tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post8247138730044508777..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: Still Can't Look at PollsJonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-30009132615650142022010-03-29T22:40:37.454-05:002010-03-29T22:40:37.454-05:00I also think you're mistaken when you say &quo...I also think you're mistaken when you say "the benefits of financial reform are unlikely to be rewarded by voters." <br /><br />You underestimate the rage at the bailout.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-62773860453439145422010-03-29T22:31:12.809-05:002010-03-29T22:31:12.809-05:00Smart post, but I think financial reform could in ...Smart post, but I think financial reform could in fact move voters a great deal -- if the Dems spanked bankers hard in some way. The lingering resentment over the bailout among voters all over the spectrum is enormous. If the Dems took Wall street on in a big way (unlikely, I'll admit), and the GOP resisted, all of a sudden the Dems seize the populist rage the GOP currently enjoys. Big votes there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-25118936502403693532010-03-29T16:48:31.660-05:002010-03-29T16:48:31.660-05:00"but no one ever rewards pols for avoiding a ..."but no one ever rewards pols for avoiding a disaster before it starts" <br /><br />Really? It would seem that operating in a less constrained and challenging political climate is a pretty big reward.Tbonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10469644870994510369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-82360924726586582922010-03-29T15:13:34.968-05:002010-03-29T15:13:34.968-05:00"mainly because no one has experienced the pe..."mainly because no one has experienced the perceived good and bad about the new law."<br /><br />This is false. Thousands of small and medium healthcare related businesses and their employees have been suffering for almost a year simply by the extended debate on healthare. Many are going to go out of business or be forced to fire people as a direct result of this legislation. I had a cancellation of an order for a diagnostic apparatus just this morning and was given the "healtcare bill" as the reason for the cancellation...this heathcare provider does not believe they can survive as a direct result of the legislation. BTW, they had been able to deliver this medical service less expensively to the system than a hospital can...and soon, they won't be able to. Kudos to the powerful hospital lobby.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-68898415133674640172010-03-29T15:10:17.482-05:002010-03-29T15:10:17.482-05:00Chris Bowers said a few months back that inasmuch ...Chris Bowers said a few months back that inasmuch as you want to argue the administration should have pursued different policies, it's pointless to do so unless you think that by following those policies THE ECONOMY WOULD BE BETTER THAN WHAT IT IS NOW.MNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02649831883849533189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-7332068553094322202010-03-29T14:38:40.596-05:002010-03-29T14:38:40.596-05:00You and always tell when one side is worried about...You and always tell when one side is worried about the polls when their mouthpieces decide to write about them "not mattering".<br /><br />There is nothing "highly ambigiuos" about these results:<br /> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-43305459702741768722010-03-29T14:11:14.814-05:002010-03-29T14:11:14.814-05:00Ace-K hits the Jacobson-Kernell nail on the button...Ace-K hits the Jacobson-Kernell nail on the button. Events today matter for the fall elections via the strategic choices of politicians (who runs, who challenges, who retires or chooses not to challenge) and donors. <br /><br />--brianAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-30437484073571494442010-03-28T21:14:07.768-05:002010-03-28T21:14:07.768-05:00If reform polls well, then Democrats will take hea...<i>If reform polls well, then Democrats will take heart, be more likely to run for re-election, and be willing to risk running for office, while anti-repeal Republicans will look wise and realistic. On the other hand, if reform polls badly, the field will be pushed in the opposite direction. Democratic candidates will retire or wait for a more favorable cycle to run, while pro-repeal Republicans will feel themselves fully vindicated.</i><br /><br />Unfortunately, the current polls are highly ambiguous. Several have shown a modest bump for approval of the bill, but the results are far from uniform, and no poll yet has shown a majority of the public in favor of the bill. People looking at the polls right now are bound to draw different conclusions.<br /><br />What the Democrats have been hoping is that they'll have an easier time informing the public what's actually in the bill, now that it has passed. Citizens who are curious about the bill's contents can read several summaries online and in newspapers, which state plainly the provisions, and when they will kick in. People could do this before the bill was passed, but they were less inclined to do so, especially since the contents were subject to change.<br /><br />Furthermore, while right-wing propagandists will no doubt continue to spread misinformation about the bill, the wind has gone out of their sails somewhat. They can chirp about repeal all they want, but most of them realize, even if they don't say so outright, that repeal-the-bill is substantially less realistic than kill-the-bill once was. What they're gambling is that they'll encourage enough voters to punish the Democrats, regardless of the actual fate of the bill. This strategy may work, but they are on far riskier ground than they were before the bill was passed. They anticipated this situation, which is why they tried so hard to make sure the bill never passed.Kylopodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06932528611103718373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-30099731579755670902010-03-27T17:33:29.918-05:002010-03-27T17:33:29.918-05:00Jonathan,
You're certainly right that polls t...Jonathan,<br /><br />You're certainly right that polls today are a poor predictor of polls in the future. But you did seem to say pretty unambiguously that polls today just plain don't matter:<br /><i><br />Look, even if we're just talking about the fall elections, it doesn't matter what people think -- or, more to the point, what they'll say to pollsters -- on March 26. It just doesn't. </i><br /><br />Polls in November matter a lot, but polls in March matter to some degree, because they induce politicians to take actions they can't undo e.g. retiring.<br /><br />I'd also suggest that polls in March do give us at least a hint about what the popularity of healthcare will look like in November. If HCR were polling at 20%, then I think it would be safe to say that even if all the contingencies that you mention -- closing the doughnut hole, cutting Medicare Advantage -- played out identically, that HCR would be less popular in November than it will be if we assume that it's currently polling around 45%. I think, in other words, that 45% is relevant as a "baseline" popularity for HCR. Depending on the economy and how the specific provisions take effect, that number will move, but in the near term it will hover around 45%, rather than 20 or 80 percent.<br /><br />I don't exactly have any evidence for this sense but heck, this is a blog comment -- I don't need evidence.<br /><br />I should probably also note that your blog has rapidly become my favorite political site.Ace-Khttp://alexanderkobulnicky.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-14758797481089308712010-03-27T16:37:48.196-05:002010-03-27T16:37:48.196-05:00Ace-K --
