On Nov 6, 2010, at 1:21 PM, Wojtek S wrote:
>
> ...So from that point of view, I do not see much evidence of the
> supposed
> dissatisfaction of liberals who voted for Obama. Some were
> dissatisfied, to
> be sure, but I do not think it made enough difference on the
> national level
> to sway the election results...
You're looking at it from the wrong point of view (actually two wrong points of view--you also adopt the viewpoint of Gilbert's Private Willis when you treat the words "liberal" and "conservative" as fixed attributes of persons). You are looking at 2010 *voters* when you should be looking at nonvoters--the 2008 Obamites who in 2010 "voted with their sitzfleisch" and thereby dumped the dumbos.
> I am reasonably certain that had the economy visibly improved,
> democrats
> would have maintained their majorities, Mr. Obama notwithstanding.
>
The fact is that "the economy" (expressed in the stock-market averages
and bank profits) visibly improved while "the economy" (expressed in
employment prospects) simply stagnated. If "the economy" was a reason
to vote for one gang or the other, those for whom "the economy"
improved would have massively financed and supported the dumbos. The
opposite, you will see if you look, was the case.
Shane Mage
"All things are an equal exchange for fire and fire for all things, as goods are for gold and gold for goods."
Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr, 90