Polls Show the 2010 Elections Were About Smaller Government

November 15, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (7)

By the numbers, it’s clear the American people voted for a change in the direction of the country on November 2.

There are still votes being tallied but, in the main, it is easy to make a very persuasive argument that--however flawed the polls were regarding specific head-to-head races like the Reid-Angle Senate race in Nevada--the right track, wrong direction numbers held up pretty well.

[See where Reid gets his campaign money.]

A recent post-election survey conducted jointly by the GOP-leaning Resurgent Republic and the left-leaning Democracy Corps, founded by Clinton operatives Stanley Greenberg and James Carville, found that the election was “a nationalized referendum on President Obama and Democratic control of Congress, not just a series of choices between two candidates.”

Control of Congress was a deciding factor, the survey found, in 61 percent of the congressional votes cast, including 74 percent of those cast by Republicans, 57 percent of those cast by Democrats, and 51 percent cast by independents.

Additionally, the survey found, was the importance of the role issue positions played in determining how these different blocs voted. For Republicans, 46 percent said issue positions were “the most important reason why they voted for their preferred candidate for Congress” while only 35 percent of those voting for Democrats said the same thing.

[See a slide show of 5 winners and losers in the 2010 election.]

Among independents, who fell somewhere in between the partisan extremes, 41 percent said their votes were based on the “character and leadership” of the candidates from which they had to choose, with 40 percent identifying issue positions as the most important and only 16 percent saying their choice was based on partisan affiliation.

This is not, however, the only place where such divisions appear. There is an old saying in politics that the only poll that really counts is the one taken on Election Day, meaning the way the people who turn out vote.

Here too it is obvious that the electorate was voting against the growth in government the nation has experienced over the last two years.

An analysis of state ballot measures prepared by the non-partisan National Taxpayers Union shows the American people repeatedly voting for smaller government and lower taxes if given the chance to do so. The results of these issue elections seem to suggest it was not, as President Barack Obama suggested in his post-election comments, some kind of messaging failure that brought the Democrats down. In fact, one can surmise that their message came through loud and clear--and the voters rejected it.

[See a roundup of editorial cartoons on the Democrats.]

NTU identified 93 statewide measures that it said had some kind of impact on taxpayers. There were 43 tax-related measures, 13 bond spending issues, 30 government reform questions, and seven statewide measures that were directly related to actions taken or contemplated by Congress.

Of the 57 NTU says would have lowered taxes or limited government, 40 were approved; 17 were rejected. Of the 36 that either raised taxes or expanded government, 21 were approved while 15 were voted down, meaning the limited government, low tax position prevailed 55 out of 93--or better than 50 percent of the time.

In California, voters approved a measure requiring a two-thirds vote of the legislature to increase “fees,” closing a loophole that had allowed taxes to be called fees in order to get around the two-thirds requirement to raise taxes that was the key component of California’s Proposition 13, while rejecting a measure that would have repealed the two-thirds requirement to pass the state budget.

Georgia voters rejected a measure imposing a $10 registration fee on motor vehicles. Alabama voters rejected a measure that would have allowed special “education taxes” to be levied by a simple majority vote rather than a three-fifths supermajority.

[See a roundup of editorial cartoons on the GOP.]

Louisiana voters approved a new requirement for a two-thirds majority vote to authorize benefits for state employees that added costs to the taxpayers. And in Washington State, voters repealed the expansion of the state sales tax to include candy, bottled water, and soft drinks while voting to require a two-thirds majority vote of the legislature or a vote of the people to approve any future tax increases.

NTU also identified places where voters also cast ballots in six states on seven measures “in direct reaction to developments in the U.S. Congress.” Two of the three states taking up the question of whether an individual mandate to purchase health insurance should be imposed--a key element of Obamacare--voted it down (Colorado went the other way) while four states voted “to guarantee the right to a secret ballot in union organizing elections” in direct response to the Democrats’ push for “card check,” which would effectively do away with the secret ballot.

[See a slide show of 10 things that are (and aren't) in the healthcare bill.]

Given the opportunity to choose larger or more limited government, more voters in the states holding elections chose limits. It’s a lesson that should not be lost on either party in Washington as they prepare to do battle over the next two years.

Sure the polls may say a majority of voters want to see more compromises and for the two parties to find solutions to the problems facing the nation, but, as these results tell us, they largely favor the ones that go in the direction of making government smaller. This certainly puts some steam behind the healthcare repeal movement, even though it is more than not likely to come in pieces as long as Obama is in the White House and the Democrats control the Senate. That means the opponents of Obamacare are going to have to build a strategic coalition, one that operates on an issue-by-issue basis, taking small bites out of a very large cookie on the way toward its ultimate goal: The repeal of Obamacare and the replacement of it with something that works, and for that they may have to look to the states.

Corrected on 11/15/10: A previous version of this blog post incorrectly identified the group Resurgent Republic.

Tags:
Democratic Party,
James Carville,
2010 Congressional elections,
Sharron Angle,
government,
Congress,
taxes,
Republican Party,
healthcare,
Harry Reid,
healthcare reform,
Barack Obama,
politics

Reader Comments Read all comments (7)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

What I really want is a smaller Federal government that adheres more closely to the model intended by the founders. I want the appropriate government services delivered at the appropriate (fiscally responsible) level of government. Things like the FAA are appropriate at the Federal level. My state has a Department of Natural Resources that is far more interested in the preservation of the Great Lakes than the EPA could ever be. Can you imagine how much more quickly the Gulf oil spill would have been handled if the Gulf Coast states had been in charge. So, EPA - I don't think so. The national parks could just as well be state parks. I don't need a Department of Education or a Department of Agriculture or a Department of Housing and Urban affairs or ... Most of that is already done at the state level. Why should I send my tax money to New York or California to support their interests when I would rather apply it right here in my own state and community. As for Social Security and Medicare - I would have preferred to take care of it myself. Now that I am 65 I don't have a lot of options outside of Medicare, and, now that the payment to physicians is being cut drastically, I will probably have to make up the difference myself if I want to receive the same level of medical care that I have been accustomed to. So much for stupid progressive ideas.

Jim of MI 4:41PM November 16, 2010

Bush pushed for regulation to stop Bill Clinton's recession. Passed by House but stopped by Democrats in Senate.

We are not against good regulations.

obama waved regulations to BP that lead to worse oil spill in Gulf. Why did he waver, BP had worse safety record in Gulf. Was it because BP gave largest campaign contributions to obama ?

Bill Hedges of MO 3:12PM November 16, 2010

“The 2008 U.S. presidential election is already the most expensive ever, with overall fund-raising surpassing that for the 2004 contest and the Democrats holding a large lead in the money race. As of the end of July 2008, all presidential candidates had reported receiving more than $1 billion in total contributions. Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the Democratic candidate, had reported $389.4 million, a record amount and more than twice the $174.2 million reported by Senator John McCain of Arizona, the Republican candidate (see table”

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0807073

More in article to bring tears to your eyes.

Bill Hedges of MO 3:04PM November 16, 2010

Peter Roff

Peter Roff

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. Formerly a senior political writer for United Press International, he’s now affiliated with several public policy organizations including Let Freedom Ring, and Frontiers of Freedom. His writing has appeared in National Review, Fox News’ opinion section, The Daily Caller, Politico and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @PeterRoff.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement