Tuesday, September 11, 2012


Ben Domenech is a right-winger, Alec MacGillis writes for Even the Liberal New Republic (and I frequently agree with him) -- but here they are snickering together collegially about the electorate:

I've said my own share of nasty things about low-info swing voters, but MacGillis seems to be saying that they'd be Peterson Foundation centrists if they weren't so damn ignorant, that they weren't swayed by the Simpson/Bowles reference in Obama's convention speech because they're dumb as rocks.

Can't we all get along? On this, MacGillis and Domenech certainly can.

I can see this being added to the conventional-wisdom list of reasons for Romney's defeat in November, if it happens: As I noted last night, many righties will say Romney wasn't conservative enough, and other pundits will say the memory of George W. Bush killed his chances; his personal style will (obviously) be blamed, and his Mormonism, and his wealth; and then people like MacGillis and Domenech will apparently say that the balance was tipped by stupid swing voters.

No one, I guess, will say that voters actually grasped what Romney had in mind, possibly as a result of the speeches at the Democratic convention, and voted accordingly.

Are people in Punditville ever allowed to suggest that Republicanism is the Republicans' problem? Or even part of it?


Victor said...

"Are people in Punditville ever allowed to suggest that Republicanism is the Republicans' problem? Or even part of it?"


BOTH SIDES are always responsible!

Even though one side wants your family to make room for Grandma and Grandpa, tell the kid's they are on their own to get a degree, and then wants to cut any Federal programs that might help you and your family in their hours of need, they're still in contention.

If we were a raional country, President Obama would have double-digit leads - but, then, we can't have a N*gger be in the lead in an election, now can we?

ploeg said...

I suspect that I don't agree with Alec MacGillis on everything, but I can agree that your typical "highly-informed," Peterson Foundation centrist is projecting when they think that undecided voters agree with them. Undecided voters might tell a pollster that they agree with the general concept of bipartisan committees working together to promote the health and welfare of the commonweal, but if you lay out in plain language the proposals that Simpson/Bowles made and the practical results of said proposals, undecided voters would ride every last member of Simpson/Bowles out of town on a rail. Unfortunately for the commonweal, undecided voters are, well, undecided.

Jack said...

A punditocracy unable to imagine voters making an informed selection of Obama over Romney?

This is *exactly* what Josh Marshall means when he talks about the fact that Washington is "wired for Republicans."

wrh said...

I don't read MacGillis's first tweet the same way. It seems to me he's saying that the undecideds are neither "highly informed" nor "Peterson Foundation centrists" who are waiting to hear one candidate or the other explain his position on S-B. It IS pretty inane when Very Serious People such as Gergen suggest that what people think of S-B is going to play an important role in deciding this thing. It's just Beltway blather.

M. Bouffant said...

Are people in Punditville ever allowed to suggest that Republicanism is the Republicans' problem? Or even part of it?

See also Laura Ingrahm's recent rant:
“If you can’t beat Barack Obama with this record, then shut down the party,” she said. “Shut it down, start new, with new people because this is a give-me election, or at least it should be.”

"New people," not new ideas. Conservatism can only be failed.