When is the GOP (and the public) going to learn?
How many times have we heard that the only thing standing in the way of a grand bargain to reduce our growing national debt is Republican intransigence on taxes? If Republicans would only agree to dump Grover Norquist, Democrats will agree to cut spending and reform entitlements. Then, we can all join hands and sing Kumbaya as we usher in a new era of compromise and fiscal responsibility.
Except that now that Republicans have agreed to raise taxes, er, revenue, as part of an agreement to avoid the looming fiscal cliff, liberals appear to have decided that there really isn’t a need to cut spending after all.
Yup, in fact they’ve taken entitlement reform “off the table”.
Senate Democratic leaders signaled Tuesday they would not agree to any entitlement reforms before the end of the year that cut spending on Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.
They also said that any year-end deal to avoid the expiration of tax cuts and implementation of spending cuts — known as the fiscal cliff — must include a provision to raise the debt ceiling, which would otherwise have to be addressed early next year.
The White House and Reid have indicated they will not consider cuts to Social Security, a notable change from 2011, when President Obama said “everything is on the table,” including entitlement programs dear to his party’s base.
In other words, we’re back to “tax the rich”, raise the debt ceiling and spend, spend spend. Meanwhile, it is left up to the GOP to “compromise” by breaking the tax pledge (led by the Judas goats, Saxby Chambliss and Lindsey Graham) or be forever branded as the intransigent “bad guys” in this.
Meanwhile, low information Americans who, by over 60% approve of taxing the rich, will buy the spin by the press painting the GOP as the cause/reason for the calamity while Democrats “lament” the problem (“but, hey, that’s now the law thanks to Republicans”) and gleefully rub their hands in delight at all the new revenue they’ll have to “redistribute”.
Some things never change, do they?
California, of course:
“The California Republican Party is functionally dead. And how is California doing, now that liberals have successfully terminated the state’s remaining conservatives?” #1 in debt, #1 in welfare, #1 in taxing the rich. And hoping for a federal bailout, I suspect. As is Illinois, which is in similar straits for similar reasons. “One-third of all the nation’s welfare recipients live in the state, despite the fact that California has only one-eighth of the country’s population. That’s four times as many as the next-highest welfare population, which is New York. Meanwhile, California eighth-graders finished ahead of only Mississippi and District of Columbia students on reading and math test scores in 2011.”
You can warn people till you’re blue in the face (no pun intended) how the blue state model is going to end up, but sometimes it is instructive to just let it happen. Of course that assumes that those observing the train wreck try to understand how it happened and work to avoid it elsewhere. I’m not so sure that’s the case in this nation. But fair warning, given the fiscal road we’re on California is as much in our future as Greece:
“For a century or so, guided by brilliant private sector leadership, California was a beacon to the world, a land of opportunity such as never had existed in human history. Unimaginable wealth was created. Yet it required only 40 years of liberal governance to bring the whole thing crashing down. Today, California is the most spectacular failure of our time. Its government is broke. Productive citizens have been fleeing for some years now, selling their homes at inflated prices (until recently) and moving to Colorado, Arizona, Texas and even Minnesota, like one of my neighbors. The results of California’s improvident liberalism have been tragically easy to predict: absurd public sector wage and benefit packages, a declining tax base, surging welfare enrollment, falling economic production, ever-increasing deficits. Soon, California politicians will be looking to less glamorous states for bailout money. Things have now devolved to the point where California leads the nation in poverty.”
California is a state which has modeled blue government for decades, despite warning of where it’s continuance would lead.
And, shockingly to the left, it has ended up right where it was predicted it would end up. Yet, they blindly and willfully continue to march along as though the reality will change and economic laws will disprove themselves if they just persist in their actions.
California is our future. Our near future. See, it’s pretty much as simple as this:
If a country runs a deficit (as a percentage of GDP) that is equal to its growth rate, the debt level will remain constant. This year U.S. GDP will be a little less than $16 trillion, and its historical growth rate is 3.25%. That works out to what we might call a “safe” deficit of $520 billion, or even $600 billion if you allow for a little inflation. Last year, however, the U.S. deficit was $1.1 trillion — or roughly $500 billion too much.
That gap could be closed by ending all tax cuts, tax breaks and stimulus payments for everyone, according to the Tax Policy Center. But two-thirds of the burden would fall on the middle class — something both political parties want to avoid. All the proposed tax increases on the wealthy, however, even combined with the end of the payroll-tax cut, would raise only $295 billion. So unless there were spending cuts twice as big as the ones currently scheduled, the deficit would still be too large.
Those sorts of cuts aren’t even being discussed. Imagine, if you would, radical cuts in the size and scope of our current federal government. Imagine subsidies of all sorts being eliminated. Imagine backing government out of many of the areas it has no business. Imagine simplifying the tax code and giving business a warm fuzzy feeling about the business atmosphere by freezing regulation and in some instances rolling them back. Imagine all of that, because none of it is going to be done.
Instead, the solution is to “tax the rich”.
So let ‘em have it (only if they repeal the Hollywood tax cut). Tax the rich. And when it doesn’t work, and it won’t (in fact, I’m not sure what “work” means in this particular case since the amount to be collected is a mere drop in a 1.6 trillion dollar ocean of debt that’s planned each year for the foreseeable future), they’re left with a lot fewer excuses, huh?
Not that they won’t try to point fingers when their grand plan crashes.
Yup, in the end it all looks like we’re headed to California. Apparently we’re going to have to recreate that debacle on a national level before the blinders come off of the public and the realization that you can’t spend more than you have forever finally sinks in.
Whether or not it will too late to salvage the country at that point, remains to be seen.
A law the country didn’t want and upheld by a ridiculous Supreme Court ruling is now beginning to have it’s predicted effect:
Some low-wage employers are moving toward hiring part-time workers instead of full-time ones to mitigate the health-care overhaul’s requirement that large companies provide health insurance for full-time workers or pay a fee.
Several restaurants, hotels and retailers have started or are preparing to limit schedules of hourly workers to below 30 hours a week. That is the threshold at which large employers in 2014 would have to offer workers a minimum level of insurance or pay a penalty starting at $2,000 for each worker.
The shift is one of the first significant steps by employers to avoid requirements under the health-care law, and whether the trend continues hinges on Tuesday’s election results. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has pledged to overturn the Affordable Care Act, although he would face obstacles doing so.
That’s really going to help the job situation, isn’t it?
When is government ever going to learn that its intrusion into the private affairs of men always has consequences, and, when they are outside the legitimate function of government in a free society, the effect is usually negative.
Congratulations Democrats, you’ve done it again.
It’s rather simple really. And the Washington Post provides the answer today:
In the last three releases of the tracking poll conducted by The Washington Post and ABC News, Obama has trailed former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney among independent voters by between 16 and 20 percentage points.
That’s a striking reversal from 2008, when Obama won independent voters, who made up 29 percent of the electorate, by eight points over Sen. John McCain of Arizona.
And if Romney’s large margin among independents holds, it will be a break not just from 2008 but also from 2000 and 2004. In 2000, Texas Gov. George W. Bush won independents by 47 percent to 45 percent over Vice President Al Gore. Four years later, Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts essentially split unaffiliated voters, according to exit polls — 48 percent for Bush to 49 percent for Kerry. (Independents made up 27 percent of the vote in 2000 and 26 percent in 2004.)
It is more than a “striking reversal”, it is an indicator of what other major demographics are demonstrating as well. A big shift away from Obama. So one of two things has to be true – the polls showing these big demographic shifts away from Obama are wrong, or the polls showing this to be a tight race with Obama slightly ahead or behind have to be wrong. They can’t both be right.
When you add in the “atmospherics”, it is hard to believe this is a tight race. The enthusiasm for Obama isn’t there (and certainly not at all like it was in 2008), apparently the major demographics aren’t there and finally, even in the polls that do show a close race, the trend continues to be up for Romney.
It still isn’t clear what demographic model the polls are using, but as I said in the podcast last night, if it is skewed with D+ anything, it is likely wrong. If I had to guess I’d say a poll that isn’t skewing at least R+1 isn’t even in the same galaxy as this election. The atmospherics, demographics and momentum, whether the left or MSM wants to admit it or not, are on the side of the GOP. My guess is this doesn’t end up being a close election and that Democrats are not going to be happy with the outcome.
Michael Barone is one of the few poll watchers I respect. I’ve watched him in any number of elections and he’s objectively called it the way he saw it, usually spot on, for whomever the facts indicated was in the lead. No spin, just good analysis.
Well, in this season of polling chaos, Barone is out with his look at some of the key indicators that help him analyze election trends and he seems to think we are seeing a preference cascade begin ala 1980 … just slower:
My other alternative scenario was based on the 1980 election, when vast numbers of voters switched from Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan after their single debate one week before the election. In that debate, the challenger showed he had presidential stature and the incumbent president seemed petulant and small-minded.
We saw an even more vivid contrast between challenger and incumbent in the Oct. 3 debate. In the next two debates, Obama was definitely more focused and aggressive. But Romney held his own, and post-Oct. 16 polling showed him improving his standing even though many debate watchers thought Obama won on points.
What we may be seeing, as we drink from the firehose of multiple poll results pouring in, is a slow-motion 1980.
That reinforces my point about the first debate and something we’ve been saying since Oct. 3. That is the debate that mattered. And note also that in debates 2 and 3, Obama pulled a Carter. His stature was diminished by his actions. He, as Barone and many others have observed, came across as “petulant and small-minded”. Add arrogant and condescending, and you’ve captured it. Oh, and by the way, his record, like Carter’s, is dismal.
Romney, on the other hand, came across exactly as he had to come across – competent, presidential, confident and, believe it or not, likable. He did what Ronald Reagan did – unfiltered by the media, he was able to convince Americans who tuned in that he was Presidential material. That he was a more than acceptable alternative to Obama.
All of that said, Barone isn’t claiming that this is a done deal by any stretch (“don’t get cocky kid”):
The usual caveats are in order. Exogenous events could affect opinion (Libya seems to have hurt Obama). The Obama ground game is formidable. Voters who switched to Romney could switch back again.
And if there is a larger reservoir of potentially changeable voters than in 2004, there was an even larger reservoir back in 1980, when Carter attracted white Southerners who now are firmly in Romney’s column.
Mechanical analogies can be misleading. Just because Romney has gained ground since Oct. 3 does not guarantee that he will gain more.
But also keep in mind that Romney gained not just from style but from fundamentals. Most voters dislike Obama’s domestic policies and are dissatisfied with the sluggish economy. And now they seem to believe have an alternative with presidential stature.
So, while we apparently have a preference cascade beginning, is it enough? And will it peak at the right time. Will it be a slow steady climb to election day? Will it plateau? Will it stop short of the majority Romney needs? Obviously we won’t know that until election night (or, perhaps, the next day). But suffice it to say, the upward trend is obvious.
How it will play out, however, remains to be seen.
I’m sure you’re watching the MSM give a huge collective yawn concerning the Obama video that has been surfaced showing an Obama that most of America hasn’t seen.
“Old news” they’re saying. “We’ve covered it,” they claim. Funny, I don’t remember it (oh, it was on MSNBC? No wonder no one has seen it).
Meanwhile the MSM is fixed on 1985 videos of Mitt Romney and his stance on … Vietnam?
Ed Driscoll, via Instapundit, sums up a couple of points that are pretty much true. First, he quotes Andrew Ferguson at Commentary, who makes a good point using the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle as a basis:
Heisenberg’s principle can be crudely generalized (it’s the best I can do) as follows: An observer can change the nature of a thing or an event merely through the act of observation. Observation all by itself can become an intervention. Heisenberg was describing how reality works at the level of quantum mechanics, where a wave becomes a particle and vice versa depending on how it’s being measured. But it applies, too, at the level of political journalism, where reality is even stranger. There, facts can become interpretations, interpretations can become facts, and events of no significance can achieve an earthshaking importance simply by virtue of being pawed over by a large number of journalists.
A typical journalist, if he’s any good, insists at least theoretically on the iron divide between observer and participant. At its best the press corps sees itself as a squadron of Red Cross workers, wandering among the combatants in a battle zone and ensuring their own safety with a claim of strict neutrality. The Heisenberg Principle of Journalism puts the lie to all that. You see it at work whenever a news anchor announces that “this story just refuses to go away” or a headline writer insists that “questions continue to be raised” about the conduct of one hapless public figure or another.
The story refuses to go away, of course, because the anchor and his colleagues won’t let it; and the questions that continue to be raised are being raised by the headline writer and his editors. Reporters create more news than anybody, just by pretending they’re watching it unfold.
How often have we seen the absolute over-kill by the media on stories most would consider trivial. It seems to always depend on who is involved, doesn’t it? But, as Bengazi and Fast and Furious are proving, the inverse is also true. The MSM can blatantly ignore what most would consider important stories as well. Driscoll lists the exceptions:
- A presidential candidate calls for bankrupting entire industry? Let’s ignore it in plain sight.
- A presidential candidate call for higher energy prices for all Americans, especially the poor? Capital idea, we agree! But on the whole, let’s ignore it in plain sight.
- A presidential candidate has spent years marinating in a radical chic background? Let’s ignore it in plain sight.
- The Middle East is in tatters as a result of an administration asleep at the wheel? Let’s ignore it in plain sight.
- A border agent killed and guns in the hands of Mexican criminals? Let’s ignore it in plain sight.
- An incendiary racially-charged speech involving the man who is now the president of the United States emerges that 99 percent of the general public hasn’t seen? Old news. Let’s ignore it in plain sight.
Let’s. And that’s precisely what the media is doing. I’d also add to that list a litany of economic failure that is simply being ignored.
Or to put it another way, as the Washington Examiner notes tonight in an editorial, “To believe Obama is to forget the last four years.” That’s what both the Obama Administration and their palace guard are hoping.
It has gotten so obvious that even Howard Fineman has criticized the press for its obvious bias and its selective coverage. Pat Caudell went off on the media just the other day.
The intent of the media? To drag their chosen one across the finish line regardless of how poorly he’s done. There seems to be no attempt to hide it anymore. Simply peruse the stories of the day, identify what should be the stories of the day (a useful tool is to identify something not being covered and say to one’s self “if that were a Republican president …”), and it becomes clear which side, literally, the press is on.
Tonight is going to be interesting as well. We’ll see how subtle the “moderators” of the debate are going to be about their bias by the questions they ask. Will they focus on the economy, the unfulfilled Obama promises, the disaster his foreign policy has become, ObamaCare and its cost, etc. Or are we going to talk about “lady parts”, what Romney said in 1985 and the evil Bain corporation.
My guess? Not much economy, not much Obama record, lots about Mitt’s past (with the excuse that we know about Obama, but this is an opportunity to introduce America to Romney).
A video that claims “the government is the only thing we all belong too” is being disowned by the Obama Campaign, saying it was a video produced by the host city committee and not the DNC.
But, of course, it carries a Democratic National Convention banner in the lower left corner (another case of incompetence or refusing to be held accountable).
However I’m not so much concerned with who did it than I am with the implication of the message. It serves as a reminder of the premise under which most of the left works.
I don’t belong to any government. Government is my employee. It works for me. It is supposed to do my bidding in a democratic system, and not the other way around.
Now I’m sure that there are those who will listen to this and claim that the speaker is talking about a unity of effort or the uniting effect of government. I.e. regardless of party or ideology we all work under the same government.
But that’s not what he said. “Belong” has a very specific meaning. While talking about why the meme “you didn’t build that” isn’t going away, Rachel Larimore tells us why:
Many moons ago, I spent a couple of years in a fiction-writing program at a local university. I never finished the novel I aspired to write, but I did learn some valuable lessons. The most important: “It doesn’t matter what you meant. What matters is what you conveyed.” In the context of class, that meant when we were sharing our work and listening to feedback, we couldn’t butt in and say that we’d meant something else. We needed to take ourselves out of our own head and try to understand what our readers had heard.
What was conveyed was a message that, to me, is anti-liberty. Sorry to blunt about it, but it reflects a belonging that I reject. I’m not an American because of my government. I don’t belong to any group because of my government. My government exits at my forbearance. It exists solely to serve mine and other American’s needs.
And while we might disagree on is what those needs are and how much government is necessary, I don’t “belong” to the government in any sense whatsoever?
But what this short segment highlights is the very large philosophical gulf that exists between those who believe in individualism and those who are statists. The statement is a statement that glorifies the state while attempting to lump all of us as collectively “owned” by it. Whether or not that’s what the speaker meant, it is what he said and conveyed by using the word “belong”.
It might not be such a big deal if it wasn’t so obviously the usually unspoken belief of so many on the left. What we’re going to see in Charlotte is a celebration of big government and that sort of “belonging”.
I want no part of it.
We’ve talked in the past about why these “wave” elections, as they’re called, are happening with increasing frequency.
Well one of the reasons, I would assert, is people are tiring of the same old promises – promises that are rarely if ever kept – with the same old results – business as usual with vituperative partisan sniping and finger pointing, while we spend ourselves into oblivion.
No matter who is put into power, nothing substantive happens. So voters keep switching the sides in hope that some group they put in there will “get it”.
So along come this poll, which is quite interesting. No matter how “popular” Obama is alleged to be, it seems the party he is associated with is now at their popularity nadir.
Today’s Gallup Poll, "GOP Favorability Matches 2008 Pre-Convention Level," shows the pre-convention favorability ratings of the two Parties going back as far as 1992. For the very first time, the favorable/unfavorable ratios are now higher for the Republican Party than for the Democratic Party. For the first time ever, the Democratic favorability ratio, which has always been within the range of 1.20 to 1.56, is now below 1. It is a stunningly low .83, which is 31% lower than the prior Democratic Party low of 1.20, which was reached in 2004.
The Democrats find themselves at John Kerry territory in terms of popularity. Gee I wonder why (*cough* ignore the voters and pass ObamaCare, unemployment at 8.2%, economy in the crapper, etc., *cough*)?
But before Republicans celebrate because they’re better than Democrats, they should realize they’re only marginally better.
By contrast, the Republican ratio is now .88, which compares with the 2008 ratio of .80, which was that Party’s lowest-ever ratio, reached at the end of the Bush Presidency. Prior to 2008, the ratio was 1.16 in 2004, 1.41 in 2000, 1.16 in 1996, and 1.36 in 1992.
Those figures compare with the Democratic ratios of 1.38 in 2008 (compared with the Republican .80), 1.20 in 2004 (vs. 1.16), 1.56 in 2000 (vs. 1.41), 1.50 in 1996 (vs. 1.16), and 1.42 in 1992 (vs. 1.36).
So? So right now, Republicans seem to be enjoying a slightly better level of “popularity” than are Democrats. But both should note that their relative popularity is near the bottom of their historic range.
What does that say?
It says to me that voters are truly considering the lesser of two evils. That their “popularity” is a function of there being no other choice but these two and there being little if any confidence in either doing what is necessary to turn this mess around. But, at the moment, they are inclined to give the Republicans a shot, simply because the Democrats have been so lousy.
Another “indicator” poll. Expect the media’s full court negative press to continue unabated. We now know more about Mitt Romney than we’ve ever known about the President of the United States (of course that’s partly because Romney has actually run things and done things prior to running and has an actual record to examine).
Meanwhile voters seem inclined toward the Republicans, but not such that anyone in the GOP should get arrogant or cocky by any means. This is all touch and go at the moment.
But here’s a key which is hard to ignore, speaking of Obama’s “popularity”:
The Democratic brand has thus suffered more (down 39%) under Obama than the Republican brand suffered under either of George W. Bush’s two terms (-16%, then -31%).
Democrats have reason to be worried.
Stephen Moore does yeoman’s work via the Manhattan Institute debunking the left’s class warfare mantra of “tax the rich”. He does it with thousands of words accompanied by many charts. I’m just going to concentrate on a few the charts (do read the piece, it’s good) since they tell the story quite succinctly.
Remember it’s about those nasty rich paying their “fair share”:
For instance, we’re constantly told by those who would tax us more that we’re woefully under taxed compared to the rest of the world (like that’s a good reason to raise taxes). Well that really depends on what income group you’re in, doesn’t it:
So it’s not really true if you’re among the upper 10% in this country is it?
Who is so under taxed then. Well if you look at the tax rolls you’ll find that almost 40% of those filing tax returns had zero or negative tax liability.
That’s right, they paid nothing or actually got money from the government. I’m not talking about a tax refund either. I’m talking about redistributed wealth.
The United States taxes the top 10% of its “richest” people more than anyone else and well above the average tax found in all OECD nations.
That sort of takes the starch out of the “fair share” nonsense that we constantly hear the left prattle on about doesn’t it?
But wait, there’s more as the old Ronco commercial used to say. What about the share of taxes collected. It’s about “fair share”. Surely they’re not really paying what any thinking adult would consider their fair share of taxes are they? Well I don’t know about you, but yes, I think they are. In fact, the top 1% are paying twice as much in taxes as they were in 1980. That seems to go against the conventional wisdom, or at least the claims of the left, doesn’t it?
Why yes, it does. The chart at the right also shows that the top 20% are paying 84% of all income taxes collected. I don’t know what you consider a “fair share”, but I’d guess for most we’re way beyond fairness with this structure.
How much more? And where does fairness enter the question. Looking at this next chart on the left, why should those on the higher end pay more than they are now given the information available? If you have the bottom 50% paying 3% and the bottom 40% paying nothing or getting money via redistribution, yet benefiting from the infrastructure that the left likes to use to claim “you didn’t build that”, who really did build it?
Those paying 3% or those paying 40%? The government has no money and can’t build anything without taxes so who paid to build all that infrastructure that President Obama likes to claim? The chart tells that story, doesn’t it. In fact the top 25% of taxpayers ought to be yelling back at him every time he says that, “well we paid for it”.
There are a ton more examples and charts. There’s one more I want you to see as the left continues to point to taxes on the rich as some sort of panacea to all the revenue shortfalls that ail us (btw, it’s not about revenue, it’s about spending).
Look at what the recession has done to the “golden goose” of the rich.
Oh, my … they’ve actually seen huge percentage drops. Note how many there are in the bottom rung ($200k and above). Sorry folks but that simply isn’t “rich” in the terms I think of rich. That’s likely to be the guy next door who has a family of 5 and is trying to make ends meet. Anyone who thinks $200k is rich isn’t living in the same world as I am. But many of those in that category are going to be the small-business owners and entrepreneurs that help drive the economy.
The plan? Tax them even more. In France, since their tax the rich scheme has been unveiled, the “rich” are looking across borders into friendlier countries. We’ve seen a reduction in all categories of “rich” since 2007. Do you suppose those in those categories now are going to lay back and just accept more taxation without trying to do something to hold on to their hard earned money?
Anyway, rant ends. Read the whole thing. Peruse the graphs. It is very interesting and telling information.
As Dale points out in the podcast, while the election polls have yet to reflect it, the atmospherics of this election don’t bode well for Obama. For instance, you have huge crowds turning out for Romney/Ryan events and you have the Obama campaign trying out “we purposely limit crowd size” on the media to excuse the comparatively paltry turnouts they are experiencing. And then there’s the Newsweek cover story by Niall Ferguson telling Obama it’s time he hit the road. It is almost like Newsweek is attempting a return to legitimacy by distancing itself from Obama.
Another indicator, much like the Gallup issues poll in which Obama had a 36% approval rating on the economy, is a Washington Post poll concerning the size and intrusiveness of government.
Call it a mood poll if you wish. But again, taken with all the other polls, it does indeed begin to outline the “atmospherics” surrounding the election. In this poll, a good majority of those polled said that government was both too big and too intrusive … not to mention way to expensive. CNS has the story:
The poll asked: "Would you say you favor a smaller federal government with fewer services, or larger federal government with many services?"
Among all those polled, 55 percent said they wanted a smaller federal government and 40 percent said they wanted a larger federal government.
Among just the registered voters in the poll, 58 percent said they wanted a smaller federal government and 37 percent said they wanted a larger federal government.
The poll also asked: "Do you personally agree or disagree with the following statement. Government controls too much of our daily lives."
Among all those polled, 60 percent said they agreed and 39 percent said they disagreed. Among just the registered voters in the survey, the results were almost identical, with 60 percent saying they agreed and 38 percent saying they disagreed.
CNS points out that the Washington Post analysis says:
“… [T]he results show a deep partisan divide in America. "Partisan polarization presents a potentially insurmountable barrier to governing for whomever wins the White House in November."
Funny how the percentage of those who are for a larger and more intrusive government are at about the same percentage as the Democrats in the poll (35%). So if it is “partisan polarization”, it would seem that the Democrats are losing the battle. It would seem that the big middle is headed to the right.
Now we all know it’s easy to say you want smaller government with fewer services when it costs you nothing but an answer on a poll. And we also understand that most people are fine with real cuts, as long as they effect someone else’s benefits and not theirs. But that doesn’t change the fact that the mood of the country is inclined toward smaller and less intrusive government.
And that doesn’t bode will for big government Democrats – like Obama.