About that low election turnout . . .

There are those, including the Most Equal Comrade, who are trying to spin the low turnout as having some kind of mitigating effect on the notion of an overall change in national outlook.

John Podhoretz at Commentary is having none of it:

Barack Obama began the press conference he held the day after his party was crushed in the 2014 midterm elections by implying that the results were of questionable legitimacy because turnout had been so low—by some accounts, the lowest since 1942. “To everyone who voted, I want you to know that I hear you,” he said. “To the two-thirds of voters who chose not to participate in the process yesterday, I hear you, too.”

The contention was ridiculous on its face. You cannot hear people who deliberately choose not to speak. Even so, Obama suggested that, had those non-voters voted, they would have done so in support of him and his party:

One of the things that I’m very proud of in 2008 and 2012, when I ran for office, was we got people involved who hadn’t been involved before. We got folks to vote who hadn’t voted before, particularly young people. And that was part of the promise. The excitement was, if you get involved, if you participate, if you embrace that sense of citizenship, then things change. And not just in abstract ways, in concrete ways. Somebody gets a job who didn’t have it before. Somebody gets health care who didn’t have it before. Or a student is able to go to college who couldn’t afford it before.

Obama believes that he and his party have done all these things—that they have helped someone get a job, get health care, go to college. If that were so, why on earth wouldn’t those very people go to the polls to reward the party that had done such wonderful things for them? Well, he explained, “sustaining that excitement, especially in midterm elections, has proven difficult—that sense of if you get involved, then you know, if you vote, then there’s going to be a big change out there.”

That is one way to look at it. The wrong way.

The voters to whom Obama was referring obliquely are between the ages of 18 and 29. That demographic group’s voting pattern since 2008 shows the error in the president’s analysis.

In 2008, Obama won under-30s by a margin of 2 to 1. That same cohort favored Democrats in 2010, but by a margin of 58 to 42—which is a drop of 11 percent. In his 2012 reelection, Obama brought the under-30 number up a little; they went for him 3 to 2. But that was still a 10 percent decline for him compared with 2008.

And in 2014? Under-30s voted 53 to 43 for the Democrats. So consider this pattern: Overall, from 2008 to 2014, the Obama-Democrat share of the youth vote fell by 20 percent.

And this business about the public still not digging Pubs?

No one believes that the Republican Party is popular. And yet, on Election Day, Republicans won eight new Senate seats (with a ninth on the way). The party will have its largest majority in the House of Representatives since 1946. Republicans reside in 31 of the nation’s 50 governor’s mansions, by far the highest number in modern times. In 24 states, the GOP holds the governorship and both houses of the state legislature; Democrats are in the same position in only six states. Republicans will now control 67 of the nation’s 98 state legislative chambers, up from 59. And all this despite the fact that no one believes that the Republican Party is popular.

The two-party system is the only game in town, despite what Libertarians and Greens have to say.  Thus, "being popular" means winning against the other party.  Now, it also means the winner's fortunes can quickly turn again if a sense of the country turning around isn't delivered. And that's why Pubs must consistently run conservatives, and conservatives, once elected, must consistently act in according to the principles that got them their seats.