Demographics & Economics
OMB
Congressional Budget Office
The Federal Budget
U.S. Census Quickfacts
Inflation Calculator
CIA World Factbook
NationMaster
State Healthcare Facts
UN HDR stats
US Bureau of Economic Analysis
US Bureau of Labor Statistics
US CDC health stats
US DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics
US DOJ crime stats
Constitution
The Constitution
The Founders' Constitution
The Avalon Project
The Federalist Papers
The antifederalist papers
Founding documents
Politics
ADA (liberal) Voting Records
ACU (conservative) Voting Records
Census Voter Turnout
Congressional Research Service
Memeorandum
NOW list of voting scorecards
PolitiFact
PorkBusters
Project VoteSmart list of voting scorecards
RealClearPolitics
Roll call votes--House
Roll call votes--Senate
Survey USA
WaPo Votes Database
Iraq/Terrorism
CentCom
Brookings Institute Iraq Index
Project on Defense Alternatives War Report
Nat'l Defense Univ Iraq
Nat'l Defense Univ Afghanistan
MERLIN, Nat'l Defense Univ Library Network
STRATFOR
Nat'l Memorial Inst for Prevention of Terrorism
West Point's Combating Terrorism Center
Politics blogs
Baldilocks
Blue Mass Group
Cadillac Tight
California Conservative
Jon Chait
Confederate Yankee
Crooked Timber
Democracy Project
Dinocrat
First Read
Gateway Pundit
GenerationPatriot
Horse Race Blog
Just One Minute
Hugh Hewitt
Michelle Malkin
Patterico's Pontifications
Power Line
Red State
RNCC blog
Scrappleface
Sister Toldjah
Talking Points Memo
The Blogometer
The Corner
The Next Right
The Moderate Voice
Think Progress
Wizbang
Moderate / centrist
Ambivablog
Bipartisan Rules
Booker Rising
Centerfield
Charging RINO
Donklephant
Liberal War Journal
Militant Moderates
The Buck Stops Here
The Glittering Eye
The Iconic Midwest
The PoliGazette
The Walrus Said
Legal & academic
How Appealing
Becker-Posner
Bench Memos
Concurring Opinions
Economists Do It With Models
Legalities
Prawfsblawg
SCOTUSblog
Sentencing Law & Policy
UCFB
The Volokh Conspiracy
Christian
Archbp Dolan: Gospel in the Digital Age
Bp Chris Coyne: Let Us Walk Together
ADW blog
Simon Dodd: Motu Proprio
Fr Zuhlsdorf: WDTPRS
Fr Longenecker: Standing On My Head
Elizabeth Scalia: The Anchoress
First Thoughts
Mirror of Justice
Rorate Cæli
Veritas Rex
Middle East & Muslim affairs
Eteraz
Iraq the Model
Lebanese Political Journal
Michael Totten
Michael Yon
General interest
Althouse
Ambiance
Chris Muir's Day by Day
Instapundit
IowaHawk
JAC
Professor Bainbridge
Prettier than Napoleon
Rachel Lucas
The Right Coast
Science Blog
Sippican Cottage
Whatever
A recent Zogby poll showed that 88% of Obama voters didn't know that Obama's energy plans were designed to bankrupt the coal industry. That same Zogby poll showed that 56% of Obama voters didn't know that Obama started his political career in the home of Bill Ayers, a Weather Underground domestic terrorist. 72% of Obama's voters didn't know that Biden had previously quit his presidential campaign after it was shown that he was plagiarizing the speeches of a British politician. And 47% didn't know that Biden predicted that an Obama administration would be tested within the first six months by a generated international crisis.
Perhaps most insulting of all, 57% of Obama supporters didn't know that it was the Democrats who controlled Congress the past 2 years. Apparently, many Americans were angry at Congress's ineffectiveness and then took it out on the wrong party.
Part of this poll is, I am sure, the result of people who don't normally pay attention to politics and don't normally vote, voting for Obama. But the results are truly depressing. It is embarrassing that such a huge number of Americans don't even know which party controls the House and Senate. The GOP has only itself to blame for those seats lost in Congress. Clearly the Republican Party wasn't even able to get the message out the we have the Democrats--not the Republicans--to blame for the last 2 years of complete and utter failure in Congress. And perhaps, if McCain had done a better job educating voters, he'd be President Elect instead of Senator.
