes I am insulting you since you started out your post by implying that anyone who dissagrees with is a racist and a liar. You are not worth the pixels in having a rational argument with as you rationality has seemed to have fled years ago. Try coming forth with a logical agrument instead of merely regurigitating the same tired 'lies, racism and Bush's fault' mantra that puts everyone in mind of a frat boy who drank too much and just maybe you will get some respect. Or in the mean time you can behave like the vacuouse mass that you are and atempt to defend yourself with 'your a liar and you spell wrong and you smell bad'. I have a feeling that you will do the latter.
BTW I left a few spelling errors in this post just to give you something to respond on. Moron.

Again Vic, I point to th... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Again Vic, I point to the 1994 election cycle and the South's galvanization against Clinton and his policies,

A quick examination of the ... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

A quick examination of the treatment of Condi Rice, Michelle Malkin, and Clarence Thomas reveals those who are the racists. The left's use of such descriptive terms as 'Aunt Jemima' 'Uncle Tom' 'Oreo' and 'Twinkie' provides the ultima ratio. By contrast, leftists reach to conjure the n-word from 'socialist.' How morally bankrupt.

That last post was supposed... (Below threshold)
jim m:

That last post was supposed to say additionally: Come on Deke. Everyone knows that Clinton was the first black president.

Don't know where the text went.

Republicans are hardly patr... (Below threshold)
OLDPUPPYMAX:

Republicans are hardly patriots, but they are generally less destructive of our rights than democrats, so a big win in 2010 would certainly be welcome. But remember--there may well be 30 million more democrat voters next year as Mexicans are likely to suddenly become "Americans." Also, will voters be able to safely GET to the polls?? And if so, will they be permitted to vote? Holder has already legalized voter intimidation. And it will be practiced with a vengeance next year. Actual Americans had better be ready to defend and DECLARE their voting rights in no uncertain terms...including by force of arms.

"According to Vic the on... (Below threshold)
Victory is Ours:

"According to Vic the only reason to vote either for or against Obama is race."

Another cretin who can't read. I said nothing of the sort.

"For if the only reason to oppose him is racial animus it follows that the reason that someone would then vote for him would be the lack of said animus. "

Again, I never said that - and twice now I've shown that what I said was that part of the backlash in the south is due to racism.

Is it stupidity or just more of the right wing ignoring reality?

Apparently, a part of the Obama backlash stems from low IQ and poor reading comprehension skills as well.

Vic

There are large Sa... (Below threshold)
Stan25:
There are large Samoan and Phillipino comunities out here, The Samoas and the Phillipines took massive natural disaster damage this past week, and the Obamas made the 'sacrifice' of traveling to Denmark to make a pitch for bringing the Olympics to their 'hometown' of Chicago instead of showing any great concern for the suffering Islanders.

Yeah, where is the clamor from the State Controlled Media about sending earthquake aid to the Somoas, the Phillipines and Indonesia? Seems to me that they are deathly quiet on this subject.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't there was another earthquake in the same region almost five years ago? If I remember correctly, the State Controlled Media went absolutely ballistic, because aid was not flowing in before the waters even receded.

It also seems to me that one President was pilloried for not sending in relief supplies fast enough. Now there is a different President. who is totally ignoring the disaster and flying off to another country to trash this one and the State Controlled Media is strangely quiet.

Oh yeah, now I know what the deal is. One President had an R behind his name and one President has a D behind his name. That makes a huge difference in the eyes of the people in the State Controlled Media.

True - and it was trigge... (Below threshold)
jim m:

True - and it was triggered by the election of a African-American president. Democrats took control of Congress in 2006 and this shift didn't happen - it only happened after dat black man took office.

For some reason my posts ar... (Below threshold)
jim m:

For some reason my posts are not getting through.

Vic - You SAY that there might be other reasons for opposing Obama but then you ARGUE that the deciding factor must be race. Everything was fine until "Dat black man" entered the White House.

Your argument comes across as "people may have had reasons for disagreeing with Obama, but they would never have opposed him openly except for his race." How is that not an accusation of racism? You are saying outright hat the deciding factor in people's mind is race.

Is there any way hat people can disagree with Obama and not be racist? You avoid discussing how a person can argue the issues and still be racist even when they have principled disagreements on the issues. Again, for you the deciding factor must be race.

You also conveniently avoided addressing my question about the black vote. How is that not racism as well? Perhaps Sen Byrd can help you decipher that.

The reason there was not an... (Below threshold)
JustRuss:

The reason there was not an amazing outcry until Obama took office is because that is when the scales of political balance between conservative and socialist tipped amazingly toward Progressive with a heavy socialist lean.

