2012 Elections show that 2008 was not an Inflection Point
Jim Geraghty began his post-election Morning Jolt with a tone of considerable despair, calling the Republicans’ 2012 defeat “a much, much, much tougher loss than 2008.” He could more readily understand McCain’s loss given the near perfect storm environment four years ago, the Democratic victory made more sense.
And while I too was initially glum at the time Geraghty offered that assessment, the more I pore through election results and exit polls, the more I realize that, in terms of prospects for the GOP and conservative ideas, there are much more grounds for hope now than there was four years.
When, the course of the 2008 election, it became pretty evident that Barack Obama was going to win a strong majority, Michael Barone wonder if we were seeing another inflection point in American history, with Americans rejecting the smaller government consensus building from the 1970s through the 1990s:
The protracted and painful experiences of those decades changed basic public attitudes on the balance between government and markets, between regulation and enterprise, between government-aid programs and self-reliance The breadlines and depression of the 1930s moved Americans in one direction; the gas lines and stagflation of the 1970s moved them in the other.
Which raises the question of whether the financial ructions of 2007-08 (09?) will move them back again. One reason to believe this is possible is the passage of time. Americans in the 1980s and 1990s were ready to accept deregulation and tax cuts and welfare reform because so few of them had personal memories of the 1930s.
Indeed, exit polls in 2008 showed that over half of Americans surveyed “wanted government to do more to intervene while 43 percent said it was doing too many things better left to businesses.”
This year, however, “those numbers have flipped.” Four years ago, it could be said that the American people favored bigger government, but today, even in an electorate more Democratic than that in 2010, there is clearly a consensus for smaller government.
In 2008, there was a sense that big-government ideas were ascendant. Today, there is no such sense.
Indeed, if 2008 were an inflection point, Democrats would have (at least) held the ground they gained that year. But, at the federal legislative level, they are far behind were they were four years ago — and even further behind at the state level.
We have have lost the battle earlier this week, but the political landscape still favors the GOP. Republicans just need find a better way to exploit the battlefield. (More on this in a post later today.)
16 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I wish it is so easy. The consensus for smaller government is not reflected in who they elected. Also, we voted for higher taxes in California.
Obama will insist on higher taxes. He won.
The Fiscal Cliff will result in a deal to raise taxes and increase spending. Nothing will change.
Comment by anon322531 — November 9, 2012 @ 3:05 pm - November 9, 2012
I think the elephant in the room is that Obama is still black. In four years, the Democrats won’t be running an incumbent (always difficult to remove a sitting president) and their nominee likely won’t be an African-American. Were Obama a white male, Romney would be president. I do wonder if robo calls will now direct me to ‘Press 1 for English’.
Comment by Ignatius — November 9, 2012 @ 3:26 pm - November 9, 2012
No, anon, in California, four wolves and a sheep voted on who wad for dinner.
Comment by V the K — November 9, 2012 @ 3:35 pm - November 9, 2012
McCain was a piss poor candidate EVAR! Had it not been for Palin, I probably would have stayed home. He defended Obama more than he defended Palin, saying she can take care of herself.
Don’t forget that he was going to switch parties and decided against it. No doubt to keep the GOP in line for his beloved dems.
Comment by Annie — November 9, 2012 @ 4:29 pm - November 9, 2012
Dan, I agree. The best-kept news of this election is the rightward shift. Yes, I said it folks: the rightward shift.
Romney and Obama both lost huge numbers of votes. (Romney, compared to McCain.)
Romney’s vote losses were NOT because the country underwent a leftward shift, as such. He lost votes because he allowed Obama to frame him as a cancer-causing plutocrat, which cost him millions of ‘marginal’ but normally GOP-leaning voters in the working class. But they didn’t support Obama. Obama didn’t win them over. They just stayed home. Romney’s passivity was what let Obama’s attack turn them off.
Obama *didn’t* lose huge numbers of votes for the reciprocal reason (that Romney neutralized part of Obama’s base). Obama’s own actions, these last four years, neutralized and/or converted to Romney a large chunk of His former base. Obama lost the support of millions of people who had once supported Him. Big difference. Rightward shift.
Even with millions of GOP-leaning voters staying home, Obama still lost whites 60-40. Which means the Democrats have a gigantic majority-outreach problem.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 9, 2012 @ 5:28 pm - November 9, 2012
Now, for you folks who say that the GOP ought to just let the ‘fiscal cliff’ happen: You’re right… but maybe not for the reason you think.
The U.S. and Japan face a “Greece times 100” fiscal crisis. It will hit sometime in Bammy’s new term. It could have easily hit in Bammy’s first term, but Greece/Europe kept distracting people. At some point, that will be over: that is, Europe will have at least stabilized itself, and the world’s attention will turn to the U.S. (and Japan) where the fiscal problems are actually worse.
