Sunny Side Up

I have been reading the polls recently, both in Idaho and nationally, and they tell a similar story not only across the boundaries of the states, but also one familiar to those who have followed such matters over time: the public wants to cut the budget deficit, but does not want to either cut spending or raise tax rates. How, then, are politicians to act? If they are what is known in the political science world as "delegate representatives," then they will act on the wishes of their constituents...and do nothing about the budget deficit. This may not be the worst action, either, because the public has failed to place the national budget deficit as a top priority for legislators. I don't expect deficits to fall any time soon, nor can they so long as government spending is a economic stimulator, of sorts. State governments have a different end to their budgetary tale, so long as their constitutions mandate balanced budgets (as is the case in Idaho). Hence, the extreme tendency of politicians toward incrementalism, neither raising taxes greatly nor lowering them dramatically, and neither cutting or raising spending in either draconian (beyond 20% of the budget, for instance) or megalomanaical fashion.

The very heavy defeat of the Democrats in the recent elections suggests several explanations: unpopular Democrats, strong Republican message, weak Democratic campaigning, dislike of President Obama, overexposed Democratic seats from the gains in 2006 and 2008, and the amorphous idea of "voter anger" (voters always seem angry, though). The election forecasting models put forth by political scientists this past year suggest the most important variable explaining the results is a generic ballot variable, where respondents indicate whether or not they'll vote for the Democratic or Republican congressional candidate, without a candidate's name placed before them. I struggle with what theory this variable connects back to about voting behavior, however. It's instead, to me, a tautology: I voted Democratic/Republican because I support them. This explanation seems devoid of content. I'll enjoy another cup of tea and ponder further.

Labels: Political Science