NEVER when progressives actually run on their ideology openly does the Progressive movement win. That is why they argue emotion and semantics and nuance rather than actual issues.

It would be severely stupid of conservatives to argue that there is NO racism involved in the south's opposition of Obama. However that is a very minor part of the movement and those people are marginalized by the rest of us.

It is also supremely stupid of the left to think or argue, or ignore the argument, that racism played a HUGE part in getting Obama elected in the first place. 95% of black voters voted for Obama, a large percentage of those ADMIT! they voted for him to see a black man as President. There is also a large percentage of "other" races and "white" people who voted for him specifically to be able to say "I voted for the first Black President."

But Racism is hardly the correct argument. Progressivism is the true topic that needs to be debated here. Progressivism being put front and center and allowing people to see it for what it truly is for the first time is the real reason so many people oppose the current administration and the Democrat party as a whole.

That said... John McCain is a Progressive Republican. He would have been much worse for the country because where Obama tries to force through everything at once and placed the Progressive movement up front and personal to the American People. McCain would have passed these bills in a slower manner and conservatives would have been less likely to speak out against "one of our own".

I hate to say it, but if Hilary had gotten the nod I would have voted for her rather than McCain. Hilary Clinton would have been a better President than either Obama or McCain.

Then again, I ended up voting Libertarian anyway. Do you know what you get when you choose the lesser of two evils?

Evil

It is also supremely stu... (Below threshold)
jim m:

It is also supremely stupid of the left to think or argue, or ignore the argument, that racism played a HUGE part in getting Obama elected in the first place.

AHA!! So when they cease desiring Obama merely because of his race and his positions on the issues are no longer trumped by the desire to support "the first black president", then race IS the reason that people no longer support him and therefore they are RACIST!!!!!

right? /leftist thinking

"You SAY that there migh... (Below threshold)
Victory is Ours:

"You SAY that there might be other reasons for opposing Obama but then you ARGUE that the deciding factor must be race. Everything was fine until "Dat black man" entered the White House."

No, IM saying there are definitely other reasons some choose to oppose Obama, but that to some extent the growing opposition to Obama which is centered in the South, as was highlighted and underscored in this article -- in the South - is race-related.

The Democratic Congress in 2006 didn't trigger it.

The Black President did.

Some of that is race related.

"Your argument comes across as "people may have had reasons for disagreeing with Obama, but they would never have opposed him openly except for his race." How is that not an accusation of racism?

I am explicitly citing race as a factor.

"You are saying outright that the deciding factor in people's mind is race."

No, I'm saying it factors in to some extent in the South.

"Is there any way that people can disagree with Obama and not be racist? "

Of course, I'm only addressing the growing discord in the South that, to some extent, is triggered by racial bias.

"It would be severely stupid of conservatives to argue that there is NO racism involved in the south's opposition of Obama. However that is a very minor part of the movement and those people are marginalized by the rest of us."

Glad we agree it's a factor. Since it is growing in the South, and the South is historically more racially biased, the growth in the South cited in this article is what I'm addressing. Since the discord is growing faster in the South, according to this article's author, racism is relevant.

Vic

vic - "Nicely done, Rep... (Below threshold)
Marc:

vic - "Nicely done, Republicans. In case you haven't noticed, you've lost all credibility on this subject.

The subject being the economy:

USA Today/Gallup Poll. Sept. 11-13, 2009
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the economy?"

Approve 46 Disapprove 51

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the federal budget deficit?"
Approve 38 Disapporve 58

To paraphrase vic: "Nicely done, obama. In case you haven't noticed, you've lost all credibility on this subject."

Vic the south is also more ... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Vic the south is also more conservative in terms of religion, social issues, fiscal issues, defense and defense spending...I could go on.

Historically, the segregationists were all Democrats. I suspect you aren't old enough to remember that, but you are certainly capable of looking it up.

Republicans were almost completely excluded from the south from the end of reconstruction to well after the Civil Rights Act.

So your argument goes that Obama's unpopularity in increasing in the south. The south was racist so therefore the difference is racism. Unfortunately, racism is found more decidedly on the Dem side of the aisle so if this is primarily due to racism it is because dems are crossing over not because the conservatives are racist. I'm not saying that Dems have a monopoly on racism, just a majority.

You focus on the racism argument because you are ignorant. It's that simple.

Vic what you said was <br /... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Vic what you said was
"Have you been in the South lately? The level of anti-Obama, anti-Democratic and anti-Congress venom is extraordinary.."

True - and it was triggered by the election of a African-American president. Democrats took control of Congress in 2006 and this shift didn't happen - it only happened after dat black man took office.

