Buried in the latest NBC/WSJ survey (.pdf) is a question asking voters who they blame for the country's economic problems. Currently, 8 percent of voters say that Obama's policies are "mostly responsible" for the poor economy and another 6 percent blame him in part. But the longer the crisis lasts, the less patient voters will be:
We can translate these responses into a graph -- doing our best to translate the poll's somewhat vague wording into precise numbers -- and compare them to a related question about when voters expect the recession to end.
Obama crosses the 50 percent threshold at almost exactly 18 months from now, which would mean September 2010. At that point, a majority of voters say they will hold Obama accountable for the performance of economy.
Perhaps not coincidentally, 18 months is also about the point at which a majority of voters expect the recession to have ended. By comparison, of the several dozen economists polled in the Wall Street Journal's monthly forecasting survey, 65 percent expect the recession to have ended by the third quarter of 2009, and 100 percent anticipate its conclusion by the end of 2010. (As a caveat, the Journal's forecasters are generally a bullish bunch).
So this seems like pretty good news for Obama. The public has very low expectations for the economy -- the average voter is more pessimistic about the economy than all but the most pessimistic economists. And it will be quite some time yet before the public pins most of the blame for the economy on Obama.
Cutting against this somewhat are two other factors. Firstly, it is generally believed -- and I'll find a link for you on this if I can -- that voters react slowly to changes in economic well-being. That is, if the economy exits the recession in July 2010, it might take a few months for the voters to notice, and this might or might not be soon enough for the Democrats to avoid blame at the midterm elections. Secondly, the unemployment rate -- perhaps the economic indicator that ordinary voters are most concerned with -- has been among the last things to recover in the so-called jobless recoveries following recent recessions. It's plausible that GDP growth will dip back into positive territory in the third quarter of 2009, for example, but that we won't see a material rebound in the employment numbers until months later.
On balance, the public seems prepared to be pretty darned patient with Obama. The question is whether public will in fact be as judicious as it expects itself to be after some number of additional months of dire economic headlines. On that front, I'm a bit skeptical, and I'd expect Obama's approval rating to lose a couple of points each month until the recession ends. This is why it makes a lot of sense for Obama to be pursuing a very ambitious agenda right now. If the economy recovers within the next year or so -- beating voters' expectations -- then Obama's approval ratings will probably wind up being quite high. But until that recovery occurs, Obama's approval ratings are likely to get worse before they get better.
3.04.2009
When Will Voters Blame Obama?
@ 10:06 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
66 comments
Thanks for figuring this out, Nate. Oh yeah, FIRST!
Seriously, some people will wait and some have already had enough and claim Barack has failed.
18 months will be no panacea of good times - things are far worse than that and most people know it.
I really think Americans are overestimating their patience. Within one year, most Americans will probably start blaming Obama.
Wait ... there are actually 8% of the population who blame Obama??? Wow, they must be the most clueless people on the planet.
It is right though, the longer this goes on the more people are going to get on the President. He has a hard road ahead of him. Hopefully he will have enough backing and time to get his plans rolling.
Excellent analysis, Nate. I agree with you that amount of time that people will take to blame Obama is going to be less than how long they say it will now. How much less is up for debate. Could it be possible to extrapolate this kind of information from other models? Surely some kind of similar rubric was in existence for Bush (and likely Clinton, if not any further back). At the very least, there has to be some kind of expected/actual approval of things like the Iraq war that could factor in.
My intuition is that people won't have to conclude that the recession is over to begin to begin to feel better. Rather they would have to feel that the recession is, um, receding. So if there are palpable signs of improvement, people will begin to feel that Obama's policies have helped.
What could those palpable signs be? Well, traditionally, the stock market is a 6-month leading indicator; if the market is making significant strides, that will generate positive news. It would also mean that people will begin to feel wealthier if their 401K's are beginning to grow again -- and such a "wealth effect" could affect spending, and greater optimism about the future.
So the real is what creates optimism and when does that level increase substantially, not when the recession will have ended -- which could be at least 2 quarters later, perhaps even a year or two after people sense that we're on the way up.
I wouldn't rely simply on the stock market. Trends in employment (total jobs) and unemployment are probably fairly palpable, too. If someone wanted to track it, they could even see "help wanted" signs, trends in hiring by temp agencies, and so on. Those are signs of an upswing. In summer 2010, for example, there will also be some indications in summer job market for high school and college students -- compared to 2009, which is likely to suck.
