DOCSLIB.ORG

The Libertarian Vote in the Age of Obama by David Kirby and David Boaz

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Libertarian Vote in the Age of Obama by David Kirby and David Boaz No. 658 January 21, 2010 The Libertarian Vote in the Age of Obama by David Kirby and David Boaz Executive Summary Libertarian—or fiscally conservative, socially socially liberal,” and 44 percent agreed that they liberal—voters are often torn between their aver- were “fiscally conservative and socially liberal, sions to the Republicans’ social conservatism and also known as libertarian.” the Democrats’ fiscal irresponsibility. Yet libertar- Libertarians shifted back to the Republican col- ians rarely factor into pundits’ and pollsters’ umn in 2008, supporting John McCain over Barack analyses. Obama by 71 to 27 percent. Although many liber- In 2004 libertarians swung away from Bush, tarian intellectuals had a real antipathy to McCain, anticipating the Democratic victories of 2006. In the typical libertarian voter saw McCain as an inde- 2008, according to new data in this paper, liber- pendent, straight-talking maverick who was a tarians voted against Barack Obama. Libertarians strong opponent of earmarks and pork-barrel seem to be a lead indicator of trends in centrist, spending and never talked about social issues. Also, independent-minded voters. If libertarians con- the prospect of a Democratic president working tinue to lead the independents away from Obama, with a Democratic majority in Congress at the Democrats will lose 2010 midterm elections they height of a financial crisis scared libertarian voters. would otherwise win. Younger libertarians were more supportive of We find that 14 percent of American voters Obama. Pro-life libertarians are more Republican can be classified as libertarian. Other surveys than pro-choice libertarians. find a larger number of people who hold views Few of the voters we describe as libertarian that are neither consistently liberal nor conserv- identify themselves as such. But the Ron Paul ative but are best described as libertarian. A 2009 campaign and the burgeoning opposition to Gallup poll found that 23 percent held libertari- President Obama’s big-government agenda sug- an views. A Zogby poll found that 59 percent gest that small-government voters may be easier considered themselves “fiscally conservative and to organize than they have been in the past. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ David Kirby is an associate policy analyst, and David Boaz is executive vice president, at the Cato Institute. They are coauthors of “The Libertarian Vote,” Cato Institute Policy Analysis no. 580. Libertarian— Yet there are few Americans who like the or fiscally Introduction Republicans. An October NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed that only 25 percent have conservative, “I’ve been here for 37 years. There’s a positive opinion of the Republican Party, socially liberal— very little new, really new, that ever tying the survey’s all-time low.10 voters are often takes place. But I’m seeing something In 2008 we were told that Obama would in the Republican Party that I’ve never forge consensus. In the presidential elections torn between seen in either Party. And that is you’ve of 2000 and 2004, we were told that we’re a their aversions to got a core base of the Party that detests polarized nation, sharply split between “red the opposition leader and the entire team” Republicans and “blue team” Demo- the Republicans’ agenda of the Democratic Party. But at crats. But entering 2010, the nation doesn’t social conser- the same time, they have total con- seem to want to be part of any team at all. vatism and the tempt of their own Party’s leadership A standard question for pollsters is, “How and establishment.” much of the time do you trust the government Democrats’ fiscal —Charlie Cook, radio interview, in Washington to do what is right?” In the irresponsibility. October 28, 20091 NBC/Wall Street Journal survey, the answers were not encouraging for incumbent politi- Pundits are baffled. After an election victory cians or people who want the federal govern- billed as “historic,” many expected President ment to take on sweeping new obligations. Obama to translate the hope of his campaign Just 4 percent said they trust the government into a new consensus in politics. The New York “just about always” while 19 percent said Times editorialized that Obama’s election would “most of the time.” The overwhelming major- forge a “broad political consensus.”2 David ity, 65 percent, said they trust the government Gergen describes Obama as a “consensus-seek- “only some of the time.”11 An unprecedented ing” politician.3 Yet in nine months, we’ve wit- 11 percent of respondents volunteered—this nessed increasing anger toward Obama and his option wasn’t asked—that they “never” trust administration’s continuation of the Bush-era the government.12 No doubt some of those policies of takeovers, bailouts, federal spending, mistrusting voters are libertarians. and the extension of federal control. Citizens A closer look at ideology reveals that these have staged “Tea Party” protests, shouted down two ideas—of polarization and consensus— members of Congress at town hall meetings, were both based on a misdiagnosis of public and marched on Washington. opinion. Libertarian—or fiscally conservative, So much for consensus. As early as July, socially liberal—voters are often torn between polls detected that centrists and independents their aversions to the Republicans’ social were moving away from the Democratic conservatism and the Democrats’ fiscal irre- Party.4 From January to October, Gallup data sponsibility. Yet libertarians rarely factor into show that independents’ job approval of pundits’ and pollsters’ analyses. Polls show Obama has dropped 16 points, from 62 to 46 that libertarians are 10 to 20 percent of voters percent.5 In the 2009 gubernatorial elections and a key swing vote. in Virginia and New Jersey, independents In 2004 libertarians swung away from swung away from Democrats according to George W. Bush, anticipating the Democratic CNN exit polls. In Virginia, independents vot- victories of 2006. In 2008, according to new ed for Republican Bob McDonnell 66 to 33 data, libertarians voted against Barack Obama. percent,6 a 34-point swing from 2008 when Libertarians seem to be a lead indicator of independents voted for Obama 49 to 48 per- trends in centrist, independent-minded voters. cent.7 In New Jersey, independents voted for Libertarians’ concerns about Republican over- Republican Chris Christie 60 to 30 percent,8 a spending, government growth, excessive social 34-point swing from 2008 when independents conservatism, and the war in Iraq prompted voted for Obama 51 to 47.9 them to move away from Bush in 2004, earlier 2 than other independents did. Before the 2006 between conservative Republican and liberal elections, we predicted that if the swing away Democratic candidates for office. from the Republicans continued, “Republi- Many years of polls show that 10 to 20 cans will lose elections they would otherwise percent—or more—of Americans fall into the win.”13 Now we offer the reverse prediction: lib- libertarian quadrant. Indeed, libertarians are a ertarians were more skeptical in 2008 about bigger share of the electorate than the much Obama’s big-government agenda, but now discussed “soccer moms” of the 1990s or those concerns are widespread among moder- “NASCAR dads” of the early 2000s, and bigger ates and independents. If libertarians continue than many of the microtargeted groups pur- to lead the independents away from Obama, sued by political strategists in the 2004 and Democrats will lose 2010 midterm elections 2008 elections.14 Libertarians are increasingly they would otherwise win. a swing vote. Through the Bush years, Repub- If there’s something new in American poli- licans expanded entitlements and spent tax- tics, as Charlie Cook observes, perhaps it is a payers’ money faster than Democrats, giving shift away from partisan loyalties and a gener- libertarians less reason to stick with their tra- ational shift away from old issues and old ditional voting patterns. Polls in 2004 and alliances. Pundits often refer to the “conserva- 2006 showed that libertarian voters shifted to- tive base” as the Republican Party’s core voters, ward the Democrats, and they may well have Perhaps there is motivated by a collection of issues: taxes, fam- cost Republicans control of Congress.15 But a new group of ily issues, abortion, national security, military 2008 brought a return to the Republican voters emerging strength, and American values. Political lead- Party, as the prospect of a liberal Democrat ers such as Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin, mismanaging the largest financial crisis in around a and media hosts such as Glenn Beck and Rush decades made libertarians retreat to the different set of Limbaugh, are icons of that conservative base. market-friendly rhetoric of John McCain. issues: spending, But perhaps there is a new group of voters Why is this substantial and growing liber- emerging around a different set of issues: tarian strength not better recognized? Politi- mistrust of spending, mistrust of government, govern- cal scientists have taught for more than 50 government, ment control, and social tolerance. While the years that politics is arranged on a liberal- conservative base remains more loyal to the conservative continuum, so we’re all used to government Republican Party, these more libertarian vot- that. And indeed, political activists and elect- control, and ers are angry with Republicans, even if liber- ed officials do seem to have arranged them- social tolerance. tarians often vote for them as the lesser of two selves into those two camps, rather than a evils. What will be the impact of this emerging more accurate reflection of the total elec- electorate? We now have more data to answer torate. Because of the constant repetition that question. of the liberal-conservative spectrum, most libertarian-minded voters don’t identify themselves as libertarians, and they aren’t America’s Libertarian organized in libertarian groups.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Approval of George W. Bush: Economic and Media Impacts Gino Tozzi Jr