So you first said that the growth was because he is black. You did not say that is was relevant, or to some extent. You said it was. period. Then you followed with weasel words.

Congress's approval ratings have been deep in the abyss for several years now. It was in the teens under Bush. Was that because of the black man in the White House? of course not. But that would mean that you can cry RACISM!!!

Congress has been Dem majority since 06. their approval rating was 14.2 % before the election. Was that because there was a black man in the White House?

So disapproval of Congress and the democratic leadership thereof has sucked since before 2007 ALL because there was a black man in the White House?

So Congress's approval currently stands higher now (26.8%) with a black man in the white house than it did before(14.2%) there was a black man in the white house and that is all or at least in part because of racial animosity toward the president?

You're an ass.

You know, on reflection I h... (Below threshold)
jim m:

You know, on reflection I have to ask:

Is the doubling of congress's popularity (which was 18.4% on Jan 10th, rose o 37% by March and was still 36% on June 25th) due primarily to the fact that there is a black man in the white house?

What kind of bigoted, racist populace would throw it's support to a government simply because of a racial issue? Clearly there is nothing else different that would explain the change because the recent decline in popularity (to 26.8%) can only be explained by race.

Vic - you're an expert in racial politics, perhaps you could lend a hand here.

Vic and all his racial post... (Below threshold)

Vic and all his racial postings seems to forget
that President Obama is more (50%) white than
black. He's 26% black, 24% arab. And the arabs
also consider themselves as white.
So talking about Obama being black is nothing
more than a distraction as to the character
and performance of Obama as the president.

Vic being a lib goes by the... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Vic being a lib goes by the one drop rule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule

vic,To what do you... (Below threshold)
pvd:

vic,

To what do you attribute Obama's plummet in approval from independents?

They were the ones that put him over the top on the election. Now, as a group, they're polling against him 46-41.

Is this just more racism?

And what percentage do you attribute to the south's disapproval of the Obama?

"In the view of many Republ... (Below threshold)
914:

"In the view of many Republicans and Conservatives, Barack Obama is similar to another Democrat President."

Yes, they both are bigots..But Carter had nicer teeth.

"The level of anti-Obama, a... (Below threshold)
Gmac:

"The level of anti-Obama, anti-Democratic and anti-Congress venom is extraordinary, and with 59 Democrat-held seats in the region, 22 in or potentially in competitive districts, this is a very serious situation for Democrats."

Charlie's missing the big picture...
The Democrat Party and its programs are despised NATIONWIDE by voters who see their statist control and nationalization of the country's leading industries as harmful to their lifestyle.

They ignore the Tea Party movement and dismiss it as a gathering of bigots? Well, that's their opinion of it and misreading the electorate is what they do best. I watched public anger in '94 and it was a lot less than what I'm seeing now.

To use a quote, "There's a storm coming..." described what's about to hit the Democrat party. 40 seats is a low ball estimate because they are only looking at the 'South' and the disgust with Democrat party is nationwide as evidenced by the protests that took place and will take place again.

What's really rich is they will not be able to say "The Republicans helped us do it" because they are jamming their programs through Congress with few, if any, Republican votes. As a matter of fact the Republicans that did vote with the Democrats will probably see primary competition.

That they want to blame it on the South is merely projection of their unpopularity in the region and in the nation over all.

I've seen the shift in poli... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

I've seen the shift in political conversation at work too. It went from the loud-mouthed, "I dare you to even hint that you're conservative" to ...

... total silence.

They're not feeling so bold lately.

This might be nit picking o... (Below threshold)

This might be nit picking on my part but it really bugs me. Every time I type the name, "Obama" the good folks at Spell Check inform me that I have gotten the spelling wrong. Here are their suggested corrections:

Obadiah
Obadias
Bamako
Alabama

Right. I've got a fifth suggestion for them: Ob-la-di! Ob-la-da! Life goes on - BRA!

Their suggestions for my "misspelling" of the name "Barack" are almost as amusing:

Ba rack
Ba-rack
Barrack
Bareback
Barabbas

I just got through typing up a list of all forty-three men who have served as chief executive. Spell Check tells me that I got every name right (or, in the case of Martin Van Buren, half right) with one exception. You guessed it: "Barack Obama". The guy has been in the public eye for over five years now. He's been president for nine months! You would think they might have fixed that by now, wouldn't you?

That reminds me. Can anyone please explain to me just what the hell an "Obadias" is? It's not in Webster's Dictionary.

[email protected]

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

"Obadias" : A tired reused ... (Below threshold)
914:

"Obadias" : A tired reused liberal exspression of defeatism; A self appointed Monarch without a clue.

Buroc Hussain Obadias.....Mmmmmm mmm mmm!




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy