Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 10 Nov '10 14:30 / 3 edits
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/07/weekinreview/20101107-detailed-exitpolls.html?ref=weekinreview

    look at the category where people were asked "financial situation is getter better, getting worse, or is about the same"

    in 2008 - the vote for Dems were as follows:

    situation getting better: 38-62
    situation the same: 48-52
    situation getting worse: 72-28

    in 2010 - the vote for Dems shows a total inversion

    situation getting better 60-40
    situation the same: 52-48
    situation getting worse: 35-65

    in 2008, the "happy" people were voting for GOPs and the "angry" people were voting for Dems - and the middle people were about 50-50
    in 2010, the "happy" people were now voting for Dems and the "angry" people were now voting for GOPs - and the middle people were about 50-50.

    being that in both years, the economy was a mess, the number of angry people likely strongly outnumbered the number of happy people in both elections.

    it appears that these numbers explain almost all of the difference between 2008 and 2010. If you're happy, stay the course - if you're angry, vote for change.
  2. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    10 Nov '10 14:51
    I'm not sure that's a reason, seems more of a consequence.

    It seems natural to assume that people who don't think the government is doing a good job or taking the country in the right direction are going to be more pessimistic about the future.
  3. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    10 Nov '10 14:55
    To build on Pal's point, it's also quite possible that people who were voting GOP anyway were more likely to tell posters that they were unhappy/angry, etc., so as to justify their anti-incumbent vote. Same in reverse for 2008.
  4. 10 Nov '10 15:15 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    To build on Pal's point, it's also quite possible that people who were voting GOP anyway were more likely to tell posters that they were unhappy/angry, etc., so as to justify their anti-incumbent vote. Same in reverse for 2008.
    I understand these objections -- but I'm not sure how to go about proving or disproving them. Perhaps the polls could gather objective information about a respondent's past and present financial information, but that would be time-consuming, and many respondents might not be willing to share such information.

    Being that members of the GOP and Dem almost always vote for their own party's candidates, the changes are due mainly to independent voters who are not tied to a particular party or ideology. And it seems logical that these voters would consider their own personal situation to be a strong factor in whether to vote for the status quo or to vote for change.

    It also seems logical that in both 2008 and 2010, given the state of the economy, there actually were MANY more people who saw their situations as having gotten worse (or about to get worse) than those who saw their situation improving.
  5. 10 Nov '10 15:39
    I believe the tenor of the voters has changed. I think in 2008 there was a fear. Voters saw that a economic situation that has not been seen in their life times was a occuring and George Bush had been a whipping boy for years and saw him and the Republicans as Bafoons.

    2010...I think Voters were angry. They had been bamboozeled by a smooth talking new comer. They had been talked down to and for the first time in their lives they have seen a President capitulating to foreign powers. They see that common sense has been thrown to the side.... It doesn't sit well when we are in economic trouble that we increase spending..its counter intuitive to the masses.

    Even with this horrible climate the regime put in power in 2008 decide to spend all the time debating health care rather than concentrating on the economy.... Promises of better unemployment numbers turn out to be lies...and then hollow excuses and unvarifyable claims are made telling people that things are better than they would have been.

    Now I'm not saying all this is true...but its my assesment of why we had such such different elections in such a short period of time..
  6. 10 Nov '10 16:06
    Originally posted by highdraw
    I believe the tenor of the voters has changed. I think in 2008 there was a fear. Voters saw that a economic situation that has not been seen in their life times was a occuring and George Bush had been a whipping boy for years and saw him and the Republicans as Bafoons.

    2010...I think Voters were angry. They had been bamboozeled by a smooth talking new ...[text shortened]... its my assesment of why we had such such different elections in such a short period of time..
    Even if everyone had spent the entirety of the past two years "concentrating on the economy", I don't believe the elections results would have been any different. Unless something (like a bigger, or second stimulus package) had actually been done to improve the economy, and the stimulus actually worked.

    But with all the GOPs opposed to any more stimulus, and blue dog Dems worrying about balancing the budget, there was no chance of this happening. Perhaps there was a window very early in 2008 when Obama could've have proposed a bolder stimulus plan and still gotten someone like Olympia Snowe to vote for it - but that window was VERY brief.