Yes, yes, that's all correct. See m...Ace-K --<br /><br />Yes, yes, that's all correct. See my comment above -- polls are very useful if you want to know what people think now, and you are absolutely right that popularity now has some consequences. Again, I'm talking about using polls now as predictors of polls later (about health care reform, that is), and that's where I think the polls are pretty useless.Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-41328777067354119062010-03-27T16:22:48.746-05:002010-03-27T16:22:48.746-05:00I have to disagree with this thesis. Sure, polls t...I have to disagree with this thesis. Sure, polls taken in March don't directly affect the outcome of elections in November, but there are countless indirect effects. Even in March, congressmen are still deciding whether to retire, and candidates are still deciding whether to jump into or drop out of races. Polls are one metric they use to help themselves decide. March is in the middle of primary season, and especially in Republican primaries, repeal is a big issue.<br /><br />If reform polls well, then Democrats will take heart, be more likely to run for re-election, and be willing to risk running for office, while anti-repeal Republicans will look wise and realistic. On the other hand, if reform polls badly, the field will be pushed in the opposite direction. Democratic candidates will retire or wait for a more favorable cycle to run, while pro-repeal Republicans will feel themselves fully vindicated.<br /><br />Sure, politicians are in some sense dumb for listening to polls in March. But it's hard to deny that they <i>do</i>. You can see the effects of this poll-consciousness even now. When reform, the economy, and Obama were polling badly in the fall and winter, Democrats spooked and retired from a bunch of congressional districts that they didn't want to face a tough re-election fight in. Even if the economy improves -- even if polling improves -- by November, these seats will be tough to hold, based to a significant degree on polls from 2009.Ace-Khttp://www.alexanderkobulnicky.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-62114564181592277602010-03-27T12:40:37.909-05:002010-03-27T12:40:37.909-05:00Seth,
Well, if one is an advocate trying to convi...Seth,<br /><br />Well, if one is an advocate trying to convince pols that they should do what you want...well, sure, then the instapolls (that come back in the correct direction) are useful. They're also useful if you want to know things such as how popular the president is right now! Mostly, I'm just saying that they don't add anything to our guesses about the eventual popularity, in November or down the road, of the policy.Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-27244030044634001042010-03-26T17:18:37.510-05:002010-03-26T17:18:37.510-05:00Jon, I agree that we really can't know the eff...Jon, I agree that we really can't know the effect, if any, of passing health care on the next election. That said, I'm still somewhat interested in how this is polling today, because it offers some lessons for officeholders. The polls suggest (sorry -- I peeked!) that Democrats got a modest bounce for passing the bill. Well, that's actually good for them to hear, isn't it? No, it doesn't tell us anything about November, but the fact that the public likes them a bit more for actually passing one of their main priorities, even if it's a controversial one, should encourage future legislative progress, one might think. Or it at least offers a rejoinder to the panicky let's-back-off-our-number-one-priority strategy that Dems were flirting with in the wake of Scott Brown's victory.Seth Maskethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17178036016555722068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-23524163148845193042010-03-26T17:00:37.249-05:002010-03-26T17:00:37.249-05:00Matt,
(Most) issues don't matter to voters, d...Matt,<br /><br />(Most) issues don't matter to voters, directly, but they do matter to groups (interest groups, party factions), and groups can pay close attention to what pols are doing -- and they can influence voters, directly and indirectly. Does that fill in the gaps I left?Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-4821769960226221012010-03-26T16:37:14.640-05:002010-03-26T16:37:14.640-05:00Jon,
Isn't there a problem with this argument?...Jon,<br />Isn't there a problem with this argument?<br /><br />Issues don't matter to voters. Check.<br />Your second claim here, though, is that elected officials are constrained by their promises. If voters don't care about issues, then why would pols be constrained? Does the constraint come from the media, who must have small minds and a love of hobgoblins?Matt Jarvisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-90580502218335788102010-03-26T16:19:53.111-05:002010-03-26T16:19:53.111-05:00evie is right. For years now you need 60 Senate vo...evie is right. For years now you need 60 Senate votes to pass any bill Republicans don't like, especially anything big and progressive. The Democrats grabbed the chance when they briefly had 60 Senators.<br /><br />All the stars were aligned just right and the Democrats just barely passed a decades long priority. Any thought that was the wrong priority is incredibly short-sighted. It may not be ideal for the 2010 elections (hard to say), but it was a fleeting and rare opportunity to do something big.<br /><br />Also, the endorphin rush from this success may just give the Democrats the confidence to dump the filibuster at the beginning of the next term. That would help the Democrats more than a Senator or two.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-30122522538777868792010-03-26T13:02:16.280-05:002010-03-26T13:02:16.280-05:00The first year of Obama's presidency was the O...The first year of Obama's presidency was the ONLY time health care could get passed. The only possible exception to that would be the first year of his second term, if you won and with a good margin. Obama and the Dems made the right decision last year to tackle health care. The country needed it.evienoreply@blogger.com