Is this via Matt Corley's post at Think Progress this morning?
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/04/poll-obama-responsible/
Or is it a) just a coincidence, or b) an observation that's suddenly making the word-of-mouth rounds?
" That is, if the economy exits the recession in July 2010, it might take a few months for the voters to notice, and this might or might not be soon enough for the Democrats to avoid blame at the midterm elections. "
Like I said in another blog, rest assured, once there is an inkling of a sign of recovery, you can be sure Obama will be all over it. And knowing his influence through his oratorical ability, I wouldn't be surprised if voters noticed very quickly.
Obama's popularity will no doubt sink some, but I'm a little more optimistic. Why? Look at the election of 1936. If like FDR Obama can establish an emotional connection with the public, if he can make some headway against the economic woes, and if he can show that he's working for the people they will stick with him, just as they stuck with FDR in 1936, giving him a landslide victory even though the country was still mired in double digit unemployment.
@Plato: the common thread to the two posts is the publication of the poll by WSJ. That's the "coincidence."
The other thing that will affect this is to do things that mitigate the pain the recession causes: if, in 18 months, everyone has access to affordable health care and extended unemployment benefits it might take some pressure off. It also seems like the "jobless recoveries" might have been a function of Republican approaches to dealing with recessions, and might not be the outcome with the more Keynesian approach the Obama administration is taking.
" This is why it makes a lot of sense for Obama to be pursuing a very ambitious agenda right now."
Another reason for Obama to go ahead with all his agenda's, health care, energy, education, climate change, is Republicans don't know what to focus on. They hate all of Obama's initiatives because they don't take their approach at all. With Obama taking on everything at once, Republicans will be spinning with their counter points getting lost in the storm.
Another reason why this Limbaugh distraction happens to benefit the administration. If Republicans weren't busy answering questions and trying to figure out how to disassociate themselves with a guy that says we all shouldn't bend over and grab our ankles and hope Obama fails but at the same time trying not to piss off their de-facto leader, they would be busy hammering Orzag's and Geithner's responses to the Congressional questions today and yesterday.
@Juris
My point was not the poll, but the flagging of question 17b, in particular. As someone who has spent many an hour poring over raw polling data, it strains credibility to believe that two people independently happened to read through the full poll report and flag this one question independently on the same day. I'm not too worried about it, just wanted a little care in maintaining "via" citations from bigger blogs to smaller ones, if that were the causal chain.
@Plato: if I had been reading the WSJ poll this morning, that's probably the question I would have most likely flagged.
Anyway, it's interesting how quickly new stuff gets picked up by the blogosphere.
The timing of this would seem to be terrible for congressional democrats: Nov '10 will probably have an economy in weak recovery at best, with a very high unemployment rate.
But the more I think about it, the more I find it hard to believe that voter's response to this circumstance will be to turn back to the Republicans. Picture the scenario: the economy's lousy, people feel insecure about their jobs, they walk into the voting booth and they choose - the party that's campaigned on capital gains tax cuts? People haven't bought that argument for a while now. The fact is, the Republicans just don't have the policy positions that allow them to benefit as the out party in a lousy economy. (That's not to say conservatives are incapable of coming up with such policies; but the Republicans haven't shown that they're prepared to do so any time soon.)
The job recovery may be a bit more expedient this time around, if only because of the state of the banks. Previously money was relatively easy to borrow and therefore employers probably had a good chunk of change to pay back before they could have available cash to pay for new hires. This time around I imagine the borrowed burden will be a lot lighter for several reasons (the relative difficulty of borrowing money in the first place and hopefully some partial alleviation of what was borrowed by the stimulus/bailout packages), so when the economy recovers businesses will be able to immediately turn that money around into jobs.
On the other hand there may not be nearly as many employers around to create new jobs - being unable to borrow cash could very well result in a higher rate of business failures (especially small businesses with few real assets to borrow against). This leads into my opinion that the bailout/stimulus money would be better spent on loans and tax breaks for small businesses (especially those with fewer than 10 employees or less than $1 million in revenue) as it will encourage more localization of the economy, and smaller businesses appear to shine brighter amongst the failures of huge corporations. Perhaps it's even appropriate to say the era of Big Business is over?
This poll has several other interesting bits that are very encouraging for Obama.
While the headline number is that Obama has a respectable 60% approval rating, the poll also indicates that 68% of the country have either a favorable or very favorable view of him. Moreover, 67% are more hopeful for the future of the country now that he is president.
The right/wrong track numbers have dramatically improved in the month since Obama was sworn in, going from 26/59 to 41/44. This may not look like much, but apparently it is the largest monthly increase in this number on record.
There has been some talking head noise about how Obama himself is more popular than his policies. Yet 68% support his housing plan, and 57% support the stimulus bill. It is interesting to note that even those that do not support the stimulus are inclined to believe that it will have a beneficial impact on the economy. Only 15% of respondents thought that the stimulus bill will have no benefits to the economy within the next 12 months, and only 12% thought that the bill would be ineffective over the next 2-4 years.
Asked the question as to which party is better suited to getting us out of the recession. 48% or respondents favored the democratic party, while only 20% favored their republican colleges.
PlatoX32X,
Could it be that two people with similar interests would see the same thing? And since the poll was released about 24 hours prior to Nate's post, maybe he saw something that Matt Corley also saw, didn't see Corley's post, and decided to comment on it? In other words, that little something called coincidence?
Not everything in life has a cause and effect.
To repeat an argument that I made on a previous thread, the GOP is clearly choosing its "rejection-obstruction" strategy not simply out of ideology but out of a "bet" that the recession will still be going full bore -- or even getting worse -- 18 months from now. But from post above, I would argue that the recession doesn't have to be over for optimism to return -- there need only be a sense that things are turning around.
If things are then on the upswing, the only way the GOP can now get a political benefit by 2010 is if they "cooperate" with Obama -- not if they obstruct him now. But it's probably true that if things are on the upswing, the Dems will get more of the credit even if the GOP cooperates with them.
So the GOP has to be hoping for bad times to continue, and if they do continue then the greatest political reward to the GOP will come if they continue to reject-obstruct rather than get co-opted by Obama.
Here's what I wrote before:
"The ultimate problem for the GOP is that for now they have only one strategy for pursuing their singular goal: opposing Obama on principle, and at every turn, with the hope that they will reap a political reward for having opposed his policies when they ultimately fail (or more generally if the economy is still in a deep funk in 2010).
I can't do a chart here, but imagine the relative payoffs to Obama-Dems and GOP from taking a cooperative or noncooperative strategy under two conditions defined by the economic situation in summer 2010. For simplicity sake, let's just say one outcome is the BAD one (deep depression with little sign of improvement), the other is the GOOD one (noticeably improving economic situation, even if overall things are bad).
Under the BAD SITUATION (which the GOP is hoping for and even trying to contribute to by making it harder for Obama to govern -- delayed appointments, not spending the stimulus funds, etc.), the "payoff" to the GOP could be, say, a gain of say +20 seats in Congress if they cooperate with the Obama, but +60 seats if they fight with him and Obama-Dems are blamed for the depression.
Under the GOOD SITUATION, the payoff to the GOP would perhaps be 0 seats if they cooperate (at least they wouldn't lose) and - 20 seats if they do not (as they retreat further into their "base districts").
Obviously these payoffs are speculative, but I think the logic is reasonable: the GOP's maximum payoff in net seats in the House in 2010 is greatest (+60) if the economy is still in the tank and they avoid being coopted into Obama-Dems' policies. The GOP payoff in net seats is lowest (-20) if the economy is improving and they are obstructionist; and it's only slightly better (net 0) if they cooperate.
Thus, the GOP's best strategy in terms of net seats gained in the House in 2010 is if: the economy is really bad and they obstruct (do not cooperate). They are betting on this. It's only "logical."
(Note that this game does not say anything about "what's good for the people" -- just "what's good for the GOP and the Democrats".)"
Watching John Stewart on the Daily Show he brought up some excellent points.
CNBC, a financial network, didn't see this financial crash, at all.
Anther thing he said is CNBC hyperventilates bubbles and recessions. I mentioned a few days back, CNBC talking heads are all jumping up and down stating Obama's policies will be bad for the economy.
CNBC, the network that missed the greatest economic meltdown since the Great Depression, is now giving us financial advice on Barack Obama's policies? Really?
Coming to power during a recession usually works out pretty well. Bush won re-election in 2004, Clinton in 1996, Reagan in 1984 and Ike in 1956.
The impact on congress is another story. Bush gained 8 seats in 2002, the Dems lost 54 in 1994, the GOP lost 26 in 1982, and the GOP lost 18 in 1954.
So Bush II is the only president to gain seats directly following recession midterms - and 9/11 had a lot to do with that.
If the economy doesn't start to turn around enough for most to recognize by late 2010, it might not be all doom and gloom for the Democrats running for office.
1. It will be difficult for the GOOPers to attain a majority in the House (possible, but extremely improbable at this point), so the Democrats will almost certainly maintain the current House majority, even if a bit reduced;
2. It will be even more difficult for the GOOPers to attain a majoirty in the Senate. It may make it a bit easier for the GOOPers to filibuster bills, but what will that get them?
3. The Democrats control the White House until the 2012 election, at a minimum. Unless the economy falls into a full-blown depression (which almost no one is predicting), it should start to recover within the next two years. That leaves all of the 2012 campaign (if not longer) with a recovering economy, which historically has been good news for the incumbent party.
All in all, 2010 might be a bit of a downer (for Democrats), and give a glimmer of hope for the GOOPers (but most likely a fool's gold glimmer in the long run).
When it comes to 2012, though, unless there is still no recovery, who would the electorate believe brought around that recovery? The party in power that passed legislation to jump-start the economy, or the party of "NO NO NO NO NO NO NO"?
And thus which party would benefit after 2010 (especially), and maybe before, from the electorate's perception?
Juris: That's their bet, alright, but +60 House seats would be a massive stretch for the GOP, for all sorts of reasons. One is that a severe recession reduces the natural fund-raising advantage they have by being the party of the rich. If they don't have a very, very good chance of getting control of the House - and I don't think they do - then retaining 40 seats in the Senate should be their top priority. The worst that can happen to them isn't that they lose 20 seats in the House by opposing Obama in the GOOD situation, it's that they lose 3-5 seats in the Senate. Losing five Senate seats would be absolutely brutal for the GOP - they would be reduced to hoping the Dems self-destruct. They may think they're being good game theorists, but really they're neglecting a huge risk, and overestimating their upside.
I'm not an economist, so hopefully I'm just missing something, but ... are those people crazy? This deep, systemic problem that we have, they expect it to go away in a matter of months?
I'm deeply suspicious. It's not like our macroeconomic situation is basically fine and we just need more money to flow through a basically intact system. It's more like the system is broken. If we have a genuine return to prosperity (not just a debt-financed snort of fiscal coke), I would not expect it in the next five years.
The Religious Left,
Might it be a bit more polite to summarize your point, then provide links to the quotations, rather than force us to just scroll past page after page of right-wing screech owl quotes?
I hear ya, Mike, it's just that if the link says "MediaMatters.org", then the point gets lost before they read any of it, because, "of course, all that site is is full of left-wing lies".
I'll try to behave and only pull that when PeteKent or Jack-o or GROG really needs a whacking.
Hee hee.
The Religious Left,
Funny, funny.
I don't know what browser you are using, but I found the specific URL [aka Universal Resource Locater) by clicking, on the MediaMatters.org home page, a link titled 'Media assault on Obama's character: He "lied" and has "broken so many promises" ' and then copying the URL of the page that opened after I clicked on that link.
The URL is:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200903040035?f=h_latest
Or maybe you think quantity equals quality?
It's worth noting that expectations can be self-fulfilling. So, if people don't expect the economy to start picking up for 18 months, then theoretically they won't feel comfortable increasing consumption until then. If they don't increase consumption sooner, if the savings rate keeps increasing for 18 months, it'll drive the economy down further and almost certainly preclude a recovery at that point. This could spell trouble if that's when people are going to start blaming Obama. Also, if the banking system is still so dysfunctional at that point (and without bold policy action, it almost certainly will be). that would preclude a real recovery.
If Obama thinks nationalization is a good idea but politically untenable, he should reconsider, because much easier to take the hit now, when he's got that capital, then to have a dysfunctional system for the remainder of his term.
