Skip to content

Month: November 2012

Bubble boys

Bubble boys

by digby

Whoa. I said we dodged a bullet on election night, but thisconvinces me that wasn’t an exaggeration:

“We went into the evening confident we had a good path to victory,” said one senior adviser. “I don’t think there was one person who saw this coming.”

They just couldn’t believe they had been so wrong. And maybe they weren’t: There was Karl Rove on Fox saying Ohio wasn’t settled, so campaign aides decided to wait. They didn’t want to have to withdraw their concession, like Al Gore did in 2000, and they thought maybe the suburbs of Columbus and Cincinnati, which hadn’t been reported, could make a difference.

Big GOP donors see small return on investment
2012 Election results
But then came Colorado for the president and Florida also was looking tougher than anyone had imagined.

“We just felt, ‘where’s our path?'” said a senior adviser. “There wasn’t one.”

Romney then said what they knew: it was over.

His personal assistant, Garrett Jackson, called his counterpart on Mr. Obama’s staff, Marvin Nicholson. “Is your boss available?” Jackson asked.

Romney was stoic as he talked the president, an aide said, but his wife Ann cried. Running mate Paul Ryan seemed genuinely shocked, the adviser said. Ryan’s wife Janna also was shaken and cried softly.

“There’s nothing worse than when you think you’re going to win, and you don’t,” said another adviser. “It was like a sucker punch.”

Their emotion was visible on their faces when they walked on stage after Romney finished his remarks, which Romney had hastily composed, knowing he had to say something.

Both wives looked stricken, and Ryan himself seemed grim. They all were thrust on that stage without understanding what had just happened.

“He was shellshocked,” one adviser said of Romney.

That is he scariest thing I’ve read about Mitt Romney. My barely sentient neighbor knew that Obama was ahead in all the battleground polls on election day. That he and the very serious wonk Paul Ryan were stunned is yet more proof that these people don’t live in the real world. It’s one thing to be confident and hopeful, it’s quite another to be delusional.

.

Is this a liberal country or has it just not *totally* lost its sense of decency?

Is this a liberal country or has it just not *totally* lost its sense of decency?

by digby

One of the more startling things about getting older is the strange sense that nothing ever happens for the first time. For instance, I have been reading the conservative reactions around the web today and rather than being struck by how depressed they are (which they are) I’m struck by how their minds always seem to run in the same direction at times like these.

Several people have quoted from this screed from John “Hindrocket” Hindracker of Powerline this morning. He is very upset:

[T]here is a much more important proposition that, I think, was proved false last night: that America is a center-right country. This belief is one that we conservatives have cherished for a long time, but as of today, I think we have to admit that it is false. America is a deeply divided country with a center-left plurality. This plurality includes a vast number of citizens who describe themselves as moderates, but whose views on the issues are identical or similar to those that have historically been deemed liberal.

Oh my.

As blogger Miniver Cheevy recalled, this isn’t the first time we’ve seen this sort of disappointment from Hinderacker, although he’s now extended his disappointment to the people at large, not just the GOP:

Saturday, November 26, 2005


An Observation From Highpockets

by digby

[The following was from Hinderacker as his hero Bush began to disappoint him.]

For reasons I don’t fully understand, there is something about “leaders,” especially self-appointed leaders, and most especially those who are drawn to intensive participation in organizations, that tends toward liberalism. We see this in politics all the time, of course: it is one thing to vote for conservatism, something else entirely to get it from our elected leaders.

All of which makes me especially thankful, this year, for democracy, limited government and free enterprise: the best measures yet devised to protect us from our leaders.

I’m seeing a lot of this lately. Movement conservatives are getting ready to write the history of this era as liberalism once again failing the people. Typically, the conservatives were screwed, as they always are. They must regroup and fight for conservatism, real conservatism, once again. Viva la revolucion!

There is no such thing as a bad conservative. “Conservative” is a magic word that applies to those who are in other conservatives’ good graces. Until they aren’t. At which point they are liberals.

Get used to the hearing about how the Republicans failed because they weren’t true conservatives. Conservatism can never fail. It can only be failed by weak-minded souls who refuse to properly follow its tenets. It’s a lot like communism that way. 

I think we can all agree that whatever happens the next few years will be the result of liberalism failing America.

Unless, unless ….

Hinderacker, yesterday:

I have been grumbling for a long time that Ronald Reagan was the last politician who made a real effort to teach the principles of conservatism to the American public. Since the 1980s, we have largely been coasting on his legacy. The prevailing assumption has been that America is a center-right country, and if Republican politicians run a good tactical campaign and get their voters to the polls, they will generally win. That strategy no longer works, and conservative politicians need to try much harder not just to appeal to conservative voters, but to help create new ones.

If only the people knew what conservatism was, obviously they would vote for it. Because conservatism can never fail …

It’s probably important to point out that polls have long shown that a majority of Americans favor liberal policies. And a lot of them favor conservative policies, too, depending on the question. What a majority clearly doesn’t favor is the ugly, selfish notion that half of their fellow Americans are a bunch of moochers and parasites.

Hinderacker talks about culture but he ought to give some thought to the fact that his philosophy hasn’t succeeded in degrading it enough for this sickening display to be acceptable among decent people:

We haven’t fallen far enough yet for that to be a majority view.  It gives me hope.

But hey guys, keep this up. Someday, I’m sure it will work.

.

It’s what’s for breakfast

It’s what’s for breakfast

by digby



Elections are usually less occasions for learning than we might wish.  But I do believe that 2012 had the salutory effect of educating at least some members of the public that Ayn Rand is a joke. With an unrepentent vulture capitalist and tax cheat at the head of the ticket and a true blue Randian misanthrope as the Vice, it was her moment to shine. I would guess that most people had never heard of here before, but among those who had there were more than a few who thought she was worthy of respect.  I suspect some of them have learned otherwise.

.

Pimping Social Security cuts again, even though it has nothing to do with the deficit

Pimping Social Security cuts again

by digby

Peter Orsazg is supposed to be a very smart guy. After all, he worked in the White House and is now raking in the huge bucks on Wall Street. So I’m sure everyone in Washington hangs on his every word.

Today he talks about solutions to the fiscal cliff. He says, correctly, that the Republicans are unlikely to compromise significantly on tax increases.  And he suggests that there’s not enough time to work out some kind of alternative agreement on ending tax breaks. Also too, going over the cliff and letting the tax cuts expire would cause uncertainty, so that’s a no go.

What to do, what to do, what to do? How can we solve this insoluble dilemma?  Oh, I know, let’s fix a something that has nothing to do with the problems we’re supposedly trying to fix!

The White House, therefore, has three options. First, it could drive us temporarily over the fiscal cliff, let all the cuts expire, and aim for a deal in January with the clean slate that would occur once all the tax cuts are gone. This approach would create maximum anxiety and uncertainty, though. It’s not clear how quickly in January a deal could come together.

Second, rather than insist on raising marginal tax rates above $250,000 in income, the White House could suggest scaling back tax breaks for that cohort. House Republicans would be much more amenable to this type of approach. Still, it would be a major concession from a White House that is presumably feeling vindicated by the election. And it is always hard to trim tax expenditures such as the mortgage interest deduction and state and local tax preferences — especially now, at a moment when the economy is still recovering from a housing-led downturn and state and local governments still face significant deficits that need to be closed.

Finally, the White House could push for a placeholder tax cut while negotiations are ongoing. The “tax reform refund” I proposed in a previous column should be easier for the Republicans to swallow than any tax-expiration scheme. This refund would amount to $1,600 a year for anyone who works or receives Social Security benefits, and it would remain in place until a deal could be reached or, failing that, until the economy recovered more.

The other requirement for any deal — entitlement change — is just as challenging. A team put together by the Center for American Progress, which included me, has proposed a variety of steps to continue slowing the growth of health-care costs, but almost all of these would be impossible to get through the House, with the possible exception of our proposal for medical-malpractice reform.

So the most promising approach may be to compromise on Social Security — even though it is not a significant driver of our long-term deficits.

Why? I haven’t the vaguest idea. I guess just so they can say they did something? He suggests that it would give the administration credibility to do something else, but he doesn’t say exactly what that would be:

Reforming it would give the administration fiscal credibility disproportionate to the actual impact on the long-term deficit.

For what?

He suggests raising the cap, which is an excellent idea. But he also suggests this little bait and switch is a good reason to mess with the system:

[I]t is possible to enact but defer Social Security changes, as history has shown. Consider that the gradual increase in the normal retirement age, which did not begin until 2000, was enacted as part of reforms passed in 1983.

Kids, just a word to the wise. As one of those who got screwed in that deal — paying much more into a “trust fund” allegedly for my own retirement while having to work two extra years until I’m 67 — watch your wallet. If I’m lucky to live out my full life expectancy, I’ll one of those old ladies who will be screwed again if they change the CPI. Take my word for it, when you’re young this all seems very remote — and then you wake up one day and it’s staring you right in the face.

I don’t know what Orszag is up to with this. Perhaps he sees raising the cap as a substitute for the “asking the rich to pay a little bit more” to pay down the deficit promised by Obama in the campaign. That would be fine with me. But I can’t imagine the Republicans agreeing to that without requiring even more draconian spending cuts in exchange. After all, this is ostensibly about the deficit, about which Social Security has no effect. They’re going to demand that the tax cuts be extended and the deficit reduction targets hit through massive spending cuts to the other “entitlements” such as Medicare and Medicaid.

Who knows what the hell is going on here? There is a ton of public and private negotiating happening and I’m sure Oeszag is playing some part in it. His conclusion is hardly reassuring if he’s speaking for the White House:

Which specific reforms to Social Security should the White House embrace? There are many sound options. Not surprisingly, I am partial to the plan that the economist Peter Diamond of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and I have proposed.

It would be nice to think that over the past couple of months all of them have been the focus of White House staff discussions.

Diamond Orszag plan says this:

Since Painful Choices Must Be Made, a Key Question Is, Which Ones?

The Social Security deficit can be eliminated only through different combinations of politically painful choices: tax increases and benefit reductions. Unfortunately, too many analysts and politicians have ignored this reality, responding to the painful alternatives by embracing “free lunch” approaches.
[…]
Our plan makes the painful choices that are necessary—selecting a combination of benefit and revenue changes to restore long-term balance. In doing so, it focuses on three areas which contribute to the actuarial imbalance: improvements in life expectancy, increases in earnings inequality, and the burden of the legacy debt from Social Security’s early history.
[…]
Workers who are 55 or older will experience no change in their benefits from those scheduled under current law. For younger workers with average earnings, our proposal involves a gradual reduction in benefits from those scheduled under current law. For example, the reduction in benefits for a 45-year old average earner is less than 1 percent; for a 35-year-old, less than 5 percent; and for a 25-year-old, less than 9 percent. Reductions are smaller for lower earners, and larger for higher ones.

Like I said, watch your wallet kids. Guys like Orszag think they can sneak this through because nobody will be “affected” until years later and then, so what? But what will happen to you is what’s happening to me: you get older and you realize that the system is insecure, that the wingnuts are carving it away little by little, and that even though you made the sacrifice to pay more and reitre later, you still stand to have necessary benefits disappearing gradually after you are too old to work. Don’t buy it. This is a rich country that’s creating billionaires by the bucketful and running history’s most expensive military empire. We can afford for our elderly, disabled and sick to be decently taken care of. It’s just a matter of priorities.

.

Akin And Mourdock Were Not “Outliers” by tristero

Akin And Mourdock Were Not “Outliers”

by tristero

It truly is breathtaking, the depth to which Republicans can’t distinguish appearance from reality:

“We have a significant problem with female voters,” said John Weaver, a senior Republican strategist. Mr. Akin’s comments, Mr. Weaver said, “did not seem like outliers.” Nor, he added, were those made by Richard E. Mourdock, whose Senate campaign in Indiana was derailed in spectacular fashion after he said in a debate that it was “God’s will” when a pregnancy resulted from rape. 

“They did not seem foreign to our party,” Mr. Weaver said. “They seemed representative of our party.” (Bold added.)

No, Mr. Weaver, it’s not an appearance problem. It’s not that Akin and Mourdock did not “seem” like outliers. It’s that they aren’t outliers. The Republican party platform doesn’t even have rape exception, for goodness sakes! And if the very position paper Republicans have agreed to run on isn’t central enough, let’s not forget that their standard bearer talked bizarrely about “binders full of women” and pointedly refused to disown supporters like Mourdock.

Forced birth, unequal pay, coat-hangers, and vaginal sonograms – that is precisely what the Republican party stands for when it comes to women. The real outliers are remarks like this:

“It has never made sense that my party, the party of individual freedom and personal responsibility, thinks the government should be involved in issues” like abortion, [Susan] Collins said.

This, of course, is an attitude the current Republican party dismisses as liberalcommunistmuslimgayatheist blasphemy and makes Collins a despicable RINO.

Republicans don’t have a problem with their appearance. They have a problem with their reality.

No, conservatives. A new sales pitch won’t help you. We’re determined to stop you. by @DavidOAtkins

No, conservatives. A new sales pitch won’t help you. We’re determined to stop you.

by David Atkins

I have to admit: one of my favorite things to do after winning an election or political battle is to read the comments from the other side. This is a common tendency, I suppose, and not an admirable one. After an ugly war it’s human nature to want to hear unhappiness from the side that has caused such worry and heartache.

But there’s another reason beyond pure schadenfreude: the desire to see what happens when the bulbous enormity of the fraud explodes against the stone reality of the truth. It’s one thing to watch a random conservative reaction to a Democratic win, but Dick Morris’ is much more satisfying because it’s much more deserved.

Hence my eagerness to devour articles from sources of egregious mendacity like the National Review, whose editors have decided to believe not that people saw through their lies, but to argue that they just didn’t have a good enough PR department:

Most of the post-election discussion, we can predict, will dwell on the predictable demographic divides of sex, race, and age. Most of this conversation will be unproductive. Until conservatives devise a domestic agenda, and a way to sell it, that links small-government principles to attractive results, they are going to have a hard time improving their standing with women, Latinos, white men, or young people. And conservatives would be deeply unwise to count on the mere availability of charismatic young conservative officials to make up for that problem.

Sorry, National Review. That isn’t going to happen.

Your “small government principles” involve voucherizing Medicare and Social Security, destroying alternative energy investment, wrecking and privatizing education, eliminating assistance to the unfortunate, and allowing private corporations to poison our air and water.

Your “small government principles” demand lowering taxes on the obscenely wealthy while raising them on the struggling poor and middle classes. They demand letting sick people go bankrupt and die in order to protect insurance industry profits. They demand allowing companies to ship profitable American jobs overseas in order to boost millionaire shareholder profits. And they demand eliminating the already outrageously low taxes on those capital gains so that none of it will go to help the people whose jobs those same shareholders just callously eliminated.

Your “small government principles” would force the American auto industry and so many others to go bankrupt and be sold to vulture capitalists for scrap.

Your “small government principles” insist that bigots should decide who gets to marry whom, that celibate pedophile-enabling priests should decide who gets to have basic contraception, that male-dominated corporate and government boards get to decide that Viagra is a miracle cure while Ortho Tri-cyclen is an immoral lifestyle drug, and that some man’s whimsical gut feelings about the demands of an invisible being should decide whether his daughter should be forced to carry her rapist’s child.

Your “small government principles” support the fiction that the wealthy necessarily earned every penny by skill rather than luck and without the benefit of society, and demand that any assistance to the less fortunate and to the common good be determined by their own inefficient charitable caprice, rather than the planned requirements of our democratic social order.

Your “small government principles” require that we pretend that climate change isn’t happening, must not be caused by humans, and must be a lower priority than making sure that oil magnates can own ten yachts lest their incentive to “succeed” be lessened. They require this even as two American cities have drowned in the last eight years, and as your politicians mock the inexorable rise of the oceans.

