- Image via Wikipedia
The current Republican talking point seems to be that the election was a “referendum on Obama’s polices.”
On the face of it, it obviously was not-his policies were not on the ballots to be voted upon. Of course, the Republicans do not mean that. Rather, they most likely mean that their winning the majority in the House (and doing well in the various gubernatorial races) is an indicator that the majority of Americans have rejected Obama’s policies.
On one hand, this has a degree of plausibility. After all, the Republican’s tended to run on anti-Obama talking points and have asserted that they will focus on undoing what Obama has done. As such, when people voted for the Republicans they could be taken as also rejecting Obama. Of course, since the Senate is still held by the Democrats and the Democrats won some races, it would seem that the alleged referendum on Obama was not a complete rejection. Naturally, the fact that most folks don’t vote, that people might be voting for specific candidates (or against specific candidates) also needs to be factored into determining whether this was, in fact, such a virtual referendum.
On the other hand, this notion that this was a referendum on Obama can be disputed. As noted above, it is worth considering the impact that the specific candidates had on the elections. So, for example, perhaps some Republicans won because voters preferred them to the Democrats running against them, as opposed to expressing a general rejection of Obama’s policies.
Another factor worth considering is that most people seem to be unaware of the actual content of the policies in question and their actual effects. As such, to say that this was a referendum on said policies would seem to be implausible. Then again, people do often vote on actual referendums in ignorance of the actual content, so perhaps voters could be seen as rejecting these policies even though they generally do not know much about them. To steal Locke’s phrase, perhaps they are rejecting “they know not what.”
There are already polls being taken as to what Americans think about this talking point. One election day poll indicates that 52% of the voters did regard it as a referendum on Obama. Of course, factoring in a margin of error, it could easily be the case that most voters did not see it as such. However, even if a majority did not see it this way, this is still a significant result.
As far as why the Republicans are pushing the talking point, the most obvious explanation is that they intend to use these results as a mandate to attack Obama and his policies. They have, of course, planned to roll back Obama’s health care legislation and other policies. There is even talk of impeaching Obama, even though he has rather clearly done nothing that would provide a rational justification of such a process.
Related articles
- Bauer Says Early Election Results a Referendum on Obama … and Voters Have had Enough (prnewswire.com)
- Is The Election A Referendum on Barack Obama? What Idiot Is Arguing This, Of Course It Is (stopliberals.wordpress.com)
- Of Course The Election Is A Referendum on Barack Obama (stopliberals.wordpress.com)
- GOP casting midterms as referendum on Obama agenda (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
- The Obama Referendum (thedailybeast.com)
- America votes ‘No’ in referendum on Barack Obama (blogs.telegraph.co.uk)
- Last Night- The Senate, Yeah It Was About Obama (minx.cc)
I doubt it’s a referendum on Obama. The TeaParty and its representatives have been giving us the line that they want Washington to stop overspending, and after lo these many years of eatin pork they’re po’d that no one in Washington heeds their pleas. Must be true. They say so. Democrats and Republicans struggled against the wave. If this was a ‘throwin the rascals out’ election simple math tells us that the ones with the most seats to lose will lose more seats. And if they lose more, the ones with the least seats win the lost seats.
Suggestion.Given what we know about power and politics and their effects on politicians maybe we shouldn’t replace the ones we throw out?
I think this sums it up:
Obama and his Democratic Congress ran up nearly $3 trillion in new debt in just 21 months – after running a disingenuous 2008 campaign that falsely promised to rein in the fiscal irresponsibility that had been rampant during the spendthrift Bush administration.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/11/04/checking_america_into_rehab.html
The deficit is a concern. But, as with any spending, it is not just a matter of how much was spent, but also a matter of how well or poorly it was spent.
Keynes vs Hayek. Schoolhouse Rock for Economists:
“The deficit is a concern. But, as with any spending, it is not just a matter of how much was spent, but also a matter of how well or poorly it was spent.” How about the ratio of what is being spent to what is coming in? How poorlly it is spent has little to do with the problem. I would guess that at least, and I’m being kind, three quarters of the time when government spends money it is poorly.
ex. http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/how-many-jobs-in-la-does-111-million-of-stimulus-money-create-or-save/question-1229315/
Government spending compared to GDP is what really counts when you look at the damage caused. End of story.
This recent trip of Obama looks to be costing an estimated $200,000,000.00 a day to the taxpayer. I’m sure that is a low estimate. Rediculous.
Which trip?
The India trip. From what I understand, that’s a grossly inflated number, somewhat based on operating costs of Navy vessels that are in the area anyway.
OTOH, be curious to know if he’s having any secret meetings with Pakistanis. I’d certainly hope so, but I’d prefer not to know about it for about a dozen years or so. Wouldn’t be much of a secret otherwise.
I heard the figure before I heard about the ships.
“Of course, since the Senate is still held by the Democrats and the Democrats won some races, it would seem that the alleged referendum on Obama was not a complete rejection.”
Of course, unlike the House, not all of the Senate seats were up for election. Of the 35 seats, Republicans took 23, depending on how you count Alaska. None of the R’s seats fell to D’s, 6 of the D’s seats fell to R’s, with an outside chance that the R’s win Washington. Now I know this is “wrong” thinking, but if you were to project yesterday’s Senate wins across all 100 Senate seats, the R’s would be holding a about a 65-35 majority. The D’s held on to seats in their strongholds of mostly New England and the Left Coast. That’s not much to hang your hat on. Literally speaking, if one person voted D, then it wasn’t a “complete rejection”. If the D’s held on to only one seat, would that be a “complete rejection”? What would?
“the fact that most folks don’t vote…also needs to be factored”
So when making decisions, we should consider those who choose not to be considered? Hmm, I wonder what they want…Perhaps they’re just like me! The only poll that counts is the one taken on Election Day in an actual election. All other polls are bent to the whims of those who pay for them. See your recent post “Thinking Critically About Men Driving Lost”. Consider, many people don’t answer polls. Many even lie to pollsters (Horrors!). Polls only count to those who ask for them.
You speak of Republican “talking points”, do you have some talking points of your own? Will we be seeing posts about how America is “aging” and growing “more conservative”?