On the Issues
Already you can here the usual crowd braying that just because people may want to vote for Barack Obama doesn’t necessarily mean that they want to see a progressive agenda enacted. Thus, it’s worth noting the survey data showing just the reverse, that preference for Obama is strongly tied to preference for a progressive agenda:
People prefer his approach to tax and budget matters, to Iraq, to health care, to energy and the environment, to social issues like abortion and gay rights, to immigration, and to education. Nor has Obama somehow hid his progressive agenda from the population:
Like voters overall, majorities of swing voters describe Obama as liberal (54%) and McCain as conservative (58%). Looking at the average ideological ratings given by swing voters, Barack Obama is seen as about as far to the left as John McCain is to the right.
The voters felt they had a choice between a liberal and a conservative, and felt they preferred the liberal and his policy agenda.
36 Responses to “On the Issues”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 4th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
hell, given how much of the last few weeks has been taken up with mccain and palin telling the world that a vote for obama is a vote for socialism, i’d say that he’s going to have a mandate to collectivize the whole fucking country.
November 4th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
I pretty much agree with you. But I’ve also heard some more mainstream reporters argue that the size of Obama’s victory is directory tied to the potential for his presidency. Like somehow winning isn’t enough, only a large margin enables a truly progressive agenda. That is so ridiculous.
November 4th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES! How often did we hear that after 2004? Let them eat socialized medicine I say…
November 4th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
People prefer his approach to tax and budget matters, to Iraq, to health care, to energy and the environment, to social issues like abortion and gay rights, to immigration, and to education.
I’d say the idea that Obama’s position on even just any one of those issues, let alone his overall platform, qualifies as “progressive” is just absurd. The centerpiece of his domestic policy agenda, health care reform, is less “progressive” than Hillary Clinton’s plan of 15 years ago. He’s not even proposing “universal coverage,” let alone any kind of major shift away from profit-driven private insurance.
If “progressive” now means “center-left,” what do you call real progressives?
November 4th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
DCReader, you are a horse’s ass…vindictive politics-over-policy retards got us into this mess, and now you can’t wait to stick it to the other guys!
Let’s hope the obama administration has more sense than you, you small little man
November 4th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
You still haven’t done your homework, Mixner. And since your standard for a progressive shift requires the election of Bernie Sanders clones in Utah and Idaho, you’re just an absurd little shut-in.
November 4th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
But it’s OK since of course they held Bush to the same standard after 2000.
Oh, wait…
November 4th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Read up on Lincoln, Mixner.
Lincoln knew no one could get elected or hold the country togther on a pure anti-slavery platform, so he finessed the issue with a legalistic platform of quarantining slaveholders off in their strongholds and not allowing them to run the government anymore from their minority position. They had the choice of letting him win incrementally or starting a civil war, and were stupid enough to choose war.
This sausage-making technique is actually how we got saddled with most of the Movement Conservative agenda over the last twenty years, but it is always classier to bring up Lincoln when you’re talking political strategy. He makes it look elegant instead of grubby.
We’ll be on the path to universal coverage long before the end of Obama’s first turn. The MCs know this, which is why they are raging and foaming at the mouth so often these days.
November 4th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
We’ll be on the path to universal coverage long before the end of Obama’s first turn.
Translation: Obama isn’t even trying for “universal coverage,” and the best you can realistically hope for is a decrease in the percentage of uninsured.
The most notable thing about health care reform and “progressives” is just how much they have lowered their aspirations for change.
November 4th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Translation: Mixner, wrong again, too dumb to know it or too much of a chickenshit to admit it.
November 4th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Unless a president implements every–literally every–element of a liberal’s dream platform, his presidency is not liberal. Everyone got that?
November 4th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
I don’t know if his policy as proposed is more progressive than Hillary’s was, but I’ll wager a hundred bucks the policy as enacted by Obama will be more progressive than that enacted by Hillary.
November 4th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Since Hillary’s attempt at health care reform crashed and burned, Obama would only need to achieve a tiny shift to the left on health care policy to enact a policy “more progressive than that enacted by Hillary.”
Talk about lowered aspirations.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Watch as Mixner explains at length how he’s always loved the taste of crow.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
I remember someone or other on the web noting that people choose their views on the issues to fit their candidate selection so in 2000 people voting for Bush said honesty and integrity was the main issue (OK so people voting for Bush were clueless about Bush — big surprise).
I forget the guy’s name something like Iglesias or something (actually might have been something like Drumm or something).
This evidence is even weaker. All of the questions are about the candidate and x.
Much stronger evidence has been available for well over a decade as on issue polling a majority of adult Americans have been declaring their support for a progressive agenda.
http://www.pollingreport.com/issues.htm
(click any link, except for “crime.” Don’t click on “crime”).
November 4th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Much stronger evidence has been available for well over a decade as on issue polling a majority of adult Americans have been declaring their support for a progressive agenda.
http://www.pollingreport.com/issues.htm
(click any link, except for “crime.” Don’t click on “crime”).
You’ll have to do better than that. Show us this alleged evidence of majority support for a “progressive agenda.” Specific issues. Specific data.
I just followed your advice, by the way, and clicked on “Budgets and Taxes.” I immediately saw a poll showing that a plurality want Bush’s 2001 tax cuts to be made permanent. 52% think their income taxes are too high (only 2% think they’re too low). 51% favor tax cuts for business (only 44% oppose). A large majority opposes raising taxes to reduce the deficit. A large majority opposes cutting military spending. A majority or plurality favors reducing domestic spending.
But do please keep pretending that a majority of Americans support a “progressive agenda.”
November 4th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
What I find kinda funny along this same line, is how the right always brings up Congress’ approval ratings since 2006 as proof American’s don’t really like Democrats.
Yet Democrats are ready to win even MORE seats in Congress this year.
So it seems to me that the issue isn’t that the American public dislikes Democrats, or only supports them out of anger at Republicans.
It seems to me that voters think the issue is that there are not enough Democrats, and are seeking to remedy that situation.
It’s kinda hard to argue otherwise, ain’t it?
November 4th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
It’s kinda hard to argue otherwise, ain’t it?
Considering that your argument is completely nonsensical, no, not at all. How, exactly, do you think that “Democrats are ready to win even MORE seats in Congress this year” (by which I assume you mean that Democrats are likely to pick up seats this year) implies that anger at Republicans is not the primary cause of that outcome? In fact, I don’t think anger at the GOP even is the primary cause. The primary cause is simple demographics. More than three times as many Republican House members are retiring this year as Democratic House members, and all five retiring Senators are Republicans.
November 4th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
just for giggles, i clicked on the “illegal drugs” link and checked the results of “Do you favor or oppose the legalization of marijuana?” and 58% opposed….. certainly not my idea of “progressive.”
November 4th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Eat shit and die, Mixner.
November 4th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
So what? If this was truly a center-right country, they would have stayed GOP. If the GOP had anything to offer America, they would have done something between 2006 – 2008 to stop the bleeding.
Instead, they doubled down on stupid, while Democrats have proven they have the ideas to fix the issues we face as a nation.
And Americans heard those ideas and decided they liked the ideas. And, thus, voted for those who want to make those ideas policy.
Deal with it, bitch.
November 5th, 2008 at 12:22 am
So what?
So, the Democrats have a huge advantage from incumbency, simply because so many more Republicans are retiring this year than Democrats.
Deal with it, bitch.
Whore.
March 2nd, 2009 at 9:58 am
levitraIf you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 11th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:48 am
tramadol
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 22nd, 2009 at 11:37 am
buy viagra online
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
April 8th, 2009 at 5:10 am
Incredible site!
viagra