In August, Wyoming voters named the economy, the war in Iraq, national security and high fuel prices as their top concerns.
Then September happened.
"This has turned the election into a one-issue election," pollster Brad Coker said.
Sixty-five percent of Wyoming voters -- without prompting -- named the economy as the top national issue, according to a poll commissioned by the Casper Star-Tribune.
Two months ago, 36 percent of local voters cited the economy, followed by Iraq at 17 percent, national security at 15 percent, and high fuel prices at 14 percent, said Coker of the Washington, D.C.-based Mason-Dixon Polling & Research.
No more.
The mortgage crisis and the Wall Street meltdown pushed all other issues into single digits, according to the poll conducted Oct. 13-14. A total of 625 registered Wyoming voters likely to vote on Nov. 4 were interviewed statewide. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Wyoming voters' concerns mirror those nationwide, Coker said.
Yet Wyoming isn't a center of finance, a hub of foreclosures, or an axis of unemployment, declining income and personal worth.
In fact, the state government -- with another projected budget surplus on the way -- and most of citizens continue to enjoy an economic boom.
So why the gloom?
"Even if it's not hurting people, it's in their heads," Coker said.
Wyomingites still have retirement funds, pensions, college funds and other investments shredded by events in Washington, New York and global marketplaces, he said.
So they have a stake in the fix and saying who's at fault.
Bailout blues
That could work in favor of Republicans, Coker said.
In September, the Bush administration asked for and received from Congress -- with Republican U.S. Sens. Mike Enzi and John Barrasso opposing the majority of their colleagues -- a $700 billion bailout for the Treasury Department to buy troubled assets from financial institutions. Republican U.S. Rep. Barbara Cubin voted with the Bush administration.
Wyoming is among a handful of states that opposed the bailout, Coker said.
Forty-three percent of voters opposed the bailout, 33 percent supported it, and 24 percent were undecided.
Of those opposed, 51 percent were Republicans, 25 percent were Democrats, and 44 percent were independents.
Of those supporting the bailout, 46 percent were Democrats, 27 percent were Republicans, and 37 percent were independents.
A slim majority -- 52 percent -- were either very or somewhat confident about the long-term benefit of the intervention, and 42 percent were either not too confident or not confident, with 6 percent not sure.
The somewhat confident voters split sharply along political lines: 66 percent of Democrats, 36 percent of Republicans, and 51 percent of independents.
Likewise, 27 percent of Democrats were either not confident or not too confident about the bailout, compared with 49 percent of Republicans, and 23 percent of independents.
Blame game
While the financial anguish is shared, the blame is not.
Voters diverged on party lines about what system was at fault:
* The lending practices at the government-backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
* Or the business practices of banks and brokerages on Wall Street.
Statewide, 38 percent of voters blamed Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, 22 percent blamed Wall Street, and 30 percent weren't sure.
Among themselves, 43 percent of Republicans blamed Fannie Mae; 16 percent blamed Wall Street; and 29 percent blamed both.
Among themselves, Democrats were split with 29 percent blaming Fannie Mae, 32 percent blaming Wall Street, and 31 percent blaming both. Independents were similarly split.
Taking the blame game a step further, voters identified which party was at fault:
* The Bush administration and Republicans who supported deregulation in the financial industries.
* Or the Democrats in Congress who opposed increased regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Statewide, 43 percent blamed Congress and the Democrats, 32 percent blamed Bush and the GOP, and 19 percent blamed both.
Party-line differences were even sharper.
Ten percent of Democrats blamed Congress, 71 percent blamed Bush, and 17 percent blamed both.
Sixty-two percent of Republicans blamed Congress, 12 percent blamed Bush, and 18 percent blamed both.
The question of blame seems simplistic, said University of Wyoming political science professor Jim King.
But the question isn't about the technical aspects of regulation or high finance, but rather which party is at fault because policies follow from whichever party is in charge, King said.
Both ... and
There's plenty of blame to go around, said Betty Christie of Diamondville.
"They were all asleep at the switch," Christie said.
Wyoming is doing better than other states, but she's not holding her breath about the boom-bust cycle, she said. "We just get hit a little later."
While she will change party registration to vote in primaries, she's leaning Democratic and favoring a house-cleaning, she said. "I'm just anti-incumbent."
The economy is a concern, but voters need to look beyond that to who can best deal with foreign policy, Collins said.
Likewise, Republican Mike Collins of Casper blamed both the Congress and the Bush administration for the financial crisis, he said.
However, Collins believes the Democratic-controlled Congress deserves more attention because Democrats pushed for the lenient regulations allowing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to issue more risky loans, he said.
He's one of the voters who listed national security, and not the economy, as the top concern, he said.
The two issues are connected, though, Collins said. "Part of the problem with the economy is we have no control over our borders."
Whether dealing with national security or an economic recovery, Collins said the nation needs more integrity.
"Nothing happens in a vacuum," he said. "Nobody has the guts to stand up for what's right."