Our RSS feed
Oh how I wish...
Oh how I wish that the Voters of today had to at least pass some sort of Competency Test.
The first two rather obvious questions:
Who is the current House and/or Senate leader in Congress?
Who are your state's House and/or Senate representatives in Congress?
[I made them and/or just so they wouldn't be too difficult :) ]
Anyone want to add more?
___________________
Have a better one
Information not provided by
Information not provided by Zogby: percentage of those voters for whom that information would have affected their vote. I get the feeling that for a lot of these voters, the prime motivations were (a) punishing Bush, (b) being a part of the cultural phenomonon that was "O-ba-ma! O-ba-ma!" and (c) "the economy's going to pot, so gimme my bailout." Perhaps there were other motivations, but I really find it hard to believe that if only we'd managed to mention Bill Ayers more times, the voters would have come to their senses.
Not that I think speculation helps. I was planning on posting something roughly similar to this later, so I'll try to work this in, but it seems to me that the best way to answer the question is to ask voters in a systematic way. As the GOP recovers, we need data, not intuition. We need to poll - lots. Anyway, as I said, I'll have more to say on that later.
"When someone says their heart needs lifting, don't ask how come, ask how high."
Yes and ...
Exactly. And I would suggest that many voters heard the messages Fern mentioned, deemed them unimportant compared to the messages above and then "forgot" them.
The Republican Party didn't have a simple message, let alone a positive one (other than the personal characteristics of Sen. McCain and even that got overwhelmed by the "tenor" of the campaign). The closest we got was with "Joe the Plumber". I do believe a large part of the electorate believe that "if you just let me be successful I can do with less government". Only problem with that message this year was that too many people just wanted to make sure they didn't financially crash and burn. We believe in less government when times are good but when times get bad....
And finally PLEASE, lets not do what voters in New York and other such places did in 2004: Blame the ignorant voters!
Chris
I'm with you, Chris. While it's true that a number of Obama
voters may have been ill-informed on certain issues, and the fact that many didn't know who's in charge of Congress is troubling, but I find it utterly ridiculous to suggest that the GOP lost because they didn't get their message out, or because the voters were stupid. I thought we were past that.
Fern, could it be that voter simply disagreed with the assessment that Obama's energy policies would bankrupt coal? As Chris pointed out, I suspect most voters either didn't care, or saw those relationships are less important than other issues (economy, etc)
Also, while the Dems are in charge of Congress, many voters simply rejected the entire GOP brand, as it was far too linked with the Bush policies, fairly or unfairly.
Not to mention that people just wanted Obama. Sometimes it's that simple.
"In the world you will find tribulation, but be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world."
John 16:33
When you use the term
When you use the term "brand" you provide a key insight, intended or not.
The implicit argument (from Republicans, flip for Dems) is that GOP voters were better informed, but failed at adequately communicating their superior positions on issues to the swing voters of the body politic. Heh. Hubris.
80% or more of all voters have only the vaguest idea of what's actually going on 80% or more of the time. All parties and indies included. And much of the remainder only "know" one side of the issues, that of their own team's, which they absorb as gospel.
The failure is not one of communications nearly so much as a failure of marketing. The competition between parties/candidates/sides is NOT to inform, it is to sway, to sell. Market share. The GOP was out-marketed.
Rafique-- Obama himself said
Rafique--
Obama himself said that his plan was designed to bankrupt the coal industry! And if the majority of Obama voters thought the GOP was in charge of Congress, and presumably most Obama voters who thought so voted for the democrat running for the house or Senate in their district/state, is it really a stretch to say that those voters might have voted differently if they were even minimally informed?!
--Fern
OK, you got me on the coal point, Fern. I forgot about that one.
A lot of voters may have been misinformed about the Party in charge of Congress, but couldn't it also be that a lot of voters knew who was in charge, and while they weren't particularly happy with what the Dems were doing, they looked at the GOP alternative, held their noses, and made the choice, not because they were misinformed, but because the Dems made a better case? Or because the the general dissatisfaction with the GOP?
"In the world you will find tribulation, but be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world."
John 16:33
solace of view
I'm sure it provides solace to disappointed conservatives to blame this on stupid voters and the inability to communicate.
However I am skeptical that the proper prescription for the GOP is to try harder and yell louder with the same type of messages. The McCain-Palin campaign spent a lot of time talking up what they viewed to be the negative and troubling aspects of Barack Obama.
Perhaps at least in this case Americans chose to tune out the testimony of the most vociferous and biased detractors, as it were. I have no evidence to back this up of course, since it would be hard to measure. But let's consider that negative campaigning has reached a zenith in our era in terms of volume of communication.
Maybe, just maybe, the public response is to assume that you just can't count on a democrat to give you an accurate description about a republican, nor can you rely on a republican to accurately describe a democrat. So as soon as either gets underway, click goes the channel.
To me, it's a matter of dissonance. The more strident and over the top such opposition portrayals become, the more they will see at variance with a given person's perception based on first person exposure. If you start to think one side is just throwing anything they can at the walls in the hope that something will stick, credibility becomes a problem.
Now I know most conservatives will swear up and down that the vast majority of such attacks were largely accurate and well-deserved, so there is little point in discussion there.
I simply wish to state once again that I think conservatives need to do a much better job of making an affirmative case for the efficacy of their constellation of views. As I heard a Republican say recently, we can't just be the party of "no!" __________
I have often said, and oftener think, that this world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel. -Horace Walpole
more positive, less negative
bucyrus -- great comment, well-expressed and reasoned.
Fern R -- I think you're jumping to conclusions in a number of ways:
(1) As for the statement about controlling Congress, it's not obvious that they "took it out on the wrong party". The poll results say that the responders "didn't respond correctly" -- they didn't say that they did choose a wrong answer. Perhaps (probably) they didn't respond at all.
(2) Furthermore, you really need to do the same test on McCain voters and compare the results. I bet most Americans of all stripes don't have a good idea of exactly how many Dems and Reps are in the Congress, and for that matter might not believe that either party "controls" Congress, since the numbers are fairly even.
(3) WRT comments about Obama and Ayers, etc. -- as bucyrus says, it seems a lot more likely that they simply didn't believe the assertions, rather than that they didn't "know" the answers. Voters are good at recognizing partisan statements and opinions, even when presented as simple information (and many recent commenters in leftist blogs have asserted that the first two statements you mentioned, about the coal industry and where Obama "started his political career", aren't even true).
I think the lessons are first, to deconstruct what went wrong you need a lot more polling info -- e.g. phrasing the question about Obama and Ayers in various different ways, and testing with various kinds of voters, would reveal to what extent it was a failure to get the message across, and to what extent it was a case of deliberately ignoring it.
More generally, I think the GOP has lost public trust in its "brand" due to the level of vitriol coming from some of its most visible proponents (e.g. Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter), the predominantly negative tone of McCain's campaign, incidents like the Swift Boat attacks on John Kerry, and perhaps most damaging, the refusal of Bush to own up to his lies (e.g. the faked WMD intelligence in Iraq), mistakes (e.g. Katrina), etc. Why didn't Bush take a cue from Reagan? A few months after the Iran-Contra scandal, when it was threatening to consume his presidency, he got on TV, admitted that abuses had happened and took full responsibility for the fact that it happened on his watch. People forgave him, trust was restored, and the scandal went away. The GOP needs its credibility restored and I don't think simply trying to "do what we're doing now but better" will work.
Are we reverting to Clintonian definitions of "is?"
1) How is "didn't respond correctly" the saving grace of those voters who didn't select the Democrats as the ruling party in Congress? If they said, "I don't want to answer that question" we're supposed to imply that they knew the right answer but just didn't feel like answering?
2) If Americans really think that there is no real control by one party or the other when the majority party has two more Senators than the minority party, then you're proving how hopelessly uninformed the electorate really is.
3) This is the most frustrating idea, that it is somehow not true that Obama was associated with Bill Ayers early in his career. I guess if you repeat a lie often enough, somehow lies become truths and truths become lies. There is a correct answer to that question, but as you point out, Obama voters didn't want to believe it, so they ignored it.