I agree with people that its possible that people will be less patient that they think they will be. That's general human nature.
But don't forget that these aren't normal circumstances. I think that what people want right now is action. That's part of why "right track" numbers are improving despite worsening economic news, IMHO. My theory is that as long as Obama is seen as actively trying to solve the problems of this country, he will retain at least a majority of the public's support.
Nate, how long did it take the public to blame FDR for the current state of the economy under his administration? (And you can't count the GOP & Conservative revisionist history... lol)
Nate -- you say "This is why it makes a lot of sense for Obama to be pursuing a very ambitious agenda right now."
I disagree with your insinuation that policy should be dictated by a predictive approval model. While I like to see his poll numbers high (and he does as well for re-election purposes), I want a long-term stable economy. This is why I am thrilled he is choosing to invest in capital that will make the economy more efficient in the long term (and add many jobs starting over the next year).
No, no, it's sheer laziness on my part, as I have a 2 year old and mom in chronic pain who thinks I get too wrapped up in all this political stuff. And, I am kind of old school and tend to think that links to somewhere are not the information itself and therefore detract from it's content. That said, I am not wanting to annoy everyone here at 538. Sometimes it just seems... so... appropriate.
I did have a bit of fun with it leading up to the election- a quick and easy way to cut'n paste the lies back into their faces (often on Fox blogs) and play the 24-hr news cycle like a video game. I see the media as so intertwined with our politics and economy, it really seems like the best use of my time.
I think there's a bit of psychology work in those graphs. The basic idea is that, whatever state people are in, they have a hard time imagining themselves not in that state in the future. You've all been there.
You've just overeaten and you can't imagine wanting to eat ever again.
You're very hungover and you swear off drinking since a) you feel sick and b) you can't imagine ever enjoying alcohol again.
If you're playing poker and winning you can't imagine what it's like to lose.
If you like Obama you underestimate how likely you are to not like him in the future.
If the economy sucks now, you think it's going to suck for a long time. This effect is greatly diminished on experts and in this case the difference is obvious when you look at the graph. In any given field, the expert is less susceptible to cognitive bias in general and this no exception.
In recent weeks, many media conservatives have launched attacks on President Obama, claiming, for instance, that he "lied" and accusing him of having, in the words of The Washington Times, "broken so many promises during the first month-and-a-half of his presidency that it is hard to keep track." Following his February 24 address to a joint session of Congress, some in the media singled out Obama's comment that he doesn't "believe in bigger government" to accuse him of dishonesty, lying, and even in one case of committing "a huge, brazen, audacious, demonstrably outrageous lie." In fact, in the speech Obama said that, while he does not believe in "big government," a strategy on the scale he is proposing is necessary in the current economic situation. Moreover, many in the media have falsely claimed that Obama "promised no earmarks" in spending bills during his administration and that he has since broken that pledge. In fact, Obama consistently said during the campaign that he intends to "clean up" the process in an effort to curb spending on earmarks, not eliminate the process entirely.
Read more at http://mediamatters.org/items/200903040035?f=h_top
(so thoroughly documented it pains one to read it all here!)
That Media Matters is biased!
(biased toward facts and the truth)
Of course, Dr. Karl and Greta paint an entirely different picture of reality:
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=3767564&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/#
"Of course, the Democrats are playing up Rush as a diversion from facing the economy! Of course...We're on a porkfest here in Congress... blah blah blah...engage in politics and business as usual in Washington DC...thanks Karl you god of lies"
These people will grasp for any straw they can. Pathetic.
I will say this: Rush is a diversion for KARL!
Religious Left -
The following is a direct quote from Obama on Jan. 6, 2009.
"We are going to ban all earmarks -- the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review," he explained. "We will create an economic recovery oversight board made up of key administration officials and independent advisors to identify problems early and make sure we are doing all we can to solve it."
On the Rush topic...if Obama and the Democrats think Rush is the leader of the Republican party, why don't they reach out to him like nice Democrats? Pelosi, Clinton and Obama will gladly reach out to fascists dictators in the middle east, but they won't reach out to the leader of the Republican party? Have the Democrats offered an olive branch to Rush? That seems like the presidential thing to do.
