Obama, Wall Street and the Voters: Good News and Really Bad News

Obama, Wall Street and the Voters: Good News and Really Bad News

Obama, Wall Street and the Voters: Good News and Really Bad News

Voters blame Wall Street—but voted Repubican.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

The election day exit polls had some good news for Obama: voters don’t blame him for "current economic problems." But the same poll also had some really bad news for him.

Voters on Tuesday were given three choices about who to blame for the great recession: Wall Street, Bush, or Obama. The largest number, as many commentators noted, blamed Wall Street: 35 percent. Second came Bush at 29 percent. Obama was last, at 23 percent. So only a few voters hold Obama responsible for "current economic problems"—that’s the good news.

Here’s the bad news: among those who blamed Wall Street, 56 percent voted Republican. Only 42 percent voted for a Democrat. That is a complete reversal of the historic pattern where the Republican Party has been associated with Wall Street, and hostility to Wall Street associated with Democratic voters.

Apparently a lot of voters on Tuesday believed that Obama’s top priority was helping the big New York investment houses and banks, and that helping people who had lost their jobs came in a distinct second in his priorities. They weren’t wrong about that.

So the fourteen-point gap in the party vote among those who blame Wall Street explains a lot about what happened last Tuesday. Voters were reacting not just to Republican propaganda tying Obama to TARP but also to some real facts: Obama made the bank bailout his first priority, and postponed financial reform for a year and a half after that.

And he decided not to fight for a bigger stimulus, not to press for a bigger program focused on job creation.

 

The result is that Republicans won a huge majority of the votes of those who blame "Wall Street" for the economic crisis. If unemployment eases over the next year, Obama has a chance to regain some of their support. But if it doesn’t, it’s hard to imagine what he could do to win back those he lost last week.

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x