Turnout in 2012

[Averroës Nix]

Tea Party voters tend to be white, old, and middle class. So yeah, turnout might be a little higher among Republicans, but this is a demographic that already has a really high participation rate.

Turnout will certainly be lower among the groups that made up Obama's coalition in 2008. There's no way he'll be able to whip up the same kind of positive support as before, and I doubt that he can make up for it with attacks on the GOP candidate. After all, Sarah Palin was on the ballot in 2008.

Watch for support for Democrats - and voting rates - to be lower in particular among white young people of all incomes and educational backgrounds.

[Averroës Nix]

Liberals and progressives know that to save their political skins they must organize in 2012 and must get a coherent message out. They are taking nothing for granted this time. They know what a Hard Right America will be -- either a fascist nightmare or a federation of Tara-like plantations with high technology.

This is such BS. The nation is not nearly as right-wing as it was in the 1980s and 1990s. Those were great decades, especially the latter half of each decade. I'll take that any day over Obama's days of malaise. Bill Clinton could never win the support of liberals and progressives in this climate. And he was a great president. The problem is not the right, although some of them are a bit loopy on some social issues, but the left. They have this fantasy belief that government is some panacea that is the solution to any and every economic problem. I am scared where this fantasy will lead if it continues as is or, worse, is fully implemented to the greatest degree possible.

And this is coming from a former Gore and Kerry supporter (And a moderate Obama supporter in 2008).

pbrower2a, organization and (especially) messaging only matter on the margins. Can you think of one election in American history in which messaging would have changed the winner of the popular vote when the popular vote was won by a margin of more than 5%? I don't mean to discount your point entirely, but with regard to turnout I think that people's perceptions of the country's economy are going to be much more important than Obama's skill at campaigning or fundraising.

Politico, would your opinion of the Democrats & Obama improve if the economy were to recover within the next year, however unlikely that may seem? Or are your convictions about the dangers of Big Government strong enough that a recovery wouldn't convince you to change your mind?

[Averroës Nix]

Republicans that move further to the right are welcomed so long as they articulate (see Rubio). 

What do they need to articulate? Or do you mean that they need to be articulate?

Democrats get in trouble with the American people because their policies are destined to be failures even prior to implementation - like Obamacare. 

Are the words "even prior to implementation" meant to add any content at all to this sentence?

The American people never punish democrats for moving to the center (like Clinton), rather it is when they move to the left.  Obama is the most radical, most socialist, left-wing president we have ever had in this country.  He is a true believer in the teachings of Karl Marx and company.

If you are willing to attempt to demonstrate through arguments and evidence that this is the case, I would be happy to engage with you. But it is extremely frustrating when someone makes highly provocative accusations and refuses to explain them or provide any reason why they should be taken seriously.

He wants to destroy the country and we will do anything and everything, even vote for people we don't like all that much to turn him out of office before he does anymore damage.  So understand that our intensity is beyond simple anger, its pre-revolutionary.  Rest assured, we will turnout and it won't be even close.

Glad to hear that you'll be taking your primal rage to the polling booth. But honestly speaking, would you (or, generally speaking, people similar to you) not be voting under other circumstances?

(Also, what does "destroying the country" entail, and why would President Obama make that his goal?)

[Averroës Nix]

Turnout depends on the GOP nominee. I agree that the dem base are likely to be less motivated, but if the nominee is Perry they will turnout because he is scarier than Bush to them. I think GOP turnout will be low if Romney is nominee. The base comprimised last time with McCain and got nothing in return. Plus there are republicans that wont vote for a Mormon.

So with Perry it will be a high turnout election overall, and if Romney a low turnout.

You don't think that Obama will motivate the base by casting Romney as a coastal elitist corporatist with an awkward personality who wears weird jeans?

More seriously, I think that a Perry nomination might keep a lot of swingy voters who aren't willing to vote for Obama again at home but I doubt that this would fully counteract the  positive effect that a Perry nomination would have on turnout among strong Democrats and strong Republicans. (Though I do doubt that there are actually that many Republicans who would stay home rather than vote against Obama.)

[Averroës Nix]

User nhmagic accused me of playing "twenty questions" before, and I'm really not interested in anything that he or she has said at this point. But I want to repeat the one question I asked him or her that is most germane to this topic.

Honestly speaking, would you (or, generally speaking, people similar to you) not be voting under other circumstances?

This topic has, unfortunately, turned into a discussion of President Obama's Marxist credentials. Look, however you feel about that, it is undoubtedly the case that plenty of people (including nhmagic) do believe a number of extraordinary and highly negative claims about President Obama. Polling on Tea Party membership, though, has shown that this is a relatively politically engaged, upper-income, educated and white group. These people have always voted - in large numbers, and for Republicans.