The 2008 Presidential Campaign: What Happened and Why?

[Primula Baggins]

Are you trying to suggest that the last eight years, with record deficits and the vast expansion of the security state are any reflection of small government?

The voters clearly repudiated Bush. Bush is big government. Therefore the voters repudiated big government.

And Bush is Texan (sort of) and right-handed, so the voters repudiated Texan right-handers.

I mean, what you said doesn't follow. As I'm sure you're well aware.

Please don't troll here.

[Ellienor]

Well, the problem with that assertion CG is that the Dems are also seen as the party of big government.

Perhaps the repudiation is of poorly run big government, if now both parties are now allegedly the same on big government?

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

It's been calculated who had the biggest deficits, and while every recent president is in the top twelve Bush Jr. has spots 1 and 3. FDR has spot 2 simply because of WWII (and he's not counted as "recent" ).

Then there's the issue of the whole security state he created, with the terrible DHS and it's subsidiary department the absymally terrible TSA, as well as other domestic spying issues and Habeas Corpus issues.

Plus his military efforts worldwide.

Clinton was much more moderate than Bush Jr, and even more moderate than Bush Sr. Carter was more moderate as well.

One may have a reputation, but the facts stand otherwise. The Democrats are clearly the party of restrained government.

[Padme]

I don't think the voters repudiated big government. I think the repudiated a bad economy. In my opinion, for the most part, people could care less about the size of the government, and more about the money in their wallets. It wasn't the size of the government but the money the government was spending and on what the money is going too and being taken away from. i.e. War money = no other funds for anything else. The billions spent on the Iraq war for oil verses the pennies spent on finding a viable form of energy. I don't think people mind paying taxes as long as those taxes actually benefit the people that are paying them, not the corporations in Iraq, not the banks on Wall Street, not the special interest oil companies, but the people themselves.

I think the people realized the roads in the US are crumbling as we pump billions into Iraq and Wall Street. I for one would rather the road in front of my house be nice, as opposed to the roads in Iraq. Selfish, sure maybe, but I drive on the roads in front of my house and can't afford to repair my car because of the bad roads.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

The bailout had something to do with it too. The majority was against it, but it was passed anyway. It was (rightly) seen as giving the tax dollars of the working people to the billionares.

[sauronsfinger]

People want government that works. Most people do not have some magic yardstick or tape measure that measures governments length and girth and then judges accordingly based on those figures.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

some magic yardstick or tape measure

[sauronsfinger]

Sure I will help.
When you refer to big government and small government... just how do you as a person measure that?

Do you use a yardstick? A tape measure? A scale? How do you go about measuring government so that you can then apply your labels to it?

Is this just a personal thing of your own or is there some standard scale that political scientists all subscribe to as objective?

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

Given that the Republican campaign went to an awful lot of trouble to paint Obama as a socialist one might make a plausible case that the voters of the United States plumped for socialism.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

Sure I will help.
When you refer to big government and small government... just how do you as a person measure that?

Do you use a yardstick? A tape measure? A scale? How do you go about measuring government so that you can then apply your labels to it?

Is this just a personal thing of your own or is there some standard scale that political scientists all subscribe to as objective?

Your explanation still doesn't make sense. You think I use a tape measure to measure the size of government?

I don't measure mass in meters, and I don't measure distances in grams.

[sauronsfinger]

And the answer to my question as to how you do measure government so you can then place your labels on it would be ......??????

[Voronwë the Faithful]

sf and C_G if you don't stop your ridiculous bickering, you'll both get confined to Nan Elmoth.

Given that the Republican campaign went to an awful lot of trouble to paint Obama as a socialist one might make a plausible case that the voters of the United States plumped for socialism.

I think it far more likely that the voters simply disregarded those accusations.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

Given that the Republican campaign went to an awful lot of trouble to paint Obama as a socialist one might make a plausible case that the voters of the United States plumped for socialism.

Given that the most technical definition of socialism is the government ownership of the means of production, and that wealth redistribution is actually "welfarism" although it is often called socialism, one could make the case that Bush and the Republican Party are Socialist due to the nationalization of certain failing banks.

[sauronsfinger]

On November 7 of this year, Rasmussen Reports issued the finding of a public opinion survey on voters attitude towards government and spending programs.

link

If Obama voters repudiated Big Government, the results of the Rasmussen survey indicate the direct opposite.

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Republicans also believe the government has done enough to deal with the current economic crisis, but 74% of Democrats believe it needs to do more. Unaffiliated voters are closely divided on the question. Men by six points and women by 20 favor more action by the government.

Clearly, three out of four Democrats want the government to do more to deal with the economic crisis.

[Túrin Turambar]

Given that the Republican campaign went to an awful lot of trouble to paint Obama as a socialist one might make a plausible case that the voters of the United States plumped for socialism.

Given that the most technical definition of socialism is the government ownership of the means of production, and that wealth redistribution is actually "welfarism" although it is often called socialism, one could make the case that Bush and the Republican Party are Socialist due to the nationalization of certain failing banks.

You can read too much into these things, as I think I've said before. It is unusual for a party to win a third term in control of the White House, and remarkable after an unpopular Presidency. I doubt the average Democratic voter cared how socialist either party was.

[sauronsfinger]

LM hits upon something very relevant. Average voters do not care about these idealogical labels. But they do want government to do their job and be a part of thier lives for the better.

Here is a survey of citizens done just this month which shows whow voters want Government to perform many functions.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200811070013

It is interesting to note when when given a choice between the Obama position - usually for more government or strong government action - and the McCain choice - the less government or less government action - they usually took the position of stronger government action. This is true on issues such as saving and preserving our system of Social Security, national health care, government spending on infrastructure, and increased regulation of foreign trade among others.

[sauronsfinger]

It looks like the election is still proceeding with votes to be counted.

From the Anchorage Daily News.

Mark Begich made a dramatic comeback Wednesday to overtake Ted Stevens for the lead in Alaska's U.S. Senate race.

Begich, who was losing after election night, now leads Stevens by 814 votes -- 132,196 to 131,382 -- with the state still to count roughly 35,000 more ballots over the next week.

The state Division of Elections tallied some 60,000 absentee, early and questioned ballots on Wednesday. The ballots broke heavily in the Democrat's favor, erasing the 3,000-vote lead Stevens held after election night Nov. 4.

Begich would be #58.

[axordil]

Would I be weird not to want 60? It strikes me that having a hypothetically closure-ready Senate would set up some unrealistic expectations, while being within a Spector/Snowe/Collins of one might actually have better results.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I think it will stay at 58. I think the Minnesota recount will not reveal as many wrongly counted ballots as expected. And I think that Chambliss will easily win the Georgia run-off.

[sauronsfinger]

V - I certainly agree on Georgia. Not so much on Minnesota which has alread seen the Coleman lead reduced to 206 when it was announced as over 700 a week ago. That is a very small number compared to the total number of votes. And that does not even take into consideration the provisional votes which were not even counted in the original totals. I would not bet either way on thos results and would not be surprised no matter who emerges.