Sunday, September 16, 2018

Seems a lot of undecided voters would like to see conservative policies implemented

Kimberly Strassel WSJ column on what a data firm found out about the views of a key category of voters:

This was a week of gloomy midterm polls for the Republican Party, with a wave of results projecting a Democratic takeover of the House and maybe even the Senate. But not all polls are created equal. If Republicans bother to read just one, it should be a yet-unreleased survey that tells a more nuanced story.
The data come courtesy of the Club for Growth, a conservative outfit that plays to win. The club’s donors expect it to place smart bets in elections, which it can’t do if it relies on feel-good data. It uses WPAi, the data firm that in 2016 found Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson really did have a shot at re-election, then crafted the messages that got him the money and votes for victory.
WPAi just handed the club in-depth polling of the people who matter most this midterm—1,000 likely voters in 41 competitive House districts. The results are quietly making their way to Republican leaders, and the club agreed to give me an advance look. Bottom line: Many of these races are winnable—if Republicans have the courage of their convictions and get smarter in tailoring their messages to voters.
The big, obvious takeaway, along with the internals she goes on to discuss, will not surprise those of the LITD persuasion: the Very Stable Genius is a net negative.

But then . . .


. . . the club’s data make clear that uncommitted voters want more than past achievements, or a scary picture of Nancy Pelosi, or excuses for Mr. Trump. They want promises for the future. And yes, they remain wary that Democrats will reverse particular economic reforms.

Which is why the message that resonates most strongly by far with persuadable voters is a Republican promise that they will make permanent last year’s middle-class tax cuts. Rep. Kevin Brady, the Ways and Means Committee chairman, has introduced legislation to do just that—and it’s mind-boggling that Republicans haven’t already scheduled votes. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell doesn’t have 60 Senate supporters, but Republican candidates could use Democratic “no” positions to huge effect in their races.

Likewise, Republicans have an opportunity in highlighting the left’s more doolally ideas. Uncommitted voters reacted strongly against Democrats’ calls to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and strongly in favor of GOP promises to defund “sanctuary” cities and states, which refuse to follow immigration law. These were top messages for those crucial suburban voters, who have watched in alarm as urban violence creeps into their neighborhoods. (Interestingly, the other top suburban message was repealing ObamaCare.)
As for the Republican base, the poll finds they are driven most by Democrats’ threats to the presidency, the economy and constitutional rights. They will be inspired by Republicans who promise to protect the Second Amendment. They are likewise stirred by promises to defend Mr. Trump from the partisan impeachment effort that would inevitably accompany Democratic House control. And they want to hear Republicans vow to guard against intrusive and specific Democratic job-killing proposals—a $15-an-hour minimum wage, regulations on autos and drinking straws, government health care, etc. 
But it seems the key is to keep races local and focused on the specific candidates running. The VSG should just stay away in some cases:

What muddies all this clear direction is Mr. Trump’s nationalization of the race—his insistence on making it a referendum on his presidency. Polling suggests the Trump rallies and election talk are a double-edged sword. They turn off voters in the suburbs, where Republicans are already behind in enthusiasm. But they drive votes in rural areas, which react most strongly to impeachment threats.
So the trick for Republicans is to target different microcosms of their districts, tailoring their messages via digital marketing, calls, mailings and events. Some issues, like taxes, resonate everywhere, but for the most part the emphasis and message needs to be entirely different depending on block-by-block geography. 

Bingo. Keep the message in these races focused on freedom-centered principles and keep the VSG's bombastic blurtings out of the proceedings.

43 comments:

  1. Inquiring independent voters might want to know why were corporate tax cuts receiving not even a debate, nor a single Democratic vote permanent and so much greater than the individual tax cuts? Say what you want about the Obama years, but serious attention was paid by both parties to the deficit, but you cons did not like where the cuts went. You vastly underestimate our intelligence if you don't think we're all holding our breaths fearing the next economic meltdown where we'll all be left without pots to piss in while the corps go on their merry ways having gained a huge cushion to sit it out on. Meanwhile the screwy foreign policy of the fearless Republican leader their party is so fearful of correcting, continues to make war and the economic drag thereof more and more likely. Even Mad Dog Matis has had enough to make him rabid against Trump. And if you really think about it, what tinder boxes and jaw dropping revelations the lid's been held down tight on leading up to the election await us the moment it's over? Only an imbecile can claim this election is not all about the head Republican Donald Trump. But of course you don't care because you too must be an independent now because you slithered away from your party of your lifetime and now think you're in safe hiding, casting aspersions at the madding crowd which you trust are sufficient to maintain your status quo.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nope. Strassel's point is that if the proper strategy were to be developed, some of these races could be won on the basis of voters' desire to see the above-cited policy directions implemented.

    Also, tax cuts and the debt / deficit are only tangentially related. The tax cuts are resulting in excellent economic news. You just can't beat letting people and businesses keep their own money!
    And yeah, it's good for corporations to have a cushion for the next downturn (and there will be a next downturn - maybe even "meltdown," as you put it. They're an inevitable part of the cycle.) After all, we'll need the corporations to start making stuff as the upturn after that begins.
    Re: safe hiding: Well, as I've said, I can applaud the good stuff and not have to own the antics. Why wouldn't I want to position myself thusly?

    ReplyDelete
  3. The solution to the debt / deficit problem? Quit expecting government to address sickness and old age.

    ReplyDelete
  4. But Trump won't hear of it. His position is like, "That was promised to those people. We're not going to touch it."

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh well, your candidate can go there in 2020. Perhaps there will be a groundswell of independent opinion championing your direction on that there. But I doubt it, so you will continue to rail against the ignorant cattle masses. That ought to work as well as calling down and others feral animals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My radio station email account inundates me with area law enforcement agency press releases, with the mug shots and accounts of what these people were doing when arrested: burglary, robbery, domestic violence. You look in their eyes and you can see that they don't give a shit about having souls. They are feral animals, and the ones who recover will later tell you that they were.

      Delete
    2. Your use of that descriptive is as disgusting as your oft chosen metaphor of dog vomit. Never heard the term feral animal to describe an addict and with an attitude like that from police and prosecutors I guess we'll just continue to fill the cages.

      Delete
  6. And if that's all you got is to cut social security, have fun on the outside looking in because it's not going to fly with independents either. The time to discuss the cuts to OASI should have been when they were not discussing the tax cuts, just ramming them through. What do you think that would have meant for your so-called "economic miracle" which is more like a mirage, because, as you concede,there will be another downturn. Some are predicting it for 2020.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stop sounding juvenile. There is no other way to reduce our debt. You are ignoring what I said about tax cuts and the debt only being tangentially tally related.
      Tax cuts are always good - certainly for economic reasons, but also moral. Government has no justification for taking that money. None.

      Delete
    2. What do you mean there's no other way to reduce our debt? This is a democracy. Every governmental expenditure is subject to both increases and decreases as decided by our elected representatives.

      Delete
  7. So there's no common defense, no common welfare that moralizes taxation? And you have squawked about the deficit for the entire dozen years I've been trolling here getting in some daily writing practice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Surely you don't need a repeat presentation of the stats on when SS, Medicare and Medicaid are going to only be able to make partial payments, when they're going to be bankrupt, and when the entire revenue available to the federal government is going to have to be devoted to servicing interest on the debt.

      Delete
    2. And taxation is not the answer. I work very hard for every damn dollar I earn, thank you very much, and I'll decide how those dollars are going be used, and there's no room in my plans for a feeble attempt to shore up an arrangement that is headed for disaster.

      Delete
  8. I work hard for my dollar too in this democracy that you and I are only a miniscule part of, so see ya at the ballot box bippy.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I welcome debate in the halls of Comgress so why'd the Republicans refuse to debate the corporate tax cuts in the House before voting with no Dem votes in favor? Is that democracy,

    ReplyDelete
  10. Nothing to debate. The corporate tax cuts have had a direct excellent effect on the economy, and they are unquestionably morally defensible.

    ReplyDelete
  11. But to answer your question about why, the answer is because they didn't want to hear the Freedom-Haters once again grandstand about "greed."

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm not the one who brought morality into the equation. I'm with the Dems o. This one, though they deserved to be treated shabbily after the ACA rape of the Republicans. Payback is hell.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I love it, you talk like I'm some immoral dumbass for opposing the permanent corporate tax cuts rammed up us without a single Dem vote. Many agree with me, including this ultra rich guy:

    “The tax cut was an overall step in the wrong direction. Nobody who has any background in economics thought the tax bill was a good idea. Douglas says he will pay less in taxes now, although he declined to say how much he will save. Forbes estimates the Durst Organization is worth more than $5 billion."

    "Republicans, including President Donald Trump, campaigned on balancing the budget, yet they have added more than $1.5 trillion to the debt in the past year."

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/%e2%80%98i-support-higher-taxes%e2%80%99-the-billionaire-behind-the-national-debt-clock-has-had-it-with-trump/ar-BBNrOCz?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=SL5JDHP

    ReplyDelete
  14. Now, that's just plain stupid. For starters, the numbers regarding consumer confidence, manufacturing activity, and employment - how about those historic lows for minorities? - are great. And then there's this guy's explicit acknowledgement that he's now paying less in taxes!

    ReplyDelete
  15. The money is not the government's. Government must always have to justify, to the point of lying exhausted and prone on the ground, the taking of the first red cent from any of us.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This whole thing has not even begun to play out. All will be revealed in hindsight. Why give permanent tax breaks to corps and throw the working stiffs a bone? You say Douglas and I are stupid. I think you who claims taxation is immoral stupid. And we ain't stupid enough to not know that economic prosperity rises and falls and corporate corruption and greed proceed apace with the AI revolution nipping at our heels where as much of that nasty human capital will be eliminated as.possible in the name of efficiency and even service and we see where your ilk is going next. You'll be claiming there are not enough qualified workers to rationalize the robot revolution. And of course you want to eliminate all social insurance programs, even the big one instituted during the Great Depression for obvious reasons. You dont even want to try to repair them.

    ReplyDelete
  17. You're digressing into a bunch of irrelevant shit about AI because you know it's wrong for government to take more money from people and corporations (which amounts to the same thing) than is needed for its Constitutionally specified functions.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Tell me what you know about Jack Ma, Alibaba and Ant?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Born in Hangzhou in 1964, seemed unlikely to succeed (struggle to get through college, rejection when applying for all kinds of jobs), BA in English, time as an English instructor, acquaintance and fascination with the Internet in the early 1990s, building of websites for various Chinese businesses, amassing of venture capital, parlaying his various ventures into the holding company Alibaba, founding of Ant, a financial-services company.

      Now, you tell me why that's relevant to a discussion about whether government - in the US - ought to have a high or low corporate tax rate.

      Really make it clear, or it will be obvious that this is just more digression.

      Delete
  19. Ant has an insurance arm. Ant is really an AI company. They have developed a robot that can process claims taking humans 40 hours plus to conclude in, are you ready, 1 second. Now tell me that is not going to go, viral, as they say, and result in, the term's disruption. Big Jack says we are really in for it with AI. Good thing that bs about the corporate tax cuts being permanent is false too. Only as permanent as the voters allow. What will pick up the slack if a significant percentage of the jobs are gone? The corporations are going to run with this.

    "In the coming 30 years, the world's pain will be much more than happiness, because there are many more problems that we have come across," Ma said in Chinese, speaking about potential job disruptions caused by technology. The Alibaba founder warned that social conflicts could have a "huge impact" on all walks of life. Ma's company has invested in areas such as cloud computing and artificial intelligence as it expands into new sectors beyond its e-commerce business."

    https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/24/jack-ma-robots-ai-internet-decades-of-pain.html

    ReplyDelete
  20. Yet we gave the corporations developing the means to put a lot of out of work a huge tax break on zero debate, excused as avoiding tired old talk from the Dems about corporate greed. During my lifetime I've watched corporations suck more and more benefits from the workers, outsourcing, off shoring and hiring 1099s to avoid exposure to what you consider non governmental functions like health insurance, work comp, unemployment and retirement benefits. If not the employer and not government, then who attends to these concerns, especially in a workplace that's hiring fewer humans, not more?

    ReplyDelete
  21. As I was afraid you would, you failed to answer my question.

    Your entire position is based on some kind of notion that a business exists to provide and maintain jobs, because there is some kind of right to a job, and to health insurance and retirement. That's not what a business exists for, and there is no right to those things.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Then why did business used to fulfill these roles. And stop it with the prick baiting, dude. What question did I fail to answer. I am so sorry you are so afraid and want to allay your fears. I've been saying all along that corporate tax cuts deserve debate. Anytime I assert that we need to at least consider income before we cut outgo, as you want to do with Social Security et al, but you'd rather cry about the deficit after cutting the largest source of tax income and throwing the personal income tax payer a bone (permanent vs provisional for one). You want to do away with social security AND employer provided pensions which is what we became used to. You will fiddle while Rome burns.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/tedknutson/2018/09/17/retirement-is-in-peril-for-most-working-class-americans-warns-new-report/#3246c42a5742

    ReplyDelete
  23. The question: you tell me why that's relevant to a discussion about whether government - in the US - ought to have a high or low corporate tax rate.

    Now, to answer your question about why businesses fulfilled those roles: because it made economic sense in mid-20th century American circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  24. As free individuals, we ought to want to be in charge of our own lives, rather than turn that power over to the companies we work for or to the government

    ReplyDelete
  25. Because we have a deficit and the American track record for corporate responsibility is pretty poor.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Corps have all the coinage. That's kinda daunting for individuals endeavoring to compete with them.

    ReplyDelete
  27. What kind of "responsibility" are you suggesting corporations have?

    And your "because we have a deficit" argument sounds like an excuse for the premise that all money belongs to the government in the first place, and government then deems how much will be doled back out to those who earned it.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Nope, this is a democracy that determines what government takes in and doles out and it's all settled law but you can always hope to pack the court with enough originalists to get a majority opinion going your way if you can get it that far.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Why, you ask, bring this into a discussion about corporate taxation? Well, if you haven't read the news, oh boy, that is what has been prescribed as a remedy to the disruption of putting so many humans out of work. I know nobody owes nobody nothing, which is why you tax the piss out of the corps sooner, if not later. When the cattle awaken they'll want to graze of course. An army might march on its stomach but those without food in theirs can get kinda nasty, so perhaps a solution will arise to bake them up good in some ovens somewhere.

    AI handles insurance claims in one second vs 49 hours

    Yes, you read that correctly. Today, an insurance claim with Ant Insurance, the insurance arm of Alibaba-backed Ant Financial, takes 49 hours to process, but they just announced a new artificial intelligence powered claims systems that handles claims in one second (that’s 176,000 times more efficient.)

    If you haven’t been paying attention to the news for the last 24 months, you may not know that AI has started to replace many jobs in the information sector and China is leading the charge across that board. This week’s announcement (article in Chinese) by Ant Insurance is not only more efficient because it uses computers to process claims, but it also solves one of the largest issues in the insurance and claims industry: accuracy and consistent data collection.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/baymclaughlin/2018/07/25/this-week-in-china-tech-ai-disrupting-insurance-claims-china-opens-airspace-for-drones-and-more/#39a50a0e6f3d

    ReplyDelete
  30. You've been wailing about the deficit for over a decade until your ilk put RapidGrow on it.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Please read this book as soon as you possibly can in order to avoid future instances of looking economically illiterate.

    https://fee.org/media/14946/economicsinonelesson.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  32. Mmmm, I'm sliding with the billionaire above who says you're economically illiterate but whoever said the dismal science was exact?

    ReplyDelete
  33. OK, I'll read Read et al (inc Rand, yech) but send me a link that actually directs me to the book because there are many there. Read attacked New Deal legislation from the get-go, even accusing the legislators of being morally bankrupt (big fundie type). The thing is dude, not enough folks in this democracy want to go back in time. All this social legislation is done law. And since it's done law, you gotta pay your taxes and the government through the democracy decides what it goes for. In the instance of the "permanent" corporate tax cuts, my objection is that no attention was paid whatsoever to continuing liabilities which are in fact being increased by defense spending (including pay and pension raises for veterans who already get free lifelong health and dental care in their fine model of socialism in your demented post-America). I guess that model works, huh?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Done law is not the point if done law is flawed economics and morally wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I wasnt around for the social security debate and, though we lost the war on poverty in hindsight I guess I was young enough to swiftly swallow the feeling of morality surrounding it. Still, something about watching the nightly news from Nam smacked strongly of immorality but I probably would have lives to be loved "long time."

    ReplyDelete