On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
> As far as I can tell, there was enough minority participation to secure
> Democratic victories in places like DC, Baltimore, or Detroit. If you look
> at the electoral map http://www.politico.com/2010/maps/ at sub-state
> level,
> you will see that places with heavy minority concentration went heavily
> democratic. It is the ex-urban or rural areas that went republican.
>
> So from that point of view, I do not see much evidence of the supposed
> dissatisfaction of liberals who voted for Obama. Some were dissatisfied,
> to
> be sure, but I do not think it made enough difference on the national level
> to sway the election results.
>
> Most people do not adhere to any coherent political philosophy or ideology,
> their understanding of the macroeconomics, market forces, and the role of
> government in the economy is practically nil. They tend to attribute the
> state economy to the political party in power, a view that is reinforced by
> the political discourse and partisan propaganda. So if things go right,
> they vote for the party in power, if things go wrong - they vote for
> challengers.
>
> In other words, if they face bad luck, they sacrifice a chicken, and if
> that
> does not "work" they sacrifice a goat, and their luck still does not
> change,
> they start sacrificing some of their own. It s not the purpose rationality
> that Weber described, by the magic rationality described by Bronislaw
> Malinowski. According to Malinowski, if people do not understand causal
> mechanisms behind phenomena (such as weather change), they turn into magic
> to gain symbolic "control" over something beyond their factual knowledge.
> That is, they are using rituals to get peace of mind in situations they
> cannot control or understand. Voting is one of such rituals and it is as
> "rational" as sacrificing a chicken to avert bad luck.
>
> I am reasonably certain that had the economy visibly improved, democrats
> would have maintained their majorities, Mr. Obama notwithstanding.
>
> Wojtek
>
> On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Alan Rudy <alan.rudy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On the one hand, its been three days so most of us are speculating.
> > On the other hand, the material Marv's pointed to represents some
> empirical
> > evidence w/r/t youth as does the desperate efforts Dems made to bring out
> > their usual blocs - seein' as how it was pretty clear they weren't gonna
> > come out. Like Marv, I'd be surprised if - like the reduced
> participation
> > of youth who lean Dem who voted for the excitement of Obama - there was
> > also
> > reduced participation from historically oppressed minorities.
> > It is surely possible that some voters, perhaps swing independents and
> some
> > union members most specifically, sought to punish the party in power but
> it
> > strikes me a weird that anyone excited or hopeful about Obama would see
> > anything in Reps, much less TPers... but then again I'm not a member of
> > these groups.
> > I can say, anecdotally, that reading the comments pages on HuffPo,
> MoveOn,
> > the NYT and beyond - as well as exchanging notes with mainstream Dems I
> > grew
> > up with and went to college and grad school with - mainstream Dems are
> not
> > pumped about Obama.
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Alan: "Obama's campaign energized a base and drew the
> > > middle/swing/independent
> > > voters in 2008. His Presidency has disappointed the base, middle,
> swing
> > > and
> > > independents who voted for him and has passively fostered bipartisan"
> > >
> > > [WS:] Do you have any empirical evidence of this, as opposed to the
> > > alternative hypothesis: that voters wanted to "punish" the party in
> power
> > > by
> > > voting for a challenger? The latter only assumes that if things are
> > going
> > > south, the electorate will vote against the party in power - which is
> > > "received wisdom" in policy analysis - the former requires an
> additional
> > > assumptions about political preferences of the electorate, which
> requires
> > > empirical proof. Can you cite any?
> > >
> > > Wojtek
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Alan Rudy <alan.rudy at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I don't think any of my arguments necessitate an untapped reservoir
> of
> > > > potentially left-leaning voters.
> > > > If I was unclear, just about everything I've written is rooted in
> only
> > > > thinking abotut who votes, who votes for D, for R, for a TP or not at
> > > all,
> > > > and when... with only slight variations in the content of the
> > population
> > > of
> > > > voters.
> > > > Obama's campaign energized a base and drew the
> middle/swing/independent
> > > > voters in 2008. His Presidency has disappointed the base, middle,
> > swing
> > > > and
> > > > independents who voted for him and has passively fostered bipartisan
> > > > obstructionism, dissembling Repug pundits and media, and libertarian
> > > and/or
> > > > racist Tea Partiers. This energizes the opposition and depresses
> > > > proponents
> > > > indpendent of what the 50-60% of eligible non-voters think.
> > > > Who cares if Obama's done a lot of press conferences, the press
> > > conferences
> > > > are uninteresting, they don't have a clear message and he doesn't
> come
> > > off
> > > > as a man on a mission in them.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Nov 5, 2010, at 10:16 PM, Somebody Somebody wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Shane: How stupid can you get? The Dumbos were trashed be their
> > 2008
> > > > > voters by *not voting*.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Somebody: Both you and Alan seem to subscribe to the view that
> > > there's
> > > > a
> > > > > vast reserve army of nonvoters silently waiting to be mobilized by
> a
> > > true
> > > > > left-wing leader. I wish that this were true, but I prefer to stick
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > empirical data rather than to what's ideologically comfortable.
> > > > >
> > > > > This year's voters were whiter, righter, and older than the last
> > crop,
> > > > > there's no doubt about that. I agree about the untapped reservoir's
> > > > > essential nonexistence though.
> > > > >
> > > > > Doug
> > > > > ___________________________________
> > > > > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > *********************************************************
> > > > Alan P. Rudy
> > > > Dept. Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work
> > > > Central Michigan University
> > > > 124 Anspach Hall
> > > > Mt Pleasant, MI 48858
> > > > 517-881-6319
> > > > ___________________________________
> > > > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> > > >
> > > ___________________________________
> > > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *********************************************************
> > Alan P. Rudy
> > Dept. Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work
> > Central Michigan University
> > 124 Anspach Hall
> > Mt Pleasant, MI 48858
> > 517-881-6319
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- ********************************************************* Alan P. Rudy Dept. Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work Central Michigan University 124 Anspach Hall Mt Pleasant, MI 48858 517-881-6319