![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
drwexThe good guys won, almost everywhere, on almost everything. Last night was good if you are a Democrat, live in MA, are an Independent living the Northeast, are a person who cares about individual freedoms in several places, and if you're someone who cares about equal treatment of all Americans.
If you're a woman it was an especially good night. Shame on the Dems for taking so long to get a woman governor, but go New Hampshire. Both of the pro-rape Republicans went down in flames, both losing in states that voted heavily for Romney. (Yes, I know it's pejorative to call them "pro-rape" but if they or you think that their expressed attitudes were not in fact supportive of rape and rapists then you can read John Scalzi's Modest Proposal-esque column and understand a bit more.)
I spent the night with Nate Silver's state-by-state projections up in one tab and the NYTimes and CNN state-by-state results up in other tabs and watched the two fall in line. Around 11:40 Clay Shirky tweeted: "I'll be in my study, drawing up a list of people who owe Nate Silver an apology. I may be some time." If you are a numbers person, it was a good night. I don't think this will cause a sudden decrease in the deliberate innumeracy of pundits any more than I think this loss will cause a sudden decrease in political lying.
With all this good news, I remain worried. Most of the Tea Party-type Republicans were returned to the House, and Ohio was way the hell closer than it should have been. One in eight jobs in Ohio depends on the auto industry, and Romney was caught in a Big Lie there, on which he doubled down. Voter suppression there and elsewhere was blocked, but just barely, and nobody seemed much concerned. Big money was poured into many campaigns, usually on the Republican side, and did not have the effect it might have had.
Some of this is due to shifting demographics - television just doesn't have the reach and impact it used to have - but some is just due to this being the first time out. If anyone thinks that Rove and his SuperPAC network are just going to slink away quietly they're mistaken. He'll be around and back in full force next time, with more money and smarter strategy. Swiftboating still works, and the Big Lie still works. The Republicans just need to get craftier about their uses.
One plausible Republican response to last night's loss is to say that Romney lost because he wasn't ideologically pure enough, that he didn't motivate the base enough. I expect we'll see more of Paul Ryan in the coming years; he doesn't seem to be tainted in this loss the way Bachman was tainted when her ticket lost. The fact that Ryan didn't carry his home state doesn't seem to count against him - Mitt sure didn't.
This time out, the Dems had two big things going for them: one is that it's ridiculously hard to unseat an incumbent. The home field advantage is huge - the Sandy visuals are just one recent prominent example of that. Next time out the Dems won't have that. Also, being the first Black President is a unique situation. Next time out the Dems won't have that either. Last night there were a couple of pundits on NPR making me grind my teeth but one of them said something key, which is that exit demographics for 2012 looked a lot like exit demographics for 2008. Roughly the same turn-out of young and non-white voters, roughly the same ratio of men/women as last time. At that point I knew Obama would win, even before the first polls closed.
Let me circle back to the women thing. This morning NPR had on a Dem and Repub pollster, both women, to talk about the "gender gap." Obama appears to have won the votes of women by about 12%, slightly less than his 13% margin last time. This was presented as a "problem" which literally caused me to drop my jaw in disbelief. Hello, people, what planet are you on? Women are the majority of the US population; they're the majority of the voting population, and they turn out in higher proportion to their registration than men do.
The unstated background that 'of course' a candidate would have to win the male vote to be successful is laughably wrong. Wrong with a side order of wrong sauce. Women register as, and vote as, Democratic more often than they do Republican. If the Democrats do not run a female candidate for President next cycle it will be a terrible mistake, imo.
There was some talk about "women's issues" which showed just how badly the other side does not get it. Yes, it is true that women are defined by more than what is below their belts. Women care about getting a good education, and their job prospects after school. They care about their retirement accounts and the quality of healthcare. All the things that men care about, women care about, too. But there are certain unique situations in which the other side does its damnedest to deny women (and ONLY women) control over their bodies and futures. If you can look at that and say that is not a "women's issue" with a straight face then I think you've seriously missed the point. And you'll continue to have a 10+ point gender gap.
As a friend of mine said, he doesn't like Obama but he voted Obama because he has daughters and he feared for his daughters' futures if the Republicans won. When your candidates scare the fathers of America's daughters, you have a problem. If the Republicands really do hone their strategy and push it to its logical next step (active voter suppression, more extremist rhetoric, more Big Lies, more targeted big-money spending) the Dems are going to need a whole new counter-plan. For my way of thinking starting with a 53% plan makes the most sense.
If you're a woman it was an especially good night. Shame on the Dems for taking so long to get a woman governor, but go New Hampshire. Both of the pro-rape Republicans went down in flames, both losing in states that voted heavily for Romney. (Yes, I know it's pejorative to call them "pro-rape" but if they or you think that their expressed attitudes were not in fact supportive of rape and rapists then you can read John Scalzi's Modest Proposal-esque column and understand a bit more.)
I spent the night with Nate Silver's state-by-state projections up in one tab and the NYTimes and CNN state-by-state results up in other tabs and watched the two fall in line. Around 11:40 Clay Shirky tweeted: "I'll be in my study, drawing up a list of people who owe Nate Silver an apology. I may be some time." If you are a numbers person, it was a good night. I don't think this will cause a sudden decrease in the deliberate innumeracy of pundits any more than I think this loss will cause a sudden decrease in political lying.
