PDA

View Full Version : Bloomberg's wrong poll: Obama up 16???



Soflasnapper
06-20-2012, 11:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Pet peeve
Posted by Ezra Klein at 09:51 AM ET, 06/20/2012

There’s a new Bloomberg poll showing President Obama with a 13-point lead over Mitt Romney. That’s a far cry from the 0.6 percent lead Obama held in this morning’s Real Clear Politics average of polls. The poll is pretty clearly an outlier.

The proper way to report this poll is not “Obama Holds Wide Lead Over Romney.” It’s that an outlier poll shows Obama with a wide lead, and it will be interesting to see if any subsequent polls reproduce its findings. We all know, theoretically, that the sampling polls do means that one in every 20 polls or so is very, very wrong. When that poll comes along, we shouldn’t report its findings as a fact about the world.

Also, please get off of my lawn.
</div></div>

Ezra Klein's take on this is correct, in my view, and serves as a model for the correct way to report on and think of the Rasmussen polling that is incorrect in the opposite direction.

Some polls are just out there, and some, repeatedly so.

Gayle in MD
06-20-2012, 01:35 PM
Ezra is a very good politico, IMO. He isn't one to embroider for political purposes.

G.

Soflasnapper
06-20-2012, 02:18 PM
He blew it once recently, however.

In the discussion of public employees growing during recessions, or in the direct aftermath, he used Reagan as an example.

However, simply looking at the chart he used (showing the last 4 recessions and public employee growth), the rise in public employment didn't even start in Reagan's time until probably '84 at the earliest (which is the opposite of what Ezra was claiming).

So at least sometimes the boy genius gets it wrong.

LWW
06-20-2012, 05:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Pet peeve
Posted by Ezra Klein at 09:51 AM ET, 06/20/2012

There’s a new Bloomberg poll showing President Obama with a 13-point lead over Mitt Romney. That’s a far cry from the 0.6 percent lead Obama held in this morning’s Real Clear Politics average of polls. The poll is pretty clearly an outlier.

The proper way to report this poll is not “Obama Holds Wide Lead Over Romney.” It’s that an outlier poll shows Obama with a wide lead, and it will be interesting to see if any subsequent polls reproduce its findings. We all know, theoretically, that the sampling polls do means that one in every 20 polls or so is very, very wrong. When that poll comes along, we shouldn’t report its findings as a fact about the world.

Also, please get off of my lawn.
</div></div>

Ezra Klein's take on this is correct, in my view, and serves as a model for the correct way to report on and think of the Rasmussen polling that is incorrect in the opposite direction.

Some polls are just out there, and some, repeatedly so. </div></div>

Why can't you ever discuss things honestly.

Rasmussen is nothing like being the opposite of the Obama +13 poll as they have it as Romney +2.

Here's how it works ... toss out undecideds and third party types and the Bloomberg poll would have it Obama 56.5 to Romney 43.5.

The average of all the polls would have it 50.3 to 49.7 ... using either registered voters or the population in general.

Rasmussen would have it 51 to 49 Romney ...very close to the average of the polls, and that discrepancy being easily explained by their use of likely voters in order o get a more accurate prediction.

I nw you don't deal well with reality ... but dear leader's chances dim with each passing day.

cushioncrawler
06-20-2012, 05:42 PM
SOME POLES ARE BIASED.
http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg55/dscans/telephonepole.jpg

cushioncrawler
06-20-2012, 05:48 PM
U KAN MAKE GOOD MONEY POLLING POLES IN POLAND.
http://i1157.photobucket.com/albums/p591/Norseman1891/World%20Money/Polish50Zloty.jpg

LWW
06-20-2012, 06:45 PM
At least you didn't say Maryland.

cushioncrawler
06-20-2012, 09:11 PM
Karol Swierczewski woz a politikal policy pollster. He woz a polite polyglot and ran the Polish polytechnic untill they found him wearing a polkadot polonaise.
maciewicz.

Stretch
06-21-2012, 12:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">At least you didn't say Maryland. </div></div>

So far you are the only one with Maryland on your mind. Why is that? St.

Gayle in MD
06-21-2012, 08:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">At least you didn't say Maryland. </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Gayle and LWW, we all now completely understand that you two don't like each other. No real need to keep belaboring the point.

My suggestion now is to ignore each other.

Any posts from either of you pointing at the other one will result in an immediate (and very long) ban.

Admin




</span> </div></div>

Soflasnapper
06-21-2012, 08:25 AM
It's quite true that Rasmussen isn't exactly an outlier poll.

It is a biased poll, skewing about 4-5% for the GOP as a matter of methodology.

Probably they do have outlier results occasionally, even outside the biased weighting and sampling tactics. But that isn't their main problem, I agree.

Gayle in MD
06-21-2012, 08:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He blew it once recently, however.

In the discussion of public employees growing during recessions, or in the direct aftermath, he used Reagan as an example.

However, simply looking at the chart he used (showing the last 4 recessions and public employee growth), the rise in public employment didn't even start in Reagan's time until probably '84 at the earliest (which is the opposite of what Ezra was claiming).

So at least sometimes the boy genius gets it wrong. </div></div>

We were in a recession for a year before REagan would admit it though.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">During his 1980 campaign, Ronald Reagan promised to end the economic and hostage crises that had plagued Jimmy Carter's administration. The hostage crisis was solved for him when, only hours after he was sworn in, Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini released the captive Americans. With one victory under his belt, Reagan dedicated himself to making good on his other promise. The American people trusted him to do so.




President ReaganIn February 1981 Reagan presented the Economic Tax Recovery Act to Congress, calling for massive personal and corporate tax cuts, reductions in government spending, and a balanced budget. The program was based on supply side economics: Tax cuts, the theory went, would allow people either to spend more on goods and services, thus giving the economy a boost, or to invest in businesses, thus leading to economic growth. The economic expansion, supply side theorists argued, would generate enough revenue to cover the shortfall resulting from the initial cut in tax rates.

In an effort to balance the budget, Reagan "propose[d] budget cuts in virtually every department of government." While he cut back social programs, including school-lunch programs and payments for people with disabilities, he refused to touch Social Security and Medicare. He also advocated deregulation of certain industries in an effort to reduce the government's role in the economy, and proposed such a massive military buildup that Pentagon spending would reach $34 million an hour during his administration.

At first some Republicans were skeptical and most Democrats were hostile toward the Recovery Act. To overcome opposition, Reagan lobbied hard in Congress and used his skills as the "Great Communicator" to persuade the country. One after another, Congressmen began to line up behind Reagan’s program. Feeling for Reagan swelled after John Hinckley, Jr.'s, assassination attempt on March 30, 1981. Perhaps his rapid, dramatic recovery was seen as emblematic of what the country could achieve under his leadership. By July 1981, Reagan’s economic program won the support of two-thirds of the American public and was approved by enough Democrats to get it through Congress.

When, in August 1981, Reagan signed his Recovery Act into law at Rancho del Cielo, his Santa Barbara ranch, he promised to find additional cuts to balance the budget, which had a projected deficit of $80 billion -- the largest, to that date, in U.S. history. That fall, the economy took a turn for the worse. To fight inflation, running at a rate of 14 percent per year, the Federal Reserve Board had increased interest rates. Recession was the inevitable result. Blue-collar workers who had largely supported Reagan were hard hit, as many lost their jobs.

The United States was experiencing its worst recession since the Depression, with conditions frighteningly reminiscent of those 50 years earlier. By November 1982, unemployment reached, nine million, the highest rate since the Depression; 17,000 businesses failed, the second highest number since 1933; farmers lost their land; and many sick, elderly, and poor became homeless.

The country lived through the recession for a full year before Reagan finally admitted publicly that the economy was in trouble. His budget cuts, which hurt the poor, and his tax cuts, which favored the rich, combined with the hardships of a recession, spawned the belief that Reagan was insensitive to his people's needs. (Although it was a 25% across-the-board tax cut, those people in the higher income brackets benefited the most.)

As economic hardship hit American homes, Reagan's approval rating hit rock bottom. In January 1983, it was estimated at a dismal 35 percent. Having failed in his promise to deliver economic prosperity, Reagan's reelection in 1984 seemed unlikely.

With a failing economy, hopes for a balanced budget vanished. Even David Stockman, Reagan's Budget Director and an advocate of supply side economics, fearing future deficits "as high as $200 billion," urged the president to cut taxes.

While Reagan finally agreed to a moderate tax increase on businesses, he steadfastly refused to raise income taxes or cut defense spending, despite a growing negative sentiment toward the buildup. In January 1983, with his approval rating at an all-time low, the economy slowly began to right itself. Unemployment, as high as ten percent in 1982, had improved enough by 1984 for his popularity to be restored, and by the November presidential election, it was hard to believe that a second term was ever in doubt.

The harsh economic medicine of the Federal Reserve Board, backed by Reagan, squeezed inflation out of the American economy and set the nation on the right economic course. During Reagan’s second term America prospered. Although the budget deficit continued to grow -- arguably the price tag of ending the Cold War -- the United States experienced the longest sustained peacetime prosperity in its history.





http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/reagan-recession/
</div></div>

Soflasnapper
06-21-2012, 09:01 AM
An interesting but slightly off recounting of those years, in my view.

Reagan didn't really back Volcker or those policies. He'd accused Carter of fighting inflation by raising unemployment under the Volcker policies before he took office, and said he wouldn't reappoint him. His aides took to excoriating the Fed, and trial balloons were floated about ending its power.

What most people miss is that Reagan's fiscal policies caused the Fed's ramping up of already high and devastating interest rates. Volcker was a monetarist, and he was targeting M-2 or M-3 growth rates. Reagan's profligate fiscal policies grossly enlargened all M-xs, so Volcker slammed on the monetary brakes with an unlimited ceiling for interest rates. It was jokingly called sado-monetarism. He wasn't joking at all, and it was grim.

What caused him to ease off was variously the very large corporate tax increase that was the first big tax increase Reagan allowed (his first he called a user fee, in the increase of the federal gasoline excise tax), and the Mexican peso crisis, iirc. Up until he reversed and cancelled the huge corporate tax cut, the Fed's actions in response dwarfed and prevented the supply side theory from working. Which was why he had his SecTreasury Regan denouncing the Fed and making threats to end it.

So in slight correction, Reagan did NOT back Volcker's policies (although he did re-appoint him as he said he would not), and indeed, he DID allow tax increases (the largest peace time tax hike ever in real terms) ahead of the Fed's easing, both of which the PBS account reverses.

Gayle in MD
06-21-2012, 09:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">An interesting but slightly off recounting of those years, in my view.

Reagan didn't really back Volcker or those policies. He'd accused Carter of fighting inflation by raising unemployment under the Volcker policies before he took office, and said he wouldn't reappoint him. His aides took to excoriating the Fed, and trial balloons were floated about ending its power.

What most people miss is that Reagan's fiscal policies caused the Fed's ramping up of already high and devastating interest rates. Volcker was a monetarist, and he was targeting M-2 or M-3 growth rates. Reagan's profligate fiscal policies grossly enlargened all M-xs, so Volcker slammed on the monetary brakes with an unlimited ceiling for interest rates. It was jokingly called sado-monetarism. He wasn't joking at all, and it was grim.

What caused him to ease off was variously the very large corporate tax increase that was the first big tax increase Reagan allowed (his first he called a user fee, in the increase of the federal gasoline excise tax), and the Mexican peso crisis, iirc. Up until he reversed and cancelled the huge corporate tax cut, the Fed's actions in response dwarfed and prevented the supply side theory from working. Which was why he had his SecTreasury Regan denouncing the Fed and making threats to end it.

So in slight correction, Reagan did NOT back Volcker's policies (although he did re-appoint him as he said he would not), and indeed, he DID allow tax increases (the largest peace time tax hike ever in real terms) ahead of the Fed's easing, both of which the PBS account reverses.

</div></div>

Yes, Reagan didn't have an opposing party axing the hell out of public sector jobs, refusing to raise any taxes, at all, and doing everything they can do to keep people uneasy, like their disgusting refuseal to raise the debt level, to maintain the ideology of crisis and insecurity.

What's your take on this article?


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Under Obama, a Record Decline in Government Jobs
By FLOYD NORRIS
When Barack Obama ran for president four years ago, he appalled some Democrats by saying Ronald Reagan had been a transformational president.

Three years into his presidency, he has exceeded Reagan in one area: reductions in government jobs.



FLOYD NORRIS
Notions on high and low finance.

Over all — including a decline of 12,000 public sector jobs in the Labor Department report for December — government employment is down 2.6 percent over the last three years, compared to a decline of 2.2 percent in the early Reagan years. That is a record.

That record, which will seem a dubious distinction to public-sector employees, is largely a result not of federal policy but of shrinking state governments. State employment fell 1.2 percent in 2011 — the largest percentage for any year since counting began in 1955. The number is down 2.2 percent over the last three years. It was up 1.2 percent during Reagan’s first three years, declining in only one of the years.


Local government jobs used to be deemed super safe. Since the federal government started tracking the statistic in 1955, there have been only six years when local government employment declined. They have come in threes: 1981, 1982 and 1983, the first three years of the Reagan administration, and 2009, 2010, 2011, the first three years of the Obama administration.

The declines were a little larger under Reagan. The local-government job count fell 3.8 percent under him but just 3.5 percent over the last three years. But if teacher employment is the measure, the cuts have been greater under Mr. Obama. Education jobs at the local level are down 3 percent under Mr. Obama, compared to 2.1 percent in the early Reagan years.

Federal employment fell 1.3 percent in 2011, but for the three years it is up 1.3 percent, while the total fell by the same amount in Mr. