I wonder if an election can be an indicator of peoples future desire/outlook. I think most people feel like the republican party looks out for the businesses and rich. I also think most feel the democrats look out for the poor and less fortunate. So if a democrat wins does that mean more people fell that they themselves are poor and less fortunate? Does that mean than more people think they are destined to stay where they are in life and not move up the ranks? And if a republican ins does that mean that more people consider themselves well off or feel that they one day will be rich and fortunate? That may all be BS I am just curious.
You have good points. Clinton and Obama ran against what they called the worst economy since the depression. The main issue in any election is how to help the poor people. Is it better to give them direct aid, food stamps, welfare. Or is it better to make business strong, allow money to flow freely into new enterprises. Make it easier to hire people.
Your questions are premised on the voter voting based on his presumed success under each president. That means that the voter would have some understanding of policies. People don't make decisions based on facts, but based on emotions. (This goes for Democrats and Republicans.) So the Republicans tell the country that their opponent is unpatriotic, or use guilt by association smears of people a candidate once served on a board with twenty years ago, or mock his name or fire off a few catchphrases or logical fallacies which their followers repeat and scoop up the easy votes that way.
Problem for the Republicans is that Bush didn't do that while Clinton did McCain's economic policy is very similar to Bushes while Obamas economic polices is very close to Clinton
bio Do you think like I do, that people are more concerned with economic issues right now. I mean pretty much anything the republicans throw at Obama, his people could not care less. I think the "well off" or those who aspire to be well off are going to vote republican. The poor especially those who do not see themselves as ever being anything but poor are going to vote democrat. I am intentionally only compairing these two groups. The very rich and different educational groups are another story.
Had Romney been a Christian and not a Mormon, and had he picked a qualified VP candidate, he could have won this election. This election is about the failures of Bush to address the problems of this country, and McSame's voting record and history of being a D.C. insider, along with picking a yokel from Alaska killed him. In a time of economic crisis (during the period following Ford and Carter) the people picked a conservative republican. If not for the votes Perot took from Bush I, Clinton would not have become president. The theory of this thread is way, way off...
Yes an election is the biggest indicator for what people believe about themselves. The thing liberals hate is they can't understand the big picture raw reasons why people vote for who they vote for. They may say people vote against conspiracy theories but they mainly vote for their own personal selfish reasons. The poor person who doesn't vote for selfish reasons vote because they think fiscal responsibility is the best policy. The rich person who doesn't vote for selfish reasons vote with compassion and empathy for the poor. The problem with compassion is that compassion loves too much. If you love something too much than that can have negative impacts. For example your wifes passion is singing. You love your wife so much that everytime she sings you say it is the most beautiful thing you have ever heard. In all reality you know your wifes voice sounds like crap. You keep on telling her that her voice sounds amazing so she stays in a delusion her entire life that her voice sounds good. The heart and love is a great thing but when combined with the political system it only provides an illusion from reality.