The Myth of the Right-Leaning Electorate

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

When Democrats win elections, the press tells us it's because of a charismatic candidate or things like the state of the economy. On the other hand, when Republicans win elections we're told it represents fundamental rightward shifts in American opinion, a deeply conservative electorate voting on its basic beliefs.

Pundits seldom point out that with a couple of exceptions, on nearly any issue you can come up with, the progressive position is the more popular one. Now a fascinating new poll from the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes shows just how out of whack the federal budget is with the priorities of the American people - priorities that turn out to be positively Scandinavian.

PIPA employed an unusual technique, in which they presented respondents with a spreadsheet showing 17 areas of the discretionary budget and how much the Bush administration is proposing to spend on them (they included a figure for Iraq, which the administration pretends for budgetary purposes does not exist). Then respondents were told they could adjust these items up or down as they'd like to see the money spent. They were also given the option to put money toward deficit reduction. To make the exercise easier, the budget was converted to total $1,000.

So what did this supposedly conservative electorate do?


Defense spending was cut by an average of 31%. Two-thirds of respondents chose to cut the defense budget.


Funds for Iraq were cut by an average of 35%, again with two-thirds of respondents opting for cuts.


61% of respondents chose to put aside money for deficit reduction.


Education spending was increased by 39%.


Funds for job training were increased by 263%.


Funds for medical research were increased by 53%.


Veterans benefits were increased by 40%.


Funds for conservation and the development of renewable energy were increased by 1090%. That is not a typo. 70% of respondents opted for increases in this area.


While there were differences between Republicans and Democrats, in many cases both groups were contradicting the current budget, just to different degrees: "While Republicans on average cut the Pentagon budget by $70 billion, Democrats cut it by $166 billion; and while Republicans cut the Iraq supplemental by $17.8 billion, Democrats cut it by $37.8 billion. Both increased education, but Republicans increased it by a mean $7.2 billion while Democrats increased it by $39.3 billion. On the environment and natural resources, Republicans increased this by a mean $3.9 billion, but Democrats did so by $14.3 billion. Republicans increased job training and employment by a mean $8.6 billion and Democrats by over twice as much ($23.1 billion). On the UN and UN peacekeeping, Republicans made an average increase of $1.8 billion while Democrats made one of $8 billion...For only two items did the average Republican budget and Democrat budget actually take opposing directions. On humanitarian and economic aid, Republicans made an average reduction of $2.6 billion, while Democrats made an average increase of $7.7 billion. And on housing, Republicans reduced by an average $1.9 billion, while Democrats increased housing by $18 billion."

So here we have Republicans opting to cut the defense budget and increase spending for the environment, job training, and the UN.


It's a commonplace finding that if you give people a list of government programs, they'll say funding should be increased on every one. But the exercise in this poll is zero-sum: every increase the respondents made in one area had to be offset by a cut somewhere else.

[W*GS]

Now a fascinating new poll from the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes shows just how out of whack the federal budget is with the priorities of the American people - priorities that turn out to be positively Scandinavian.

Strangely, despite this hidden socialistic streak, Republicans have gained in political power, thanks to voters, over the past decade or so.

I suspect there's more to this poll than is reported here, or, this is like those polls in which folks tell the pollster what they think the pollster wants to hear, and not their genuine beliefs.

[W*GS]

To read more about the poll, and to see the poll itself, go to http://www.pipa.org.

A couple of interesting things - some of the questions were what I consider to be somewhat loaded, in that I can where the question was posed in such a way as to lead to a certain answer set.

Also, those polled were asked how they would allocated $1000 of their own taxes - not the same as allocating some amount of money, not necessarily their own.

I don't believe there's a huge hidden "progressive" philosophy in US citizens - if there were, the Republicans (and moderate Democrats) wouldn't have the voter popularity that they do.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Strangely, despite this hidden socialistic streak, Republicans have gained in political power, thanks to voters, over the past decade or so.


Not "thanks to voters" - thanks to election fraud.

See the following thread for the most recent example:

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=23661

I don't believe there's a huge hidden "progressive" philosophy in US citizens...

For the rest of us, i.e., those who don't inhabit a "faith-based" version of reality, there are facts (see post #1.)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I don't believe there's a huge hidden "progressive" philosophy in US citizens...

