• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Shift in Voter Party Identification since August 2010

bobknightfan said:
He just got 7.5 million more votes than any presidential candidate had ever gotten in the nation's history. We aren't talking about a hanging chad election here.
Click to expand...

He didn't "just" get this number of votes. That was four years ago. He's lost a lot of the momentum associated with being the first (half) black president and from the anti-Bush crowd. Plus, the economy still sucks. The shine has worn off.
 
In my opinion, you all are missing something.

To vote in primaries in many states, you have to be registered with the party. A lot of people registered Republican specifically and only to vote for Ron Paul in the primary. So some of those people might have said they considered themselves Republican.

Given that many Paul voters feel abandoned and disenfranchised as a result of the convention, I would not be surprised if this shift in registration was real, but not lasting. I think a lot of the Paul support is either adrift or shifting support to Johnson.
 
Maybe I should clarify that the survey isn't tracking voter registration, but instead, voter identification with a particular party or no party. So regardless of how they are registered, it's an indication of what party they are feeling more closely aligned with at the time of the survey. They do the survey every month so you can have a good sense of the trends. I compared a two year gap to show point to point, but you can review it monthly as well. There has been change in Rep favor since June 2012 as well. August 2010 is of interest because even though voter ID favored the Dems in August 2010, the Republicans won big in November, so what will be the result this year if Republicans are favored by 37% and have a 4% edge on the Dems? The unaffiliated seem to remain pretty constant.
 
Someone who voted for Paul may have previously been independent or whatever, but having recently voted for a Republican might cause some to say "well, I voted for Paul so I guess I'd say Republican" or the same if they had to register GOP, especially depending on how the question was phrased or if they felt like they had to pick one or the other.

Still seems like it could be a factor.
 
KillSwofford said:
Someone who voted for Paul may have previously been independent or whatever, but having recently voted for a Republican might cause some to say "well, I voted for Paul so I guess I'd say Republican" or the same if they had to register GOP, especially depending on how the question was phrased or if they felt like they had to pick one or the other.

Still seems like it could be a factor.
Click to expand...


Sorry I wasn't minimizing the Ron Paul factor at all. You're right and you never know how if people are going to answer a survey honestly etc.
 
bobknightfan said:
You were the one who made the statement: "Dude, pretty much every winning President from here on out is going to get more votes than any other."

I merely called you out as to how FOS that statement was. Evidently, you now agree with me.

As to the 2nd part of your statement, candidates gain & lose voters all the time. Obama starts with a 70 million vote base. Sure he will lose some of those votes, but he will also pick some new votes from other places. Obviously, I don't think he will get 70 million votes this time....but he has a large enough cushion with which he will win the election comfortably. The American people simply are not going to elect a man that they basically don't like....and particularly one who made $21 million by shuttering American companies, laying off American workers....and refuses to let the American people see his tax returns from doing that.
Click to expand...

Never mind Obama's economic policies have led to 8.3% unemployment for over 42 months, a doubling of the annual deficits, an increase of over $5 trillion in just four years of the national debt, and somewhere along the way Obama found time to SEAL his college transcripts? What's up with that? Nobody cares about low grades or cocaine/marijuana use, so what is Obama hiding at Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard?
I'd make that trade straight up: Romney's tax records for life for whatever Obama is hiding in his college records.
 
ncsportsnut1 said:
Never mind Obama's economic policies have led to 8.3% unemployment for over 42 months, a doubling of the annual deficits, an increase of over $5 trillion in just four years of the national debt, and somewhere along the way Obama found time to SEAL his college transcripts? What's up with that? Nobody cares about low grades or cocaine/marijuana use, so what is Obama hiding at Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard?
I'd make that trade straight up: Romney's tax records for life for whatever Obama is hiding in his college records.
Click to expand...

No you wouldn't...plus one had nothing to do with the other.

As to the debt and unemployment, the GOP was in power when the problems were created and the GOP STOPPED a bill that would dropped unemployment and the deficits dramatically.

