On October 20, Public Policy Polling released a North Carolina U.S. Senate poll. The results: Democratic incumbent Kay Hagan 46%; Republican Richard Tillis 43%; Libertarian Sean Haugh 5%; undecided 7%. The poll includes a question for the Haugh voters, which shows that he draws almost equally between people who (if they were to vote in a two-candidate race) would vote Democratic or Republican. Thanks to PoliticalWire for the link.
It should be no surprise that the Haugh supporters, if denied the right to vote for him, would split almost evenly between the Democrat and the Republican. The Libertarian Party is truly the “centrist” party being fiscally conservative and socially liberal in its positions. As such, Libertarian candidates are positioned to “take votes” from candidates of both of the major parties. The so-called “Libertarian Republicans” are not really Libertarian but use of the term is some of what causes many to view Libertarians as “taking votes” from Republicans.
The GOP might as well write off North Carolina. Let’s face it. Hagan is the incumbent, and North Carolina has been a Blue state as much as it has a Red state in recent decades.
The Republican’s problem in North Carolina – as it is nationwide – is they offer nothing tangible for working people who make up the majority of any population.
Social issues – as important as they may be to me – are not what drives the average voter today.
The average “Joe” wants a job which pays a living wage (at least $20 an hour), adequate, full coverage, health care for his family, including obtaining any pharmaceutical needs without co-pays which cost half-a-days pay, free secondary and college opportunities for his children so they might have opportunity for a better job than poor ole Dad, and a sustained and adequate Social Security System and Medicare Program, where ole “Joe” and his wife might live out their golden years in Thanks to God for allowing them to live in a nation where such blessings can be obtained.
When Republicans start realizing this, and discard their baseless arguments, such as “increased minimum wages kills jobs,” they will gain the respect of the average voting American.
The Democrats realized this many decades ago, and this is why they have had control of the Congress longer since WWII than the GOP. And while the GOP may gain control of the Senate after the 2014 elections, unless they change and make a noticeable change, they can forget about 2016 and many more elections in the future.
To those who say the U.S. cannot provide the lifestyle expected by ole “Joe,” all I have to say you have been reading too many conservative writings. As Socialist candidate for President, Eugene Debs, is purported to have said, “The people of the United States can have anything they want. The problem is, the people of the United States do not want anything.”
AI –
Excellent post. Thank you.
According to the OECD, only Chile and Mexico amend all OECD countries collect less than the US in total income taxes as a percentage of GDP. In 2011, that number for the US was roughly 24%. Among all other OECD countries the median tax burden was 34%. That means many developed countries collected HALF AGAIN as much income taxes at all levels of government than the US.
Grover Norquist and all the Republicans who sign his “tax pledge” and thus perpetuate the myth that US citizens are overtaxed can bite me.
among…not amend. Sry
TruFoe:
Glad you agree with my position as to why I feel the GOP is doomed to fail.
I am, however, a little surprised that I have not been bombarded with the defenders of unbridled capitalism, which is the main reason ole “Joe” has to work hard all day – at least 8 hours a day – 5 days a week – just to make ends meet. And usually, his spouse is working also, and there still is not enough for an average family of 4 to 5 members.
I know, because I have family who finds themselves in this same circumstances.
However, I’m afraid it is not going to change. It’s been this way since the industrial revolution hit the United States over a hundred years ago, and I don’t see any relief for those who work so hard and yet see so little for all their efforts.
Gene:
What would you call a party that is “fiscally liberal, but socially conservative?”
Just curious.
They too would be “centrist” – just a different complexion.
Gene:
Interesting, you would call it a “centrist” party, but I would think most would refer to it as a “populist” party – if there can be such, and I believe there can be.
When George Wallace ran on the AIP ticket in 1968, I think he wanted to project his candidacy as somewhat “centrist” or “populist” because other than his strong emphasis on states’ rights and anti-communism, he advocated strongly for working people. His roots were deep in Alabama “progressivism” as it could be in those days and expect to get elected. He advocated for free textbooks for students and promoted the establishment of community colleges around the state – something many if not most Republicans would not advocate for.