Tom Morton at (307) 266-0592, or at Tom.Morton@trib.com.
Reader Comments
Comments to this story.
Rance wrote on Oct 21, 2008 5:35 AM:
BULL wrote on Oct 21, 2008 8:30 AM:
Realist wrote on Oct 21, 2008 9:11 AM:
If you believe that doing all the same things that have led us to this crisis will get us out of it then you should vote for republicans again; if you believe that we need to do something different then you need to vote differently. We cannot continue to do the same things over and over again expecting to get a different result; that is the definition of insanity. If I know the blindly following republican lemmings in Wyoming like I think I do, I'm sure that Wyoming will make the same old mistake of voting for all republicans even though they are not doing anything to help our state. We need a new state motto...instead of the equality state, we should be known as the insanity state. "
Sandy wrote on Oct 21, 2008 9:43 AM:
Do these neophytes want to be in poverty?
McCain's plan supports and bolsters small businesses. Obama's attacks small businesses. "
Hyden wrote on Oct 21, 2008 9:53 AM:
The reason that it is a central issue for the non-thinkers is only because both Obama and McCain are promising all kinds of new spending to bribe the unwashed, ignorant masses for their uninformed votes. It is a revolting situation, and we as a nation should collectively be ashamed.
We should all have our hands in the air volunteering to work to solve the problems. Instead we all have our hands out looking for a hand-out.
We've all become Katrina "victims" waiting for the government to do something for us instead of doing for ourselves. But, this is what 50 years of socialist policies have done to our work ethic; we're now an entitlement mentality society. "
Casper Resident wrote on Oct 21, 2008 10:09 AM:
La Shanna wrote on Oct 21, 2008 10:39 AM:
Facts are a troubling thing wrote on Oct 21, 2008 10:42 AM:
BULL wrote on Oct 21, 2008 10:45 AM:
Scott wrote on Oct 21, 2008 10:47 AM:
Hector wrote on Oct 21, 2008 12:32 PM:
Business and labor are directly linked.
So is business and the collection of taxes.
What is good for business, is also good for labor, and the public coffers.
Growing businesses mean a growing job market.
Growing businesses means a higher rate of corporate and personal income taxes collected.
The corporate tax rate in America is 35%, second highest in the world today in fact.
Check it out, last year Wal-Mart paid and effective tax rate of 34.7%. The big boys are not getting away scot-free while you and I are getting shafted.
What was your effective tax rate last year, maybe 17% at best?
Isn't 10% on a zillion dollars effectively that same as 10% on $50K to the two tax payers?
Yet we do not even have anywhere near that level of equality in the tax code.
If you punish business, you punish labor and you also punish those not working that receive government allowances which all come from the tax dollars collected.
Increased taxation of businesses, the big boys, will hurt the over-all economy, all government provided services and mostly, the little people.
It is all connected BULL, fiddle with one and the effects will hit all.
Using the governments ineffectiveness in responding to a natural disaster is a very inappropriate comparison by the way. The two have nothing to do with one another and the circumstances fail to compare in any way shape or form.
By the way, the government is not our parents. It was never designed to "take care of us." The government must provide a secure environment where life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are possible.
It is up to each of us to be self-reliant enough to find our own happiness. "
Hector wrote on Oct 21, 2008 12:39 PM:
U.S. Tax System explained in Beer:
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement.
That is, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going
to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.
'Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But, what about the other six men - the paying customers?
How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair
share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from every body's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to
drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare
their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man.
"I only saved a dollar, too.. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I"!
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back
when I got only two?"
"The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
"The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man (the richest) didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him.
But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.Professor of Economics University of Georgia
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible. "
Rufus wrote on Oct 21, 2008 12:50 PM:
Clymer wrote on Oct 21, 2008 12:59 PM:
This is the short sighted Obama economic plan people. Get a clue.
Healthy businesses mean a healthy economy and healthy taxes collected for social redistribution. "
Mindy wrote on Oct 21, 2008 1:12 PM:
This is called bribery for some and a threat to others.
Do we want a guy playing a carrot and stick routine running the country?
Food for thought:
Parts of Florida are wiped out by hurricanes every few years. Why do you think it is that we do not see video of them sitting on the street corners with their hands out demanding FEMA trailers, food, money, etc? In contrast when New Orleans is hit once in 50 years the citizens of that city do nothing to help themselves and whine to anyone that may care to listen to them?
Its called the welfare mentality and it is contagious. "
A Gore wrote on Oct 21, 2008 1:19 PM:
My neighbor doesn't work, and he gets everything he needs from the government.
Maybe I should just quite work too and get everything that I need from the government too?
Maybe all of us should just choose to stop working, and let the government provide us everything that we need.
This plan only makes sense and I'll have a lot more time to work for Acorn registering dead voters, pets and illegal aliens. "
Juan wrote on Oct 21, 2008 1:42 PM:
I guess that all of those Gringo greenbacks that I am earning under the table and sending home to safe, stable Mexican banks are a figment of my fertile immagination? "
TuBorg wrote on Oct 21, 2008 2:50 PM:
Sylvia wrote on Oct 21, 2008 3:33 PM:
Kelli wrote on Oct 21, 2008 3:43 PM:
Blitz Beer wrote on Oct 21, 2008 3:52 PM:
Carla wrote on Oct 21, 2008 4:10 PM:
Rounds wrote on Oct 21, 2008 4:42 PM:
How will they balance the budget?
How long will it take?
How will they increase private sector employment?
How will they help US business?
What wasteful government programs will they cut?
What will each of them do to stop pork?
If they cannot or will not directly answer those questions, we should not hire either of them. "
Ellen wrote on Oct 21, 2008 4:45 PM:
BULL wrote on Oct 22, 2008 8:24 AM:
Cher wrote on Oct 22, 2008 2:54 PM:
ManFu wrote on Oct 22, 2008 3:10 PM:
Hector wrote on Oct 22, 2008 5:25 PM:
TuBorg wrote on Oct 23, 2008 6:31 AM:
That's the problem with you guys, like your preferred candidates, you're way out of touch with reality-especially your own.
It's time to pay the bills run up by Bush Cheney in the war for oil and to take the tax burden off of the people who pay a disproportionate share - that's sylvia, BlitzBeer and me. A real progressive tax charges each of us on the basis of our ability to pay. That's called fundamental fairness.
Why you dopes don't get that is beyond me, but it's exactly the way of thinking the real rich want you serfs to have. You're being kept down because the rich don't want you to have more money. The real rich want all the money. That's called the greed reality. That's why they made it so you pay more in taxes, proportionatly to how much you earn, than they do. How in the world is that fair?
Trickle Down has NEVER worked and even though you might be fat and sassy right now because you have a job while the rest of the country is hurting, the day is coming when Wyoming is going to get hit by this financial crisis and we'll see what you say then. Quit being stooges for the rich and stand up for fairness in the tax system.
Doesn't matter any way. Obama and the Democrat majority in Congresswill be making things right on January 21, 2009 and making your lives better even if you don't want them to. "
BULL wrote on Oct 23, 2008 8:43 AM:
Actually wrote on Oct 23, 2008 9:15 AM:
Keller wrote on Oct 24, 2008 1:37 PM:
Rose wrote on Oct 24, 2008 5:11 PM:
Line-up wrote on Oct 27, 2008 4:37 AM:
Actually wrote on Oct 27, 2008 8:48 AM:
Oh Boy wrote on Oct 27, 2008 12:21 PM:
I can stop working 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, and I will get everything that I need and want directly from the central government!
Maybe we'll all be issued Chairman Mao pantsuites just like Hillary's so we can all be equal in fashion too? "
Actually wrote on Oct 27, 2008 2:01 PM:
Red wrote on Oct 27, 2008 4:13 PM:
Barack Obama talking about his support of "redistributive change" (read Marxist confiscation of personal wealth to give to others) in 2001 Radio interview with WBEZ FM public radio in Chicago.
www.liveleak.com/view?i=f96_1225091746&p=1 "
Hmmmmm wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:25 AM:
How are you feeling today comrad.
I do not know the party has not told me yet "
Actually wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:54 AM:
Rolling back the Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans to what they were pre-Bush will not be confiscating personal wealth to give to others. It was irresponsible for Bush and the republicans to give these tax breaks to those who did not need them, were not asking for them, and that the country could not afford to give. I guess that Bush and the republicans believe that we should increase spending by hundreds of billions of dollars a year and decrease revenues by giving tax breaks to those who need them the least at the same time; that doesn't sound very conservative to me, but rather is totally irresponsible. The middle class is desperately in need of some relief before the entire economy comes to a grinding hault; if we are going to stimulate the economy, work toward getting back to a balanced budget (like we had pre-Bush), and begin to pay down the massive national debt that has tripled under Bush, we are going to have to raise revenues (obviously, the revenues will have to come from somewhere that actually has the resources). We will also need to reduce unnecessary expenditures like the $10 billion a month that we are spending to occupy Iraq. "
Actually wrote on Oct 28, 2008 2:00 PM:
Open your Eyes wrote on Oct 28, 2008 10:18 PM:
I can't believe voters can't see how bad the Democrat majority has been for the economy! VOTE REPUBLICAN across the ballot and be prosperous again!! "
Realist wrote on Oct 30, 2008 8:38 AM:
If you believe that doing all the same things that have led us to this crisis will get us out of it then you should vote for republicans again; if you believe that we need to do something different then you need to vote differently. We cannot continue to do the same things over and over again expecting to get a different result; that is the definition of insanity. If I know the blindly following republican lemmings in Wyoming like I think I do, I'm sure that Wyoming will make the same old mistake of voting for all republicans even though they are not doing anything to help our state. We need a new state motto...instead of the equality state, we should be known as the insanity state. "
Submit a Comment