This is truly an historic mess, and it requires bold action. Geithner is not the bold action guy, he is an insider and does not come off as particularly bright. Take over the damn banks, and spin them back out with new management and without bad debt. PLEASE!
The religious Left-
to whom are you talking and what are you talking about at all?
And yeah, I think Media Matters is biased. I think that Conservatives are attacking President Obama and being obstructive, but if they were right, or if we had a Republican majority and the media were biased towards the Democrats, Media Matters wouldn't complain about that.
"
Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time."
That is what you call unbiased? You aren't better than Rove, Limbaugh, Atwater and the likes. Just on the other side of the aisle.
Wow way to pick and choose polls on this post and the stock market one as well. Try to be a little less cheerleading next time ok
Moderate and Centrist dems have a problem with Obamas budget
Quit drinking the koolaid it is really insulting to objective people out here.
It would appear to me that most objections to Obama and the quality of the Recovery (much less other programs) will be if he has moved far enough to the left.
Just as there was considerable disapproval of the Congressional Democrats it was because they were not sufficiently opposing Republican activities. That is hardly good news for Republicans, and hardly works in their favor.
Strong buy signal? Only twice has the market retraced a 12 year low - both were at or near the bottoms for that market.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/twelve-year-lows/
That poll is what people say NOW, but it's meaningless as a gauge of how people will feel about Obama in 2010!
In 2010 as now, the public will judge whether they think Obama has taken every reasonable step to fix the economy. IF they think Obama "gets it" -- understands the suffering going on around the country and is trying everything in his power to improve the economy, whether he's succeeded in turning around this depression or not he'll retain support. Obviously, the government cannot just waive a magic wand and fix things.
Further, popular view will depend on whether people think Republicans offer a viable alternative. But, (as Jindal just proved) they are morally and intellectually bankrupt. They have no useful ideas about anything and just screech about more tax cuts for the rich just as though George Bush never happened.
It's exactly like those polls taken in 2006 that said a majority wanted the U.S. out of Iraq in "six months to a year." Polled a year later did those same people say "OUT NOW!" because the year was up? No. They were still saying "six months to a year." And many of them are saying the same thing now, although it's almost 3 years later.
What really governs who the public blames for bad economic times?
People WANT to trust the President and hope that he's doing the right thing. As long as he keeps attempting to fix the economy, the public will be generally supportive, although his approval ratings cannot reasonably be expected to continue to hover around 70%.
Franklin Roosevelt: Did Franklin Roosevelt solve the Great Depression by 1936? No. Was he unpopular because of it? No.
Will Obama & Democrats really be hounded out of office if the economy remains bad through 2010? No. Were Democrats punished in 1934 or 1936? No.
"Wagster said...
Obama's popularity will no doubt sink some, but I'm a little more optimistic. Why? Look at the election of 1936. If like FDR Obama can establish an emotional connection with the public, if he can make some headway against the economic woes, and if he can show that he's working for the people they will stick with him, just as they stuck with FDR in 1936, giving him a landslide victory even though the country was still mired in double digit unemployment."
This is true. Obama inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression. If ever the theory that the public would "hold the President responsible" and turn to the Republicans was tested it was in 1934 & 1936.
Republicans lost badly in both elections NOT because Roosevelt had fixed the economy. He surely had NOT!
What he had done was connect with people as a powerful and empathetic leader who understood the plight of the country and inspired support.
That's exactly how people feel about Obama now and if he continues to focus all his energies on restoring the economy and doesn't make any major blunders he'll continue to receive support.
Republicans just don't get it because emotionally they want Obama to fail so they can repudiate all his liberal policies.
Grog-
It may be shocking, but these things take time. If Obama doesn't have such things in place in a year and a half, THEN blame him.
Remember, he was promising to eliminate the earmark process, which requires the help of Congress. It's not like like he can make an executive order to eliminate earmarks.
As for why he won't veto it, it's a continuing resolution, meaning that the government shuts down if it doesn't pass. He didn't promise to veto everything that had an earmark (that was McCain), nor did he threaten to shut down the government if it had an earmark.
This is a big change- give him a year to do it right. Oh, I forgot, you're one of the guys who four hours after he took office was screaming about he hadn't solved anything yet.
Matthew H -
Has he formed his "economic recovery oversight board made up of key administration officials and independent advisors"? (That's a serious question. I don't know.)
