My Analysis of America's Opinion of Our Direction

[scott]

I found this chart from the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/1-year-out/) especially interesting:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/1-year-out/images/poll1.jpg

The interesting interpretations I made are:

1) We Americans are never satisfied. We almost ALWAYS think we are headed in the wrong direction.

2) It appears we Americans get bored with one guy over time. With the exception of Clinton, every president saw the opinion of “wrong” direction rise in the second half of their presidency, and only Clinton and Reagan ended with a higher “Right” % than they started with.

3) We Americans really don’t like people named Bush. Of the 6 presidents on this chart, America was most headed in the “wrong” direction under Bush I and Bush II.

But perhaps what stood out to me most:

4) We Americans really suck at picking presidents. I have been joking for years on the old George Carlin line, “Is this really the best we can do, America?” and this kind of puts some statistical evidence to our poor choices. With the exception of what appears to be only a couple of years (which look to be centered around Reagan’s re-election, Gulf War I, and Clinton’s second term that carried into the start of Bush II’s term), we are always headed in the wrong direction. We quite clearly SUCK REALLY BAD at picking people who can lead us in the right direction, and we have 2004 and 2012 as great anecdotal evidence of this. In 2004, when it appeared that there was no way Bush II could win re-election based on his own merits, the daft Democrats picked John Kerry to run against him. Going into 2012, it appears there is no way Obama can win re-election based on his own merits, but just look at the potential GOP nominees. So, is this really the best we can do, America?

[ElNono]

I think you have to add the process there. Who was running with Kerry back then that Dems could pick? Who would you consider a great leader of the current GOP crop that has the dollars to back up his candidacy to go all the way?

I'll take my responsibility when I start voting, but there's also a fact of money/interests corrupting the whole process that land you the final candidates where 'choice' isn't that much of a choice. It's more of who can sell themselves to interests/money to keep the horse running in the race.

This is why I thought the campaign contribution ruling a few years back was an abomination.

[boutons_deux]

Myth: citizens pick the presidents.

the candidates pick themselves (decide to run), then the political system picks the candidates in an obscenely long campaign (which is really about the money media (corporate and political ads) makes hyping the campaign), finally the citizens, aka Human_Americans, vote on the two on average really crappy people, one of whom gets elected, and then is controlled by the $$$ of Corporate-Americans.

[Nbadan]

Looks like except for Dubya, most Presidents got it more right in their second term than they did in the first....I think Obama will be like most Presidents...

[Nbadan]

make sense since it takes about 2-4 years to shake off the 'wrongness' or the predecessor...and Dubya was a lot to shake off...

[scott]

Looks like except for Dubya, most Presidents got it more right in their second term than they did in the first....I think Obama will be like most Presidents...

Looks like you fall into this quote of mine, borrowed from another thread, as well:


Some of you really suck at reading graphs.

There's only 3 presidents in this graph who had multiple terms, and only Clinton had a second term where the trend went towards "right"-ness.

[scott]

make sense since it takes about 2-4 years to shake off the 'wrongness' or the predecessor...and Dubya was a lot to shake off...

The data indicates the "shakeoff" from W's "wrongness" was instant, as demonstrated by the immediate drop from 90% "wrong" right after Obama took office. His climb to 74% wrong is on him.

A fifth observation that I didn't point out originally:

5. America is more divided than ever. The immediate drop from 90% "wrong" to "50%" wrong is a good indication of the divisiveness that currently rules our country. No other president saw such a dramatic change in the public's perception of our direction based solely on the act of them taking office. The 50-50 split at Obama's innaguration is a sign that policy matters less than political affiliation these days.

[Nbadan]

There's only 3 presidents in this graph who had multiple terms, and only Clinton had a second term where the trend went towards "right"-ness.

It's your graph. Seems to be that people think we are going 'in the right direction' during periods of unimpeded growth.....the period of Reagan growth, by deregulation and hiring in the public sector, and the period under Clnton, the period led by the tech boom....

[scott]

It's your graph. Seems to be that people think we are going 'in the right direction' during periods of unimpeded growth.....the period of Reagan growth, by deregulation and hiring in the public sector, and the period under Clnton, the period led by the tech boom....

It's the Washington Post's graph, but what does that have to do with your misreading of it?

[Nbadan]

The data indicates the "shakeoff" from W's "wrongness" was instant, as demonstrated by the immediate drop from 90% "wrong" right after Obama took office. His climb to 74% wrong is on him.

Your an economist Scott, you know that it takes economic policies a long time to work through the system...there was a high when Obama came into office, but that was because Dubya and the Neocons were gone....the economy was still going to slip into a deep, painful recession...and Obama's approval rating was going to slip no matter what..

[scott]

It's your graph. Seems to be that people think we are going 'in the right direction' during periods of unimpeded growth.....the period of Reagan growth, by deregulation and hiring in the public sector, and the period under Clnton, the period led by the tech boom....

Economic prosperity and war appear to be the driving factors towards "right"-ness. Bush I saw a dramatic spike around the time of the first Gulf War, and Bush II a (much smaller) spike at Iraq v2. Neither provided lasting changes in direction.

[Nbadan]

It's the Washington Post's graph, but what does that have to do with your misreading of it?


People here have become very adapt at proving that you can make a chart say just about anything you want...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

We get 8 choices or so every 4 years. They load the deck with shittiness.

Carter/Ford
Reagan/Carter
Reagan/Mondale
Bush/Dukaksi
Clinton/Bush
Clinton/Dole
Bush/Gore
Bush/Kerry
Obama/McCain
Obama/Romney/Cain?

