Election Summary 2010

The nation was in a sour mood regarding the economy, and generally not impressed by President Obama's justifications of his performance. Philip Stephens writes in the November 4 issue of the Financial Times that,

Nearly nine out of 10 voters told the pollsters they were worried about the economy; two-fifths said their own living standards had fallen. Someone had to take the blame.

Stephens continues:

The economy grew by 60 per cent -- six times as fast as median earnings -- during the 20 years from 1990. Even during the past decade, which included the deepest recession since the 1930s, output expanded by 15 per cent.

Americans lived well for awhile on cheap credit and an availability of cheap imports. Then, writes Stephens, came the global financial crash, and by the middle of 2010 there was confusion about who or what to blame for the condition of the economy.

Going into the elections of November 2010, Democratic and Republican candidates agreed that the debt would have to be paid off eventually and both sides agreed that free enterprise had to be preserved. (Even the Swedes believe in capitalism and free enterprise.) Republicans argued that people with a lot of money should not have their taxes increased so that they could invest in job creation enterprises. They were sticking to the old Bush "trickle down" economic philosophy, or religion as some call it, and they were saying nothing about the wealthy having plenty of money for investing, that financiers had not suffered a decline in wealth as had average wage earners.

Philip Stevens in the Financial Times writes about the difference in accumulation of wealth between average income earners and the very wealthy, as follows:

Figures from the Congressional Budget Office show that the share of overall incomes of the wealthiest 1 per cent of households stood at about 12 per cent in 1990. By 2007 that had jumped to more than 19 per cent. Measured in 2007 dollars, the incomes of this group more than doubled from a little more than $800,000 a year to $1.8m.

Staying with the 9 in 10 who were supposed to be troubled by the economy, it appears that they were inclined to blame Obama more than they did the economic philosophy that the Republicans had been following since Ronald Reagan. It's safe to say that pivotal votes were made not so much on consideration of details in macro-economics, including the more rapid accumulation of wealth by the wealthy. Instead pivotal voters were swayed by slogans and platitudes.

The elections involved attack ads and misrepresentations by both Democratic and Republican candidates, but disliking equivalency I must say that the sloganeering misrepresentations were greater on the Republican side.

Some Republicans resorted to the anti-Washington-throw-the-bums-out rhetoric. But this ploy cannot be completely disconnected from dissatisfaction with the economy and by itself doesn't seem to have been crucial. Some calling for a new face in Washington won. Some did not. Many of the Republicans going to Washington were old veterans of Washington politics. As Rachel Maddow said at MSNBC, referring to Congressman John Boehner, it sounds discordant "hearing a guy who has been elected to start his 21st year in Washington talk about how that represents a repudiation of Washington."

Some blamed Obama for not pursuing a greater stimulus, and some blamed him for not aggressively educating the voters, although he spent a lot of time on the campaign trail, spoke vociferously and was covered extensively on television, at least with sound bites.

Among young people there was an enthusiasm gap between this year and 2008 when Obama was elected. That's standard: the party in power loses seats when there is disappointment in the first election after a new president takes office.

Labor unions have a record of keeping their members mindful of their class interests, but membership in unions is not what it used to be, and, in this election, low and middling income people voted for the Party inclined to protect the interests of the top one percent in wealth that Stevens writes about in the Financial Times. Democrats tend to favor equal opportunity. Republicans are following the "trickle-down" line, saying that everybody benefits from advantages to the super-wealthy. A better underrstanding of Obama and Bill Clinton economics by the electorate would have mitigated Republican Party successes.

Neither President Obama or former President Clinton are big-business haters. Both understand that business success is essential to the economic well-being of the nation. But both are willing to tax the super-rich more -- for the sake of the economy. This will be the big post-election issue. With help from indifferent and frustrated voters, the super rich who resist a more balanced distribution of wealth will have more people in their corner to protect the advantages they have had for the last twenty years.

The election break-down according to income group:

income                Rep     Dem
$50,000 or less     43%     54%
$50K to $100K      57%     44%
$100K plus           58%     40%

How about race and hispanics?

whites                 60%     38%
latino                   33%      65%
african american    9%       90%
asian/other           45%      55%

Republicans spoke of a voter rebellion against Obama-care, but the healthcare issue is reported to be 47% favoring repeal of Obama's healthcare and 48% against repeal, basically a wash.

One of the most important issues for the U.S., climate and energy policy, was hardly a measurable factor in the elections.

Approximately 82.5 million people voted -- 26% of the U.S. population. According to Pew Research, only 42% of the voters view the Republican Party favorably. This is hardly a mandate from "the people" as described by Dick Armey and Congressman John Boehner.