What do American voters expect republicans to do differently?

Pages

There's a new poll out from Gallup that gives republicans a 10-point lead over democrats on a generic ballot, which according to the 538 blog at the NY Times is a record for the party.

I know many people are dissatisfied with democrats because of the state of the economy. That's expected. But I'm wondering what it is beyond a kneejerk "I'm voting for the other guys" reason that people expect to see from the republican party on economic issues. Tax cuts and reduced regulation of corporations is the standard republican response to every economic issue, but is that something people think will work better than what we have now?

Funkenpants wrote:

I know many people are dissatisfied with democrats because of the state of the economy. That's expected. But I'm wondering what it is beyond a kneejerk "I'm voting for the other guys" reason that people expect to see from the republican party on economic issues. Tax cuts and reduced regulation of corporations is the standard republican response to every economic issue, but is that something people think will work better than what we have now?

I think the problem is your assumption that the average voter thinks, or at least has an idea of what they think should be done.

The voters don't think. They don't know. It's entirely kneejerk and/or propaganda. I don't live in a state with particularly contentious general elections (Illinois), but I'd be shocked if the campaign ads from either side actually says what they're going to do to fix the problem, rather than just that they will fix it.

I'm not sure I'm quite as cynical as Kaos, but why is "I'm voting for the other guy" so hard to believe? That's pretty much how the system works, isn't it? That's why people run attack ads.

LobsterMobster wrote:

I'm not sure I'm quite as cynical as Kaos, but why is "I'm voting for the other guy" so hard to believe? That's pretty much how the system works, isn't it? That's why people run attack ads.

yep. See: 2008 and the Democrats' crushing victory over the Republicans in punishment for 8 years of war and horrible economic choices.

Seth wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

I'm not sure I'm quite as cynical as Kaos, but why is "I'm voting for the other guy" so hard to believe? That's pretty much how the system works, isn't it? That's why people run attack ads.

yep. See: 2008 and the Democrats' crushing victory over the Republicans in punishment for 8 years of war and horrible economic choices.

A lot of people did genuinely vote for Obama instead of against Bush/McCain, and McCain did base his campaign heavily on attack ads, however this was an exception to a common trend. A better example would be the 2004 election. Lots of people were very sick of Bush, yet Kerry was a weak candidate, especially under the weight of his "fake" purple hearts, silver stars and blue moons. The Democrats failed to offer America a promising "other guy."

LobsterMobster wrote:

I'm not sure I'm quite as cynical as Kaos

Search your feelings, you know it to be true.

Join me, and together we can rule the galaxy as father and son!

Locally my area is almost purely Republican and that's never changed over the last 30 years but I can tell you what many of my neighbors have been citing as hot button issues that they hope Republicans can change on a national level.

1. Bring America back to God so that God will fulfill his promise of making the US a great nation. This seems to be a common concern whenever there is a Democrat in the White House, and no, I have no idea where the idea of a promise to the US came from but I hear it all the time.

2. Stop the building of the mosque near Ground Zero. Seriously, some of my acquaintances are frothing at the mouth over this. I haven't seen them get this worked up about something since... well... I can't even remember. It's crazy.

3. Stop giving away "free money" to big banks. Oddly enough they think the Democrats are in Wall Street's pocket and that the Republicans will bring back some fiscal responsibility. I chalk that up to good marketing rather than reality.

4. Stop the rampant social legislation which keeps giving free money to people who won't work, jobs to people who aren't qualified and that allows illegals to live here without repercussion.

5. Win the wars.

kaostheory wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

I'm not sure I'm quite as cynical as Kaos

Search your feelings, you know it to be true.

Join me, and together we can rule the galaxy as father and son!

Yeah, but I've got enough crap to be depressed about as it is.

Kehama wrote:

2. Stop the building of the mosque near Ground Zero. Seriously, some of my acquaintances are frothing at the mouth over this. I haven't seen them get this worked up about something since... well... I can't even remember. It's crazy.

3. Stop giving away "free money" to big banks. Oddly enough they think the Democrats are in Wall Street's pocket and that the Republicans will bring back some fiscal responsibility. I chalk that up to good marketing rather than reality.

The most amazing thing to me about #2 is that it's an issue with absolutely no impact on anyone's real world life. You may as well be engaging in a violent argument about whether a bald eagle should be the national bird or whatever. At least with #3 there are real policy questions that affect the economy.

The voters expect the Republicans in 2010 to do the same things differently than the Democrats that they expected the Democrats in 2008 to do differently than the Republicans. Fix the problems.

