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.