While the dust settles from Tuesday's results, I've been flipping channels to listen to recaps of what pundits think really happened at the polls. Most agree it was a clear repudiation of the administration's policies and actions to date, and that people of all political parties are fed up.
What I thought particularly interesting is the president's leaving for India today on a ten day trip. Because it dawned on me last night that this junket was likely planned some time ago. Not because of the need to go to India particularly, but to have a way to get out of the U.S. immediately after the election results were learned. Naturally, of course, when the trip was originally planned, well before the outcome could possibly be known, I think a safety valve must have been included allowing for the president to suddenly decide to stay home and celebrate had the Democrats somehow won.
An overwhelming consensus of pundits indicates that the economy and unemployment are the major issues swaying the vote away from Democrats, and that in regard to both issues, it was the administration that missed the boat. Health care too, was badly mishandled by them, not only in regard to terrible flaws in the bill, but the way it was ram-rodded upon a partisan Congress without regard for the population itself.
Although most pundits agree on how and why the election results came about in general, there was one individual, whose name I forgot, that painstakingly explained the effect of campaign spending on the outcomes. And it was his contention that particular candidates won because of dollars spent, primarily on advertising.
As readers likely know, I've questioned the value of advertising in general for quite some time, because I just don't understand the premise. It simply seems totally illogical to me that someone who has the intelligence and desire to vote is going to be swayed by any kind of political ad. And if their lives or livelihoods have been directly affected negatively by the policies and procedures of a political party, what kind of ads or words could possibly undo or override the actual negative results? Of course, the reverse is true too. Thus, politicians doing good things are the likeliest to get votes, no matter what their opponents claim in ads.
So, I think what actually happened is that the politicians who got elected would have won anyway, ads or not, and it's simply coincidental that they also spent lots of bucks.
It was also pointed out that last time around, lots of young people turned out and most favored the president. This time, there were far less. In that regard the pundit's opinions tend to lean toward there not being enough advertising and attempts to push younger folks to vote.
But here again I disagree. I think that these folks are quite capable of figuring out what's important to them and what's not, and human nature alone will stimulate them to act if they have a reason. Therefore, if they've been ignored since the last time they went to the polls, why should they do it again?
In summary, whether its the poll results, the pundits, or any other indicator you choose, the real results are getting clearer every day. The voting public, which now shows 40% independents, is no longer what it was. And if politicians don't deliver what the majority wants, they no longer have a prayer of election no atter what party they're in. So, they can analyze the numbers all day every day from now to whenever, but as far as the voting public goes -from now it's simple. Put up in office or shove off.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
No comments:
Post a Comment