The Bush foreign policy, in retrospect

6 choices.

As a Libertarian, I'd answer "Liberal" with no hesitation.

And republicans / conservatives were so turned off by the massive spending and deficits and especially social spending, they stayed home or held their noses.

The makeup of the electorate trivially explains how the Republicans won presidential elections and held the house and senate while gaining seats in unprecedented fashion.

 

What the numbers show is that the more left wing Obama's programs are, the less the populace likes it. The polls show that, too.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ut_everybody_s_taxes_to_stimulate_the_economy
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...od_of_america/trust_on_issues/trust_on_issues
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub..._they_told_us_reviewing_last_week_s_key_polls

After all, most voters (53%) believe increases in government spending hurt the U.S. economy. In fact, 51% favor an across-the-board tax cut for all Americans as an economic stimulus.

45% of Americans think the rest of the new government spending authorized in the stimulus plan should now be canceled.

48% of Americans do not believe new stimulus spending will create more jobs.

Sixty-one percent (61%) say the government should not regulate executive pay and bonuses for companies once they’ve repaid their bailout monies.

Just 33% of Americans think it is even somewhat likely that the federal government will ever get back the $50 billion in bailout funds it has advanced to GM to keep the company in business. Most voters, too, expect GM to be back asking for more government money.

Nationally, voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on six out of 10 key issues, including the top issue of the economy. This is the first time in over two years of polling that the GOP has held the advantage on the economy.

Democratic and Republican candidates are now tied in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot. Support for the GOP is just one point below its highest level found over the past year, while Democrats are just above their lowest level of support during the same period.

Thirty-four percent (34%) of voters still have a favorable view of Pelosi. Fifty-six percent (56%) regard the California Democrat unfavorably.

Voters not affiliated with either party now trust the GOP more to handle economic issues by a two-to-one margin.

Republicans also now hold a six-point lead on the issue of government ethics and corruption, the second most important issue to all voters and the top issue among unaffiliated voters. That shows a large shift from May, when Democrats held an 11-point lead on the issue.

For the eighth straight month, Republicans lead on national security. The GOP now holds a 51% to 36% lead on the issue, up from a seven-point lead in May. They also lead on the war in Iraq 45% to 37%, after leading by just two points in May and trailing the Democrats in April.

On taxes, the GOP leads the Democrats for the fifth straight month, 44% to 39%. In May and April, Republicans held six-point leads on the issue.

Democrats lead by six points on Social Security, down from nine points in May. The parties were tied on the issue in April.

 

So this is all a dream, then? The Republicans are really still in power?

barfo

 

Well, of course. Left wing and right wing are relative terms, relative to the current center as defined by American politics. Naturally moving away from the center and towards either extreme is going to reduce popularity. It's pretty much a tautology.

Was there a ethics scandal in the past month? The size of that shift seems not very credible, unless I missed something in the news.

barfo

 

Not true. If he chooses policies that are a tad right of center, he doesn't piss off 40% who are conservatives. If he chooses policies that are a tad left of center, he does.

Maybe it was the 10,000 earmarks in the "emergency" "stimulus" package, that people see $trillions being spent and benefiting friends of the administration and politicians.

 

Since everyone's vote counts the same, the center is the median. There are equal numbers of people on either side. If he chooses policies that are a tad right of center, he doesn't piss off the 50% who are right of
center, but he does piss off the 50% who are left of center.

Between May and June? Seems hardly likely.

barfo

 

Nonsense.

If 99% of the people are conservative, the median would be quite conservative. We can see that 40%+ are conservative. The median would be in the conservative leaning moderates range. And considerably to the right of those "liberals."

http://sportstwo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=142662

 

You aren't understanding the point. Whether people at the median are conservative doesn't matter. There is still a median, and 50% of the people are more conservative than that, and 50% less conservative. Definition of median.

The median point is the political center. The political center obviously shifts back and forth over time, but there is a center at any given time. Shifting away from the center and toward either extreme will alienate the people on the other side of the median.

Unless, of course, the distribution is significantly different than a bell curve, but I doubt that happens very often.

How people self-identify isn't terribly relevant to this discussion, since we know that 50% are left of center and 50% are right of center. Even if 100% of people identified as extremely conservative, there would still be a political center, and politicians would still aim for that, and there would be people who were relatively liberal, and people who were relatively conservative.

And here, your point escapes me.

barfo

 

50% aren't left of center. maybe 20% are.

Your logic escapes me. The median of the population of Japan is a Japanese person; those to to either side are still Japanese.

If the median is rather conservative (and it is), then pursuing liberal policies isn't going to please a lot of people to the left of that center.

 

Yeah, you really aren't getting it. What matters politically is relative conservatism, not absolute conservatism.
A liberal politician in the US might be conservative in France. It matters where you stand relative to the local population, not where you stand on some absolute scale. [Matters for pleasing voters, which is what we were talking about.]

barfo

 

It doesn't matter whether it's US or France.

The median as you use it is meaningless.

Consider what the average means. Or the distribution of people across the spectrum.

That's why the polls have some meaning.

 

No, it's not. But I can see you are stuck on "people are conservative" and you can't see my point.

barfo

 

I do see your point. You don't see mine (which is more correct).

Yours is pander to the median, since you might get 50% of the vote.

Mine is that the median is quite conservative leaning, so to pander shamelessly, a politician would be proposing conservative type policy ideas.

 

Not correct, I've seen your point all along (and haven't objected to it).

That's not precisely correct, but at least in the right ballpark.

Sure, if the population is conservative, a pandering politician will propose conservative policies. That's not in dispute, nor is it at odds with what I was saying.

Of course, the idea that the population is quite conservative is a pipedream of you/Rasmussen, but you are welcome to it. Scoreboard, baby.

barfo

 

The charts I've been posting are from Gallup, not Rasmussen.

You want to attack that messenger, too?

 

Already did. It doesn't matter how people self-identify, it matters how they vote. How did they vote?

barfo

 

For Bush twice, and increased republican control of congress in 2000, 2002, and 2004. The 2002 and 2004 elections were unprecedented gains for the party in power.

 

Yes, they did. But I notice that for some reason you didn't mention the 2006 and 2008 elections.

barfo