Honest libertarian Jane Galt looks at the new jobs number and says, “I think we in the media should start practicing saying ‘President Kerry’.”
Honest self-proclaimed liberal Republican William Saletan has read the polls in some detail. My favorite part:
Look at the data going back to February. Over that period, Bush’s top score in the ABC trial heat is 48. In the CBS and ARG polls, it’s 46. During that time, Newsweek has repeatedly asked respondents, “Would you like to see George W. Bush re-elected to another term as president, or not?” The percentage saying Bush deserves re-election hasn’t risen above 46. The percentage saying he doesn’t deserve re-election hasn’t fallen below 50. During the same period, Zogby surveys have repeatedly asked voters, “Do you think George W. Bush deserves to be re-elected as president of the United States, or is it time for someone new?” The percentage saying Bush deserves to be re-elected hasn’t risen above 45. The percentage saying it’s time for someone new hasn’t fallen below 51.
Honest liberal Billmon also looks at the new jobs report and says:
High unemployment, high energy prices, inflation-driven wage gains that still fail to keep up with prices. Gee, where have we seen that picture before? Jimmy Carter shakes his head sadly and says, “Don’t ask.”
I just can’t help but point out that the latest Fox News poll shows a five-point swing towards Kerry among registered voters, and a three-point swing among Fox’s definition of “likely voters,” following the Democratic convention – the same one the Fox talking pinheads spent four days trying to redefine as a liberal hate rally.
Meanwhile, Bush’s approval rating has dropped to 44% – a record low for the Fox poll. That’s down three points from before the convention. His disapproval rating has risen to 48% – a record high – from 45% before the convention…
I fully expect to see the smoke pouring out of Bill O’Reilly’s ears as he rails against those biased liberals at Fox News.
{ 22 comments }
Thomas 08.06.04 at 9:49 pm
The comparison of the present economic circumstances to the circumstances of 1980 is more than a bit of a stretch, isn’t it? 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%.
Bob McGrew 08.06.04 at 10:02 pm
I’m a libertarian who almost certainly will not be voting for Bush, but isn’t it a little early to start declaring victory? The Republican convention hasn’t even happened yet. It’s three months before the election.
How many rank-and-file voters are paying attention right now? (And I don’t trust polls on this. Don’t pay attention to what people say; pay attention to what they do.)
Brey 08.06.04 at 10:20 pm
It’s kinda cute that Jane Galt is a libertarian. Where is she anyway?
Lukas 08.06.04 at 10:48 pm
Any response to this?
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
Ted Barlow 08.06.04 at 10:50 pm
Thomas,
You’ve got a point, especially when it comes to interest rates.
Bob,
I don’t want to declare victory, just spike the “Dem Panic Watch!” promulgated by (especially) Mickey Kaus.
Lukas 08.06.04 at 10:53 pm
a three-point swing among Fox’s definition of “likely votersâ€
oops! hurrah.
a different chris 08.06.04 at 11:27 pm
Ms McArdle is a member of “the media”??? Since when? Never mind.
In any case, the wingers are back to the old “the President doesn’t have much to do with the economy” defense. I didn’t hear them saying much when Bush/Cheney announced their intention to run on it!
I think a lot of the “stimulus” we’ve gotten has been pure sugar, and now the rush has worn off.
Regardless of how you feel about free trade, by “giving us our own money back” they basically took a fucking huge chunk of money, that could really do something, and broke it down into a bunch of tiny pieces that allowed us to buy stuff from China at the mall but make no gains in energy independence, school improvements (even vouchers need seed money, right my rightist friends?) and the like.
>You’ve got a point, especially when it comes to interest rates.
Not so quick. Not disagreeing since I don’t have the numbers, but do this first:
1- Don’t cherrypick 1980, Carter took office in 1977. Look at all the years.
2- Calculate the difference between the prime and the inflation rate, and consider that also.
3- Finally, see if you can take a whack at the way the changes in the way unemployment rate calculation affect the numbers. For instance, I’m sure that in 1980 we treated miltary service different in some way.
Tony 08.07.04 at 1:01 am
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.
Brian 08.07.04 at 2:16 am
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.
Oget 08.07.04 at 2:45 am
5.6% is “high unemployment”?
Oget 08.07.04 at 2:45 am
5.6% is “high unemployment”?
Oget 08.07.04 at 2:46 am
5.6% is “high unemployment”?
oget 08.07.04 at 2:48 am
Sorry about the treble post… IE decided to die on me.
Thomas 08.07.04 at 2:48 am
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?
Kate 08.07.04 at 5:15 am
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”.
nick 08.07.04 at 7:13 am
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.
honest.john 08.07.04 at 9:12 pm
An honest Jane Galt? Her Assymetrical War has been successful.
neil 08.08.04 at 12:27 am
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.
howard 08.08.04 at 2:42 am
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)….
James of DC 08.08.04 at 5:34 am
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.
Geeno 08.08.04 at 4:29 pm
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.
a different chris 08.09.04 at 3:29 pm
>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.
Comments on this entry are closed.