At the Median
Imagine what a blow it would be to the Democratic Party if Republicans were somehow able to hold on to both houses amidst the parade of GOP bummers: Foley, Iraq, North Korea, Katrina, Woodward, Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, Jack Abramoff, David Kuo, Abu Ghraib and so many others.
If not now for the Democrats, then when?
Of course there is one big thing--probably the biggest electorally--that hasn't yet gone terribly wrong for the Republicans, and that's the economy. (Gas prices--gas prices!--probably hurt the Bush Administration as much as any item above when they rose this summer.) Most of the aggregate economic numbers look good, but as Kevin Hall reminds us, for the median income family (about $64,000), the Bush years haven't been terribly kind.
posted by Dr. B @ 12:00 AM
1 comments
1 Comments:
This is possible. When last I checked (mid-90s), there was a raging academic debate over whether voters were affected by their impressions of the overall economic status of the nation or their own pocketbooks. If memory serves, the aggregate side was winning this debate. Perhaps surprisingly, most studies found that voters did not vote "selfishly," they were able to distinguish between their own situation and that of the nation, and to rely more on the latter. Maybe this line of research is wrong, or maybe something has changed, as you imply. The economy is restructuring, yes, but it's been restructuring almost constantly over the past 70 years! Research does suggest that as the economy becomes more unequal, more and more people are voting on class lines--a very underreported story-- and if this is what you mean, I think you're right.
Post a Comment
<< Home