Your “small government principles” stipulate that racism will disappear if we pretend it doesn’t exist, and that women make less than men not because of sexism but because their equal work is somehow inherently less valuable on the free market.

No, conservatives. You can’t slap a fresh coat of paint on that. There is no PR firm to help you win that argument. You may win it with a majority of older, entitled, mostly male white baby boomers and slightly fewer Gen Xers. The conservative folks who grew up in a pretty good economy, had the leftover benefits of a society built by their betters and their more liberal contemporaries, enjoyed the fruits of it and now fearfully wish to pull the ladder up behind them, believing they built their success themselves and seeking to deny even a small part of it to others.

But it doesn’t work with women and minorities who have long labored under the chains of unequal treatment. And it doesn’t work with most of us who have only known the dark, dismal shadows of Reaganomics and neoliberalism. It doesn’t work with those of us who work hard and struggle just to stay afloat even as the American Dream recedes ever farther from view.

You should despair, conservatives. Not because of the damage to your brand, though there is that.

You should despair because at long last, there really are more of us than there are of you. Four years from now, there will be even more of us, and even fewer of you. You will win a few low-turnout midterms. You’ll win a Presidency or two, though it won’t get you far. But long-term, your gooses are cooked. In the long run, you can’t win with just this:

We know who you are. We know what you want. We know what you’re selling, and we know it’s poison. And no matter what we may think of our standardbearers from time to time, we’re nonetheless determined to stop you one way or another.

.

QOTD: Mary Matalin, Projection edition

QOTD: Mary Matalin


by digby

This is, by the way, from a woman who spent the 90s calling Bill Clinton a murderer, child molester and drug runner:

What happened? A political narcissistic sociopath leveraged fear and ignorance with a campaign marked by mendacity and malice rather than a mandate for resurgence and reform. Instead of using his high office to articulate a vision for our future, Obama used it as a vehicle for character assassination, replete with unrelenting and destructive distortion, derision, and division.

Somebody needs a hug.

.

Poetic wake up call: Obama’s speech

Poetic wake up call: Obama’s speech

by digby

I have always been fairly immune to Barack Obama’s soaring rhetoric. I don’t know why. I guess I’m dead inside. But last night I heard something in his speech I haven’t heard before — something that made me sit up and listen — an acknowledgement that our divisions aren’t just a misunderstanding, they are sincere and they are real:

That’s why we do this. That’s what politics can be. That’s why elections matter. It’s not small, it’s big. It’s important. Democracy in a nation of 300 million can be noisy and messy and complicated. We have our own opinions. Each of us has deeply held beliefs. And when we go through tough times, when we make big decisions as a country, it necessarily stirs passions, stirs up controversy.

That won’t change after tonight, and it shouldn’t. These arguments we have are a mark of our liberty. We can never forget that as we speak people in distant nations are risking their lives right now just for a chance to argue about the issues that matter, the chance to cast their ballots like we did today.

But despite all our differences, most of us share certain hopes for America’s future. We want our kids to grow up in a country where they have access to the best schools and the best teachers. A country that lives up to its legacy as the global leader in technology and discovery and innovation, with all the good jobs and new businesses that follow.

We want our children to live in an America that isn’t burdened by debt, that isn’t weakened by inequality, that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet. We want to pass on a country that’s safe and respected and admired around the world, a nation that is defended by the strongest military on earth and the best troops this — this world has ever known. But also a country that moves with confidence beyond this time of war, to shape a peace that is built on the promise of freedom and dignity for every human being.

We believe in a generous America, in a compassionate America, in a tolerant America, open to the dreams of an immigrant’s daughter who studies in our schools and pledges to our flag. To the young boy on the south side of Chicago who sees a life beyond the nearest street corner. To the furniture worker’s child in North Carolina who wants to become a doctor or a scientist, an engineer or an entrepreneur, a diplomat or even a president — that’s the future we hope for. That’s the vision we share. That’s where we need to go — forward. That’s where we need to go.

Now, we will disagree, sometimes fiercely, about how to get there. As it has for more than two centuries, progress will come in fits and starts. It’s not always a straight line. It’s not always a smooth path. By itself, the recognition that we have common hopes and dreams won’t end all the gridlock or solve all our problems or substitute for the painstaking work of building consensus and making the difficult compromises needed to move this country forward. But that common bond is where we must begin.

Rather than making a fatuous and unrealizable commitment to “change the way Washington works” he acknowledged the reality that while everyone may be sincere in their love of family and country, we disagree profoundly about how to solve our problems. That strikes me as a welcome maturation of his “transcendent” attitude from the first term (which is interestingly described in this article about Obama and his historian advisers in today’s NY Times.)

How this change in attitude plays out, I don’t know. He also mentioned the deficit twice last night, so his centrist policy goals don’t seem to have been revisited. But I’m happy to have the silly notion of “post-partisanship” replaced with a somewhat world weary, but necessarily clear-eyed view of the political realities.

If I had my way, he’d take Robert Reich’s advice:

When the applause among Democrats and recriminations among Republicans begin to quiet down — probably within the next few days — the president will have to make some big decisions. The biggest is on the economy.

His victory and the pending “fiscal cliff” give him an opportunity to recast the economic debate. Our central challenge, he should say, is not to reduce the budget deficit. It’s to create more good jobs, grow the economy, and widen the circle of prosperity.

The deficit is a problem only in proportion to the overall size of the economy. If the economy grows faster than its current 2 percent annualized rate, the deficit shrinks in proportion. Tax receipts grow, and the deficit becomes more manageable.

But if economic growth slows — as it will, if taxes are raised on the middle class and if government spending is reduced when unemployment is still high — the deficit becomes larger in proportion. That’s the austerity trap Europe finds itself in. We don’t want to go there…

The way to ensure continued growth is to continue the president’s payroll tax cut and extend the Bush tax cuts for income under $250,000, and continue government spending.

The way to increase growth is to permanently exempt the first $20,000 of income from the payroll tax and make up for lost revenues by raising the ceiling on income subject to it (that ceiling is now $110,100). And increase government spending — especially on critical public investments like education, job training, and infrastructure.

President Obama can define his mandate however he chooses. And he knows by now that he will never win over the right no matter what he does. So he should probably be aware of this:

A long string of lawmakers who supported the Bowles-Simpson plan — which would slash Social Security and Medicare benefits while lowering corporate taxes — went down in flames last night.

In fact, almost every candidate who was personally endorsed by the authors of the plan was defeated.

And let’s not forget Pete Peterson’s poodle, David Walker, who ostentatiously endorsed Mitt Romney in the last week of the campaign.

Here’s hoping President Obama’s new found acceptance of the partisan divide has also wised him up to the fact that the deficit hawks are fair weather friends who stabbed him in the back. A Grand Bargain will not buy him a moment’s worth of credibility, so he’d better believe in it completely on the merits — they will make sure his legacy will be the president who killed the safety net. After all, their base is elderly, white people who are dependent on social security and medicare. You don’t think they are going to take responsibility for that, do you?

.

Congratulations to Public Policy Polling, America’s most accurate pollster, by @DavidOAtkins

Congratulations to Public Policy Polling, America’s most accurate pollster

by David Atkins

One of the funniest aspects of the 2012 Presidential campaign was the conservative marriage to Rasmussen and Gallup, who were telling them everything they wanted to hear for months despite all evidence to the contrary. Then there was the joke that is Dean Chambers “unskewing” all the polls to make them even more conservative. Every conservative dismissed Public Policy Polling a hack pollster far from reality. Even I distrusted what I felt to be their overly optimistic numbers in Colorado.

What Rasmussen was doing, of course, was weighting his polls by Party ID, which is a fluid measure and therefore a terrible baseline from which to weight a poll. Gallup, meanwhile, was drastically oversampling white voters in their likely voter model.

Well, after all the Sturm und Drang, Public Policy Polling has emerged the victor in a Fordham study of the year’s most accurate pollsters. Just as notably, internet pollster YouGov claimed 3rd place as well, lending huge gravitas to both their company and their methodology. As for Rasmussen and Gallup? They ended up near the very bottom.

