Sifting Through the Economic Messages From the Elections Last Night
As the Huffington Post has been reporting all morning, ABC sums up the New Jersey and Virginia exit polls this way:
Vast economic discontent marked the mood of Tuesday's off-year voters, portending potential trouble for incumbents generally and Democrats in particular in 2010. Still the gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey looked less like a referendum on Barack Obama than a reflection of their own candidates and issues.
The gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey looked less like a referendum on Barack Obama than a reflection of their own candidates and issues. Still, the two Republican victories, in predominantly Democratic New Jersey and in purple Virginia, had to smart.Just under half the voters in Virginia, 48 percent, approved of the way Obama is handling his job, rising to 57 percent in New Jersey. Most in both states, in any case, said the president was not a factor in their vote.
Perhaps most striking were economic views: A vast 89 percent in New Jersey and 85 percent in Virginia said they were worried about the direction of the nation's economy in the next year; 56 percent and 53 percent, respectively, said they were "very" worried about it.
Voters who expressed the highest levels of economic discontent heavily favored the Republican candidates in both states - underscoring the challenge Obama and his party may face in 2010 if economic attitudes don't improve. The analogy is to 1994, when nearly six in 10 voters said the economy was in bad shape, and they favored the out-of-power Republicans by 26 points, helping the GOP to a 52-seat gain and control of Congress for the first time in 42 years.
In Virginia on Tuesday, voters who were "very" worried about the economy concern supported the Republican winner, Bob McDonnell by a wide margin, 77-23 percent. In New Jersey, while the gap wasn't quite so broad, voters who were most worried about the economy backed the Republican Chris Christie by 61-34 percent as he unseated incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine.
Listening to the Republican pundits last night what you heard was that the electorate, just a year after giving Democrats the most control of Washington they have had in over 40 years, have now turned around and embraced the low-tax, small government, fiscal austerity economic strategy of the GOP. The problem with this argument is that last night, voters in Maine and Washington also overwhelmingly rejected statewide "TABOR" initiatives to cap tax increases. In fact, in both these states, bond initiatives passed, creating more investment in transportation and schools.
As I wrote last night, the central battleground of American politics today is the economy and the increasingly difficult struggle of everyday people. The American public has resoundingly rejected the laissez-faire Republican approach of this decade, which left the typical family with shrinking incomes and spiraling debt, the nation in the worst recession in 70 years, and Wall Street in shambles. They elected Democrats because they offered to make all this better, and refocus the debate not along the old conservative-crafted economic memes - taxes, size of government - but around offering a strategy relentlessly focused on helping them in their almost decade-long struggle to get their incomes up and families in better shape.
What Americans have seen from the Democrats this year is less than what they had hoped - too much proximity to wealthy interests, worsening economic conditions, too much attention to issues separate from their struggles, and a lack of party coherence that is preventing Democrats from making Washington work again for them and not for the special interests. It is the fundamental failure to make the economy the central issue of this Presidency that has left the door open for the Republicans. It is also a door that it easily closed next year by the President and his team.
As I laid out in a front-page Huffington Post essay in early September, "The Key to the Fall: Staying Focused on the Economy," the most urgent problem facing the country today is fashioning a successful strategy to transition America into the new economy of the 21st century. Despite the fiscal pressures of the moment, this will not be done by returning to a politics of austerity, but rather acknowledging, forthrightly, that we must do more, invest smarter, raise our game in this much more competitive economy of the 21st century or risk national decline, reduced life prospects for our people, and lowered standards of living.
This is not a politics of "recovery," a word that I think has become more magical thinking in Washington than a reflection of an economic strategy - as if everything will just return back to the way it was, in the good ole days. That isn't going to happen. There is too much change, too much structural transformation that must happen. We have to leave the successful 20th century American economy behind, and embrace the new economy of the 21st - one that is more globally competitive, technology-dense, universally wired, more idea- and intellectual property-driven and hopefully all constructed on top of a new low-carbon national footprint.
In poll after poll it is clear that the American people know that we have to make this national leap into a new economy, that the old economy simply isn't working for them anymore. Do our leaders understand this as well as the American people do, and in particular, do the Democrats, those who are running our government?
To make this successful transition over the next 20-30 years, we will need a strategy, and will need to fight to make progress toward this strategy each year. Of all the lessons learned from this rather muddied election, I hope that is the one the leaders of both parties take away, leaving behind the now-outdated economic arguments of the 20th century, shifting the debate to a much more germane and important conversation about our new strategy for the 21st.
This essay was cross-posted at the NDN Blog.
Follow Simon Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/simonwdc
Aaron Belkin: Obama Is Timid Because Progressives Are Timid
What can we expect from a President who presides over a relatively conservative public, whose party is fractured by a fundamental contradiction, and whose legislative agenda is held hostage by Ben Nelson?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
THE ECONOMY NEEDS RIFLE SHOTS AIMED AT UNEMPLOYMENT!
The 1977 job tax credit program included a few of the incentives in a so far neglected Human Investment Tax Credit (HITC) program aimed at generating up to 6 million jobs and launching perhaps 4 million entrepreneurs. The 1977 program proved it can work. That stripped down version generated 900,000 jobs - 20% of the jobs created that year!
Download the 2009 version free at: http://www.aesopinstitute.org
Congress should fine-tune and pass a strong HITC program without delay!
