5-Hour Energy: A Success Equal Parts Caffeine, Chemistry and…
Suddenly, Amazon Doesn't Love Its Moms AnymoreA CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll taken in December 2008 found the following:
Despite the worst U.S. recession in decades, rising unemployment, declining median incomes, unprecedented home foreclosures, massive U.S. government borrowing to bailout / rescue the bank sector, and the lowest job creation of any eight-year president in the modern era, the poll found that:
- 23% of the American people said they would miss Bush, 25% said Bush managed government effectively, and about a third said he would go down in history as a good president.
Who are these people? Upper-income Americans or strong Republicans?
Exactly: either, or possibly both, which is why you need to deduct 15-20% when reading a poll, to gauge a president's support, particularly on economic issues.
The reason? The Bush presidency has been an objective failure -- any reasonable analysis by scholars would reach this conclusion. Hence, the notion that someone would say "Bush will go down in history as a good president" speaks to the fact that these individuals would still support Bush if the U.S. economy fell into a depression worse than the Great Depression or if he committed some other serious economic policy mistake. U.S. unemployment could hit 25%, and these individuals would say "the economy is fine" or "Bush is doing a good job."
In other words, a certain percentage of the American public, on the Republican side and the Democratic side, will always support their party's candidate, no matter how bad economic conditions get or how many mistakes the president makes: place this factor at 15-20%.
Political / Economic Analysis: Hence, when evaluating polls, to gauge a president's support, particularly on economic issues, sans the partisans and rabid ideologues, subtract 15-20%. Do the same for the bottom half of the poll, to factor-out partisans on the other side of the issue.
In other words, if you read a poll that says 60% of the American people support increasing taxes, know that 45-40% of voters support the measure, after discounting the partisans and ideologues.
Partisans and ideologues are loyalists: they're dedicated to their party or candidate, but they are not fair evaluators of economic conditions.
- -
Financial Editor Joseph Lazzaro is writing a book on the U.S. presidency and the U.S. economy.
Goldman Earnings Sink After Buffett Dividend
Johnson & Johnson's Income Falls 23%
Burberry Shares Leap on Sales Update
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1-20-2009 @ 2:26PM
A. Marshall said...
What a rediculous statement! A poll is a poll. If you want to poll the entire population, you must include all people, not just the ones you think may be objective. If you want a poll of what you define to be objective people, the sample should only consist of people meeting those qualifications.
1-20-2009 @ 3:22PM
Rob said...
Agree with Marshall. This was a really weak post.
1-20-2009 @ 5:35PM
Iridium said...
What about:
When electing a Democrat subtract 20-30 points for double voting, fake ballots, criminals, and dead people.
Or are we to believe that 95% of a counties population came out to vote when more than 5% of them are in jail.
2-19-2009 @ 3:06PM
Truth Seeker said...
Although you may be partially correct in your assertion that that significant blocks will poll consistently in one area, that is still thier opinion. Your judgement that no one could defend Bush is ample proof of that. It ignores the fact that objective and informed observers could easily conclude that the dogmatic idealogues on the left who forced lenders to make loans to unqualified persons, and took kick backs from Fannie and Freddie while thwarting administration calls for regulation might also bear some responsibility for the meltdown.