    I don't think people are all that impressed with how much time members of Congress spend debating about something. They want to see visible results in their own financial situation, especially when times are bad. So you probably would've seen campaigns complaining that Congress spent two years fruitlessly talking about the economy, and wasted a very rare opportunity to enact healthcare reform. About 65% of the people who were angry about their own financial situation would still have voted for change. Everyone else would just have been even more likely to stay home than they were.
  7. 10 Nov '10 16:23
    the GOP really had little to do with anything the past 2 years. The Dems did exactly what they wanted without any opposition...the congressional votes were not there to stop anything they wanted to do.

    I think the uncertainty about governmental spending...about healthcare costs...about taxes have held the economy back. Once these issues get resolved all the money sitting on the sidelines can get back into the economy. I'm not sure it matters how these things are resolved....it just has to be settled so investors know what to expect and what the risk assessments are.
  8. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    10 Nov '10 16:36
    Originally posted by highdraw
    the GOP really had little to do with anything the past 2 years. The Dems did exactly what they wanted without any opposition...the congressional votes were not there to stop anything they wanted to do.
    I disagree with you on the first part. The GOP may not have had the votes to stop anything, but I think they showed surprising unity in resisting the Dem's agenda. If they had caved the Tea Party might have decided to just chuck it all and go third party, which would probably have deprived the GOP of the position they are in now.
  9. 10 Nov '10 16:45 / 1 edit
    how could they resist?....the GOP were in such a minority even voting as a unit the Dems could over ride any resistance

    Are you saying the Democrats saved the republicans from the Tea party?...
  10. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    10 Nov '10 16:56
    Originally posted by highdraw
    how could they resist?....the GOP were in such a minority even voting as a unit the Dems could over ride any resistance

    Are you saying the Democrats saved the republicans from the Tea party?...
    Well, they could have tried to go along to get along, especially after Obama had just ascended to Emperor. I don't know if I'd say the Dems saved the GOP from the TP, but the GOP may have managed to save themselves from the TP, for now.
  11. 10 Nov '10 17:08 / 1 edit
    Obama made a big mistake by not raising taxes for the rich to at least 50% and not pulling back from Iraq and Afghanistan immediately after taking office. Doing so would have provided room to lower taxes for the poor and lower middle class and invest more heavily in infrastructure, education and health reform, which would have easily kept unemployment below 8% and would have provided a significant boost to the economy.
  12. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    10 Nov '10 17:14
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Obama made a big mistake by not raising taxes for the rich to at least 50% and not pulling back from Iraq and Afghanistan immediately after taking office. Doing so would have provided room to lower taxes for the poor and lower middle class and invest more heavily in infrastructure, education and health reform, which would have easily kept unemployment below 8% and would have provided a significant boost to the economy.
    Yeah. FYI, I was kidding about that whole "Emperor" thing.
  13. 10 Nov '10 17:32
    This election is unlike any in recent memory. The House will be in the hands of the Republicans at least until 2020 as a result.
    This election was a referendum on the lack of leadership of the Obama administration and the progressive Democrats agenda.
    The American people were/are extremely pissed off of the arrogance of the powers that be and their ramming down our throats their radical policies.
    If the Republicans squander this opportunity you will see the rise of a third party.You can say whatever you want but the Tea Party movement made a difference. They are not kooks,racist,etc,but the voice of the majority of Americans.
    Republicans got the chance now to shine and they better, because they are being watched very closely.
    Limit the size and scope of the Federal government, cut spending on b.s.,secure the boarders, truly stimulate the economy and repsect the sovereignty of our States as well as our Nation.
  14. 10 Nov '10 17:39
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Obama made a big mistake by not raising taxes for the rich to at least 50% and not pulling back from Iraq and Afghanistan immediately after taking office. Doing so would have provided room to lower taxes for the poor and lower middle class and invest more heavily in infrastructure, education and health reform, which would have easily kept unemployment below 8% and would have provided a significant boost to the economy.
    Since when are families and small business owners making $250,000 a year "the rich"?
    That part always killed me about this administrations rhetoric.
    Go ahead and tax them 50% KazetNagorra,thats a great idea!
  15. 10 Nov '10 17:49
    I think that if I were making 250K I would be sorta rich......but if I lived in NYC and made that amount I'm not so sure I would be rich.