Doesn't matter what the problems are, or if some of the problems have been fixed (there's always more), or who's fault the problems are. The fact that there are problems means the guys in charge aren't doing their job, or aren't doing it right, so voting for the other guys will by default make everything better. The vehemence with which the average Joe wants to vote for the other guys varies with the severity of the problem du jour, but it's mostly a matter of degree.

The fun thing is that after the Republicans hand the Democrats a crushing defeat they will immediately accomplish... pretty much nothing different than the Democrats would have accomplished. Thus setting the Democrats up to hand the Republicans a crushing defeat four to eight years later. Repeat ad naseum.

The thing that gets me is that over the years the democratic party elite moved so close to the republicans on economic policy that now there is not all that much difference between them. Yes, democrats favor a little more regulation of corporations, but there's been no real alternative to the right-wing designed financial system. No call for revolutionary change in the way we think of the economy. The market is still king, even if the crown is a little tarnished.

So what we've got is kind of a Coke and Pepsi thing rather than a real choice.

Funkenpants wrote:

The thing that gets me is that over the years the democratic party elite moved so close to the republicans on economic policy that now there is not all that much difference between them. Yes, democrats favor a little more regulation of corporations, but there's been no real alternative to the right-wing designed financial system. No call for revolutionary change in the way we think of the economy. The market is still king, even if the crown is a little tarnished.

So what we've got is kind of a Coke and Pepsi thing rather than a real choice.

Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos.

Funkenpants wrote:

I know many people are dissatisfied with democrats because of the state of the economy. That's expected. But I'm wondering what it is beyond a kneejerk "I'm voting for the other guys" reason that people expect to see from the republican party on economic issues. Tax cuts and reduced regulation of corporations is the standard republican response to every economic issue, but is that something people think will work better than what we have now?

We want our fixes, and we want them now. Two years of Democrat "rule" hasn't fixed everything immediately, so it's time to get rid of them. That's pretty much the mindset. It's not just that they're voting for the other guys, but it's become exceptionally easy to shift 100% of the blame on to current figureheads - this doesn't just mean the Presidency. Problems that existed five or six years ago are being treated as if they were engineered solely by the people elected two years ago, so there's a righteous rage fueling the need to punish those now seen as responsible. It's really kind of sadlarious to watch some districts/states pretty much aching to vote back in people/groups who were in power a couple terms ago under the idea that they're going to get some new ideas in play.

Here is a chart of the Gallup tracking poll:

IMAGE(http://blog.prospect.org/blog/weblog/Screen%20shot%202010-08-31%20at%2010.48.32%20AM-thumb-440x265.png)

The dip is recent and just over the past 2-3 weeks. The only major stories I can think of are the Iraq situation and the Ground Zero mosque. Is it possible that this movement down is due entirely to the mosque story?

consolidated post

Funkenpants wrote:

Here is a chart of the Gallup tracking poll:

IMAGE(http://blog.prospect.org/blog/weblog/Screen%20shot%202010-08-31%20at%2010.48.32%20AM-thumb-440x265.png)

The dip is recent and just over the past 2-3 weeks. The only major stories I can think of are the Iraq situation and the Ground Zero mosque. Is it possible that this movement down is due entirely to the mosque story?

It might be the bump from the recent Republican primaries.

Funkenpants wrote:

The thing that gets me is that over the years the democratic party elite moved so close to the republicans on economic policy that now there is not all that much difference between them. Yes, democrats favor a little more regulation of corporations, but there's been no real alternative to the right-wing designed financial system. No call for revolutionary change in the way we think of the economy. The market is still king, even if the crown is a little tarnished.

So what we've got is kind of a Coke and Pepsi thing rather than a real choice.

If the only thing you drink is soda...and the only policy you care about is economic policy.

It might be part of it.

It might also be the fact that Bank of America, and several other major lenders, were sitting on hundreds of thousands of potential foreclosure cases in the Southwest region alone (no idea how big it was outside of this area) and decided it was time to finally send them all to their lawyers. That might have kicked up the "damn The Man" sentiment up a notch.

Funkenpants wrote:

The thing that gets me is that over the years the democratic party elite moved so close to the republicans on economic policy that now there is not all that much difference between them. Yes, democrats favor a little more regulation of corporations, but there's been no real alternative to the right-wing designed financial system. No call for revolutionary change in the way we think of the economy. The market is still king, even if the crown is a little tarnished.

So what we've got is kind of a Coke and Pepsi thing rather than a real choice.

I'm not sure if you listen to Dan Carlin's Common Sense or not Funken. But you pretty much just summarized the main thrust of most of his recent shows.

I don't listen to his show, but when the "liberal" New York Times doesn't see much a of a problem with the state of the relationship between Wall Street and Washington, it gives you a sense of just how much control the financial industry has over policy. It doesn't matter who wins in November, that's not going to change.

The odd thing is that economic policy has a real, concrete effect on people's wallets, their tax bills, their access to capital- etc., and many voters would rather vote based on social issues.

Funkenpants wrote:

I don't listen to his show, but when the "liberal" New York Times doesn't see much a of a problem with the state of the relationship between Wall Street and Washington, it gives you a sense of just how much control the financial industry has over policy. It doesn't matter who wins in November, that's not going to change.

Um, isn't that article and the blog post about the article all about a fallout between Wall Street and Washington over policy?

No, not really. As I read it, the blogger is pointing out that the fallout is essentially emotional rather than based on actual policy decisions that hurt the financial nobility. As the blogger points out, the provision regarding taxation of carried interest was quickly killed despite there being no justification for it from an economic perspective.

Funkenpants wrote:

No, not really. As I read it, the blogger is pointing out that the fallout is essentially emotional rather than based on actual policy decisions that hurt the financial system.

I think the blogger is pointing out exactly the opposite:

Are you going to seriously tell me big financial players are up in arms because Team Obama occasionally calls them bad names? That explanation is so obviously bogus as to call for a look for the real reason.

I think the blogger's point was that the NYT made too much of the emotional source of the fallout where "There’s a much more straightforward explanation, and it’s called 'follow the money.'"

As the blogger points out, the provision regarding taxation of carried interest was quickly killed despite there being no justification for it from an economic perspective.

I don't think the blogger pointed that out to make a point about about the fallout being emotional. I think the blogger pointed that out to indicate that the fallout was over real policy differences.

I guess you could say that "the industry was still deeply offended at this show of disloyalty" is 'emotional' but that's a lot different than an 'emotional' reaction to being called bad names. It's emotional fallout over a policy disagreement so fundamental between Wall Street and Washington that (as the blogger reports the NYT's inclusion of when one of the) Wall Street people went Godwin:

Sorkin does mention Steve Schwarzman’s infamous outburst (”likened the administration’s plan for taxes on private equity to ‘when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939.’”) but does not indicate the fact that this is the major reason for the falling out among Obama’s former backers.

Emphasis mine to indicate it was a fallout with emotion but over policy, not a fallout over emotion between two people with agreeable policies.

The funny thing is - only the New Deal Democratic reforms have saved us from hitting another Great Depression.

FDIC - no more runs on banks. Your deposits are safe.
Social Security - Elderly are not poor and broke.
Medicare - Elderly have Health Care.
Unemployment Insurance - no more soup kitchens.

Funkenpants - Awesome Naked Capitalism article and comments for that matter.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Emphasis mine to indicate it was a fallout with emotion but over policy, not a fallout over emotion between two people with agreeable policies.

Ah, I see. That's where I differ with the blogger. Policy-wise, they got what they wanted. Why be publically up in arms over something that you successfully (and easily) killed?

"(And note, by the way, that this measure failed, but the industry was still deeply offended at this show of disloyalty)."

That's not purely a rational policy-based reaction.

Kehama wrote:

1. Bring America back to God so that God will fulfill his promise of making the US a great nation. This seems to be a common concern whenever there is a Democrat in the White House, and no, I have no idea where the idea of a promise to the US came from but I hear it all the time.

So what they're saying is America isn't already a great nation. Sounds like some kinda commie seekrit mooslim talk to me. I hereby pledge a case of your favorite beer if you explain this to them while dressed like Hulk Hogan.

Funkenpants wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Emphasis mine to indicate it was a fallout with emotion but over policy, not a fallout over emotion between two people with agreeable policies.

Ah, I see. That's where I differ with the blogger. Policy-wise, they got what they wanted. Why be publically up in arms over something that you successfully (and easily) killed?

"(And note, by the way, that this measure failed, but the industry was still deeply offended at this show of disloyalty)."

That's not purely a rational policy-based reaction.

It's also not the only reaction. The prerequisite reaction was judging Obama to be disloyal, and that judgment was based on a policy disagreement over the capital gains tax loophole.

Okay, fine. To be honest, my original point was this:

I don't listen to his show, but when the "liberal" New York Times doesn't see much a of a problem with the state of the relationship between Wall Street and Washington, it gives you a sense of just how much control the financial industry has over policy. It doesn't matter who wins in November, that's not going to change.

I don't understand how I get dragged into debates with you about peripheral issues I don't care about, but unless you're disagreeing with me on this issue alone, consider me out of the conversation.

Funkenpants wrote:

Okay, fine. To be honest, my original point was this:

I don't listen to his show, but when the "liberal" New York Times doesn't see much a of a problem with the state of the relationship between Wall Street and Washington, it gives you a sense of just how much control the financial industry has over policy. It doesn't matter who wins in November, that's not going to change.

I don't understand how I get dragged into debates with you about peripheral issues I don't care about,

Well in this case you thought that if Wall Street has an emotional problem with Washington, it therefore doesn't have a policy issue. Not only is that not true, but the emotional problem in this case stems directly from a policy issue Wall Street has with Washington they never thought they would have: they figured Obama would make some noise about CHANGE but it would be the same-old same-old. Not that he would actually try to change the capital gains tax loophole.

but unless you're disagreeing with me on this issue alone, consider me out of the conversation.

You said: "when the "liberal" New York Times doesn't see much a of a problem with the state of the relationship between Wall Street and Washington, it gives you a sense of just how much control the financial industry has over policy."

That's wrong though--they do. The blogger you found is saying they are attributing it to the wrong cause (calling them villains vs. feelings of betrayal over Obama turning out to be more radical than they thought), but he's not saying the NYT doesn't see a problem with it.

I clicked on the link about the capital gains tax in that blog post you linked to, and found an article that reports:

Senate Democratic leaders gave up trying to push through a spending bill that would have taxed much of the carried interest earned by VCs and other investors as ordinary income instead of capital gains. After failing for a third time to secure the required 60 votes to shut down a Republican-led filibuster, Majority Leader Harry Reid said the Senate would move on to other business.

How can you say it doesn't matter who wins in November because Wall Street controls Washington's economic policy when Washington tried to pass legislation that got Wall Street to compare taxes to the Holocaust, if the reason that legislation didn't pass is the Senate couldn't get enough votes to kill the filibuster?

If in November you vote the people who filibustered that legislation then why won't things change?

CheezePavilion wrote:

Well in this case you thought that if Wall Street has an emotional problem with Washington, it therefore doesn't have a policy issue.

No, I didn't. If that's the impression I gave you, then it's one I didn't mean to give you. Policy issues can be emotional, but like I said before, it's not worth debating about.

CheezePavilion wrote:

How can you say it doesn't matter who wins in November because Wall Street controls Washington's economic policy when Washington tried to pass legislation that got Wall Street to compare taxes to the Holocaust, if the reason that legislation didn't pass is the Senate couldn't get enough votes to kill the filibuster?

Now that's a responsive point.

Funkenpants wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Well in this case you thought that if Wall Street has an emotional problem with Washington, it therefore doesn't have a policy issue.

No, I didn't. If that's the impression I gave you, then it's one I didn't mean to give you. Policy issues can be emotional, but like I said before, it's not worth debating about.

CheezePavilion wrote:

How can you say it doesn't matter who wins in November because Wall Street controls Washington's economic policy when Washington tried to pass legislation that got Wall Street to compare taxes to the Holocaust, if the reason that legislation didn't pass is the Senate couldn't get enough votes to kill the filibuster?

Now that's a responsive point.

That's a point you find responsive--there's possibly a difference ;- D

Funkenpants wrote:

The odd thing is that economic policy has a real, concrete effect on people's wallets, their tax bills, their access to capital- etc., and many voters would rather vote based on social issues.

I wonder how much that ties into that concept that a certain chunk of voters (from memory it's about 2/3) almost always votes the same way regardless of what's going on, while the remainder are the swing voters that decide the outcome. My gut feeling would be that the "core" democrats and republicans vote that way primarily for social reasons, while the swing voters primarily vote based on economic ones - if not consciously, then at least following the paradigm of good economy = vote for incumbent, bad economy = vote for opposition to fix it.

Just idle speculation.

Bloo Driver wrote:

We want our fixes, and we want them now. Two years of Democrat "rule" hasn't fixed everything immediately, so it's time to get rid of them. That's pretty much the mindset. It's not just that they're voting for the other guys, but it's become exceptionally easy to shift 100% of the blame on to current figureheads - this doesn't just mean the Presidency. Problems that existed five or six years ago are being treated as if they were engineered solely by the people elected two years ago, so there's a righteous rage fueling the need to punish those now seen as responsible. It's really kind of sadlarious to watch some districts/states pretty much aching to vote back in people/groups who were in power a couple terms ago under the idea that they're going to get some new ideas in play.

I endorse this post. It seems to be a classic problem in democracies where you only have two real options for voting. New Zealand has an interesting system where there are two major parties, but also a couple of smaller ones (each getting 5-10% of the vote) that influence the final shape of the government. It means that if you're unhappy with the directions the big two parties are going, you can still vote left or right while forcing the major party to adjust their policies to accommodate those of the smaller parties since they require to form a coalition government.

Pages