Well, to be fair, i’d imagine there are a lot of people who’d like to think of themselves as moderates on either side. I just think that “liberal” is currently more of a dirty word than “conservative” at the moment over there. At least, that’s my impression.
I suppose I should note just for the record that Constitution Party candidate Charles Baldwin, Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr and Socialist Party candidate Brian Moore opposed the bailouts.
You’re trying to make this a matter of definition (i.e. that Americans are really ‘liberal’ in outlook, but refuse to be called ‘liberals’). But that’s exactly why I actually posted issue-related polling data. People weren’t asked, “Do you support liberal health care policies?” They were asked if they supported universal insurance, major restructuring of health care. They weren’t asked, “Do you support a liberal agenda on auto manufacturers?” They were asked, “Do you support a government bailout of GM?”
In question after question, the bulk of responses clear fall slightly to the right of center. Only 17% of the public thinks the government is better able to spend money than is the private sector. Only 31% of the public thinks the stimulus will hep the economy - that’s not even the entire Democratic party, let alone Republicans and independents. 49% of people polled worry that government is doing too much, vs only 35% who think it’s doing too little.
In almost all these questions, the plurality of independents align themselves with the Republicans, and not the Democrats. For example, on the question of whether the government is doing too much, 70% of Republicans think so, and 56% of independents agree with them. But a plurality of Democrats disagree.
On the question of whether the stimulus has helped the economy, 52% of Democrats think it has, but only 15% of Republicans do, and only 22% of independents do. Independents are clearly more aligned with Republicans on this issue as well.
You can go down the list of current Democratic initiatives - Cap and Trade, EFCA, corporate bailouts and other programs, and you find that the Democrats are quite a bit further away from the independents than are the Republicans.
The reason the Republicans aren’t benefiting from this is that A) independents still blame Bush over Obama or the Democrats for their current economic woes, by a margin of 2-1, and B) independents feel the Republicans have failed them. But this will not last forever. With each passing month and with each passed bill, Obama and the Democrats are ‘owning’ more and more of the current economic situation. And as time goes on and more and more Democratic misdeeds and silliness are exposed (as parties in power always are), their brand will become tarnished as well.
You need to simply hope that you’re right. 2/3 of Americans may oppose the bailout of GM, but if in two years’ time GM is turning profits and its sales are rising, all will be forgotten. But if GM goes under after all this, all the blame falls on the Democrats. The majority of Americans oppose the stimulus (almost half think it should be immediately canceled), but if the economy is growing at 4.5% in a year and unemployment is coming back down and the deficit is projected to fall, all will be forgotten. But if everything continues to go to hell, the Democrats are in big trouble.
Then there’s the scandals… Right now, there are investigations going on over what seems like half the bloody Democratic leadership. John Conyers’ wife just got bagged for bribery. Charles Rangel is under investigation. Chris Dodd is under investigation. John Murtha is under investigation. Roland Burris appears to have purchased his Senate seat. Numerous Obama appointees turned out to have tax problems.
Again, the Democrats aren’t taking much damage from this yet because A) the media is under-reporting it, and B) Obama’s personal popularity and Bush fatigue is carrying the day. This too will change.
I remember posting something almost identical to this about Republicans a few years ago. They were riding high, but you could see the storm clouds brewing. Not just the scandals, but the fact that they were heavily supporting many issues the public simply disagreed with them on - stem cell research, for example. And they had had a bunch of scandals which were slowly damaging the ‘brand’. You could see the writing on the wall - as soon as the economy took a downturn, the rage of the public was unleashed on them.
Moral of the story: Don’t get cocky.
Those numbers on health care you quoted are pretty meaningless. You posted that only 38% of independents believe the healthcare system needs to be rebuilt, but that 74% believe universal coverage is appropriate. This raises the question of what exactly “rebuilding the system” means, if not simply instituting universal coverage- that, of course, being the item currently on the agenda.
Most liberals believe that the private sector is generally able to spend more more effectively than the government. I don’t think any of us believe the government should be buying up farms or oilfields or defense contractors. We believe that in certain areas, such as education, health care and defense, consistency and stability are more important than absolutely efficiency.
This is good advice at any time and for any government. Personally, I think rumors of the Republican Party’s demise are vastly overstated. On the other hand, I do think the Bush Administration’s failure spells the end for the unholy alliance of the Christian right and fiscal conservatism. The two philosophies are almost diametrically opposed, and no coalition without a philosophical basis can hold together for ever.
I just want to be pedantic for a second; in this context, I think you mean majority, not plurality. 56% of independents is a majority of independents. If they had been given three choices and the most popular choice got 45% of the vote, that would be a plurality.