1. PPP (D)*

1. Daily Kos/SEIU/PPP*

3. YouGov*

4. Ipsos/Reuters*

5. Purple Strategies

6. NBC/WSJ

6. CBS/NYT

6. YouGov/Economist

9. UPI/CVOTER

10. IBD/TIPP

11. Angus-Reid*

12. ABC/WP*

13. Pew Research*

13. Hartford Courant/UConn*

15. CNN/ORC

15. Monmouth/SurveyUSA

15. Politico/GWU/Battleground

15. FOX News

15. Washington Times/JZ Analytics

15. Newsmax/JZ Analytics

15. American Research Group

15. Gravis Marketing

23. Democracy Corps (D)*

24. Rasmussen

24. Gallup

26. NPR

27. National Journal*

28. AP/GfK

It’s a new day in pollster credibility land. Just as Nate Silver owned the conservative pundit establishment and threw it into a tailspin by the use of math, so too did the new pollsters on the block upend the traditional polling establishment.

.

Skewed Vision, not skewed polls

Skewed Vision, not skewed polls

by digby

Why the conservatives were convinced that the polls were skewed and why they were wrong:

PARTY ID: During the campaign, conservatives embraced a theory that polls were skewed, based on the thought that the electorate could not possibly lean as heavily Democratic as it did in 2008. In the end, though, the party ID makeup in 2012 was 38% Democratic, 32% Republican and 29% Independent, almost identical to 2008’s 39-32-29 split.

LATINO AND AFRICAN-AMERICAN TURNOUT: A big question hovering around Obama’s re-election was whether he could turn out Latino and African-American voters. With lower Democratic enthusiasm overall, it was assumed that these demographics wouldn’t turn out at the same levels as 2008. But African-Americans made up the same percentage of the electorate as they did in 2008 (13%), and the Latino percentage actually increased from 9% to 10%.

YOUTH TURNOUT: Similarly, it was assumed that young people would not be as enthused, and thus would not turn out at the levels they did in 2008. But 18-to-29-year-olds made up 19% of the electorate in 2012, up from 18% in 2008.

THE CATHOLIC VOTE: Obama’s support among Catholics was expected to be hurt because of his administration’s high-profile scuffle with the Catholic Church over the contraception mandate in the Affordable Care Act earlier this year. But Obama won the Catholic vote by a 50-48 margin — a drop from, but not the catastrophic slide that some projected.

Some of this was living in their big bubble of discontent. But I also think they have to look to the last two years of governance and campaigning for the answer to why the Obama turnout would have been so good despite a lackluster economy and a deflation of hope for change. The answer is simple: from 2010 on they acted like a bunch of assholes and the people who were only mildly paying attention or who were feeling disillusioned realized that as bad as things are, these people had to be stopped.

That GOP primary, where the arrogant audiences behaved like barbarians and booed a gay soldier, cheered lustily for the death penalty and shouted “yeah!” when a candidate was asked is someone should die for lack of health insurance presented a perfect picture of what the Party had become. The nomination of the quintessential plutocrat and a running mate known for his plan to brutally slash the modest American safety net was a perfect capper. As Ari Melber put it here:

Republicans presented the coldest, most concentrated pitch for selfish individualism since Barry Goldwater. Historians may marvel at how Ayn Rand and the assault on “takers” became such mainstream themes in the year 2012. Or how nationally televised primary debates devolved into attacks on government obligations that were once located firmly in the zone of bipartisan consensus. National disaster response used to be an obvious government project, but Romney felt the need to pretend that states should pick up the tab; several Republicans disputed the duty of hospitals to provide emergency care to poor people, a humane tradition that was codified into federal law by, yes, Ronald Reagan.

If there was a moment that crystallized what we were dealing with, it was that amazing video of Romney standing before a group of vastly wealthy socialites derisively describing 47% of the American people as dependent losers.

If the Republicans want to know why the turnout among Democrats was so high, all they need to do is look in the mirror. America is a complicated place, but most people in this country are hard working straight arrows who still believe that America is a fairly generous and decent country. That ugly GOP vision clearly isn’t one that most of them want to live with.

.