Sorry, swing voters. This election won’t give u what u want
Oct 21, 2022 17:44:37 GMT
revirdsuba99 likes this
Post by onelasttime on Oct 21, 2022 17:44:37 GMT
This morning after I saw a couple of headlines claiming the Republicans will take the majority in the midterms I spent some time pondering what do voters really want when they vote. Couldn’t come up with an answer.
But Paul Waldman kind of did in his latest column. I think he pretty much described not only swing votes but all voters IMO.
And if the headlines are right and the Republicans take the majority in both the House and Senate there will be two years of deliberate chaos by the Republicans that could leave the American People worse off two years from now then we are today. And of course they will blame it all on President Biden and the Democrats. The voters will believe them and elect some authoritarian Republican as president. Won’t that be fun.
“Sorry, swing voters. This election won’t give you what you want.”
By Paul Waldman
Columnist
|
October 21, 2022 at 9:45 a.m. EDT
“When the midterm elections are over, the winners will inevitably claim they now have a mandate for the full scope of their policy agenda. If Democrats win, they’ll say the public wants to go full speed ahead on President Biden’s agenda. If Republicans win, as is more likely, they’ll say the electorate is yearning for tax cuts, deregulation and endless investigations of the White House.
But here’s the reality: Most of the issues driving voters to the polls seem to be ones over which the parties have little control. And whichever party wins, voters — especially swing voters — are unlikely to see real progress on the matters that animated their votes.
This disconnect goes a long way toward explaining why voters are cynical about what politics can accomplish. They can swing the pendulum away from the current arrangement of power, but that won’t alter the broad, difficult problems that got them worked up in the first place.
Think about the issues that seem to have made a real difference in this election. Democrats might have hoped that a bipartisan infrastructure bill, a gun safety bill and the Inflation Reduction Act would persuade a grateful electorate to let them keep control of Congress. But there’s little evidence that almost anyone has made their choice on the basis of those bills.
Instead, things not within the control of either Congress or the president have had the biggest impact on the election. Persistent inflation might be the most important, but it’s a worldwide problem the Biden administration has been able to influence in only the most marginal ways. Whether gas prices go up or down in the next few weeks — another thing largely beyond Biden’s control — could have a tremendous impact.
Similarly, the increase in crime that began in 2020 has played a part. So has what we’ve come to call “vibes,” the general sense of anxiety and grumpiness produced by the pandemic. All these issues lack congressional solutions just waiting to be implemented, no matter which party the voters end up choosing.
Abortion rights is a bit different. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, that really did give voters an argument for voting for Democrats, because if voters handed them the House and two more senators, they could theoretically codify protections in federal law. But even if Democrats win, it’s likely to be such a narrow victory that a federal guarantee of abortion rights would not be forthcoming.
While most voters are clearly aligned with one party or the other, there are still enough swing voters out there to decide elections. Unfortunately, when they swing it’s often based on the vaguest of ideas about what a change in leadership would produce. Dissatisfaction over inflation, for instance, gets translated into a vote for change, in whatever form it seems to be offered. If Democrats run Washington but Republicans run your state, why not vote for a Democrat for governor and a Republican for senator?
The problem is that even if you get the election outcome you chose — the bums being thrown out — there’s almost no reason to think it will produce the practical outcome you wanted.
That’s the difference between policies and problems: Policy agendas can be changed by new leadership, but problems, at least the most important ones, are more complicated.
This is especially true in midterms, which are usually won by the opposition party. Only occasionally is that vote a product of public displeasure with the policies of the president and his party. The 2006 midterm, when public anger over the Iraq War gave Democrats a sweeping victory, is an exception. More often, the opinion being expressed is more like, “Things are bad, and we don’t like it!”
And even at moments when swing voters do object to particular policies, what they get when they give the opposition control of Congress is not a change in policy but a two-year halt to policymaking. For Republicans at the moment, that would be fine: Stopping Democrats from passing any more legislation, and having a Congress that would harass the Biden administration with endless investigations, is exactly what they want.
But those swing voters hoping for “change” would get only gridlock and partisan conflict, which is exactly what they always say they despise. In focus groups of independent voters, the lament “Why can’t they stop squabbling and get things done?” is like “Margaritaville” at a Jimmy Buffett concert: Whatever else gets played, you can count on that number coming up sooner or later.
Yet those same people vote for gridlock again and again, in the mistaken belief that when something happens that they don’t like, voting out whoever is currently in office will fix it. That might work in presidential elections, but in midterms (at least at the federal level), the choice isn’t really between two policy visions — it’s between one set of policies, and putting all policymaking in suspended animation until the next presidential election.
