The flight of the “Wal-Mart Moms”

posted at 12:55 pm on September 22, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Jim Geraghty provides another look at the flight from Democrats in this election cycle, given in a focus-group analysis of women surveyed for their political points of view.  The so-called “Wal-Mart Moms” backed Obama in 2008, but have gone through a period of severe disillusion.  They now favor Republicans, but that may not last, either:

1. Walmart Moms chose Barack Obama in 2008, but today they offer the President poor marks. By a margin of 48% to 43% Walmart Moms say they voted for Barack Obama in 2008, but almost two years later a majority of these women (52%) say they disapprove of the job the president is doing, while 40% approve. This is a much harsher assessment of the President than that among all registered voters (47% approve, 49% disapprove).

2. Walmart Moms are split on their self-identified partisan affiliation, but a majority say they would vote for a Republican Member of Congress this fall. Just over one-third (34%) of Walmart Moms self-identify as Republican, 35% as Democrat and 30% as Independents. Yet, when asked their voting intentions in the fall 51% say they plan to vote for a Republican candidate compared to just 35% who choose a Democratic candidate. Twelve percent (12%) are still undecided.

3. Walmart Moms hold net negative views of the Democratic Party and its leaders, and net positive views of the Republican Party. Fewer than three-in-ten (27%) of Walmart Moms have a positive view of the Democratic Party, while 46% have a negative view. They also have a net negative view of the President (39% positive, 48% negative) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (21% positive, 37% negative). However, when it comes to the Republican Party, Walmart Moms have a more favorable view (37% positive, 30% negative). Minority Leader John Boehner is largely unknown to these women – just 29% have heard of him.

We’ve now gone from soccer moms in the Clinton era to security moms in the Bush era after 9/11, and now we have the ironically named “Wal-Mart Moms” in Obama’s term of office.  Why ironic?  The left wing of the Democratic Party has engaged in non-stop demonization of Wal-Mart for years for their refusal to knuckle under to unions and their enormous success in retail.  One would think that actual Wal-Mart moms might be disinclined to vote for Democrats anyway.

Of course, the point is to determine what middle-class women with families think about politics, not where they shop or what sports their kids play on the weekends.  Maybe in the future, we can just say middle-class moms and hold off on the cutesy labels.

Getting back to the results, the survey should not surprise anyone in this election cycle.  The numbers run fairly close to the general population, especially in party affiliation.  The big difference is in the generic ballot question, where these women favor the GOP by 16 points.  The latest Rasmussen poll shows the GOP up by 10, and usually women trend more towards Democrats than Republicans.  This could be an indication that the likely-voter models used by pollsters could still be underestimating the Republican turnout for November.

But as Jim warns, their votes aren’t necessarily solid this cycle.  Only 57% of those saying they will vote for the Republican say their vote is firm, as opposed to 69% of those voting for Democrats.  That’s not a great indication of enthusiasm, but continued economic woes are not likely to convince them to switch in the next six weeks, either.

The most interesting result was that of the name recognition of John Boehner, the focus of Democratic attacks over the last couple of weeks.  Barack Obama spent a great deal of effort attempting to attack someone whom only 29% of target voters recognize now.  I wonder how much of that recognition comes from Obama elevating Boehner into the position of a national spokesman for conservatism, a strategy that the White House now seems to have abandoned a little too late to avoid making Boehner a rallying point for the Right.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I wonder if ACORN registered all those smiley faces to vote.

Limerick on September 22, 2010 at 12:58 PM

I wonder how much of that recognition comes from Obama elevating Boehner into the position of a national spokesman for conservatism, a strategy that the White House now seems to have abandoned a little too late to avoid making Boehner a rallying point for the Right.

The White House sure pulled a boner in trying to run against Boehner.

teke184 on September 22, 2010 at 12:59 PM

Rollback

Christien on September 22, 2010 at 1:00 PM

Is this the new reality?

a capella on September 22, 2010 at 1:01 PM

I’m just hoping that “Obamaville Moms” doesn’t become widespread.

Bishop on September 22, 2010 at 1:01 PM

Don’t hold us up agains the Almighty, hold us against the alternative….
/demagogue in chief.

ted c on September 22, 2010 at 1:02 PM

And shouldn’t they be surveying Tar-jay Moms? Everyone knows Tar-jay is the Wal-Mart for Dems. Then, again, “Target Moms” sounds kinda generic.

Christien on September 22, 2010 at 1:02 PM

Hey Obama, watch out for falling prices supporters.

Electrongod on September 22, 2010 at 1:03 PM

while 40% approve

There’s that number again. Over and over it appears as his floor.

TheBigOldDog on September 22, 2010 at 1:04 PM

Rollback

Christien on September 22, 2010 at 1:00 PM

Me like

faraway on September 22, 2010 at 1:05 PM

It’s a badge of honor to be attacked by the administration. Other than most Democrats only bad guys, like Ahmadenijad, escape attack from the Prez et al.

MTF on September 22, 2010 at 1:05 PM

He’s doing really well with Tiffany Moms

faraway on September 22, 2010 at 1:05 PM

These are not politically oriented people.

They are looking for someone to come and solve all their problems.

Since Dems are in control now and they’ve got problems, they’ll vote Republican. Then, when the magical, rainbow spitting unicorns don’t appear, they’ll vote Democrat again.

I realize that uninformed people can’t be overlooked because they make up a huge portion of the electorate, but, I’d just like to say that it would be nice if you had to pass a simple test in order to be able to vote. Something simple enough to pass if you study for five minutes but difficult enough to weed out the clueless (questions like, “Who is the current POTUS?”, “What party currently has a majority in congress?”). Of ocurse, that’ll never happen because any mention these days of wanting to require voters to be informed is somehow akin to saying, “I think only white men should be allowed to vote because I’m a racist, sexist, awful human being.”

JadeNYU on September 22, 2010 at 1:08 PM

The Obama White House is completely lacking in feck.

docjeff on September 22, 2010 at 1:09 PM

They used to be Stop-n-Shop or Safeway moms, but under Obama it’s Wal-Mart or starvation.

holdfast on September 22, 2010 at 1:09 PM

Attention WalMart Shoppers: Get a free Hope and Change Obama T-Shirt with every purchase of Franks and Beans!

RadClown on September 22, 2010 at 1:11 PM

Obama Reveals Plan To Win Back Wal-Mart Moms

Christien on September 22, 2010 at 1:15 PM

Maybe in the future, we can just say middle-class moms and hold off on the cutesy labels.

too late they are now called Mama grizzlies. Palin knows and understands who elects presidents and so does the dems and thus you have the major reason they are out to destroy her. If the “security” walmart soccer mama grizzlies vote for Palin she wins the election in a landslide…

unseen on September 22, 2010 at 1:15 PM

We need to stop cheerleading based on polls and focus on the massive gaping crater where our economy used to be.

Noone’s surprised that demographic after demographic are getting soured on Obama.

All this celebration before the elections (before even October) distracts from pushing the narrative that Obama continues to promote a disastrous keynesian policy and that the democrats who support him have proven to be catastrophic at governance.

Let’s stop with the backslapping and keep pushing on how disastrous this economy is and how much worse it would be with another two years of Obama’s socialist remedies.

Khorum on September 22, 2010 at 1:15 PM

Obama Reveals Plan To Win Back Wal-Mart Moms

Christien on September 22, 2010 at 1:15 PM

hahaha

itsnotaboutme on September 22, 2010 at 1:17 PM

WALMART…..EVIL “making….PROFIT”.

Walmart is part of the evil White colonial invaders/conqueors of the peace tribes that lived here before….

Was this speech of the DOTUS the signal that this country is about to be LITERALLY split apart into the begrudged groups that OBAMA identifies with?

Mexicans, Indians, etc.

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-leaves-creator-out-of-declaration-preamble/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztl%C3%A1n

http://www.republicoflakotah.com/

This signal to these groups to stand with the DOTUS could it be enough to offset the “flight” of these Moms???

PappyD61 on September 22, 2010 at 1:18 PM

Walmart moms. Speaking of Walmart, this from the WSJ…

This is fitting. Obama’s Walmart moms to go with his Obamavilles.

Bill Simon, CEO of Wal-Mart’s U.S. business, at a Goldman Sachs conference last week, on behavior at a Walmart store around midnight at the end of a month:

“The paycheck cycle we’ve talked about before remains extreme. It is our responsibility to figure out how to sell in that environment, adjusting pack sizes, large pack at sizes the beginning of the month, small pack sizes at the end of the month. And to figure out how to deal with what is an ever-increasing amount of transactions being paid for with government assistance.

“And you need not go further than one of our stores on midnight at the end of the month. And it’s real interesting to watch, about 11 p.m., customers start to come in and shop, fill their grocery basket with basic items, baby formula, milk, bread, eggs,and continue to shop and mill about the store until midnight, when electronic — government electronic benefits cards get activated and then the checkout starts and occurs. And our sales for those first few hours on the first of the month are substantially and significantly higher.

And if you really think about it, the only reason somebody gets out in the middle of the night and buys baby formula is that they need it, and they’ve been waiting for it. Otherwise, we are open 24 hours — come at 5 a.m., come at 7 a.m., come at 10 a.m. But if you are there at midnight, you are there for a reason.”

voiceofreason on September 22, 2010 at 1:22 PM

Ed,

If the economy stays this way, maybe in the 2012 election cycle they can be referred to as “Frank & Beans Moms”… Could you please pass the mustard.

USMCDevilDog on September 22, 2010 at 1:22 PM

Of course, the point is to determine what middle-class women with families think about politics, not where they shop or what sports their kids play on the weekends. Maybe in the future, we can just say middle-class moms and hold off on the cutesy labels.

I’m a middle class mom, and yes, I shop at walmart on occasion. Since learning about what it is to vote, what the parties are, and what they stand for, in high school….I knew after reading the chapter on Republicans,and Democrats, that I would always be a Republican, and I’ve never waivered.

29% only, know who Boehner is? Who are these walmart moms, and why aren’t more paying attention? I’ll admit, I’ve always read up during election times, so I know who I’m voting for, but never more than in 2008, when I took a more avid, and concerned interest in where the nation is headed. I can’t believe people just vote so blindly. Our country deserves more, and better.

capejasmine on September 22, 2010 at 1:22 PM

Christien – Tar Zhay, dude

A certain je ne sais quoi…

taterblade on September 22, 2010 at 1:24 PM

Obama’s lost The people of Walmart?

batterup on September 22, 2010 at 1:26 PM

PappyD61 on September 22, 2010 at 1:18 PM

what is a shame is if all other companies would embrace the walmart model “reducing price to drive sales” making more by making less profit magrin and reducing costs the economy would be in a massive boom.

unseen on September 22, 2010 at 1:28 PM

taterblade on September 22, 2010 at 1:24 PM

I’m too lay-zhay to do the accent aigu.

Christien on September 22, 2010 at 1:30 PM

The left wing of the Democratic Party has engaged in non-stop demonization of Wal-Mart for years for their refusal to knuckle under to unions and their enormous success in retail.

More accurately, it’s because Wal-Mart is simply declasse to our ruling class liberal elites. Do you know how far you have to drive outside of Washington to find a Wal-Mart? Something like 20 miles. Nobody they know actually shops there, it’s only redneck white trash people who do.

rockmom on September 22, 2010 at 1:31 PM

I don’t know if I’d call Wal-Mart shoppers middle class. What are the numbers on “middle class” nowadays? I know people who make over $250K who define themselves as middle class. And they’re never caught dead at Wal-Mart. We shop there 3 or 4 times a month (but then, we make significantly less than $250K).

Of course, under Obama, the middle class will likely sink into the working class. And then Obama will claim that he’s elevated everyone into the middle class.

disa on September 22, 2010 at 1:33 PM

Walmart moms? Hmmmmmmmmm..

..would those be the folks depicted, here, and here, and here, and here, and here?

The War Planner on September 22, 2010 at 1:34 PM

Wonder how they matched the demographic to ‘Walmnart Mom’

If they actually correlated persons who gravitate to walmart with Walmart Moms, then there could be an underlying factor. Walmart has been undergoing a culture shift as of late.

All big box stores are addicted to the consultant, and the new big marketing idea. Walmart ran an ad blitz showing rows of cash registers waiting to serve, but Walmart has cut staff and hours and many stores have long lines.

They have also cut quality, probably to retain prices, but certain departments have forgotten to stock what the cutomer needs. Customers are being forced to buy more at Walmart as they have less and less to spend, and resentment is smoldering over being forced to buy something they do not like. Meanwhile, Walmart is the biggest advertiser around, promising the moon

The world has gone to pot
When a Walmart mom becomes disillusioned with walmart, then watch out

entagor on September 22, 2010 at 1:34 PM

Yet, when asked their voting intentions in the fall 51% say they plan to vote for a Republican candidate compared to just 35% who choose a Democratic candidate. Twelve percent (12%) are still undecided.

If my math is correct, and all the undecideds go to the Democrat, then doesn’t that show a result of 51-47 in favor of the Reps? I’ll take those results.

txmomof6 on September 22, 2010 at 1:38 PM

entagor on September 22, 2010 at 1:34 PM

Isn’t that the truth? When my kids were little I bought a fair amount of clothes and shoes for them at Walmart. Now I only go to one when I am out of town and it’s the only store around. Their clothes are nothing but crap. Their school supplies are garbage too, I get better stuff for the same price if I hit the sales at Staples. They have a lot of different categories of goods but very few choices in each. Only thing worth buying there is some of their store-brand food.

rockmom on September 22, 2010 at 1:40 PM

I just hope that they act as “used” mom’s and hold a grudge.

Have you ever talked to a woman that keeps dating the “wrong” kind of men?

Sadly, they will go back to the “arms” of the next loser Dem in either 2012 or 2016, depending on whether Obama will have a primary challenge. I think that they are “really” not going back to Obama, but women have gone back to old boyfriends before.

barnone on September 22, 2010 at 1:40 PM

An in another 2 years you can call them “Homeless Wal-Mart Moms”…

PatriotRider on September 22, 2010 at 1:41 PM

rockmom on September 22, 2010 at 1:31 PM

Actually, there’s a Sam’s Club right next to FedEx Field.

Christien on September 22, 2010 at 1:43 PM

When you’ve lost the freebie Wal-Mart shoppers, you’ve lost America.

tarpon on September 22, 2010 at 1:44 PM

Its stories like this that make me worried that conservative are not doing enough to explain that rolling alot of this crap back is going to take years.
The libs were building up to all this for DECADES. And Obama is going to do everything he can to stop a rollback (heh).
I’m worried that many seeing the supposed instant gratification the libs have gotten over the past 2 years, will be disaffected when we can’t get instant gratification in 2011.

Iblis on September 22, 2010 at 1:47 PM

It’s because they’re exhausted from defending him and his policies.

fossten on September 22, 2010 at 2:03 PM

HUH? I am so confused. Gallup poll from yesterday has Dems +1 in the generic vote for Congress. Surely these WalMart moms all love Dear Leader, Nancy and Harry. Jim Geraghty
is a liar.

angryed on September 22, 2010 at 2:04 PM

Maybe in the future, we can just say middle-class moms and hold off on the cutesy labels.

That’s optimistic, since this administration targeted the middle-class for elimination.

maverick muse on September 22, 2010 at 2:04 PM

“moderate moms”

maverick muse on September 22, 2010 at 2:05 PM

Do you think this group thinks the RECESSION HAS ENDED?

Mutnodjmet on September 22, 2010 at 2:06 PM

There is no love for Obama at my Walmart.

HellCat on September 22, 2010 at 2:12 PM

He will always have the va jay jay moms, such as whoopi cushion and joy beware, except they’re not moms.

Dhuka on September 22, 2010 at 2:13 PM

We need to stop cheerleading based on polls and focus on the massive gaping crater where our economy used to be.

All this celebration before the elections (before even October) distracts from pushing the narrative that Obama continues to promote a disastrous keynesian policy

What do you mean by Keynsian policy? Is that the policy practiced by Clinton and many former past Presidents from both parties? I know one thing that Keynes did NOT call for: lowering taxes during an economic boom to fuel debt-driven economic growth. And that’s exactly what Bush did, placing our solvency in peril.

If the country had followed Keynes, then a few things would have happened differently: (a) higher taxes during the economic boom of the last decade, with no deficit spending to prevent the economy from overheating and (b) lower taxes during the recession and deficit spending (a stimulus package) to revive the economy during a downturn.

It doesn’t matter what you call the economic policy- but if you don’t save up for a rainy day (step a), then you have nothing to fall back on when things go bad. Bush’s policy of ‘deficits don’t matter’ turned our massive economic crisis into an even more dire situation when compounded with the trillions added, unnecessarily, to the federal debt during his years.

To do the opposite, cut spending during a recession and try to balance the budget, has proven to be a disastrous response to recessions in economies around the world, most evidently in the global depression of the 1930′s. So when you talk about change, be careful what you ask for.

There’s no quick fix to the massive shock and capital destruction leveled on the economy by the 2007 crisis. It will take years for businesses and individuals to unwind their debt and return to healthy balance sheets.

bayam on September 22, 2010 at 2:14 PM

These are not politically oriented people.

They are looking for someone to come and solve all their problems.

Since Dems are in control now and they’ve got problems, they’ll vote Republican. Then, when the magical, rainbow spitting unicorns don’t appear, they’ll vote Democrat again

.

You’re right. Some people actually believe that there’s a magic pill that someone will administer to fix the economy and deficit overnight. Not going to happen.

Everyone who gets so excited about extending the tax cuts seems to forget that those tax cuts are nothing new. The economy has continued to flounder with those tax cuts in place. Extending the tax cuts will, in some sense, do little more then extend the status quo (and add trillions more to the deficit).

Again, if we hadn’t lowered taxes so far during the boom, then we would have had the option of far deeper and very high impact tax cuts during the recession. But because the deficit is so high, it’s simply not an option discussed by anyone seriously at this point.

bayam on September 22, 2010 at 2:23 PM

He’s way up with Madrid-5-Star-Resort moms.

mankai on September 22, 2010 at 2:24 PM

bayam on September 22, 2010 at 2:23 PM

Neither the Reagan nor the Bush tax cuts “added to the deficit.” In fact, revenues increased. It was on the spending side of the ledger where the deficits were created.

Do you suggest we go back to Carter-era tax rates? Do you think that will solve the deficit problem?

mankai on September 22, 2010 at 2:27 PM

Broken promises on aisle 8….

right2bright on September 22, 2010 at 2:33 PM

flighty unprincipled beyotches.

rayra on September 22, 2010 at 2:38 PM

The economy has continued to flounder with those tax cuts in place. Extending the tax cuts will, in some sense, do little more then extend the status quo (and add trillions more to the deficit).

bayam on September 22, 2010 at 2:23 PM

You had a tough time in economics, didn’t you?
You think the tax cuts are the only thing allowing the economy to flounder?
So if the tax cuts are taken away and business “flounders” even more your statement would be…if they were in place we would have less money.
The fact is, the only way out of this economic malaise, is by allowing businesses to flourish, not just exist.
Unemployment is directly related to how strong the business climate is…and employment is the only way to get our economy back on track.
No matter how you look at it…a healthy business climate (along with halting gov. growth) is the only way out of our problems.
You can’t tax a company into doing better…government consumes, they do not create or produce anything of economic value.
All money taken out of the private sector, is consumed…there is no ROI in taxes.

right2bright on September 22, 2010 at 2:42 PM

You can’t tax a company into doing better…government consumes, they do not create or produce anything of economic value.

right2bright on September 22, 2010 at 2:42 PM

I did’t say that the tax cuts shouldn’t be extended, or that they don’t help. I only stated that the tax cuts don’t add any new stimulus, since those tax cuts are currently in place. Barron’s has made the same point and the people at Barrons know a thing or two about economics.

If you want to share your economics ciriculum vitae with us, please feel free.

bayam on September 22, 2010 at 2:49 PM

And this prize-winning analysis is based on a sample of… 30 such Wal-Mart moms? While this really might have captured a trend, I would like to see a wider poll done before we start looking at numbers. 51-47 is probably well within the margin for error with such a small sample.

bcm4134 on September 22, 2010 at 3:04 PM

I’d just like to say that it would be nice if you had to pass a simple test in order to be able to vote. Something simple enough to pass if you study for five minutes but difficult enough to weed out the clueless

JadeNYU on September 22, 2010 at 1:08 PM

I’ve been saying for years that computer voting would allow this. For example, the computer would ask a question such as “How many senators does your state have and how many years does each one serve?” Then those voters who correctly answer the question are taken to the page to vote for senator. Those who miss such a basic question are not offered a chance to vote for a senator and instead are taken to the next question.

CJ on September 22, 2010 at 3:20 PM

Then, again, “Target Moms” sounds kinda generic.

Christien on September 22, 2010 at 1:02 PM

The way this administration has the entire country in its crosshairs, everyone feels like a “Target Mom.”

CJ on September 22, 2010 at 3:23 PM

If the country had followed Keynes, then a few things would have happened differently

bayam on September 22, 2010 at 2:14 PM

The approach of Keynes is the economic equivalent of those gimmick magic tricks that were once sold in the back of comic books: A miniature device that looks like two black rollers with a crank. You put a dollar bill in one end, crank it, and a fiver comes out the other side! Put the five back in, and it comes out the other side as a TWENTY!

As someone else brilliantly observed here: Keynes was an underpants gnome:

1. Deficit-spending “stimulus”
2. ???
3. Profit!

It doesn’t matter what you call the economic policy- but if you don’t save up for a rainy day (step a), then you have nothing to fall back on when things go bad.

We’ve never “saved up for a rainy day” at any point in the history of our country, since our Treasury existed. This notion is pure fantasy, plain and simple. You have to go back quite some way to even have a point where the outstanding debt went DOWN, let alone actually being at the point where the federal government had anything “saved”. (And no, Clinton DID NOT do so.)

You could take out a $100,000 third mortgage against your house and put the proceeds in a savings account, and say you’ve therefore “saved” for a rainy day, but you’ve actually done nothing of the kind.

The last time the outstanding debt went DOWN (the most charitable interpretation of “saving”) was 1957. No administration has done so since, so it is foolish in the extreme to assume that you have examples of “doing it the right way” in the modern era.

Bush’s policy of ‘deficits don’t matter’ turned our massive economic crisis into an even more dire situation when compounded with the trillions added, unnecessarily, to the federal debt during his years.

You really need to disabuse yourself of this notion that presidents create or reduce debt. They do not. Congresses do. Congresses (when they are doing their jobs) create budgets and obligate funds. Congresses spend, and the degree to which they spend in excess of taxes collected (minus interest costs on the carried debt) is the extent to which the debt continues to increase… and increase… and
increase.

Presidents can certainly attempt to persuade, but they do not control the purse strings. That is the job of the legislative branch, not the executive.

If “deficits matter”, then they should matter that much more when a Congress ends up increasing them radically more than has ever been seen in history, as we’ve seen over the past four years of the Democrats controlling both the House and Senate. One cannot overspend their way to prosperity, whether it’s an individual or a country. It’s silly to imagine that one could, and farcical to call that a serious economic theory.

Keynes wants us to believe in the magic of a government spending a dollar which magically transforms into $1.40. It does not. All practical measures show that the Keynes “multiplier” is not above one… it is below one, at 0.8 to 0.9.

It would be literally more financially productive that Keynesianism to simply GIVE AWAY MONEY to random individuals on the contractual promise that it be spent (rather than saved). At least in that scenario, you’d expect an economic activity multiplier of roughly 1.0.

The wishful magic of Keynes does not work, and cannot work. If it did, the government could simply decide to spend 100 trillion per year, and we’d be an economic juggernaut overnight on the 40% compounding margin alone.

VekTor on September 22, 2010 at 3:36 PM

Here’s the official page where you can verify my contentions about the debt pointed out above.

VekTor on September 22, 2010 at 3:41 PM

“The Wal-Mart Moms acted stupidly.” POTUS

Khun Joe on September 22, 2010 at 4:28 PM

To emphasize my point about control of Congress being a much more effective barometer of what has happened with the debt, I present the following information, derived directly from the data on the official Treasury page I noted above.

For the last 22 years (it will be 23 at the end of this month), both houses of Congress have been controlled by the same political party (discounting the Jeffords switch for this analysis.

We can see directly what happened to the total of the national debt over time using the figures provided by the Treasury. I note five consecutive four-year periods with matching party control of both houses, followed by two years of data since the Dems took both in the 2006 election (that will be 3 years of data, again, at the end of this month.)

Those periods are the years (ending in September) 87-90 inclusive and 91-94, when the Dems were in control, 95-98, 99-2003 and 2004-2007 when the Repubs had congressional control, and then the Pelosi/Reid era.

What do the average annual debt increases (over the 4 year span) look like during those periods?

D 1987-1990 277 Billion
D 1991-1994 364 Billion
R 1995-1998 208 Billion
R 1999-2003 175 Billion
R 2004-2007 556 Billion

During those spans, Dems averaged 320 Billion per year in national debt increases. Republicans averaged 313 Billion per year. Yes, that includes the post-9/11 ramp-up and the lion’s share of the “wasted trillions” from the Iraq effort.

What is the average since the Pelosi/Reid axis took control?

D 2008-2009 1,451 Billion (1.45 Trillion per year)

Tell me again, bayam… who is it that is driving us into a staggering increase in debt? We’ve seen a roughly four and a half fold increase in the annual national debt addition since they took power, over the historically-steady average annual debt increase of about 320 billion per year over the prior twenty years.

VekTor on September 22, 2010 at 4:40 PM

My apologies, my spreadsheet had a misalignment.

The last three sections should be:

R 1999-2002 175 Billion
R 2003-2006 569 Billion
D 2007-2009 1134 Billion

The Repub average is 317 Billion, and the Pelosi/Reid average so far is 1.134 Billion per year, set to go up at the end of the month. So far, that’s 3.54 times bigger than the historical average, so my point stands.

VekTor on September 22, 2010 at 4:55 PM

Gah! 1.134 trillion!

VekTor on September 22, 2010 at 4:56 PM

If we cut them a break, and assume that there will be no debt increase for the last 8 days of this month, the Pelosi/Reid average over the most recent 4 years is an average annual debt rise of 1,242 Billion… almost 4 times higher than the historical average. In reality, it will be slightly higher.

Vote accordingly.

VekTor on September 22, 2010 at 5:05 PM

VekTor, you’re also comparing apples and oranges. If you wanted to do a true comparison, you’d average the three times the D held power (rather than just using the last year) and compare that to the average over the three times the Rs held power. Or you’d do a percentage comparison with the last time that party was in power.

The debt increases when the Rs held power in 2004-2007 were roughly 325% higher than the debt increases when the R’s held power in 1999-2003. The debt increase in the last year was about 400% of the average debt increases in 1991-1994 when the D’s had power.

Jimbo3 on September 22, 2010 at 5:20 PM

Put another way… Pelosi and Reid have increased the outstanding national debt more over the last four years (4.97 Trillion) than all of the increases from the 15 years immediately prior to their taking control, combined.

VekTor on September 22, 2010 at 5:25 PM

You’re missing my point, Jimbo. I’m saying that Pelosi and Reid are radically different animals.

Over the prior twenty years, Dems and Pubs increased the debt (overall) about the same amount per year on average. There’s some truth to the notion of “not a dime’s worth of difference”. They each damaged the debt about the same per year, regardless of who it was.

Not so with this bunch. They are entirely different than what we’ve seen before.

VekTor on September 22, 2010 at 5:28 PM

No comment. I am just waiting for someone to stick GaGa in one of those midevil catapults and launch her.

johnnyU on September 22, 2010 at 5:33 PM

Let me put it another way… if we buy into bayam’s notion of “saving for a rainy day”, the Pubs could make a case that, given that they’d kept spending well below the 320 Billion average over the span prior to 9/11, they could “afford” to spend post-9/11 at an increased rate, and they’d still be below that average.

If you buy into the flawed premise that they were “entitled” to damage the debt by 320 Billion per year, their earlier prudence allowed them to spend profligately on what they considered important, so long as they kept the grand total within reason.

There’s a case to be made for that kind of pretzel logic. I don’t subscribe to it, but it’s not totally irrational. Pelosi and Reid, on the other hand, have (IMO) thrown caution to the wind in an attempt to implement their wish-lists WITHOUT having any corresponding periods of constraint to offset it. They’ve simply spent like crazy in order to “not let a crisis go to waste”, and attempt get their agenda set in stone to reset the baseline to a hugely higher level.

VekTor on September 22, 2010 at 5:40 PM

“Barry, clean up in isle 11/2, Barry, 11/2.”

scituate_tgr on September 22, 2010 at 5:40 PM

Walmart moms? Hmmmmmmmmm..

..would those be the folks depicted, here, and here, and here, and here, and here?

The War Planner on September 22, 2010 at 1:34 PM

Do bears sh!t in the woods?

Wal-Mart’s ‘success’ comes with several side effects, one of them being that it tends to attract the kind of crowd that middle-class people would hold their nose at…and not out of snobbery, either.

Really Low Prices = Really Low-Class People.

/takes cover and waits for ‘elitist’ accusations

Dark-Star on September 22, 2010 at 5:41 PM

Barack: So the Boehner thing is not working?
Axel: Right? Nobody seems to know him.
Barack: How bout that Wasilla babe?
Axel: Yaay. That’s the winner right there.

antisocial on September 22, 2010 at 5:44 PM

I haven’t noticed an unusually low class of people in the Wal-Marts I’ve shopped at… certainly not to the level you’ve implied.

When it comes to stench, I’ve had to hold my nose vastly more often at Whole Foods than at Wal-Mart.

The stink from customers at Whole Foods is a “free trade” unwashed hippy funk and patchouli mix, though, so they got that goin’ for ‘em.

VekTor on September 22, 2010 at 5:59 PM

I suspect that Obama is having trouble elevating his own Boehner these days.

stoutj734 on September 22, 2010 at 6:30 PM

And shouldn’t they be surveying Tar-jay Moms? Everyone knows Tar-jay is the Wal-Mart for Dems. Then, again, “Target Moms” sounds kinda generic.

Christien on September 22, 2010 at 1:02 PM

I’d rather go to Tar-zhey any day over Wally World – much better selection, cleaner, and about the same price (but with better quality and coupons).

I was thinking “Wal-Mart Moms” was more geared towards the lower class, or maybe lower middle class – I mean, a lot of the people who shop at Wally World shop there because it’s cheap and that’s what they can afford. Middle class implies you might be able to shop somewhere out of something other than economic necessity. JMO, of course.

Anna on September 22, 2010 at 6:51 PM

Say NO to the Republican party.
Say NO to the Democratic party.
Say NO to political parties period.

Vote YES for men and women of integrity who will conduct themselves with honor and who are not beholden to special interests, evil ideologies, and who are not there to pilfer our money or sell our great-grandchildren down the river.

Common sense and the desire to do the right thing are in short supply in BOTH parties. The Democrats are a combination of evil and insane, while the Republicans see service in government as a way to line their pockets with money from lobbyists and from the public treasury.

The only solution is to support candidates who are not part of the problem.

leereyno on September 23, 2010 at 12:12 AM

I was thinking “Wal-Mart Moms” was more geared towards the lower class, or maybe lower middle class – I mean, a lot of the people who shop at Wally World shop there because it’s cheap and that’s what they can afford. Middle class implies you might be able to shop somewhere out of something other than economic necessity. JMO, of course.

I shop at Wal Mart because they have the best prices on most of the things they stock. What they don’t have, or what their prices are not competitive on, I go elsewhere for.

The idea that someone is “lower class” because they are wise in how they spend their money is patently insane. To complain that someone “has” to shop at Wal Mart because they cannot afford to shop elsewhere reveals a very twisted view of what it means to be a person of worth.

Shopping at a more expensive store to purchase the exact same items that could be bought elsewhere for less doesn’t make someone more moral, more educated, or more cultured, it just makes them lazy, bad at math, foolish, or possibly all three.

Class, to the degree to which it has any meaning at all, is determined by a person’s character, the quality of their understanding of the world, and the quality of the choices they make. Choosing not to waste one’s money is what is known as a good choice.

leereyno on September 23, 2010 at 12:29 AM

Attention WalMart Shoppers: Get a free Hope and Change Obama T-Shirt with every purchase of Franks and Beans Dodd!

FIFY

MSimon on September 23, 2010 at 11:55 AM