patrick.net

It's getting harder to convince the peons of their imminent need for crushing underneath the boot of bankster profits. It turns out that broke people care less about managing what happens to girly parts than they do about earning a decent wage.

Simple answer: they say whatever their pollsters tell them to say, because they have no respect for the voters. During the primaries, they run to the "right" because that's where their primary voters are. Then, during the general election, they run "left" towards the center, because that's where the general election voters are. W forgave Nancy Pelosi for calling him an idiot, because he said he understands the difference between things you say while campaigning and what you really believe. There is no requirement that they do in office what they said they would do during the campaign, so they can say anything, and then do the opposite.

Major party politicians in general, and politicians from that party in particular, are usually trying to rob you. Some people misquote Willie Sutton and say they rob banks because "that's where the money is." What Sutton actually said is much more revealing about the psychology: "Why did I rob banks? Because I enjoyed it. I loved it. I was more alive when I was inside a bank, robbing it, than at any other time in my life. I enjoyed everything about it so much that one or two weeks later I'd be out looking for the next job. But to me the money was the chips, that's all." Why do major party politicians continue fooling and robbing people, even after retirement age, when they already have more $$$ than they can spend in their remaining years? Why does a bully keep stealing other kids' lunch money, even when he's already fat? It's what they love to do, more than anything else.

curious2 says

Simple answer: they say whatever their pollsters tell them to say, because they have no respect for the voters.

Then of course, you'd have to think that the Tea Party movement was the same thing. You had an angry rightwing chunk of the electorate, so give the people what they want.

Following that logic, the electorate is not so rightwing anymore?

To get stupid Liberals to vote for them, so they can then turn around and fuck them all up the Ass. Why not it worked for Obama?

CaptainShuddup says

To get stupid Liberals to vote for them, so they can then turn around and fuck them all up the Ass. Why not it worked for Obama?

Stupid Democracy. I can't believe the voters don't agree with you.

CL says

Following that logic, the electorate is not so rightwing anymore?

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but I did refer specifically to the difference between primary election voters and general election voters. One can be a subset of the other, but they are two different groups. The people haven't changed, but the general election requires fishing in a larger pond.

One detail that you might like though. President Obama and the Democrats have the Republicans in a box, precisely because their primary electorate has not changed. Around 30% of the electorate are religious fundamentalists hanging on for the rapture, and they are unreachable by conventional means. They are now corralled into the Republican party, where they comprise a majority, forcing that party to nominate unelectable candidates. The result, although scary, enables Democrats to do practically anything and still win.

curious2 says

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but I did refer specifically to the difference between primary election voters and general election voters. One can be a subset of the other, but they are two different groups. The people haven't changed, but the general election requires fishing in a larger pond.

Agreed. Although I don't believe that Primary voters tend to stay home in the general, since they tend to be activists. They usually find that their primary opponent's tiny difference with the nominee is not as large as they believed in the heat of a primary campaign. Witness the lack of PUMAs, despite the chatterers' insistence, in Obama's first Presidential election. I'd say the primary voter is almost always a subset of the general.

Obviously, we know that by the general, the hope for candidates is to pull off a Houdini and pray that nobody recorded them pandering to their flanks. The problem for the Right is that the electorate finds their base disgusting, whereas I don't see the same problem on the left. The right's best hope is to not get caught.

Still, these candidates are essentially willing to trade, as it were, their base for the general electorate, or even the Democratic voter. That would indicate the Teabaggers have fizzled.

CL says

I'd say the primary voter is almost always a subset of the general.

Yes, although we have seen at least one recent exception: 2012. President Obama became the first president ever to win re-election with fewer votes than he got the first time. How? The most likely explanation is that many Christian fundamentalist primary voters who turned out to oppose the cult member (who privately called their religions "abominations," in addition to his more famous remarks about 47% of voters being totally dependent on government), stayed home rather than vote for him in the general election. (Meanwhile, many independents who had voted for Obama in 2008, decided not to vote for him again because of Obamacare.)

CL says

The problem for the Right is that the electorate finds their base disgusting, whereas I don't see the same problem on the left.

Look more carefully. Read Forthood's comments, for example, and TOB. Even zz (mis)stereotypes "Obama supporters". I laugh when certain PatNetters accuse me of failing to read other opinions, or being unable to handle other opinions, because in fact I read them all the time.

curious2 says

Yes, although we have seen at least one recent exception: 2012. President Obama became the first president ever to win re-election with fewer votes than he got the first time. How? The most likely explanation is that many Christian fundamentalists who turned out to oppose the cult member (who privately called their religions "abominations," in addition to his more famous remarks about 47% of voters being totally dependent on government) in the primaries, stayed home rather than vote for him in the general election.

Wait. How would Obama's lower tally across two General elections be correlated to Romney turning off his base? Unless you are claiming Romney's primary vote totals were larger than his GE totals?

curious2 says

Look more carefully. Read Forthood's comments, for example, and TOB. Even zz (mis)stereotypes "Obama supporters". I laugh when certain PatNetters accuse me of failing to read other opinions, or being unable to handle other opinions, because in fact I read them all the time.

It's good you do, although I'm not sure I follow. The people you cite here ARE the base, and that kind of attitude is largely what the general electorate finds repulsive, right? At least, young people, women, minorities and the liberally minded do.

CL says

Unless you are claiming Romney's primary vote totals were larger than his GE totals?

CL, really, that question cannot possibly follow, even rhetorically, from what I said. I read your OP question as a serious question, possibly a mistake on my part, and answered literally. I'm going to have a cup of tea and wish you a nice day.