Some swing voters might know this but still want to “send a message” that they’re displeased about everything. Voting for a change in congressional leadership is certainly a way to do that. But they shouldn’t fool themselves into thinking the results will make them any happier.”
But Paul Waldman kind of did in his latest column. I think he pretty much described not only swing votes but all voters IMO.
And if the headlines are right and the Republicans take the majority in both the House and Senate there will be two years of deliberate chaos by the Republicans that could leave the American People worse off two years from now then we are today. And of course they will blame it all on President Biden and the Democrats. The voters will believe them and elect some authoritarian Republican as president. Won’t that be fun.
“Sorry, swing voters. This election won’t give you what you want.”
By Paul Waldman
Columnist
|
October 21, 2022 at 9:45 a.m. EDT
“When the midterm elections are over, the winners will inevitably claim they now have a mandate for the full scope of their policy agenda. If Democrats win, they’ll say the public wants to go full speed ahead on President Biden’s agenda. If Republicans win, as is more likely, they’ll say the electorate is yearning for tax cuts, deregulation and endless investigations of the White House.
But here’s the reality: Most of the issues driving voters to the polls seem to be ones over which the parties have little control. And whichever party wins, voters — especially swing voters — are unlikely to see real progress on the matters that animated their votes.
This disconnect goes a long way toward explaining why voters are cynical about what politics can accomplish. They can swing the pendulum away from the current arrangement of power, but that won’t alter the broad, difficult problems that got them worked up in the first place.
Think about the issues that seem to have made a real difference in this election. Democrats might have hoped that a bipartisan infrastructure bill, a gun safety bill and the Inflation Reduction Act would persuade a grateful electorate to let them keep control of Congress. But there’s little evidence that almost anyone has made their choice on the basis of those bills.
Instead, things not within the control of either Congress or the president have had the biggest impact on the election. Persistent inflation might be the most important, but it’s a worldwide problem the Biden administration has been able to influence in only the most marginal ways. Whether gas prices go up or down in the next few weeks — another thing largely beyond Biden’s control — could have a tremendous impact.
Similarly, the increase in crime that began in 2020 has played a part. So has what we’ve come to call “vibes,” the general sense of anxiety and grumpiness produced by the pandemic. All these issues lack congressional solutions just waiting to be implemented, no matter which party the voters end up choosing.
Abortion rights is a bit different. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, that really did give voters an argument for voting for Democrats, because if voters handed them the House and two more senators, they could theoretically codify protections in federal law. But even if Democrats win, it’s likely to be such a narrow victory that a federal guarantee of abortion rights would not be forthcoming.
While most voters are clearly aligned with one party or the other, there are still enough swing voters out there to decide elections. Unfortunately, when they swing it’s often based on the vaguest of ideas about what a change in leadership would produce. Dissatisfaction over inflation, for instance, gets translated into a vote for change, in whatever form it seems to be offered. If Democrats run Washington but Republicans run your state, why not vote for a Democrat for governor and a Republican for senator?
The problem is that even if you get the election outcome you chose — the bums being thrown out — there’s almost no reason to think it will produce the practical outcome you wanted.
That’s the difference between policies and problems: Policy agendas can be changed by new leadership, but problems, at least the most important ones, are more complicated.
This is especially true in midterms, which are usually won by the opposition party. Only occasionally is that vote a product of public displeasure with the policies of the president and his party. The 2006 midterm, when public anger over the Iraq War gave Democrats a sweeping victory, is an exception. More often, the opinion being expressed is more like, “Things are bad, and we don’t like it!”
And even at moments when swing voters do object to particular policies, what they get when they give the opposition control of Congress is not a change in policy but a two-year halt to policymaking. For Republicans at the moment, that would be fine: Stopping Democrats from passing any more legislation, and having a Congress that would harass the Biden administration with endless investigations, is exactly what they want.
But those swing voters hoping for “change” would get only gridlock and partisan conflict, which is exactly what they always say they despise. In focus groups of independent voters, the lament “Why can’t they stop squabbling and get things done?” is like “Margaritaville” at a Jimmy Buffett concert: Whatever else gets played, you can count on that number coming up sooner or later.
Yet those same people vote for gridlock again and again, in the mistaken belief that when something happens that they don’t like, voting out whoever is currently in office will fix it. That might work in presidential elections, but in midterms (at least at the federal level), the choice isn’t really between two policy visions — it’s between one set of policies, and putting all policymaking in suspended animation until the next presidential election.
Some swing voters might know this but still want to “send a message” that they’re displeased about everything. Voting for a change in congressional leadership is certainly a way to do that. But they shouldn’t fool themselves into thinking the results will make them any happier.”