Give me a break.

[Nbadan]

Economic prosperity and war appear to be the driving factors towards "right"-ness. Bush I saw a dramatic spike around the time of the first Gulf War, and Bush II a (much smaller) spike at Iraq v2. Neither provided lasting changes in direction.

That's because deep down we are all Nationalists.

[scott]

Your an economist Scott, you know that it takes economic policies a long time to work through the system...there was a high when Obama came into office, but that was because Dubya and the Neocons were gone....the economy was still going to slip into a deep, painful recession...and Obama's approval rating was going to slip no matter what..

That's a true statement that leaves little room for debate (well, other than calling the recession deep since in reality it was rather short). But that isn't necessarily analogous to the public's perception of whether we are headed in the right direction. These aren't approval rating we are talking about.

[scott]

We get 8 choices or so every 4 years. They load the deck with shittiness.

Carter/Ford
Reagan/Carter
Reagan/Mondale
Bush/Dukaksi
Clinton/Bush
Clinton/Dole
Bush/Gore
Bush/Kerry
Obama/McCain
Obama/Romney/Cain?

Give me a break.

It's like a deck of cards made out of shit. Even if you get the ace of spades... it's still a card made of shit.

[scott]

People here have become very adapt at proving that you can make a chart say just about anything you want...

I've become very adept at pointing out where people suck at reading charts. :]

[scott]

i think you have to add the process there. Who was running with kerry back then that dems could pick? Who would you consider a great leader of the current gop crop that has the dollars to back up his candidacy to go all the way?

I'll take my responsibility when i start voting, but there's also a fact of money/interests corrupting the whole process that land you the final candidates where 'choice' isn't that much of a choice. It's more of who can sell themselves to interests/money to keep the horse running in the race.

this is why i thought the campaign contribution ruling a few years back was an abomination.

+1

[Ignignokt]

It's not bush's or obama's fault that is wrong with all this.

It's the idea that a president has duties that are outside the realm of his constitutional powers.

The president is not the economic ceo of this country, nor should he concern himself with steering the economy towards prosperity.

He's just supposed to worry about protecting the peace and securing rights.

But you dumbfucks will never learn.

[Ignignokt]

I also want to say that you guys are a bunch of tools. There is no such thing as corrupting influences in a democracy in the sense that money corrupts politics. Govt is inherently evil, and democracy is hardly just.

No one's rights should be put up for a vote. When society decides have the law serve it, rather than it serve the law we get corruption regardless of campaign finance regulations.

[Winehole23]

There is no such thing as corrupting influences in a democracy in the sense that money corrupts politics.:lol

[diego]

Bush/Gore


Jr. vs Jr., choose your oligarchy! err, nevermind, the courts will choose for you! what a sham of an election that was....

[MannyIsGod]

I also want to say that you guys are a bunch of tools. There is no such thing as corrupting influences in a democracy in the sense that money corrupts politics. Govt is inherently evil, and democracy is hardly just.

No one's rights should be put up for a vote. When society decides have the law serve it, rather than it serve the law we get corruption regardless of campaign finance regulations.

:lol ?

[MannyIsGod]

The accuracy of a public poll regarding the direction of the country depends on what exactly the country deems as the right course. Thats the main reason I believe you see the "rally around the flag" bumps when the nation is attacked or when we go to war. At those moments, the consolidation of goals tends to be focused on defeating an external enemy as opposed to a hodgepodge of what American's want domestically.

Thats also why I take these long term trends with a big ass grain of salt. What people wanted during Carters administration is far different than what people want now, I believe. Generally, people do want a good economy and the way they answer this reflects that but I believe that Obama's policies that are now termed "socialist" would have been readily accepted in the 70s and perhaps that would influence how people viewed right track/wrong track.

[boutons_deux]

Obama's policies are socialist?

which one are those and which ones have been implemented as Exec branch's laws and regulations?

[Ignignokt]

:lol

It's true. Democracy is all about who can get more numbers regardless of ethics. Democracy is purely tyranny of the majority.

[Winehole23]

Can't be done without money and it takes more now than it ever has -- took Obama $1B.

[MannyIsGod]

Obama's policies are socialist?

which one are those and which ones have been implemented as Exec branch's laws and regulations?

Did you miss the quotes?

[RandomGuy]

100% of Random people surveyed think this thread is headed in the wrong direction.
















HA!

[ElNono]

There is no such thing as corrupting influences in a democracy in the sense that money corrupts politics.

Cronyism and corruption are just a myth?

Revealing.

[Ignignokt]

Cronyism and corruption are just a myth?

Revealing.

I'm just saying, that you can't say something is corrupting a corrupt system.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I also want to say that you guys are a bunch of tools. There is no such thing as corrupting influences in a democracy in the sense that money corrupts politics. Govt is inherently evil, and democracy is hardly just.

No one's rights should be put up for a vote. When society decides have the law serve it, rather than it serve the law we get corruption regardless of campaign finance regulations.

Who or what determines that rights of man?

You are going mystical on us now. Government is inherently evil? If you really want to believe that man left to his own devices will be 'good' then you go ahead and think that.

[TDMVPDPOY]

fuck politics for making every country running backwards due to bad policy or the opposition govt wants to block every forward thinking policy....

[ElNono]

I'm just saying, that you can't say something is corrupting a corrupt system.

I think we could argue whether the system is inherently or necessarily evil. I don't particularly agree that it has to be inherently corrupt. It certainly has evolved that way.