While you merely "believe," I have facts:

We are the center

Bill Scher has a good column up on Government: What The People Want (http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/030605.htm#030805) that confirms once again that the majority of Americans share our liberal values. He cites the results of a 2003 study (http://www.greenbergresearch.com/publications/reports/pip_m111203.pdf) of Americans' idea of what the role of government is, and what do you know...?

-- Protecting the environment: 93% (69% strongly)

-- Keeping tabs on and regulating big corporations and powerful individuals who may abuse their position and hurt others in society: 92% (71% strongly)

-- Ensuring equal opportunity for everyone: 88% (67% strongly)

-- Guaranteeing a quality public education 87% (70% strongly)

-- Guaranteeing all have health care insurance: 79% (60% strongly)

-- Making sure no one lives in poverty: 76% (49% strongly)

-- Helping people not fall back when they face a crisis, become unemployed or face big health care, college costs or retirement costs: 75% (40% strongly)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The Sheep Are Slowly Taking Off Their Fleece...

It seems 70% of Americans don't like the Bush Administration being so secretive.

Hmmm...where WERE those 70% during the "elections?"

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050313/ap_on_re_us/sunshine_week_poll

[W*GS]

Not "thanks to voters" - thanks to election fraud.

Every instance of a Republican being elected is a case of election fraud?

Care to provide proof?

[W*GS]

-- Protecting the environment: 93% (69% strongly)
-- Keeping tabs on and regulating big corporations and powerful individuals who may abuse their position and hurt others in society: 92% (71% strongly)
-- Ensuring equal opportunity for everyone: 88% (67% strongly)
-- Guaranteeing a quality public education 87% (70% strongly)
-- Guaranteeing all have health care insurance: 79% (60% strongly)
-- Making sure no one lives in poverty: 76% (49% strongly)
-- Helping people not fall back when they face a crisis, become unemployed or face big health care, college costs or retirement costs: 75% (40% strongly)

Those poll results depend greatly on how the question is asked. For example:

1) Do you think the government should:
a) Help people not live in poverty, or
b) Let the poor rot in the streets.

Also, did the poll ask if respondents were willing to pay the level of taxation required to do all the above?

I just don't see that Americans are secret Scandanavians.

[W*GS]

Those poll results depend greatly on how the question is asked. For example:

1) Do you think the government should:
a) Help people not live in poverty, or
b) Let the poor rot in the streets.

Also, did the poll ask if respondents were willing to pay the level of taxation required to do all the above?

I just don't see that Americans are secret Scandanavians.
There are some interesting other things in that questionnaire that could be interpreted as supporting a non-progressive agenda:

-- Keeping America strong and powerful in the world (93%)
-- Making sure that it keeps the lowest level of regulation so that businesses can prosper (77%)
-- Promoting democracy and freedom in the world (82%)
-- Providing for the national defense and a strong military (96%)

Based on these cherry-picked results, I think most Americans are neo-cons.

[enjolras]

I would argue that elections simply aren't efficient.

A great many voters vote for reasons OTHER than ideology or vote very narrowly on a single issue. In a two party system, just because one candidate is elected does not mean that the electorate is neccesarily ideologically aligned with that candidate.

This is the same fallacy of Bush claiming that the election was a mandate on Iraq. It wasn't. If it had been, Bush would be in Crawford right now.

This study is likely quite accurate. The electorate itself may not be aligned with the people they vote for. Hell, coming into the election there was a poll that a shocking number of people beleived leadership NOT issues was the most important aspect in determining their vote. Those same people likely find themselves ideologically out of whack with who they voted for.

It really shows how incredibly weak the democrats have been, not on issues but on charisma. They are out of touch with the people, and I beleive they are simply being outclassed in the media war. The Republicans have been playing hardball (one only needs to scan talk radio to see how incredibly the liberal bashing machine has become) and the democrats have been unable to respond.

[Rigs11]

I hate to say it but I think the Democrats are going to have to sink to the Republicans scummy ways in the next round. I mean the whole veterans against Kerry ads really hurt Kerry. I still can't believe that voters were persuaded to vote for a guy who never even served and actually questioned Kerry's patriotism because he opposed the war when he got back. American troops committed horrible acts in Vietnam, no not all of them, but I'm glad that Kerry had the balls to speak out.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I hate to say it but I think the Democrats are going to have to sink to the Republicans scummy ways in the next round.

Unless the numerous voting issues you just mentioned on the "programmer admits to fraud" thread are somehow magically resolved, we're going to be stuck with GOP control of all three branches of government for the foreseeable future.


I mean the whole veterans against Kerry ads really hurt Kerry.

What hurt Kerry the most on that front was the 24/7 love-fest between the Swift Boat Liars and the mainstream media. These whores masquerading as "journalists" are just as responsible for a second Disaster Monkey term as Diebold.

I still can't believe that voters were persuaded to vote for a guy who never even served and actually questioned Kerry's patriotism because he opposed the war when he got back.

Rove certainly deserves the "snake oil salesman of the century" award on that account, doesn't he? (Although he couldn't have pulled it off without Diebold and the usual GOP Fraud Squads in the battleground states.)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Every instance of a Republican being elected is a case of election fraud?

Care to provide proof?

Care to provide proof that I said "every?"

http://img42.exs.cx/img42/5917/rednecknow3kr.jpg

[W*GS]

Strangely, despite this hidden socialistic streak, Republicans have gained in political power, thanks to voters, over the past decade or so.

Not "thanks to voters" - thanks to election fraud.

Every instance of a Republican being elected is a case of election fraud? Care to provide proof?

Care to provide proof that I said "every?"

You didn't say "every", but in your "election fraud" comment above, you didn't restrict it - I was talking about Republicans generally, including at all levels - from the President down. So, when you made your "election fraud" comment, without qualification, it reads as meaning that every Republican gained political office via fraud.

Care to rephrase your comment?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You didn't say "every", but in your "election fraud" comment above, you didn't restrict it -

"Not restricting it" isn't the same thing as making a positive categorical statement, i.e., a reference to "every" rethug.

So, when you made your "election fraud" comment, without qualification, it reads as meaning that every Republican gained political office via fraud.

Only to the logically-challenged.

Your original statement merely referenced "Republicans" - not "all Republicans," or "every Republican."

You made no distinctions, e.g., House rethugs, rethug governors, rethug presidents, etc.

I was talking about Republicans generally, including at all levels - from the President down...

You didn't indicate this in your original comment - you only bring it up now - after the fact.

[W*GS]

Now you're just being deliberately stupid, LABF.

I was speaking of Republicans generally, and over time. You didn't understand that, obviously, and decided to go with your 'fraud' declaration.

Just keep making yourself the fool - saves me the bother.

[Rascal]

When Democrats win elections, the press tells us it's because of a charismatic candidate or things like the state of the economy. On the other hand, when Republicans win elections we're told it represents fundamental rightward shifts in American opinion, a deeply conservative electorate voting on its basic beliefs.

Blame those that tell you that then.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Now you're just being deliberately stupid, LABF.

I was speaking of Republicans generally, and over time. You didn't understand that, obviously, and decided to go with your 'fraud' declaration.

Just keep making yourself the fool - saves me the bother.

Funny how the same standards of linguistic exactitude to which you attempt to hold others don't seem to apply to you.

You didn't say "Republicans generally, and over time" - you merely said "Republicans." (And now you're altering your own statement after the fact.) Your original statement didn't specify which republicans - nor did it stipulate "all," or "some."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

When Democrats win elections, the press tells us it's because of a charismatic candidate or things like the state of the economy. On the other hand, when Republicans win elections we're told it represents fundamental rightward shifts in American opinion, a deeply conservative electorate voting on its basic beliefs.

Blame those that tell you that then.

Why, I just believe I will, ratscal:

The mole, the US media and a White House coup

The Gannon case is a prime illustration.

If, during the Clinton administration, a fake reporter from a Democrat front organisation, using a false name, had been exposed as attending White House press conferences it would have been a national scandal. If he had then been shown to be a gay prostitute, the scandal could have threatened a Democrat presidency. With 'Gannon' and Bush there has been no such outcry. The mainstream media has approached the story warily, while right-wing organisations such as Fox News have largely ignored it.

That has created a vacuum in the US media. It is a space being filled by 'bloggers' from both left and right who write personal journals, or weblogs, on the internet. It is here that the real media battles are now being fought. The internet has become a sort of Fifth Estate as the Fourth Estate of the mainstream media has slid toward irrelevance. The groundwork was done mainly by the right. Internet gossip hound Matt Drudge, whose Drudge Report is a key source for every American political journalist, struck the first blow with his breaking of the Monica Lewinsky affair.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,1418539,00.html

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

An ABC News/Washington Post poll shows that 39% of adults approve of the way Bush is handling Iraq and 53% think the war with Iraq was not worth fighting.

http://nationaljournal.com/avantgo/wakeup.htm