It’s the economy, stupid
Posted by Moonage on 17 Oct 2006 | Tagged as: 2006 US Senate Races, National Politics, Polls, Senate Races, The Media, US Regional Politics
On a long list of issues, including Iraq and “ethics/corruption,” 23 percent cited the economy as their top concern, up from 17 percent in May.
I have been the firm believer that all politics is local. it’s not my idea, but I sure do believe it. I have said so repeatedly.
I listed those posts for a reason. The MSNBC article does exactly the same thing many other people have done in the past. They dismiss the poll numbers by justifying things that don’t matter. “Burning scandal in Washington” being a perfect example. When Bilbray took Cunningham’s seat, it was in the midst of a scandal. When I posted “It’s the economy”, anti-war sentiment was all over the media. Now, they’re attributing other things to equivocate this poll’s numbers.
I’ll try to make this simple. All politics is local. I don’t mean that in the sense that people don’t care about the War in Iraq or pedophiles in DC. I mean that the overwhelming issue is how each individual voter perceives their situation. Sure, they may totally disagree with the War in Iraq, but if their representative is bringing in jobs that affect them, and their economic situation is satisfactory, their situation will trump a war IN Iraq every single time. The only district that will be affected by the sex scandal is the district he represented. People love good gossip, but it’s meaningless in their individual world. And, I don’t know how often I’ve heard people talk about how crooked everyone in DC is, but my Congressman’s an honest man.
So, as wishful as MSNBC may be that the Republicans will go down in flames because for the first time ever people will look at world events and consider it more important than the well-being of their own family, I just don’t see it happening. What I do see happening is in the seats totally up for grabs, people will follow the age-old tradition of voting for the minority party in an off-year. But, that’s not enough to swing the power any significant amount.
I really think the MSNBC’s are going to be greatly disappointed in a couple of weeks when once again people look at their individual situations and come to the conclusion things aren’t so bad.
3 Comments »
on 18 Oct 2006 at 2:29 pm 1.mw
said …
“On this one, I got a lot flack from someone who totally disagrees with me.” - moon
I guess that would be me. Actually I substantially agree with your “All Politics is Local” premise, I am just working in my own small way to overcome it. I also agree that the outcome in the House is going to be very close, with a probable majority of one or two seats, and it is a crapshoot which way it falls (this despite the Republicans doing everything they can to help the Democrats acheive a majority).
In my view, “All Politics is Local” is exactly the inertia that must be overcome for the Dems to secure a majority in the House. In this, I think we agree. Our difference is one of degree. I think there is a small amount of malleability in the “All Politics is Local” vote. In a close election, that small change may be enough to swing a majority. That is why I have a single-minded focus on supporting the http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/” rel=”nofollow”>”Divided Government is Better Government” meme on my blog. It is, perhaps, a way to “nationalize” the House vote, to - in effect - give voters a reason, almost give them permission, to vote against a local favorite for the greater good of a divided government. Like I said - a small amount of malleability. In recent days I have become encouraged because there has been a significant uptick in the “Divided Government” meme being talked about in both msm and the blogosphere (you can graph it with technorati or blogpulse). Obviously, I am speaking as an advocate and not an analyst here, so take it for however many grains of salt you will.
I think there is another opportunity to nationalize some of the vote to overcome the “local” inertia, which has just emerged. I am working on new post on the subject now, hopefully to be posted in the next day or so. Stay tuned. Hint:
Which is the “lesser of two evils” as 3rd in Line for the President? Nancy Pelosi or Denny Hastert?
I think some have voters may have changed their mind on this decision lately. - mw
on 18 Oct 2006 at 4:23 pm 2.Moonage
said …
“In my view, “All Politics is Local” is exactly the inertia that must be overcome for the Dems to secure a majority in the House. In this, I think we agree. ”
Actually I disagree with that part. Democrats are the majority voter registration in this country by a substantial margin. Having a Republican controlled Congress with a majority Democrat electorate IS a divided consituency. Having a majority party in control of a majority constituency is the opposite of what you are shooting for.
However, I prefer doing away with parties entirely, so both issues are somewhat moot to me. I tend to look at the actions of individuals moreso than their registration. It’s just timing that my most pointed criticisms have been Pelosi and McKinney. Last year it was Tom Delay. I’m not ready to hang Hastert as CBS has instructed us to do. A few years ago the same scandal had the name Studds attached to it, no one asked for the Speaker to resign because of it. In fact, Studds didn’t even resign. It became a local issue and the locals re-elected him, repeatedly. So, there is a disconnect between what was expected 20 years ago and what is expected now.
As far as worrying about Pelosi or Hastert being president, that will never happen for either, so it’s moot as well. Neither appeal much outside their immediate districts because they both play the political card too heavy.
As far as all politics being local, that’s the way it is and should be. If you want true diversification in Congress, that’s what you have to have. Being a Congressman is partially being responsible for national laws, and partially responsible for representing their district. They are intended to be the local representative in DC. Being a Senator means representing the interests of your state. This country is called the “United States” because the states maintain sovereignty over their own local issues. It is the Senator’s responsibility to assure those states’ rights are protected on the federal level, as well as watch over the fedral government. So, their obligation is to the “all politics is local” theme as well. The only people in Washington that are not beholden to local politics are the Supreme Court and the President. The President, as the Constitution originally intended, was elected by Congress, not the people ( hence the electoral college and why it should stay ). The Supreme Court is appointed by the President with the approval of Congress. So, the Constitution, in it’s big scheme of things, designed our government in such a way that a big part of how our government works is on the “all politics is local” theme. And, that’s the way it should be. And, if that got out of hand, the President didn’t have to sign off on it. And, if that didn’t work, the Supreme Court corrected it. I’m fine by that system.
on 08 Nov 2006 at 4:48 am 3.Divided We Stand United We Fall said …
All Politics is Local. Except when it is not.
There was one final exchange, back on Moon’s blog again, in this post a few weeks ago - “It’s the economy, stupid”: