SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Ah, Voters

JONATHAN CHAIT JULY 1, 2010

Ah, Voters

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

Pollster Peter Brown on the New Jersey electorate's feelings about Chris Christie's budget showdown:

Although the legislature got a 62%-19% disapproval rating, its opposition to his cuts received strong support among the electorate. By double-digits, voters told Quinnipiac, they oppose the governor’s plans to layoff 1,300 state workers, close state psychiatric institutions, to cut $820 million in aid to public schools and to reduce aid to cities and towns. They did voice strong support for limiting property tax increases, a key part of Mr. Christie’s plan.

Huh. They hate the budget cuts and love the tax cuts. Who could have guessed?

 

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 16 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

16 comments

And in other news...dog bites man!

- MikeB.

July 1, 2010 at 8:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Too many grasshoppers, not enough ants. Is it any wonder the US is on a decline path?

- tnmats

July 1, 2010 at 9:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yep, tnmats. Or as my republican therapist friend would say, "everybody wants to be the baby. Nobody wants to be the parent."

- miceelf

July 1, 2010 at 9:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mic, your comment jibes with a line I use all the time "where did all the adults go?". I don't really care if there is a cut in services to match the tax receipts or tax increases to match the services we demand (I prefer the latter but can live with the former if done right). I just say PICK and then shut up, you CANNOT have it both ways.

- tnmats

July 1, 2010 at 11:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You posted a fine piece by Michael Kinsley yesterday. When I glanced at the heading just now (I read his piece on Elena Kagan yesterday), after reading this thread, I recalled Kinsley's term for people who want to have their cake and eat it, too: big babies. That is the title of a 1995 collection of his essays (1986 -1995) published in book form. Make a dash to Amazon, acquire this book, and read it, people. Kinsley is great. I recall writing Mr. Kinsley in the late 1980's, when he was the editor of the New Republic, and commending him for his splendid journalism. In particular, I wrote that I liked his send-up (in 1981, I believe) of the snooze of a political program on TV, called Agronsky and Company, which he rendered as Jerkoffsky and Company. He wrote a nice note in reply and he said that he was flattered that I remembered his ancient pieces. In the mid-1990s, when he graced the Seattle area with his presence, in order to be the first editor of Slate, the online magazine that Microsoft started (since sold to the WaPO), I rang him up and told him again how much I enjoyed his writing. After chatting with him a bit, he asked incredulously if that was all that I wanted, to praise his writing, that is. I said yes; it seemed clear by his reaction that people were ringing up his listed number and importuning him for favors. I mentioned the nice letter he had written me some seven years previously, and he said, "Well, now I am even more flattered," when I referred to his Agronsky send-up. He was tremendously gracious. Wow. While i was proofing my comment, I went over to another window and I googled J&C and I found that I wrote about the above in the comment section of an April 15th post by you, Jonathan: Must-Read Classic Kinsley. I forgot about that entirely until now. People tell me what a great memory I have. Yeah, well, it is good, but obviously not infallible.

- liberal reformer

July 1, 2010 at 11:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is one of the reasons that I have to shake my head, when people say they are waiting for politicians to really listen to the people. This of course ignores the fact that often what the people want is incoherent.

- MikeB.

July 1, 2010 at 12:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yours is a crisp comment, mb. I recall a generation ago someone like Joshua Muravchik or Arch Puddington referred in Commentary to the"Tory socialists", Alexander Cockburn and Christopher Hitchens. I jokingly refer to my longtime friend, Tom P. who I have known since taking courses from him in philosophy and religion and logic and ethics 36 years ago, as a Tory socialist, as well as to myself, in that fashion. We are both far less to the left than Alexander Cockburn is now and Christopher Hitchens was then. But still, the people can be frustrating. Sometimes, it almost makes you a Brechtian, where you long to dissolve the people and elect another.

- liberal reformer

July 1, 2010 at 12:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I believe "The Simpsons" discovered this 15 years ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOyqtLy1hv8

- Crock1701

July 1, 2010 at 12:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MikeB., Very, very good comment. Most of the American public does not have a coherent philosophy of what they want, and what the proper relationship between citizens and their government should be. And those who have a coherent philosophy -- i.e., Dennis Kucinich and Rand Paul -- most people find their philosophy to be defective.

- jimbomoron

July 1, 2010 at 2:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chait wrong again. This is really bad analysis -- even for Chait. 30 seconds click-through to the actual survey data shows: Dems: support higher taxes and oppose cuts in public sector Reps: oppose higher taxes and support cuts in public sector Duh. Chait -- take a freakin stats course -- sample is not homogensous enough to generalize.

- mr_rationale

July 1, 2010 at 3:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are a loon, rationale, fancying yourself smarter than Jonathan Chait. You are also a masochist, frequenting this site and exposing yourself to myriads of whacks. It would be highly amusing to hear you ramble on about statistics. You don't have much of a life, do you?

- liberal reformer

July 1, 2010 at 4:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Liberal reformer -- amusing always, insightful never. do you even understand why Chaits analysis is wrong? Nothing to do with politics. Chait a BA from U of Michigan who blogs (makes up stuff) for a living -- not hard to be smarter. A lot smarter.

- mr_rationale

July 1, 2010 at 5:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Liberal Reformer, That is why I call myself a Hamiltonian. I know he most likely never said it, but there is a bit of truth to quip attributed to him. "The people sir is a great beast!" Ha! The strange thing is according to surveys and polls most Americans don't have the slightest understanding of what constitutes the Federal budget. Most think welfare and foreign aid are huge chunks of the budget when they are in reality quite small. That is why I think ultimately things like the tea parties have worked as well as they do. People just assume balancing the Federal Budget would just be a question of cutting a bit on discrestionary spending. Therefore having a real public debate on these things is next to impossible.

- MikeB.

July 1, 2010 at 5:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you for your nice reply, MikeB. I greatly admire Alexander Hamilton, as well. Have you read Ron Chernow's fabulous biography of him? If not, you must do so. The most astonishing aspect of Chernow's book was that Hamilton was blackmailed by a young lady and her husband, for quite some time, about a year, if memory serves. Jonathan Chait takes down fools like Veronique de Rugy, who can't even assimilate some basic data, and Peter Wehner, who is either so obtuse as not to know that it is the economy, stupid, when it comes to presidential approval ratings, or else he being extremely disingenuous, which you say nothing about (what could you say?). And anyway, I am on to you, rationale. I know who you are: you're Jonah Goldberg. I'd recognize the style anywhere. the lunatic assertions (liberalism is fascism), the swaggering, the incoherence, the aggression. Crawl back to your niche at National Review, please.

- liberal reformer

July 1, 2010 at 6:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes Liberal Reformer you are right. Chernow's book is fantastic. If you are a Hamilton buff there is a great book by Stephen Knott called, "Alexander Hamilton and the Persistance of Myth" published by the University of Kansas. It goes into how the image of Hamilton has been used and misused for centuries and how his standing has gone up and down among the public.

- MikeB.

July 1, 2010 at 7:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Rationale, Sure Republicans SAY they want to cut spending. However, when you get to specifics this always breaks down. David Stockman, who was Reagan's OMB director once gave Reagan a list of Federal programs and asked him if they should be cut, stay the same, or increase. After he was done it was clear Reagan's ideas would not have actually cut the budget. (Despite his rhetoric I think deep down Reagan always had a bit of his old New Dealer years in him that I don't think he really wanted to see the poor hurt.) In any case, the only GOP congressman who has spoken seriously of cuts is Paul Ryan, and the leadership won't back his plans.

- MikeB.

July 1, 2010 at 7:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close