Comments on: Dem Panic Watch: Rainbow coalition special

By: a different chris

a different chris — Mon, 09 Aug 2004 15:29:25 +0000

>the number I cited was the inflation rate Thomas, I understand that, I was trying to point out that you have to look at comparative numbers. Neil covered this well, so I’ll just add those good old “personal anectdotes” for whatever they are worth: Believe it or not, when I was at Westinghouse in 1980 they offered a Savings program, where you could buy W stock or put it in a “Fixed Investment” account. The interest rate for the fixed investment account? SEVENTEEN POINT FIVE PERCENT. And of course, passbook savings paid 5.25 down at the corner bank. On the loan side, when I got a mortgage in the 80’s the rate was 12%. It sounds outrageous to “kids” today, until I point out to them that core inflation (including the value of my house) was about 7%, 5 percentage points different. Meanwhile they were paying 6.6% in an era of nearly negligible inflation. Who was doing better? Of course, then the housing bubble inflated which knocked the props out under my argument, but I’m simply trying to say is that stand-alone numbers don’t mean as much as you’d think at first pass.

By: Geeno

Geeno — Sun, 08 Aug 2004 16:29:18 +0000

I think the best analogy is the late Hoover presidency. At the end of the Carter administration things had been going badly economy-wise for a decade – remember wage&price controls from the Nixon era? – people were despondant about the economy. Things were horrible and only going to get worse. Now, as in the late Hoover administration, there is an anger that nothing is being done.

By: James of DC

James of DC — Sun, 08 Aug 2004 05:34:03 +0000

Michael Moore says the likely voters model is missing gobs of people whose disillusionment with Bush (Hatred may be more accurate but it has such a nasty ring.) will move them to vote for the first time. They are hiding from the pollsters at the moment, but they will turn election day into a route for Kerry. Nice to dream about, anyhow.

By: howard

howard — Sun, 08 Aug 2004 02:42:31 +0000

In terms of “likely voters,” i looked at the link provided in vain for an explanation why “likely voters” models are “better,” and didnt see one; just an assertion. Ruy Texeira, who is the most knowledgable poll analyst i’ve seen, disagrees at this stage of the race: he believes that registered voter results are more important than likely voters until much later, and given a choice between texeira, who backs his opinion up, and someone who doesn’t, i pick texeira. Meanwhile, as someone who does remember the ‘70s, the point is this: the name for the economic conditions of the late ‘70s was “stagflation.” Stagflation was a condition of slow growth, inflationary pressures, no gains in real incomes, and an overall sense of economic stagnation. This is what Billmon is pointing to: yes, the absolute numbers aren’t the same as the late ‘70s, but the conditions of mild stagflation are looking increasingly present (especially as oil prices spike). And, as an excellent article in the new republic (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040816&s=hacker081604) points out, there is good reason to attend to the increasing feelings of economic insecurity that a broad swath of the electorate feels. Bottom line: there’s a long way to go, but the election has been kerry’s to win (rather than bush’s to lose) since about April, and the polling internals support that. PS. While we’re talking about 1980, Ronald Reagan had everything going for him that year: adoration of the Republican base, the ascendancy of the modern conservative movement, general disdain for the failures of the carter years, stagflation, and more, and yet he didn’t actually move clearly in front until the final week of the campaign (after the debate, which he won with the assistance of the stolen briefing book, but i digress)….

By: neil

neil — Sun, 08 Aug 2004 00:27:06 +0000

Thomas, I believe the inflation reference was about how wage growth is currently slower than inflation, as it was in 1980. The inflation is not as bad as it was then, but the wage growth is not nearly as high either.

By: honest.john

honest.john — Sat, 07 Aug 2004 21:12:36 +0000

An honest Jane Galt? Her Assymetrical War has been successful.

By: nick

nick — Sat, 07 Aug 2004 07:13:56 +0000

Basically: (1) likely voter models are best (2) Saletan ignores them in favor of registered voters (3) likely voters are split fairly evenly, with potential to swing to Bush Basically: (1) and (2)—while ‘likely voter’ models have been useful for past elections, the emphasis this year on appealing to unregistered voters and to registered non-voters makes them less credible. (Call it the Michael Moore effect, or the Florida 2000 effect.) (3) No matter what your scenario, the precedent is that undecideds in an election where there’s an incumbent break overwhelmingly for the challenger. I mean, inflation ran better than 13% in 1980, and this year will run less than 4%. Similarly, the employment rate in 1980 was 7.1%, whereas it is now at 5.5%. Please. That’s the headline number, and the BLS definition of ‘over 16, unemployed and actively seeking work’ has changed substantially from that used in 1980. The big problem when measuring the real unemployment rate (and more crucially, the underemployment rate) is that while the payroll survey is a more accurate indicator of employment, it doesn’t (and basically can’t) measure the number of discouraged workers, people working subsistence jobs in lieu of proper employment etc. As the US provides much less of a safety net for the unemployed than other developed nations, the numbers are skewed by those people who, having lost a decent job, end up doing low-paid work to get by. Jobs are really easy to come by if you’re prepared to work two $8/hr shifts a day.

By: Kate

Kate — Sat, 07 Aug 2004 05:15:44 +0000

Regardless of the numbers we a BETWEEN conventions right now. Bush is sure to get a boost after the Republicans invade NYC (my home town. I’m so happy I’ll be on vacation in Colorado then). I think it is really to early to call regardless of the recent Job numbers. BTW —McArdle writes for The Economist and used to contribute to Tech Central Station. I think that qualifies her as being “in the media”.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Sat, 07 Aug 2004 02:48:27 +0000

a different chris—the number I cited was the inflation rate, not a prevailing interest rate. Inflation ran 13% in 1980. The economic conditions today have very little in common with the economic conditions in 1980. How old are the people making these comparisons? Do they not remember those years?

By: oget

oget — Sat, 07 Aug 2004 02:48:06 +0000

Sorry about the treble post… IE decided to die on me.

By: Oget

Oget — Sat, 07 Aug 2004 02:46:45 +0000

High unemployment

5.6% is “high unemployment”?

By: Oget

Oget — Sat, 07 Aug 2004 02:45:49 +0000

High unemployment

5.6% is “high unemployment”?

By: Oget

Oget — Sat, 07 Aug 2004 02:45:45 +0000

High unemployment

5.6% is “high unemployment”?

By: Brian

Brian — Sat, 07 Aug 2004 02:16:34 +0000

Carter. I believe Tacitus has declared Bush the republican’s Carter. I was just watching the financial news earlier today. Oil is at a all-time high. Employment was very disappointing. Holy crap, it’s the late 70s again.

By: Tony

Tony — Sat, 07 Aug 2004 01:01:54 +0000

My impression has been that electoral vote predictions are more significant than national polls: http://www.electoral-vote.com/ To make things more complicated, there’s no guarantee that electors are going to vote for whom they pledge. My favorite example is Henry D. Irwin, a Republican-pledged elector from Oklahoma who voted for Harry Byrd instead of Nixon: CBS Reports found Irwin and interviewed him. He said that he “could not stomach” Nixon. Irwin held the view that the founding fathers never intended for the “indigent, the nonproperty owners” to have a vote for the president. (from http://www.avagara.com/e_c/ec_unfaithful.htm#Irwin) Don’t forget, we do not live in a democracy.