The "mysterious" 25%

    By erica20 on Mon, 11/19/2012 - 11:24am |

     

    Over on TPM today, a Republican commenter said the following:

    "I'm still perplexed by the exit polls that show 25% of the people feeling worse off than they were 4 years ago and still voting for the incumbent...."
     
    Here's what I replied:
     
    "There is an explanation for the mysterious 25% to which you refer above.
    People "feeling worse off than 4 years ago and voting for the incumbent anyway" reflects a growing realization among the US public that things have shifted in an unfortunate and more or less permanent way for the USA, and that it happened well before Barack Obama became President. The fall of the Soviet Union around 1989, and the power of the internet, set the stage for new economies to ramp up. In order to adjust to a new, multipolar world, the US really needed to conserve its fiscal surplus and mesh its economy with others to create a "soft landing."
     
    But that's not what happened. Throughout the 1990s and especially after the Republicans took power in 2000, the NeoLiberals (NeoCons) pushed their Project for a New American Century theory, which was essentially that the US should take advantage of the fall of the SU and become the world's sole superpower. They wanted to exert military force worldwide via forward bases and particularly use territorial gains in the middle east to better control oil supplies and pose a credible threat to China.
     
    Needless to say, the project did not go well. George Bush, Dick Cheney and crew squandered blood and treasure in Afghanistan and Iraq, and their policies at home helped create an economic debacle. In short, they spent all the money and we are in a much worse position than we were, with limited opportunities to set things right.
     
    Quite a few voters recognize this new reality and know that it isn't Barack Obama's fault. I once described this split as the fact that "every Democrat knows, and no Republican will admit." I believe it accounts for your 25%."
     
    Thoughts?????

    Comments

    erica, I agree with your premise as far as it goes, but I believe that the current status of the GOP and their horrendous stances on social issues, their fiscal focus skewed incredibly in favor of the wealthy and just their overall seeming inability to give needed consideration to or care about the majority of our populace impacted their voting decisions.  Of course, their candidate was and is the poster boy for most of what most find abhorrent about the GOP.  I think, as usual, it came down to personal cause and effect rationale.


    by Aunt Sam on Mon, 11/19/2012 - 12:37pm

    Yes, the gloss I'd put on it would be that we have over-valued military power and what it can really do for us, we have been in thrall to discredited economic philosophies and policies, we have allowed our political system to become increasingly dysfunctional.  We have failed to make the investments and policy changes we needed to make in order to develop a more productive and competitive economy and stronger society more generally.  We have also allowed inequality of income and wealth to increase substantially, which is both a symptom and a cause of our under-performing economic and political systems.    

    I also agree with Aunt Sam's point that part of that 25%'s behavior is accounted for by how unappealing the present alternative is, on many levels in addition to a recognition that at this point it offers more of the same failed policy approaches which have not served us well in recent decades.  There is no inconsistency in believing (correctly or not) that one is worse off than 4 years ago yet voting for the incumbent because the alternative is accurately seen as worse.  Viewed from the glass is partly full perspective on this matter, it's kind of encouraging to think that so many people approached their voting decision with that reality-based orientation rather than the simplistic, illogical and just plain wrong Eastwoodian view that "things are not so good now; therefore we should fire our president".


    by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 11/19/2012 - 4:45pm

    (note:  off point - I just love the new term Eastwoodian - makes me  cheeky.  Insert it whenever possible please - it may be a bit snarky, but it irritates the heck out of you know who.)


    by Aunt Sam on Mon, 11/19/2012 - 10:09pm

    Heh heh--wait, who does it irritate?


    by erica20 on Tue, 11/20/2012 - 11:00am

    I was wondering the same thing. 


    by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 11/20/2012 - 1:28pm

    What if your employer showed you the books; the real books and it was clear that unless everyone--including management--would have to take a ten percent cut or everyone loses their job; that would be a bad thing.

    So you might vote for the pay cut knowing that you might be worse off but WHAT THE HELL IS THE ALTERNATIVE?

    The auto unions did just that.

    A member of the auto union might note that he is worse off than four years ago BUT HE STILL HAS A JOB!

    The repubs were really going to drastically cut SS, Medicare and Medicaid; raise taxes on the middle class (by getting rid of certain deductions) and give them to the rich via tax cuts; let Wall Street rove free from regulations....

    The old question used to be:

    How ya doin?

    The old answer was:

    COMPARED TO WHAT?


    by Richard Day on Mon, 11/19/2012 - 10:29pm

    It's true. By and large, the people who were worse off but still voted for the president did so because they just didn't feel it was the president's fault, and putting things on a somewhat better footing would take longer than 4 years.


    by erica20 on Tue, 11/20/2012 - 11:13am

    Latest Comments