During the eight years of the Bush Administration Democrats were able to sell a false picture of themselves to the American people, but now with the burden of actual governance the reality of who they are has become apparent.
In the run up to Obama's election the false image of bipartisanship, moderate governance, post racial governance and the idea that all things good come from Democrats was whipped to a froth in the press and public imagination. The sense that Obama was the Democrat messiah was successfully propelled into the consciousness of the electorate and the moderates bought it.
Since then, for a variety of reasons, from the poor economy to the loss of liberty, public attention has been focused on governance over the past two years; the attention didn't stop with the "immaculation" of Obama. While under that scrutiny Democrats have been forced to define themselves by their actions rather than their sales pitch.
Two years ago they had a media messiah, now, inevitably, they have a failure. Where once they were able to sell the idea they were they party of fiscal discipline, the lie to the myth has been laid bare. Where once they claimed they were the party of the people, they are now the party of government owned businesses, takeovers and bailouts with the people's money. Where once they claimed to be the party of choice, they are now the party of limiting choice in health-care. Where once they feigned compromise, they lead unilaterally. Where once they seemed to reflect the wishes of the people, they defined themselves through immigration reform, Guantanamo, ObamaCare, and the Ground Zero Mosque as above the will of the people.
In an apparent desire to break new ground in politics Democrats have run counter to the wishes of the American people in every major bill and in every question of policy for two years straight.
The question, as it relates to voter turnout, then becomes: how dispirited are moderates and moderate Democrats by the reality of what democrats truly are, and how propelled are those who love liberty to vote against immoral governance? The degree to which these two dynamics counter one another will impact voter turnout.
According to Gallup their lower turnout model favors Republicans more than their high turnout model. The numbers over the past 3 weeks:
Under the high voter turnout:
Week (3): 42 / 53
Week (2): 41 / 53
Week (1): 40 / 53
Under the low voter turnout:
Week (3): 39 / 56
Week (2): 39 / 56
Week (1): 38 / 56
Rasmussen has confirmed these numbers:
Forty-eight percent (48%) of respondents say they would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate, while 39% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.
Even more worrisome for Democrats, however, is the finding that among the voters who are most closely following the midterm elections Republicans hold a 55% to 36% lead.
out
You can slander Representative Miller all you want, but he is going to win because your tea bag candidate is not ready, and never will be, for prime time.
ReplyDeleteUh, the post was an attack on what has become your party's obvious extremism and the resulting loss in support it is, and will continue to suffer.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, your derision and belittlement are indicative of your party's utter inability to make a single coherent argument in favor of its continued control of government.
I'm not the one who commented on a post without reading or, at best, understanding it.
ReplyDeleteNeither have I defined myself as an extremist supporting an extremist party in a post as you have.
Lastly, referring to a group or an individual who supports liberty, constitutional rights as they are written, and takes pride in our founding fathers as an extremist says more about you and the party you represent than it says of the group you accuse of extremism.
perhaps neither of us are extremists. However, i find that much of the rhetoric I hear these days indicates continued discussion of our Constitution, with very little understanding of it. I apologize for my harsh comments.
ReplyDelete