That’s the real fiscal cliff. The so-called ‘fiscal cliff’ that people are talking about now, is the solution to the real one. We need the spending cuts, period. The tax rate increases are bad, and (I predict) will NOT result in significant new tax revenues; which means the U.S. fiscal problem can be resolved, in the end, only through spending cuts. And Obama had better get that part into high gear, over and done with, if He knows what’s good for Him. Because it’s going to mean a recession, just like having cancer means a hospital stay for your cancer surgery.
But of course, Bammy doesn’t know what’s good for Him. What He’ll do instead, is demand more and more deficit spending “stimulus” (i.e., borrowing), and more and more Fed money-printing. That road ends with a collapse of the U.S. dollar, as the world abandons the dollar as the default trading and ‘reserve’ currency (which has already started somewhat, these last 4 years). Bammy inherits all that.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 9, 2012 @ 5:51 pm - November 9, 2012
If 2008 had been a real turning point in American society, BHO would not have lost ground.
2008 was just a bump in the road and 2012 is ditch the bump came from.
I can’t wait to bug my friends with this line: Obama? You mean the guy who’s less popular than George W. Bush? hehehe….
Comment by BigJ — November 9, 2012 @ 6:12 pm - November 9, 2012
Bammy inherits nothing, so long as his cult controls the message.
I write that not in disagreement with ILC, but as a clarification. Those with any integrity and economic sense already know that Bammy is in the center of flushing the economy down the crapper. He has taken care of himself financially and will be standing to the side waving as his faithful cult lap dogs and the rest of us take the hosing.
Comment by heliotrope — November 9, 2012 @ 6:39 pm - November 9, 2012
Please, conservatives. Continue with your breathless predictions. You’re just on a roll right now after the election. All those conservative horror stories we were told in 2008 about what life in this country would be like at this point were just so spot on, after all.
The big hazard Obama faces is himself. He handled the Republicans terribly in his first term and risks blowing the recovery if he doesn’t steamroll them early. He needs to find a way to extract tax cuts without gutting Social Security and Medicare. I am extremely skeptical, based on his performance during his first term, that he’ll be able to achieve this, and I fully anticipate him pursuing and achieving a ‘Grand Bargain’ where he gives way too much in return for far too little. Hopefully he’s learned that he can’t trust Republicans, who are out to undermine people’s confidence in government, but I just haven’t seen anything to indicate that.
Comment by Levi — November 9, 2012 @ 7:02 pm - November 9, 2012
Funny, Levi, under a Republican President, you were shrieking that 5% unemployment and a rapidly-expanding GDP was a “depression”.
Now 8% unemployment and a contracting GDP equal a “recovery”.
We already know that you are completely ignorant of math, but this also demonstrates that you are completely ignorant of reality as well.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 9, 2012 @ 7:38 pm - November 9, 2012
I think it’s willful. Levi enjoys spreading B.S. Leftists know that their system doesn’t work, hence they must lie to get it.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 9, 2012 @ 10:43 pm - November 9, 2012
Indeed.He handled the Republicans terribly in his first termIndeed, He never seriously tried to work with them.
Too late, that ship has sailed.
Extract tax cuts? All He has to do is propose some.without gutting Social Security and Medicare.Too late, that ship has sailed. (1) He already gutted Medicare, when He extracted 716B for Obamacare, (2) U.S. entitlements in general can’t be saved anyway, at their current level of generosity.
Indeed, one ought to be quite skeptical that He is capable of achieving anything.
You mean that He would finally work with Republicans to try to solve the country’s problems? I guarantee you, He will not do that.
You can’t undermine confidence in a system that can never work and does not work, to begin with. Stop blaming others, Levi, for the failures of your sick ideology.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 9, 2012 @ 10:52 pm - November 9, 2012
Even The Economist (always behind the curve) begins to see that the rest of the world is in an ongoing process of abandoning the dollar: http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21564880-yuan-displacing-dollar-key-currency?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/trending/yuan
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 9, 2012 @ 10:55 pm - November 9, 2012
(continued) Thanks, Dear Leader! Thanks for making our currency disrespected everywhere!
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 9, 2012 @ 10:56 pm - November 9, 2012
Ignatius,
The Dems are looking at Corey Booker, the Mayor of Neward N.J. He gets high marks and is contemplating challengin Chris Christie. Two elements could carry to victory. One is the African Americas, who make up oover 85% of Jersey City, Camden is almost all black and Puerto Ricans, black and white, Trenton is more than 50% black. In 2016 he will have had three years experience as governor and at least 6 as mayor. So his leadership or executive experience exceeds Barak Obama´s at the time of his first presidential campaign.
Comment by Roberto — November 10, 2012 @ 11:56 am - November 10, 2012
All Yobama really knows is how to sell off the silverware. It is not possible to cover a 9% of gdp size deficit with additional taxes. Hence, ugly things are going to happen.
The GOP Congress should let themselves be “steamrollered” to raise taxes, make sure Obamas Hollywood and Wall Street cronies take a huge hit, and attack him from the sidelines. They probably will not be smart enough to do that.
Comment by El Gordo — November 10, 2012 @ 12:34 pm - November 10, 2012