Health Care reform is backed by over 70 % of the population. That crosses party lines and captures independents too. Economic reform is another example that does not follow party lines. The hard core 25 % that are Repubs, are out of step. They will hurt themselves if they fight every reform.
Correction: ‘Universal insurance coverage’ is backed by over 70% of the population. That covers a wide gamut of potential policies. It’s also very general, and doesn’t force people to think about the tradeoffs in medical services, taxes, etc. Very general questions like this often get widespread support. But when you get more specific and talk about things like single-payer insurance, or tax increases to pay for it, or government control of doctor’s salaries and practices, support plummets.
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/140918/we've_been_trapped_inside_a_bad_health_care_system_so_long%2C_we_don't_even_know_how_much_we're_missing_/
We are so inured to being fleeced, we can not imagine how different it could be. A lot of Repubs are standing by this system. I hope they pay dearly for their selfish ways.
If Obama pulls it off, the Repubs will be gone for a long time. That is a part of the reason they fight every move he makes. They are desperate.
Are you implying that they are not for changing the system at all ? The point is that 70 % want something other than what we have. Offer a variety of options and you will of course distill the majority down. Pick any change you want and offer 2 more possible options and suddenly one is under 50 %.
No, I’m implying that the the fact that 70% of Americans think there should be universal insurance coverage does not give you a blank cheque to overhaul the health care system any way you see fit. In fact, some of the specific plans being pushed by Democrats are very unpopular.
The real issue is that most Americans like the health care they have, but think there are other people who need help. So they are going to oppose policies that would change their own health care, but support policies that would increase health care access for others, so long as they don’t have to pay a lot more in tax for it.
But as soon as you start asking them things like whether they’d be willing to give up their current health care insurance in favor of a government insurance plan, support plummets.
The risk for Democrats is that if they pass a health care bill that has the effect of killing employer-based health care plans, and this forces Americans who currently have good coverage to join a government plan, they’d better hope that government health insurance coverage is just as good, or there are going to be a lot of angry Americans during the next election cycle.
Only a Canadian would refer to the prospect of a government insurance plan being “just as good” as an employer-provided plan.
You mean, “not as bad”. 
How can you say most like the one they have, when over 70 percent say we need a new system? That is proof of the opposite.
Employer based systems, cut coverage and raise costs every year. Whats to like about that? The costs of the coverage is passed on by raising prices and cutting the ability to compete. It is destructive to American business. Our system is impossible to defend with data and logic. The item I referenced earlier just says we have had a shitty system for so long, that we don’t even realize what a soul sucking, nerve racking confrontational system we are in.
In another response ,I mentioned Medicare sent me a letter telling me about preventative tests I can take. They have an interest in keeping me healthy. Health care companies just want me gone. They got 40 years of profit off me when I was young and less likely to cost anything. An adversarial health care system is wrong on principle. It is simply wrong.
It’s a bit more complicated than that. See the Pew Political Typology.
No, it is not. If 70% of people felt there should be a better welfare system, does that mean 70% of people are on welfare? If 70% of the people approved of marijuana legalization, would that mean 70% of the population smokes pot?
Lots of people support universal health coverage, because 70% of the people think it’s wrong for uninsured people to go bankrupt because of a medical condition, or to not be able to afford needed medical care. That says nothing about whether that 70% believes their own healthcare is acceptable.
Are you suggesting it does? Over half our bankruptcies are due to health problems. It is not just people who are not covered who lose everything due to health problems. Nearly everybody is affected by our horrible system. It is not just about the people who are uncovered. It is about a system which serves itself instead of customers. It about an extremely expensive system that does not deliver. People are just wising up.
Actually it is more than 70 percent. If you consider how many people are making a living off the heath care industry ,the figures would be much higher. They are voting their pocket boooks not principles.
The repubs keep throwing their power behind solutions which benefit the few. It marginalizes them over and over. They are clearly not on the side of the people.
The fun thing about politics is that give the ruling party enough rope they always end up hanging themselves. In the Dems’ case many of the half-baked policies they’re pushing through now will return to bite them in their collective asses with a vengeance.
Most Americans aren’t committed idealists in politics either way. When one side royally screws up they give the other guy a chance to screw things up their way. And they usually oblige.
You have it wrong. That is what the repubs did not just for the Bush years ,but every time they could for decades. The accumulated wrong headed policies are going to cripple them ,if not kill them.
Yes, I know.
I believe the GOP has never held more than 40% of the electorate. But neither party holds more than 50% these days, independent registration has become quite popular. In the past even when registering as an independent was very uncommon I believe the Democrats were always traditionally the party with the greater number of individuals.
The Republicans however were always able to maintain relevance in national politics because they were roughly on par or the majority party in enough states to remain relevant. The Democrats had extremely high percentages throughout the South up until the 1960s which accounted for their always being the majority party in terms of raw numbers.