It's crazy to say that McCain's campaign had a predominately negative tone. He refused to do any negative campaigning until the very end of his campaign, and then it was too late. Voters has already decided that their view of Obama was correct, regardless of what the truth was.
Likewise, why is it that a conservative nutter like Ann Coulter can supposedly ruin the GOP brand but no amount of nutters on the Dem side can ruin their brand? How many times did Biden say stupid things or downright wrong things in this campaign where he was never called on it? If Sarah Palin had said, "I have a three letter word for you J-O-B-S" the media would have had a field day painting the Republican party as a bunch of dumb boobs. But when Biden says it, it is ignored. Same thing with all the whackos on the left. Michael Moore, Howard Dean, Barney Frank.
It doesn't matter how many outrageous, stupid, wrong things they say. Apparently the Democrat brand is incapable of being tarnished. People want to vote for the party that tells them "nothing is your fault, here have a bailout check" and gosh darn it, if it comes from the hand of a guy who has surrounded himself with extremists, participated in dirty politics to get where he is, and admits that his plan for the future involves getting rid of thousands of blue collar jobs in the coal industry, then who the heck cares?! Free money!!! Yay!
The other day my cousin told me that now that Obama is President, he will make sure gay people can get married (we live in California, where Prop 8 was a very contentious issue). Obama is on record as saying that he thinks marriage should be between one man and one woman. People believe that he is their savior and they project whatever they want to believe on to him, regardless of the facts.
--Fern
I didn't say yell louder brian
Although it might make it easier to dismiss my argument by characterizing it as much. How do you explain the lowest congressional approval rating in history and then the party in charge actually picking up seats?in what universe does that make logical sense? Especially in light of proof that a large swath of voters more likely to vote for that majority party don't even grasp the most basic information needed to make an educated vote.
--Fern
your argument
Your argument is that your party has simply failed to communicate the truth and that your message is sound as a pound. You can focus on the fact that I said "louder" if you want, but you're still stuck figuring out what the solution to your failure to communicate is, if it's not to repeat the same message louder and more often.
I explain the low approval ratings in part via the law tully cited, and in part by saying that I don't think that this measure (congressional approval) really measures anything of meaningful value that manifests in voting behavior. Voters consistently disapprove of congress in general but approve of their guy in particular. Over, and over, and over, and over. When they cast a vote for their congresspersons, their opinion of congress in general simply doesn't enter into the equation. It boils down to which of the 2 or 3 folks on THEIR ballot makes the better case for their district or state.
Now, you can go ahead and make an "ought" argument and say that, well, the toe bone really is connected to the finger bone. In other words, people disappointed in congress in general ought to gear their votes to expelling the majority party. But that just isn't how it seems to work, is it?
Again, if you are consoled by the thought that Obama was elected on the wings of idiots, feel free. It's pretty much true if you believe the "90 of everything is crap" rule, because then you know that everyone is elected on the wings of idiots.
Or if you want, go ahead and think that when a republican is elected, it's because public IQ has soared or because more smart people voted that time. Good luck with that.
__________
I have often said, and oftener think, that this world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel. -Horace Walpole
I've always thought, regarding Congress' low approval rating,
that a variety of factors led to that. I mean it's not like the approval rating for Congress was really high, and the suddenly dropped once 2006 rolled around. Many of those who voted to increase the Dem majority in Congress were no doubt dissatisfied, but that doesn't mean that wanted to put the GOP back in charge. I think the idea that Congress' bad rating is totally the Democrats fault, just because the Dems were in charge is a faulty argument. If the approval rating was really high before, and then dropped it'd be different.
"In the world you will find tribulation, but be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world."
John 16:33
Why is everyone always so
Why is everyone always so surprised that Sturgeon's Law applies to voters, just as it does to everything else?
The dems, & esp Obama, did a
The dems, & esp Obama, did a great job of pushing the "We don't need more of Bush's failed policies" stuff. (Some) people think Bush = Republican. Bush = Bad, so Republicans = Bad. I had to remind someone that Bush is NOT like all republicans. He's not exactly a conservative republican, for example.
*Yes, really, Simon's wife. Envy or pity me. ;)