I never screamed that he hasn't solved anything yet. All I said that it's time to stop blaming Bush for everything. This website still spends more time bashing Bush and Republicans than it does talking about Obama and his policies. I've argued that the excitement from the left comes from the fact that Obama is not Bush.
This fascination with what is going to happen in the future is curious. What is wrong with explaining what has happened and why? We need more of that and less pointless, time wasting speculation on what will happen. How does that contribute to anyone's knowledge that helps them make important decisions about their lives?
The inescapable fact is no one knows the future. NO ONE!
Here is some more data
Americans by an almost 2 to 1 margin are worried the government is spending too much money
"What's more, 61 percent say they're more concerned that the federal government will spend too much money and will increase the size of the deficit, than they are concerned that the government will spend too little money in trying to get out of the recession"
Source: MSNBC Wall Street Journal Poll
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29493021/
Thanks for continuing the excellent statistical analysis. We must remember that people are very fickle, though, and that even those who say they'll give Obama 18 months or two years could say the opposite if things are worse next week.
"I'm #52! I'm 52 times better than the idiot who wrote FIRST first!"
THIS is an example where #'s & polls help mark some trend that helps people make sense of politics.
While it's still anally obsessed w/ #s, it at least makes sense -- unlike the top post today about "Democrat/Democratic" ratio nonsense.
Now, to the substance: it's just an indicator, not a predictor of anything real. Once the # of people hit some tipping point -- say, 1/3 -- the drumbeat of the media will become incessant w/ "it's now Obama's economy" & the number will increase far more quickly to over a majority than your attempt at a trend line indicates.
Numbers don't mean shit if you don't have some sense to wrap around them, rather than wrapping your entire analysis around numbers.
You will become a punchline for your obsession, mark my words.
I'd be very interested in seeing some meta-analyses of economic forecasting surveys!
Has anybody seen any of these? Would anybody like to do some??
Wouldn't it be great if Nate could predict the end of the recession by analyzing the forecasts??
Wait ... there are actually 8% of the population who blame Obama??? Wow, they must be the most clueless people on the planet.
That is about the number of people who approve of Darth Cheney.
There are idiots like Pete Kent who think all the economic woes are because of Obama, and not because of the incompetence of Bush or the failure of Reagonomics. Scary, but true.
Anyone who blames Obama for the Bush Recession is a moron.
Nice post, Nate. Maybe force Sean to read it out loud 10 times until he figures out what 538 was built to be about.
In any case, I think it's highly likely that the economy will recover and be in excellent shape by the 2012 elections, as it would have under any President. The government's roll in stimulating the economy is important, but way overrated. Just as Bush got lucky in that his 2001 recession was long over when he ran for re-election and the economy was sizzling in 2004 (although good luck catching the MSM admitting so), Obama will probably have the benefit of a good economy in 2012 and win re-election.
The 2010 races are not great pickup chances for Republicans because the Senate races are the same as 2004, when the GOP had a good year (your real pickup chances are 6 years after a bad yesr, like 2008 for the Dems). The next real possibility for GOP gains in the Senate is 2014, when Obama will be a 6th year President (whose party usually suffers) and they will be the same elections as 2008, an excellent Dem year. I could see pickup chances in the 2014 races in VA, NC, MT, MN (eventually Minnesotans will wake up and realize with horror that they've elected Al Franken to the Us Senate), AK, CO, etc.
===There are idiots like Pete Kent who think all the economic woes are because of Obama, and not because of the incompetence of Bush or the failure of Reagonomics. Scary, but true.===
Solely blaming Bush or any other politician for the economic woes of this country is so childish and naive.
There are factors that have nothing to do with the politicians that have caused the recession, including:
- natural economic fluctuations that always occur
- irresponsibility of mortgage brokers and mortgage companies and Wall St investment banking firms. Sure you can blame lack of regulation, but regulation can only go so far; at some point some private responsibility is also required
- The lack of production that the US has gotten used to putting forth. We used to be the World's greatest producer; now we just consume, consume, consume. We want higher wages, higher standards of living and easier working conditions all the time and in a global economy, that's just not always possible
- Bad business decisions by certain key companies, like AIG, GM
- etc.
Blaming Bush for everything is a cop out and may be fun for the partisan hacks, but is a clueless approach.
