« Good Lede | Main | Repositioning » Prosperity Knocks05 Nov 2007 03:06 pm
Jon Rauch posts and discusses the above chart. One noteworthy thing about this is that unlike with a lot of stuff where you see the public's mild disgruntlement with Democrats outweighed by masssive hatred of Republicans, here you actually seem to be looking at more pro-Democrat sentiment than anti-Republican sentiment. By historical standards, the GOP has seen worse numbers, but the Democrats have rarely been more popular. Comments (15)
The results? Devastating. Crushing. Not only did Bush and his party fail to make the sale, the public slammed the door in their faces. Just why is hard to say. Worries about economic insecurity, and the failure of the median household income (adjusted for inflation) to rise during the Bush years, undoubtedly played a part. Bush's personal unpopularity and the public's displaced anger over the Iraq war may also figure. What about criminal incompetance? A totalitarian approach to governance? Gee...it's 'so hard to say'. 
I wonder how closely that graph would match a graph of the general approval ratings for the Democratic and Republican parties.
I wonder how closely that graph would match a graph of the general approval ratings for the Democratic and Republican parties.
Sorry about the double post there.
The left half of the chart is dominated by the Depression, which left a gigantic mark on American politics. If Al Smith had been elected President in 1928, the left half of the chart would be flipped, with the Democrats being blamed for the Depression for the next 40 years.
Wait a minute. Isn't the implication of that graph that Americans don't vote for the party they think will keep the country more prosperous? With the exception of the Reagan years The Republicans virtually always chart lower. Significantly during the presidencies of Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford and even slightly before the election of George W. Bush.
For most of the Clinton Administration, the respected Robert Rubin guided economic policy as Secretary of the Treasury. Rubin then went on to a senior position at America's largest financial conglomerate, Citigroup, where he has since take that Dow Industrial component company to new heights. Bush, on the other hand, appointed a dangerous ideologue, Paul O'Neil, as his first Treasury Secretary.
Shouldn't the numbers on this chart add up to 100%?
Presuambly the chart is the result of the media's continual lying about the state of the economy these days. After all, nearly half of the American public thinks we are already in a recession, which is just not true. Indeed, more people believe that the US is in a rescession than believe that Saddam was directly involved in 9/11. And the public's misimpression about the economy is obviously the result of the continual, intentional implying by the MSM and the Democrats (redundant, I know) that it is true that we are in a rescession.
"And the public's misimpression about the economy is obviously the result of the continual, intentional implying by the MSM and the Democrats (redundant, I know) that it is true that we are in a rescession." Well, it will be true eventually at least.
re: And the public's misimpression about the economy is obviously the result of the continual, intentional implying by the MSM and the Democrats (redundant, I know) that it is true that we are in a rescession. Unlike distant events like the iraq War Americans do not rely on the media for their understanding of the economy. That they know from direct experience. And with gas, groceries, healthcare etc all spiraling out of sight while wages are stagant and home values are plummeting, how would any sensible person expect the public to think we are in prosperous times?
Republicans have had the media put the taint of "Party of the Rich" on them, though it is arguable that actually more of the ultrarich - big bucks Jews, East and West Coast Elites - are loyal Democrats. And even bigger beneficiaries of globalization than the Republican small business owners and oil folks. The problem is the REpublicans tend to glorify the CEO and the ultrawealthy - using the arguments of trickledown, a rising tide lifts all boats and when GNP rises - those gains are magically spread through the whole populace. No one really believes that anymore. Wealth is concentrating at the Top, and not diffusing anymore. Add in that the cancer of the Club For Growth holds no one has to pay for increased government spending in this generation, and the focus must be on tax cuts for the wealthy. All while the rich make little or no sacrifice for the displaced masses hurt by globalism, the declining standard of living of many, the sacrifices the military is doing. Reckless Republicanism - not good stewardship. Bushism at it's worse. Yet Dems always manage to make it a race with their insistance on terrorist/enemy rights, their fecklessness on national security, their nanny-statism, and determination to shove their "we elites know best" prescriptions down voter's throats on gun control, race quotas, victim politics, Open Borders, gay marriage, persecuting displays of the Christian faith.
Bryan, The chart probably correlates very strongly to a simple "Who do you prefer" type question. Look at the immense dip in Republican approval on the economy during the Nixon impeachment. It's a perfect example of how the response to poll questions like this often is only marginally connected to the question asked. Also, Matt, I'd agree that the Clinton years greatly improved Democrats' reputation as managers of the economy (deservedly so), but you can't make that conclusion from this graph. Like elections, it's a zero sum competition between the parties, so there's no visible difference between declining support for the GOP and rising support for the Dems.
Oops. Sorry, Matt. In my haste to point out how wrong you were (and show off my math skills), I neglected to double check my work. The undecideds (not shown on the graph) present a group that one party or the other might draw from. Please ignore my second paragraph (or take it into account next time I pretend I know what I'm talking about, just don't try to find anything useful there).
Comments closed November 19, 2007. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Plus, I'm thinking that more bubbles have yet to burst before the next election. Not that I want them to (obviously), because they will likely hurt me personally financially, but they could further help the Dems politically.
Posted by goethean | November 5, 2007 3:14 PM