There is a misconception in the minds of some that folks go to vote Democratic or Republican because they received a tax cut of some variety, when in actuality people go to vote more so because they have had their taxes raised or the prospect of it being raised (if they’re not low enough).
Voters go to polls more so on their “anger” feelings than on their “pleasant” feelings on bread-and-butter issues such as taxation and spending.
In default years, such as in 2008, any Democratic presidential contender would have carried the day, not just Obama.
Which is why some Republicans here on Guam crossed over and became “Democrat for a day” to vote in the Democratic presidential primary for Obama because they did not want Hillary Clinton to become the next president of the United States. (They still trash Obama now even if they voted for him two years ago.)
As an example, 2008 GOP presidential contender Sen. John McCain did not lose that election for any reason other than the stock market collapsing from the financial markets meltdown which caused independents in states such as Virginia and North Carolina along the Atlantic Coast to states out west in Colorado and Nevada to flee the GOP. Just as many districts in the Midwest, where the unemployment rate is not low enough, fled the Democratic Party in 2010 for the perception — and reality — that they were responsible for the economy.
The point is that the Democrats just need to start acting like Republicans, if they want to win elections (governing is another matter).
Republicans keep their base by promising tax cuts and then poaching independents by promising that those tax cuts will create jobs.
Democrats can do the same by promising tax cuts and then poaching independents by promising that those tax cuts will create jobs.
Why cede the ground on tax cuts? Of course, everybody knows that tax cuts have to be paid for at some point, at least some portion of those tax cuts. It does not, as is commonly believed, pay for itself —otherwise there would not be deficits as far as the eye can see.
It is also true that the GOP has the higher moral ground when it comes to spending cuts.
Again, why cede the spending reductions argument to the GOP when both parties spend because they have their respective constituents to cater to?
And the GOP, with greater access to third-party anonymous funding sources (presumably even from foreign multinationals in India), can blanket the airwaves to sell their message.
The message is true to some degree; it should be pointed out.
And that is that Democrats want to tax the rich and spend on the poor. It is a message that does not sit well with independents who are not poor, or at least not poor in their mind. (This core message does not work in a default year like 2008.)
MATT PHILIPS
Mangilao, Guam