    Wayne State University Wayne State University Dissertations 1-1-2011 Approval of George W. Bush: Economic and media impacts Gino Tozzi Jr. Wayne State University, Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/oa_dissertations Part of the Mass Communication Commons, and the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Tozzi Jr., Gino, "Approval of George W. Bush: Economic and media impacts" (2011). Wayne State University Dissertations. Paper 260. This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@WayneState. It has been accepted for inclusion in Wayne State University Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@WayneState. APPROVAL OF GEORGE W. BUSH: ECONOMIC AND MEDIA IMPACTS by GINO J. TOZZI JR. DISSERTATION Submitted to the Graduate School of Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 2011 MAJOR: POLITICAL SCIENCE Approved by: _________________________________ Chair Date _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ © COPYRIGHT BY GINO J. TOZZI JR. 2011 All Rights Reserved DEDICATION To my Father ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I want to thank my committee chair Professor Ewa Golebiowska for the encouragement and persistence on only accepting the best from me in this process. I also owe my committee of Professor Ronald Brown, Professor Jodi Nachtwey, and Professor David Martin a debt of gratitude for their help and advisement in this endeavor. All of them were instrumental in keeping my focus narrowed to produce the best research possible. I also owe appreciation to the commentary, suggestions, and research help from my wonderful wife Courtney Tozzi. This project was definitely more enjoyable with her encouragement and help.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitution and War Leyland C
    The Constitution and War Leyland C. Torres, University of Louisville SBS, 2018 The Congress shall have Power... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; - The Constitution, Article I, Section 8 Clause 11 While Article I of the U.S. Constitution states that Congress has the power to declare War, Article II, Section 2 grants the President the authority as Commander-in-Chief. This is significant because as of December 2018, the United States will mark 17 years of military operations in Afghanistan—becoming the longest period of US military intervention. Since the founding of the United States over 240 years ago, Congress and the President have enacted 11 separate formal Declarations of War against foreign nations in five different wars. The last official declaration occurred after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and was against the Axis Powers: 6 separate Declarations against the nations of Japan, Germany, and Italy in 1941 and against Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria in 1942. Some have argued that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) approved by Congress in 2001 and again in 2002 grants the President the ability to conduct the overall Global War on Terror which accounts for the size and scope of military operations in Afghanistan and around the world. But that argument seems to ignore the fact that the US has been at war for close to 17 years. When there is a formal Declaration of War, it “creates a state of war under international law and legitimates the killing of enemy combatants...” whereas an Authorization uses military “force against a named country or unnamed hostile nations” (Elsea & Wood, 2014).
    [Show full text]
  • WIIS DC Think Tank Gender Scorecard – DATASET 2018 Index/Appendix: American Enterprise Institute (AEI) Foreign and Defense
    • Nonresident Fellow, Rafik Hariri Center for the WIIS DC Think Tank Gender Scorecard – Middle East: Mona Alami (F) DATASET 2018 Index/Appendix: • Nonresident Senior Fellow, Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center: Laura Albornoz Pollmann (F) • Nonresident Senior Fellow, Rafik Hariri Center for American Enterprise Institute (AEI) the Middle East: Ali Alfoneh (M) Foreign and Defense Policy Scholars in AEI: • Associate Director for Programs, Rafik Hariri Center • Visiting Scholar: Samuel J. Abrams (M) for the Middle East: Stefanie Hausheer Ali (F) • Wilson H. Taylor Scholar in Health Care and • Nonresident Senior Fellow, Cyber Statecraft Retirement Policy: Joseph Antos (M) Initiative: Dmitri Alperovitch (M) • Resident Scholar and Director of Russian Studies: • Nonresident Fellow, Rafik Hariri Center: Dr. Hussein Leon Aron (M) Amach (M) • Visiting Fellow: John P. Bailey (M) • Nonresident Fellow, Brent Scowcroft Center on • Resident Scholar: Claude Barfield (M) International Security: Dave Anthony (M) • Resident Fellow: Michael Barone (M) • Nonresident Senior Fellow, Global Energy Center: • Visiting Scholar: Robert J. Barro (M) Ragnheiður Elín Árnadóttir (F) • Visiting Scholar: Roger Bate (M) • Visiting Fellow, Brent Scowcroft Center on • Visiting Scholar: Eric J. Belasco (M) International Security/RUSI: Lisa Aronsson (F) • Resident Scholar: Andrew G. Biggs (M) • Executive Vice Chair, Atlantic Council Board of • Visiting Fellow: Edward Blum (M) Directors and International Advisory Board; Chair, • Director of Asian Studies and Resident Fellow: Dan Atlantic Council Business Development and New Blumenthal (M) Ventures Committee; Chairman Emerita, TotalBank • Senior Fellow: Karlyn Bowman (F) (no photo) • Resident Fellow: Alex Brill (M) • Atlantic Council Representative; Director, Atlantic • President; Beth and Ravenel Curry Scholar in Free Council IN TURKEY and Istanbul Summit: Defne Enterprise: Arthur C.
    [Show full text]
  • On Protecting Children from Speech Amitai Etzioni
    Chicago-Kent Law Review Volume 79 Issue 1 Symposium: Do Children Have the Same First Article 2 Amendment Rights as Adults? April 2004 On Protecting Children from Speech Amitai Etzioni Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview Part of the First Amendment Commons, Internet Law Commons, and the Juvenile Law Commons Recommended Citation Amitai Etzioni, On Protecting Children from Speech, 79 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 3 (2004). Available at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol79/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chicago-Kent Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ON PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM SPEECH AMITAI ETZIONI* INTRODUCrION When freedom of speech comes into conflict with the protection of children, how should this conflict be resolved? What principles should guide such deliberations? Can one rely on parents and educa- tors (and more generally on voluntary means) to protect children from harmful cultural materials (such as Internet pornography and violent movies) or is government intervention necessary? What dif- ference does historical context make for the issue at hand? Are all minors to be treated the same? What is the scope of the First Amendment rights of children in the first place? These are the ques- tions here explored. The approach here differs from two polar approaches that can be used to position it. According to a key civil libertarian position, mate- rials that are said to harm children actually do not have such an effect, and even if such harm did exist, adults should not be reduced to read- ing only what is suitable for children.
    [Show full text]
  • FCC Don't Let These Men Extinguish FCC Docket MM 99-25 LPFM. the Men of the House of Crooks Run and Tell This Man What to Do! Te
    FCC Don't Let these men Extinguish FCC Docket MM 99-25 LPFM. The Men of The House Of Crooks Run and tell this Man what to do! Texas Gov. George W. Bush After he and the Republicans Supervise the Country for 4 Years it will destroy the Republican Party for the Next 50 Years,Men of the House Of Crooks Relinquish your Elected Office,you are all Mentally Deficient. Bush Gets (Green) Stupid on His Face Over Reading List! Bush Caught In Book Blunder (SF Chronicle) Texas Gov. George W. Bush was asked in a survey recently to name his favorite book from childhood. He cited Eric Carle's ``The Very Hungry Caterpillar.'' Trouble is, it wasn't published until 1969 the year after he graduated from Yale. House of Crooks: These Men are leading the Republican Party to Doom,they are not Good Men they are all not Genuine! Member: Republican Party 310 First Street, S.E. Washington, DC 20003 Date: 11/4/99 From: Mr.Joseph D'Alessandro 94 Angola Estates Lewes,Delaware 19958 302-945-1554 Subject:Member # 8512 7568 1596 4858 ACLU Don't let these Men Who we Elected run our Country, Vote them out of Office they are Un-Ethical,No-Morals,and always cast the First Stone Aganist anyone they dislike they all have to many offense's to mention. Jesse Helms Aganist Woman Rights "Your tax dollars are being used to pay for grade school classes that teach our children that CANNIBALISM, WIFE-SWAPPING, and the MURDER of infants and the elderly are acceptable behavior.
    [Show full text]
  • Cato Institute As Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners ______
    No. 17-1702 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ___________________ MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORPORATION, DANIEL COUGHLIN, JEANETTE SANTIAGO, CORY BRYCE, Petitioners, v. DEEDEE HALLECK, JESUS PAPOLETO MELENDEZ, Respondents. ___________________ On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ___________________ BRIEF OF THE CATO INSTITUTE AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS ___________________ ILYA SHAPIRO DAVID DEBOLD TREVOR BURRUS Counsel of Record CATO INSTITUTE GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1000 Mass. Ave., NW. 1050 Conn. Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 955-8500 [email protected] VINCE EISINGER JACOB ARBER GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Counsel for Amicus Curiae i QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Second Circuit erred in rejecting this Court’s state actor tests and instead creating a per se rule that private operators of public access channels are state actors subject to constitutional li- ability. 2. Whether the Second Circuit erred in holding— contrary to the Sixth and D.C. Circuits—that private entities operating public access television stations are state actors for constitutional purposes where the state has no control over the private entity’s board or operations. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTIONS PRESENTED ........................................ i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... iv INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ............................ 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................... 1 ARGUMENT ............................................................... 4 I. THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED IN THE PETITION ARE RIPE FOR—AND IN NEED OF—RESOLUTION .............................4 A. This Case Properly Presents the Question Left Undecided in Denver Area ........................................................4 B. The Second Circuit Has Created a Spurious and Untenable Distinction Between Leased Access Channels and Public Access Channels ..................7 II.
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Power, Drone Executions, and the Due Process Rights of American Citizens
    Fordham Law Review Volume 87 Issue 3 Article 13 2018 Executive Power, Drone Executions, and the Due Process Rights of American Citizens Jonathan G. D'Errico Fordham University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Military, War, and Peace Commons, and the President/ Executive Department Commons Recommended Citation Jonathan G. D'Errico, Executive Power, Drone Executions, and the Due Process Rights of American Citizens, 87 Fordham L. Rev. 1185 (2018). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol87/iss3/13 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EXECUTIVE POWER, DRONE EXECUTIONS, AND THE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS Jonathan G. D’Errico* Few conflicts have tested the mettle of procedural due process more than the War on Terror. Although fiery military responses have insulated the United States from another 9/11, the Obama administration’s 2011 drone execution of a U.S. citizen allegedly associated with al-Qaeda without formal charges or prosecution sparked public outrage. Judicial recognition that this nonbattlefield execution presented a plausible procedural due process claim ignited questions which continue to smolder today: What are the limits of executive war power? What constitutional privileges do American citizens truly retain in the War on Terror? What if the executive erred in its judgment and mistakenly executed an innocent citizen? Currently, no legal regime provides answers or guards against the infringement of procedural due process the next time the executive determines that an American citizen must be executed to protect the borders of the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Is the Attorney General's Client?
    \\jciprod01\productn\N\NDL\87-3\NDL305.txt unknown Seq: 1 20-APR-12 11:03 WHO IS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S CLIENT? William R. Dailey, CSC* Two consecutive presidential administrations have been beset with controversies surrounding decision making in the Department of Justice, frequently arising from issues relating to the war on terrorism, but generally giving rise to accusations that the work of the Department is being unduly politicized. Much recent academic commentary has been devoted to analyzing and, typically, defending various more or less robust versions of “independence” in the Department generally and in the Attorney General in particular. This Article builds from the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Co. Accounting Oversight Board, in which the Court set forth key principles relating to the role of the President in seeing to it that the laws are faithfully executed. This Article draws upon these principles to construct a model for understanding the Attorney General’s role. Focusing on the question, “Who is the Attorney General’s client?”, the Article presumes that in the most important sense the American people are the Attorney General’s client. The Article argues, however, that that client relationship is necessarily a mediated one, with the most important mediat- ing force being the elected head of the executive branch, the President. The argument invokes historical considerations, epistemic concerns, and constitutional structure. Against a trend in recent commentary defending a robustly independent model of execu- tive branch lawyering rooted in the putative ability and obligation of executive branch lawyers to alight upon a “best view” of the law thought to have binding force even over plausible alternatives, the Article defends as legitimate and necessary a greater degree of presidential direction in the setting of legal policy.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case of the “Ground Zero Mosque” Controversy 
    A Theoretical Study of Solidarity in American Society: The Case of the “Ground Zero Mosque” Controversy Fatemeh Mohammadi1 * , Hamed Mousavi2 1. PhD Candidate in Anthropology, Carleton University, Canada (Corresponding Author: [email protected]) 2. Assistant Professor, Department of Regional Studies, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran ([email protected]) (Received: 5 Mar. 2017 Accepted: 8 Aug. 2017) Abstract The paper uses the case study of the controversy regarding the construction of a mosque near the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in Manhattan, New York, to analyze the different theoretical approaches to the concept of solidarity. It is argued that the presence of affectional solidarity which is based on feelings of caring, friendship and love was very limited in the case under study. Instead the primary form of solidarity present in the ground zero mosque debate was conventional solidarity, which is based primarily on common interests and concerns that are established through shared traditions and values. Nevertheless, conventional solidarity uses membership within a group to advocate for solidarity. In many instances however, people in need of solidarity might fall outside of the boundaries of “we,” and as a result limiting the utility of the approach. This is why the paper advocates for a revised form of Jodi Dean’s reflective solidarity, which is based on mutual responsibility toward each other despite our differences. It is argued that in its current form this approach is a normative universal ideal which holds great potential but is unclear, underspecified and impractical. However, by injecting some “realism” into this theoretical approach, reflective solidarity is superior to affectional and conventional approaches.
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado Survey of 500 Likely Voters Conducted September 14, 2008 by Rasmussen Reports for FOX News
    Colorado Survey of 500 Likely Voters Conducted September 14, 2008 By Rasmussen Reports for FOX News 1* How do you rate the way that George W. Bush is performing his role as President? Excellent, good, fair, or poor? 13% Excellent 20% Good 16% Fair 50% Poor 1% Not sure 2* How do you rate the way that Bill Ritter is performing his role as Governor? Excellent, good, fair, or poor? 14% Excellent 30% Good 30% Fair 24% Poor 1% Not sure 3* If the Presidential Election were held today, would you vote for Republican John McCain, Democrat Barack Obama, Libertarian Bob Barr or Independent Ralph Nader 48% McCain 46% Obama 1% Barr 3% Nader 0% McKinney 2% Not sure 4* Favorable Ratings Obama McCain Very Favorable 37% 26% Somewhat Favorable 15% 29% Somewhat Unfavorable 15% 18% Very Unfavorable 31% 24% Not sure 2% 3% 5* In terms of how you will vote for President, are you primarily interested in National Security issues such as the War with Iraq and the War on Terror, Economic issues such as jobs and economic growth, Domestic Issues like Social Security and Health Care, Cultural issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion, or Fiscal issues such as taxes and government spending? 27% National Security Issues 35% Economic Issues 13% Domestic Issues 7% Cultural Issues 12% Fiscal Issues 6% Not sure 6* Overall, which candidate do you trust more -- Barack Obama or John McCain? 46% Obama 48% McCain 6% Not sure Colorado Survey of 500 Likely Voters continued 7* Regardless of how you would vote, how comfortable would you be with Barack Obama as president? 32%
    [Show full text]
  • Dick Armey, Stepping Ahead To
    Dick Armey, Stepping Ahead to ead `Yes' or `No'-Conservative Learns to Say 'Maybe—Even to M derates 51( Kan.), the party's presumptive pres dential nomi- By Guy Gugliotta nee. Washington Post Staff Writer In Gingrich's absence, House M 'ority Leader Dick Armey loves free markets, the balanced Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) has ste ped forward, budget and the flat tax. He hates farm subsidies, the bringing with him an impeccable reput tion as a red- Commerce Department and the minimum wage. meat conservative with rough edges, who, even in He's not shy about saying what he thinks, and he his current job, often serves as the lea ership's ideo- doesn't play to the crowd. logical last line of defense. This is pe haps both his "You gotta understand," he told a group of high greatest strength and his weakness. school honor students from Florida who asked him Armey's suggestion Sunday on NB 's "Meet the about the future of federal education grants during a Press" that the government cut edu tion spending recent visit to the Capitol. "I'm not a big fan of the to fund the repeal of a 4.3 cents-per- allon gasoline federal government." tax prompted immediate cries of ou age from the Two months have passed since House Speaker Clinton administration. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), whose national popularity But inside the House, Armey wins r spect for hav- was sinking out of sight, "stepped back" from the ing the courage of his convictions and e willingness day-to-day legislative grind to raise money for GOP to state them.
    [Show full text]
  • WHY COMPETITION in the POLITICS INDUSTRY IS FAILING AMERICA a Strategy for Reinvigorating Our Democracy
    SEPTEMBER 2017 WHY COMPETITION IN THE POLITICS INDUSTRY IS FAILING AMERICA A strategy for reinvigorating our democracy Katherine M. Gehl and Michael E. Porter ABOUT THE AUTHORS Katherine M. Gehl, a business leader and former CEO with experience in government, began, in the last decade, to participate actively in politics—first in traditional partisan politics. As she deepened her understanding of how politics actually worked—and didn’t work—for the public interest, she realized that even the best candidates and elected officials were severely limited by a dysfunctional system, and that the political system was the single greatest challenge facing our country. She turned her focus to political system reform and innovation and has made this her mission. Michael E. Porter, an expert on competition and strategy in industries and nations, encountered politics in trying to advise governments and advocate sensible and proven reforms. As co-chair of the multiyear, non-partisan U.S. Competitiveness Project at Harvard Business School over the past five years, it became clear to him that the political system was actually the major constraint in America’s inability to restore economic prosperity and address many of the other problems our nation faces. Working with Katherine to understand the root causes of the failure of political competition, and what to do about it, has become an obsession. DISCLOSURE This work was funded by Harvard Business School, including the Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness and the Division of Research and Faculty Development. No external funding was received. Katherine and Michael are both involved in supporting the work they advocate in this report.
    [Show full text]