Another path to millions of jobs is described in the article: 5 Steps to Revive the Auto Industry and the Economy - on the same website.
It outlines revolutionary new technology that opens paths to cars that need no fossil fuel or re-charge. Advanced versions can later turn parked cars into power plants, able to sell power to the local utility.
The technology is not in the textbooks and will be greeted with extreme skepticism and disbelief.
However, independent laboratory validation of one remarkable breakthrough has taken place at Rowan University. It produced far more heat than can readily be explained by existing science, clearly suggesting a new source of energy is involved. The experiments should be repeated at other laboratories.
The Rowan validation began the process of proving that new technology can allow a barrel of water to replace 200 barrels of oil!
It can change what is currently believed about energy and help to generate millions of jobs.
Simon, the party is over. You have a divided nation, leaders who willfully exploit this divide and an impatient and an ignorant population. The US's economic and spheres of influence have been reduced and are shifting towards the developing nations. Americans no longer understand what it is to be America. The dream no longer exists. it was based on a myth to begin with.
I do agree with you, however the objectives you have laid out are far beyond what the populace and their elected officials are capable of comprehending, let alone acting upon. The decline will continue.
Too true. David Plouffe makes the point that President Obama is focused on the long term and the mess they inherited will take time to fix, but he and we (the people) have a big problem right nowMain street is still in a world of pain..
We read that "it (the economy) could have been far worse," but our reality on main street is that people are losing jobs and homes, libraries are shutting their doors, teaachers are being laid off, while bankers and wall street brokers seem to be making profits. We (the voters) are not happy.
It's a well known fact that Obama visited NJ and VA numerous times to help campaign for both democrat candidates. His face was plastered inside all of their ads. Now that the democrat candidates have lost big, the White House shrugs it off like it never meant anything anyways. I find this attitude very sad. This is the kind of "I'm always right" arrogance we don't need in this country. It took only 10 months for "hope and change' to become "hope and pray". The people of this country have had enough with the outrageous spending and raising of taxes that has hurt the democrats and will only get worse for them if they don't change their ways. If Obama and his cronies in the house try and force this shoddy and expensive socialized health care plan on the American people, it will be a HUGE mistake for them in 2010. Anyone who thinks different better take their head out of their you know what.
Great Republican talking points. "Outrageous spending"--what is more outrageous than the trillions of dollars that the Republicans spent on their horribly mismanged, unnecessary and botched wars that they left for Obama to unwind? The Bush Presidency with his militaristic, aligned Republican Congress conducted one of the most fiscally irresponsible policies in the History of this country, combining tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans with a out-of-control trillion dollar spending on war and health care. Let's not forget that Bush and Co. inherited peace, prosperity and a budget surplus, and look at what they left us. As for "tax increases", Obama has CUT TAXES for the middle class. As for "socialized health care"--that is really the Beck-Tea Party talking point of the decade. Health care is a national crisis that is threatening to drain our budget and is hurting our business competitiveness. It MUST be dealt with, pure and simple. W. could have tackled it, but the Republicans were too busy being alienated from the vast majority of Americans to even care.
> Let's not forget that Bush and Co. inherited peace, prosperity and a budget surplus
No Bush inherited a weak CIA from Clinton which resulted in 9/11. Like it or not, for 8 years there were no attacks. Besides, the Clinton prosperity years ended in 2000 when the tech bubble burst. People were looking for jobs in 2000 before Bush was even president.
> The Bush Presidency with his militaristic...
This is called defending your country. It's ACTUALLY in the constitution. However, health care IS NOT in the constitution and is not an inalienable right. It's people's responsibility to look after their own health, just like it is for people to look after their own kids, their own home, their own food, their own clothes, etc. The time has come for PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY in this country, not high taxing nanny state politics that helps no one but the corrupt politicians.
> Health care is a national crisis that is threatening to drain our budget
Health care is NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS and is not the crisis Obama and Pelosi make it out to be. The real national crisis is that Obama spent more in 9 months than Bush did in 8 years, and he spent it on a stimulus plan that has helped NO ONE except wall street and GM. People are still losing jobs and unemployment is reaching 10%. This is undeniable and this is why Obama is losing in the polls and will continue to lose.
> Republicans spent on their horribly mismanged, unnecessary and botched wars
First of all in 2002 Hillary Clinton and most of the democrats along with the Republicans voted for the war in Iraq. In fact, one of Obama's campaign messages against Hillary during the primary was that she voted for the war. So lets get that straight. Second, the only one of a few who didn't vote for the Iraq war was Obama. However, in 2007 Obama did not vote for the Iraq troop surge only to find out that the surge DID WORK. Later when he was asked if the surge had worked he couldn't even admit that it did. Very sad.
Not according to what the polls say about what much of America wants (with respect to health care).
Fact is most people want health care to be cheaper but they ABSOLUTELY DO NOT want government involvement. Just ask the people waiting on line for hours for their H1N1 flu shot what they think of government involvement! The government couldn't even deliver a simple vaccine without causing hysteria and missed deadlines. The only thing Obama and Pelosi are interested in is "government take over" of health care, not actually fixing it. The fact that government will have more control is the only thing they care about. This is why congress has a 22% approval rating and will not make it past 2010.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
