The Bush foreign policy, in retrospect

[Minstrel]

If "conservatives" really out-number "liberals" two to one, and that really corresponds with how one votes in any meaningful way, there's no way Obama would have been elected, especially by such a comfortable margin.

The more likely explanation is that the term "liberal" is not very popular, so people don't choose to self-identify by it. Whether or not they prefer more "liberal" policies to "conservative" ones, whether or not they vote for Democrats rather than Republicans.

Also, a survey with only three options (liberal, conservative, moderate) allows for no nuance. How does a libertarian identify? As a liberal because he/she believes in allows same sex marriage and the right of people to use marijuana if they choose, or as a conservative because he/she wants government out of the marketplace?

The term "liberal" is certainly not popular. Whether the policies are, relative to "conservative" ones, isn't clear from this.

 

[Denny Crane]

If "conservatives" really out-number "liberals" two to one, and that really corresponds with how one votes in any meaningful way, there's no way Obama would have been elected, especially by such a comfortable margin.

The more likely explanation is that the term "liberal" is not very popular, so people don't choose to self-identify by it. Whether or not they prefer more "liberal" policies to "conservative" ones, whether or not they vote for Democrats rather than Republicans.

Also, a survey with only three options (liberal, conservative, moderate) allows for no nuance. How does a libertarian identify? As a liberal because he/she believes in allows same sex marriage and the right of people to use marijuana if they choose, or as a conservative because he/she wants government out of the marketplace?

The term "liberal" is certainly not popular. Whether the policies are, relative to "conservative" ones, isn't clear from this.

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.

 

[Denny Crane]

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.

 

[barfo]

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.

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

barfo

 

[barfo]

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

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.

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.

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

 

[Denny Crane]

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.

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.

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

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.

 

[MrJayremmie]

Its not about conservative/liberal, imo. Its about who will vote for who, and honestly, the republicans have no good candidate out there period (except Ron Paul), which is why a democrat won (well there were more reasons than that because Obama's campaign was almost flawless).

I do think that after the 8 years of bush, there are more center-left, left, and far-left then center-right, right, and far-right.

 

[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.

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.

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.

Between May and June? Seems hardly likely.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

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.

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."

Between May and June? Seems hardly likely.

barfo

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

 

[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."

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.

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

And here, your point escapes me.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

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.

 

[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

 

[Denny Crane]

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.

 

[barfo]

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

The median as you use it is meaningless.

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

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

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.

 

[barfo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Denny Crane]

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

You want to attack that messenger, too?

 

[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

 

[Denny Crane]

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.

 

[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

 

[Denny Crane]

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

barfo

Conservatives didn't find Bush to be very conservative. Not when social spending triples.

Look at his approval rating when he left office. Says it all.

The polls do show that a huge part of the electorate (enough for a slam dunk landslide) are there for a conservative candidate with a good amount of charisma.

 

[barfo]

Conservatives didn't find Bush to be very conservative. Not when social spending triples.

So they nominated McCain, arguably more liberal than several of their other choices, for Pres. And then voted for Obama, who is more liberal than McCain, all because they didn't find Bush sufficiently conservative.

Look at his approval rating when he left office. Says it all.

Agreed.

The polls do show that a huge part of the electorate (enough for a slam dunk landslide) are there for a conservative candidate with a good amount of charisma.

Too bad there aren't any.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

So they nominated McCain, arguably more liberal than several of their other choices, for Pres. And then voted for Obama, who is more liberal than McCain, all because they didn't find Bush sufficiently conservative.

By your own admission, McCain was too liberal to appeal to conservatives.

Too bad there aren't any.

barfo

There haven't been any Democrats all along, until Obama. And he's a rock star who's an empty suit.

 

[barfo]

By your own admission, McCain was too liberal to appeal to conservatives.

Right, so why did the conservative party in this oh so conservative nation nominate him, do you think? Since everyone is so conservative, why didn't one of the other losers win?

There haven't been any Democrats all along, until Obama. And he's a rock star who's an empty suit.

That aint true. Clinton was pretty charismatic. JFK and LBJ too.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Right, so why did the conservative party in this oh so conservative nation nominate him, do you think? Since everyone is so conservative, why didn't one of the other losers win?

There were a lot of candidates who split up the vote and pounded away at one another. McCain probably got the nod for the same reason Dole did. Looks like you're going to lose so you nominate a guy to say "thanks for all you did in your long career."

That aint true. Clinton was pretty charismatic. JFK and LBJ too.

barfo

Clinton was a failed governor from a failed state and mostly incompetent for the first 2 years (at least). He had no coattails - the Dems lost seats every election in his term, and the house and senate together for the first time in like 50 years.

And you prove my point by going back 40-50 years to find another.

 

[Denny Crane]

And frankly, seeing how the economic plans have gone and the result, we'd certainly be better off with Romney right now.

The real surprise of the last election was Giuliani. Also a liberal republican, quite famous for his role in 9/11 and turning NYC around before that (you might remember how their bonds had turned to crap). He had money and charisma.

He failed the dog food test though, or decided to half-ass it and wait for a weaker opponent.

 

[barfo]

Clinton was a failed governor from a failed state and mostly incompetent for the first 2 years (at least).

What's any of that got to do with charisma?

And you prove my point by going back 40-50 years to find another.

Not exactly. The only president I had to skip over was Carter.

I'm not sure where we are going here anyway. You want to list all the charismatic Republicans to prove that Rs are more charismatic than Ds? Go ahead. You got Reagan, who else?

barfo

 

[barfo]

The real surprise of the last election was Giuliani. Also a liberal republican, quite famous for his role in 9/11 and turning NYC around before that (you might remember how their bonds had turned to crap). He had money and charisma.

Charisma? I guess, in a creepy sort of way. He would have been better cast as a pedophile than a politician.

He failed the dog food test though, or decided to half-ass it and wait for a weaker opponent.

He certainly sucked as a candidate. What is the dog food test? Haven't heard that phrase before.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Charisma? I guess, in a creepy sort of way. He would have been better cast as a pedophile than a politician.



He certainly sucked as a candidate. What is the dog food test? Haven't heard that phrase before.

barfo

Put the food in front of the dog to see if he'll eat it.

 

[Denny Crane]

Not exactly. The only president I had to skip over was Carter.
barfo

Why is that? Again, you proved my point.

To prove it even further, the Dems ran nothing but real far left leaning guys that whole time and they got clobbered in the elections.