Someone should run a periodic poll: Is Obama a one-term president?
This seems a very flawed analysis by Nate. He takes the response of people TODAY as to how they expect to feel in 12 months, 18 months, etc. from now, and attempts to predict how they will feel in the FUTURE. I don't think you can take opinion today to predict opinion in the future.
The reality is that if the economy stays bad, people's view of when they will blame Obama will shorten. I think by a year the economy problems will belong to Obama. Democrats probably will lose seats in 2010 (although the Senate races look good for democrats now), but Obama is lucky that by four years when he runs again the economy probably will be okay.
看房子,買房子,建商自售,自售,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,新成屋,豪宅,美髮儀器,美髮,儀器,髮型,EMBA,MBA,學位,EMBA,專業認證,認證課程,博士學位,DBA,PHD,在職進修,碩士學位,推廣教育,DBA,進修課程,碩士學位,網路廣告,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,廣告,課程介紹,學分班,文憑,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,日式料理, 台北居酒屋,燒肉,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,造型系列,學位,牛樟芝,腦磷脂,磷脂絲胺酸,SEO,婚宴,捷運,學區,美髮,儀器,髮型,牛樟芝,腦磷脂,磷脂絲胺酸,看房子,買房子,建商自售,自售,房子,捷運,學區,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,新成屋,豪宅,學位,碩士學位,進修,在職進修, 課程,教育,學位,證照,mba,文憑,學分班,網路廣告,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,SEO,关键词,网络广告,关键词广告,SEO,关键词,网络广告,关键词广告,SEO,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,居酒屋,燒烤,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,小套房,小套房,進修,在職進修,留學,證照,MBA,EMBA,留學,MBA,EMBA,留學,進修,在職進修,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,住宿,民宿,飯店,旅遊,美容,美髮,整形,造型,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA
"Daddy, What's a Republican?" has been blogging on this question for about two months now. Check out these posts:
I win; you lose. I lose; you're still kinda screwed.
http://daddywhatsarepublican.blogspot.com/2009/02/i-win-you-lose-i-lose-youre-still-kinda.html
The Family Feud Fallacy
http://daddywhatsarepublican.blogspot.com/2009/02/family-feud-fallacy.html
they won't blame him despite he is as responsible for this economy as regan was for the national debt..
simply because they are afraid to blame the black Man 50% or so and not really and american anyway
but the cover up will continue after all it would ruin the image of democratic communist party
--let illegals in and give health care to all who don't work. after all its fair right??
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
From cell phones users to see the specific situation of occupational segmentation in 2009, accounting for 19.5% of students dropped 21.2 percent over last year, other types of occupations than those last year, the proportion of Internet users cheap cell phones increase. White collar crowd from last year's 29.2% increase to 38.9% this year, accounting for 9.7 percentage points up to replace the student groups cellphone users as one of the biggest occupational hierarchy; blue-collar crowd from last year's 13.9% to 18.9% this year, accounting for rose by 5.0 percentage points, showing that mobile phones users by a group of students to the occupational groups a significant trend in the development. Ereli advice that, cheap cell phones and mobile phone users Internet users monthly income distribution of age, education, occupational distribution has strong correlation with high spending capacity of white-collar workers and some students in the crowd will be a huge cell phone china online potential consumer groups.
By comparing the traditional Internet users, Internet users to iResearch found that the traditional white-collar-based, cell phones wholesale, corporate general staff accounted for 18.9%, higher than the 5.6% of the wholesale cell phones users accounting; and discount cell phones users in the years students and blue-collar workers accounted for significantly more than the traditional Internet users, respectively, accounting for 19.5% and 18.9%, higher than the traditional Internet users Students and blue-collar workers accounted for 7.8% and 5.1% respectively.
The survey found that consumer 3G wholesale china from the crowd of view, the buyer 25 to 40 years old mainly white-collar workers, accounting for about 40%, followed by consumer groups of students, accounting for about three into. According to statistics, 3G wholesale products in sales, compared with a 2G mobile phone sales are still a wide gap between, but since June has been, 3G mobile phones increase in the average monthly buy products for more than 50%, "11" period due to holiday business, the increase of more than 150%. Pk that the "11" after the peak sales of 3G handsets likely to usher in more stable growth.
Post a Comment