The GOP in the House proved they hate Obama more than they love America or care about jobs.
 
ncsportsnut1 said:
Never mind Obama's economic policies have led to 8.3% unemployment for over 42 months, a doubling of the annual deficits, an increase of over $5 trillion in just four years of the national debt, and somewhere along the way Obama found time to SEAL his college transcripts? What's up with that? Nobody cares about low grades or cocaine/marijuana use, so what is Obama hiding at Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard?
I'd make that trade straight up: Romney's tax records for life for whatever Obama is hiding in his college records.
Click to expand...

At least Obama has reduced unemployment during his term unlike the last two Republican presidents.
 
RJKarl said:
No you wouldn't...plus one had nothing to do with the other.

As to the debt and unemployment, the GOP was in power when the problems were created and the GOP STOPPED a bill that would dropped unemployment and the deficits dramatically.

The GOP in the House proved they hate Obama more than they love America or care about jobs.
Click to expand...

so what gives about Obama's college transcripts RJ? What's your theory as to why they are sealed?
 
WFFaithful said:
At least Obama has reduced unemployment during his term unlike the last two Republican presidents.
Click to expand...

He did what? Unemployment has never been over 8% for 42 straight months, even with the way they manipulate the labor participation rates. The U6 has never been higher.
 
College transcripts are nothing like tax returns.

Why not ask for Sunday School attendance records or kindergarten grades?

You can't justify Romney's actions against the norm of EVERY other major party candidate for the past 30+ years, so you change the subject.
 
ncsportsnut1 said:
He did what? Unemployment has never been over 8% for 42 straight months, even with the way they manipulate the labor participation rates. The U6 has never been higher.
Click to expand...

What was unemployment when Obama took office?
 
ncsportsnut1 said:
He did what? Unemployment has never been over 8% for 42 straight months, even with the way they manipulate the labor participation rates. The U6 has never been higher.
Click to expand...

The u6 has been higher. It was higher when Obama took office.
 
BBD, the correct question should be, "what was unemployment in July 2009?"

That's when the first dollars from any program Obama passed hit the economy.
 
RJKarl said:
College transcripts are nothing like tax returns.

Why not ask for Sunday School attendance records or kindergarten grades?

You can't justify Romney's actions against the norm of EVERY other major party candidate for the past 30+ years, so you change the subject.
Click to expand...

If there's nothing bad to hide in the transcripts why did Obama seal them? He took that action for a reason.
 
There usually is a statistically significant registration bump in years when only one party has a true primary.
 
bobknightfan said:
You were the one who made the statement: "Dude, pretty much every winning President from here on out is going to get more votes than any other."

I merely called you out as to how FOS that statement was. Evidently, you now agree with me.

As to the 2nd part of your statement, candidates gain & lose voters all the time. Obama starts with a 70 million vote base. Sure he will lose some of those votes, but he will also pick some new votes from other places. Obviously, I don't think he will get 70 million votes this time....but he has a large enough cushion with which he will win the election comfortably. The American people simply are not going to elect a man that they basically don't like....and particularly one who made $21 million by shuttering American companies, laying off American workers....and refuses to let the American people see his tax returns from doing that.
Click to expand...

Yes, I said "pretty much every winning President from here on out is going to get more votes than any other." And the reason is simply the expanding population. Do you know who has the second most votes in a Presidential election? Dubya in 2004. McCain received the 3rd most in 2008. Perhaps, in an election expected to be tight, it won't happen in 2012, particularly with a 3rd party candidate. I'd certainly expect that to change by 2016 because pretty much every winning President, and some losing Presidents, are going to have more than the nearly 70 million votes Obama pulled in 2012. So whenever you harp on something idiotic like 70 million votes in 2008 to reinforce your belief that Obama is the shit, try to retain a modicum of perspective.
 
My feelings on party ID in meme form.

603370_349034461850467_1437644967_n.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top