The most important reason to vote Democrat is that Democrats care about 98% of Americans, while the GOP and the Tea Party only care about the top 2% of Americans.
The Democrats priority is to take our country forward, while the GOP and the Tea Party want to take us to a time in which education and health care are privileges, the minimum wage is non-existent and civil rights are decided by the states.
The Democrats encourage people to vote. The GOP/Tea Party has actively worked to suppress votes. In fact, there are some in the GOP/Tea Party who want to eliminate direct elections to choose our senators.
The GOP’s priority, in the words of Mitch McConnell:
“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
McConnell said he had been studying the history of presidents who suffered big defeats in midterm elections in Congress, but then won re-election in two years anyway. McConnell said he doesn’t want Republicans to repeat the same mistakes that allowed that to happen.
“After 1994, the public had the impression we Republicans overpromised and underdelivered,” McConnell said. “We suffered from some degree of hubris and acted as if the president was irrelevant and we would roll over him. By the summer of 1995, he was already on the way to being re-elected, and we were hanging on for our lives.”
McConnell said Republicans need to treat the midterm elections as “the first step in retaking the government.”
It was in that context that McConnell said, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
GOP leaders go on to suggest that they are willing to compromise. This begs the question: if they were willing to compromise, why didn’t they do so during the past two years. The GOP obstructed at every turn, to the point of opposing policies they had previously backed. Sixty has become the new 51 in the Senate, thanks to GOP abuse of the filibuster. Despite GOP obstructionism, the Democrats have spent the last two years working for the American people. As News Junkie Post points out:
While the mainstream media narrative has been dominated by right wing and Tea Party talking points, many of the fundamental changes in direction of this country have not received the attention they deserve. Now in one day, the very politicians who venomously opposed these reforms, the very people who want to take America back to the days of Bush are poised to retake the US House of Representatives. They are banking on the short attention span of voters, so share this list liberally!
Polling Data strongly suggests that the GOP will regain the House of Representatives. However, Nate Silver suggests that it is still possible that the Democrats could defy expectations.
1. The cellphone effect: Nate Silver points out that a lot of Americans rely exclusively on cellphones and a lot of pollsters don’t call cell phones. People are rely on cellphones exclusively tend to be younger, more urban, less white and Democratic demographics.
2: The “robopoll” effect. Robopolls tend to be more favorable to Republicans, albeit with a variance of the effects from firm to firm.
3: Some of the likely voter models on which pollsters make their projections might “crowd out” Democratic voters.
4. Democrats probably have better get out the vote organizations, which could make up for what the pundits have called an “enthusiasm deficit” among Democratic voters.
5. The general consensus that the Democrats will suffer significant losses might not be a sound as it seems. Some of the things one would expect to see to support the concensus opinion include:
a) Bad generic poll numbers.
b) bad poll numbers in individual House Districts
c) The party’s problems are apparent in most or virtually all demographic groups.
d) The numbers are especially bad among independents.
In fact, the mainstream press has been pointing to these indicators, that and the history of governing parties doing badly in midterms. So what is Nate Silver’s point?
Each of the indicators that I mentioned above are direct manifestations of polling data. The message in the polls this year is unambiguous: bad things are going to happen to Democrats. The polls are probably going to be right.
It seems like the evidence that Republicans will win the House is very rich, redundant and robust. Look at this generic ballot poll! Look at this other generic ballot poll! Look at how badly Democrats are doing among whites. Look at how they’re doing among independents!
But all of these indicators are, in fact, highly correlated with one another. They’re all rooted in the polling, and they’re all dependent on the polling basically being accurate. There’s not much diversity at all: it’s just different manifestations of the same thing.
Our Congressional forecasting models are based on an intensive study of six political cycles: 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2008. In five of those six years, the polls were quite good — they missed a few races, but were very strong overall.
In one year, however –1998 — they were quite poor. Democrats overperformed their polls by about four points in a great number of races around the country. What was supposed to be an echo to the Republican boom year of 1994 basically flopped, eventually costing Newt Gingirch his job as majority leader.
Consensus expectations also considerably underestimated the Republican wave year of 1994, although a few indicators (like Gallup’s generic ballot poll) got it about right.
If we wanted to be generous to Democrats (which is, of course, the purpose of this article), we could say that the consensus basically failed in two out of the last four midterm elections. Of course, that the consensus view could fail does not mean that it will fail in the Democrats’ direction: instead Republican gains could be much larger than expected.
But in my view, it doesn’t make sense to say, for instance — and a lot of people are saying things like this — that Republicans should gain between 50 and 60 seats, and the number could be higher, but it shouldn’t be lower. If that’s what you think, you should project their gains to between 60 and 70 seats (or whatever) instead.
The thing is, the upside case for Republicans is pretty easy to see. Most of the news in this election, after all, is favorable to them. You see the Gallup generic ballot number, you see incumbents like Raúl M. Grijalva and Jim Obertstar in trouble, you see the president’s approval rating at 44 percent, you see the big crowds at Tea Party rallies, you see Scott Brown winning in Massachusetts, and it’s easy to connect the dots. It’s an easy case to make, and it’s a pretty good one.
The case that Democrats could do better than expected — not well, by any means, merely better than expected — rests a little more in the realm of what artists call negative space: not what there is, but in what there isn’t. There aren’t 50, or even more than about 25, districts in which Republican candidates are unambiguous favorites. There isn’t agreement among pollsters about how the enthusiasm gap is liable to manifest itself. There isn’t any one poll or one forecasting method that is clairvoyant, or that hasn’t made some pretty significant errors in the past.
Instead, the case for Democrats is basically: yes, the news is bad, it just isn’t exactly as bad as you think, or at least we can’t be sure that it is. This isn’t a sexy argument to make.
Nor, probably, will it turn out to be the correct one; more likely than not, Republicans will indeed win the House, and will do so by a significant margin. But just as Republicans could beat the consensus, Democrats could too, and nobody should be particularly shocked if they do.
If you haven’t voted already, please do so. If you have voted already, thank you.