I disagree, politics has always been about haggling, you cannot do politics if you don't know how to build a coalition. A politician cannot represent 100% of the people that is why there are political parties and politicians of different ideologies. I think if you look a little deeper all the JFKs, Reagans and Clintons were hagglers and negotiators first. A good politician is an expert negotiator and the very best are exceptional leaders. Its been the same since the first democracy was born. The only change now is that it is very easy to identify who will part of your coalition.
The vast majority of the population are influenced by some sort of benefits the government "offers" whether they be tax breaks, healthcare, welfare, gun rights, subsidies, higher pay for teachers, etc...
Because of this I think that this sort of micro-haggling can happen. Instead of offering a broad plan that is ideologically consistent, and then trying to convince the population to go along with that - politicians can turn the knobs of the different constituencies by holding out the carrot that matters to that group of people.
If your contention about voter bribery is true, how come red states are the ones taking the biggest government benefits relative to their taxes and blue states the opposite?
I think voters vote for ideals rather than as a business proposition, and there are polls that back that up. The idea that 47% of the electorate is 'bought' was pretty thoroughly slammed in the media the last couple months.
I'm not really taking it to the level of bribery. I just think that by analyzing the different micro-constituencies and what makes them most concerned - social security, taxes on high pay, auto industry jobs - you can better tailor your message to them.
While I agree that voters vote more based on ideals - I know I do - if there are enough 'business propositions' that go against you, that is most likely going to be an affront to your ideals. If your job relies on corn subsidies, you more than likely agree with the idea of crop subsides, and therefore will vote for the candidate that supports your "ideals".
Sure, but even if we slice it by constituencies, medicare recipients overwhelmingly voted for romney-ryan while the 18-44 set voted for Obama. I still think ideals come in way ahead of "what's best for me personally".
Red states / districts have significantly lower population per area, education levels, and incomes etc. However, the republican party is vary heavily influenced by it's donors which tend to be either retired or affluent. From this perspective you can see why so many of there policy's are setup to hurt the vast majority of their voters.
Indeed. Even Mondale got 40% of the vote. The idea of Reagan as a qualitatively different "uniter" and "great communicator" is mostly a myth. The truth of the matter is that 1984 represented the apex of the "southern strategy", the republicans having shorn up the southern white rural vote pioneered by Nixon, but not having lost the middle class of the northeast or west, nor yet dealing with the emergent minority demographics of the modern world.
And he was a great candidate facing a pretty mediocre one as an incumbent in a growing economy. It was a perfect storm of circumstance, not a unique moment.
