The Real Reason Democrats Lost

[dbphoenix]

So there are roughly five main reasons that the collective wisdom, such as it is, has identified to explain why the election was such a blowout. One, Barack Obama’s unpopularity. Two, a motivated conservative base. Three, a dispirited liberal base. Four, the recruitment by the Republicans of affable-seeming candidates who had some discipline drilled into them. Five, the tens or arguably hundreds of millions of dollars in dark money that flowed from corporate sources into GOP coffers.

Those who feel moved to add a more substantive reason will say, “Oh yes, and the economy.” In fact they might even list it first. But this is wrong. It’s way too vague. It’s really important to understand this and focus on the exact problem, so that the Democrats can try to get this right in 2016.

“The economy” is pretty good. The gross domestic product in the third quarter grew at an annual rate of 3.5 percent. The deficit is down to 2.8 percent of GDP, from a high of 10.1 percent in the wake of the meltdown. At the moment I’m writing this paragraph, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is at 17,523, and it’s been closing at all-time highs lately. Corporate profits are enormous, as you know. Average weekly jobless claims are at a 14-year low. And as we just learned Friday morning, the economy added 241,000 jobs, and its now clear that 2014 will be the best year for job growth since 2006.

So the problem isn’t “the economy.” The problem is one particular aspect of the economy: wages. Unfortunately for Obama and the Democrats it’s the thing that kinda matters the most to people, and it’s the thing that during his presidency has sucked for pretty much everyone except those at the top. more . . .

 

[Tsing Tao]

Nah, the problem isn't the economy.

One In Five Jobs Added In October Was A Waiter Or A Bartender

While the headline jobs print was a modest kneejerk disappointment at least until it is appropriately spun in some sort of "goldilocks" frame, where the October jobs report was a true disappointment, was in the report of average hourly earnings: rising at just 0.1% for the month and 2.0% Y/Y, it missed expectations across both metrics. As a reminder, even Janet Yellen has observed that with the unemployment rate ridiculously low and thus meaningless to shape policy, the key thing the Fed head is watching is any changes in wages to determine where benign wage inflation is headed. Well, as the chart below shows, it is headed exactly nowhere, because 6 years after the recovery, wages simply refuse to rise.





And while there are many reason to explain this phenomenon, most of which have been covered here in the past, here is the easiest explanation of why wages have, and will continue to disappoint to the downside. From the report:

• Food services and drinking places added 42,000 jobs in October, compared with an average gain of 26,000 jobs per month over the prior 12 months.
• Employment in professional and business services continued to trend up over the month (+37,000). Over the prior 12 months, job gains averaged 56,000 per month. In October, employment continued to trend up in temporary help services (+15,000).

In brief: well-paying jobs lower, low-paying jobs much higher.

And to visualize it: in October the US economy added the most waiters and bartenders in over a year. In fact at 42K, one in every five jobs "created" in the US economy went to a bartender, or a waiter.

 

[JamesL]

Nah, the real reason you lost is delusional thinking like this:

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday provided a straightforward postmortem on the sweeping defeat her party suffered at the polls two days before: Democrats didn't win, she said, because Democrats didn't vote.

In a 75-minute call with the members of her caucus, the minority leader acknowledged the Democrats' "terrible year" but argued that low voter participation — not the party's message — was the root of the problem.

or this:

http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index...elief-at-w-h-spin-on-election-results.287641/

 

[Ricter]

It's all about turnout. Data still coming in but could be the lowest since the 1940s. There is no rep mandate, a slim majority, call them the zealous few, within a small sample, won out. And already reps are misinterpreting the results (except for, curiously, Sarah Palin). "Repeal Obamacare!" which a majority of Americans, shown in repeated polling, don't want it repealed, they want it tweaked. More of these discrepancies, between national opinion and the rep congress, are sure to follow.

 

[Banjo]

Perhaps they should look more deeply into the rampant, arrogant, blatant manipulation of their supposed "subjects". Being born with an abundance of melanin doesn't abdicate one's perceptual abilities nor the ability to juxtapose ideas.

http://www.businessinsider.com/tim-scott-blasts-democratic-race-baiting-2014-11

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

There is some truth to the claim that poor turnout among their base hurt democrats. They did everything but stage fake lynchings to rile them up though. Perhaps that's why they had the canned op-ed pieces ready to go the day after the election demanding mandatory voting or even eliminating off year elections.

How big a factor the crackdown on vote fraud was remains to be seen. Surprisingly, democrats are not making a big deal about "voter suppression" hurting them. although it would seem tailor-made for their typical whining.

Turnout cuts both ways. Romney was killed by poor turnout among republican constituencies.

 

[dbphoenix]

It's all about turnout. Data still coming in but could be the lowest since the 1940s. There is no rep mandate, a slim majority, call them the zealous few, within a small sample, won out. And already reps are misinterpreting the results (except for, curiously, Sarah Palin). "Repeal Obamacare!" which a majority of Americans, shown in repeated polling, don't want it repealed, they want it tweaked. More of these discrepancies, between national opinion and the rep congress, are sure to follow.

But why the low turnout? If Obama -- and the rest of the Democrats -- had done anything they had promised to do six years ago, they would not have been so demoralized as to give the whole thing away this time.

The coalition that the Obama machine put together for 2008 wasn't there this time because it was all about Obama. When he showed that there was no "there" there, the emptiness infected the entire Democratic effort.

Every time they lose, Democrats move further to the right instead of hammering away at their progressive message. They are now not much different from Goldwater. If they want to return to power, they need to decide who they are, what they stand for, and act on those principles, not just bloviate about them.

 

[Ricter]

But why the low turnout? If Obama -- and the rest of the Democrats -- had done anything they had promised to do six years ago, they would not have been so demoralized as to give the whole thing away this time.

The coalition that the Obama machine put together for 2008 wasn't there this time because it was all about Obama. When he showed that there was no "there" there, the emptiness infected the entire Democratic effort.

Every time they lose, Democrats move further to the right instead of hammering away at their progressive message. They are now not much different from Goldwater. If they want to return to power, they need to decide who they are, what they stand for, and act on those principles, not just bloviate about them.

So long as inequality continues to grow, the fundamentals underlying the dem party will only strengthen. Keep your eye on the ball, e.g. consider what happened with the minimum wage measures on the ballots this election. Good news for dems, and a clear reflection of what the American public wants, despite rep preaching and fear-mongering.

Not so sure about the dems shifting right, happily it does appear the reps have had to shift left.

But, you can't win 'em all, mate. : )

 

[loyek590]

democrats can't talk about the economy, because the economy is just money, and money is all republicans care about

democrats don't even know where money comes from. They think it is just something republicans have and they need to spend it

health care, education, infastructure. Those are what democrats stand for. And don't you dare ask how or who is going to pay for it. As long as someone has a yacht or a private plane there is plenty of money for democrats to spend

oh yeah, and America needs a raise

 

[dbphoenix]

So long as inequality continues to grow, the fundamentals underlying the dem party will only strengthen. Keep your eye on the ball, e.g. consider what happened with the minimum wage measures on the ballots this election. Good news for dems, and a clear reflection of what the American public wants, despite rep preaching and fear-mongering.

Not so sure about the dems shifting right, happily it does appear the reps have had to shift left.

But, you can't win 'em all, mate. : )

Depends on what one considers to be the "fundamentals" underlying the Democratic Party. Even they can't agree, particularly with regard to the relationship to Wall Street and corporations.

As for shifting right, review the Clinton years.