With all this good news, I remain worried. Most of the Tea Party-type Republicans were returned to the House, and Ohio was way the hell closer than it should have been. One in eight jobs in Ohio depends on the auto industry, and Romney was caught in a Big Lie there, on which he doubled down. Voter suppression there and elsewhere was blocked, but just barely, and nobody seemed much concerned. Big money was poured into many campaigns, usually on the Republican side, and did not have the effect it might have had.
Some of this is due to shifting demographics - television just doesn't have the reach and impact it used to have - but some is just due to this being the first time out. If anyone thinks that Rove and his SuperPAC network are just going to slink away quietly they're mistaken. He'll be around and back in full force next time, with more money and smarter strategy. Swiftboating still works, and the Big Lie still works. The Republicans just need to get craftier about their uses.
One plausible Republican response to last night's loss is to say that Romney lost because he wasn't ideologically pure enough, that he didn't motivate the base enough. I expect we'll see more of Paul Ryan in the coming years; he doesn't seem to be tainted in this loss the way Bachman was tainted when her ticket lost. The fact that Ryan didn't carry his home state doesn't seem to count against him - Mitt sure didn't.
This time out, the Dems had two big things going for them: one is that it's ridiculously hard to unseat an incumbent. The home field advantage is huge - the Sandy visuals are just one recent prominent example of that. Next time out the Dems won't have that. Also, being the first Black President is a unique situation. Next time out the Dems won't have that either. Last night there were a couple of pundits on NPR making me grind my teeth but one of them said something key, which is that exit demographics for 2012 looked a lot like exit demographics for 2008. Roughly the same turn-out of young and non-white voters, roughly the same ratio of men/women as last time. At that point I knew Obama would win, even before the first polls closed.
Let me circle back to the women thing. This morning NPR had on a Dem and Repub pollster, both women, to talk about the "gender gap." Obama appears to have won the votes of women by about 12%, slightly less than his 13% margin last time. This was presented as a "problem" which literally caused me to drop my jaw in disbelief. Hello, people, what planet are you on? Women are the majority of the US population; they're the majority of the voting population, and they turn out in higher proportion to their registration than men do.
The unstated background that 'of course' a candidate would have to win the male vote to be successful is laughably wrong. Wrong with a side order of wrong sauce. Women register as, and vote as, Democratic more often than they do Republican. If the Democrats do not run a female candidate for President next cycle it will be a terrible mistake, imo.
There was some talk about "women's issues" which showed just how badly the other side does not get it. Yes, it is true that women are defined by more than what is below their belts. Women care about getting a good education, and their job prospects after school. They care about their retirement accounts and the quality of healthcare. All the things that men care about, women care about, too. But there are certain unique situations in which the other side does its damnedest to deny women (and ONLY women) control over their bodies and futures. If you can look at that and say that is not a "women's issue" with a straight face then I think you've seriously missed the point. And you'll continue to have a 10+ point gender gap.
As a friend of mine said, he doesn't like Obama but he voted Obama because he has daughters and he feared for his daughters' futures if the Republicans won. When your candidates scare the fathers of America's daughters, you have a problem. If the Republicands really do hone their strategy and push it to its logical next step (active voter suppression, more extremist rhetoric, more Big Lies, more targeted big-money spending) the Dems are going to need a whole new counter-plan. For my way of thinking starting with a 53% plan makes the most sense.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-11-07 06:24 pm (UTC)If the Democrats do not run a female candidate for President next cycle it will be a terrible mistake, imo.
I totally agree. Who do you think Clinton should pick as her running mate?
no subject
Date: 2012-11-07 06:34 pm (UTC)This is something that came up when F and I were looking at the map together this morning.
He asked, "Where's Obama from?" So I told him he was from Illinois, but was originally from Hawaii. "Oh, no wonder they chose Obama."
Then I pointed out that Mitt Romney was, at different times, from Michigan, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and California. F looked at the map and said, "They didn't pick Romney."
"No, honey, they didn't. What does that say to you?"
F thought for a moment, then came up with, "That people who know him don't like him."
Ah, kids.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-07 06:49 pm (UTC)The Democrats currently have a problem in that they lack a good nationally known set of women who would be obvious candidates. Rumors floating around say that Obama could pick several women for Cabinet-level posts this time (including possibly the first-ever woman Sec'y of Defense) and one of the Senate women could make a national name for herself in the coming four years.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-07 06:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-07 07:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-08 06:26 am (UTC)Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS got huge donations from many rich, wealthy Republicans looking for a big win. ($750 million dollars worth of donations, if I understand it right.)
Crossroads GPS ran ads for many, many Republican candidates in this election.
Those Republican candidates all lost.
And now there are many, many rich men who are angry at Karl Rove.
When you add in SuperPAC money, the Republicans outspent the Democrats by a ridiculous margin. And yet, they actually lost seats. It's going to be a lot harder to get rich people to donate to SuperPACs in the future.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-08 04:47 pm (UTC)They failed at their big goals, but as I noted they made some impressive gains. Florida and Ohio are close only because of the constant barrage of Big Lie attack advertising.
I will bet you a VERY nice bottle of wine that next cycle we see much more donating from big rich people than we saw last time. They were late to the game and inexperienced this time, learning as they went. Don't think they're going to sit on their checkbooks next time - these are people who believe that their money should be able to buy them anything they want, including a US President. Rove is the guy who can make that deal happen and he'll continue to get funded big (I predict).