Putting to rest an oft-repeated (and false) narrative about the 2010 midterms

Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 09:46 PM PDT

Did liberals really stay home and cause the 2010 rout?

By Scientician

You know what I'm talking about. The claim that a bunch of liberals were so pissed off at Obama that they stayed home and this caused the 2010 rout. It's pervasive. I won't link to examples because it comes up so regularly I see no point singling anyone out.

So I went back to the exit polls and the picture I see shows nothing like that. If you are a proponent of this claim, I challenge you for empirical proof that some set of activist liberals "took their ball and went home" or whatever metaphor you prefer to make Obama's leftward critics appear childish and immature. Inside, the evidence I found that shows this just ain't so.

< . . . >

Exit polls are complex, and there's lots of moving parts, between various groups showing up in different numbers, and actual people changing their minds, ideologies, or party affiliations. Not to mention new voters appear, some die off, everyone else ages, there is no picture perfect apples to apples comparison of one election to the next.

Still the claim that petulant liberals punished Obama to their own detriment is repeated so often with such certitude, I thought I would request to see the proof of it, because I don't see it, in the most obvious place it would appear if it were there, the proportion and voting of actual liberals in comparable elections. If you have some more complex explanation of how it really happened, I would like to see it, because all I see is the proportion of the voting population calling themselves "conservatives" grew tremendously at expense of those calling themselves "moderates." Either a bunch of moderates became conservatives, or moderates stayed home, or a lot of conservatives who usually stay home came out. Or some combination of those things. Yet any of those explanations would be tremendously at odds with the "blame the progressives" explanation.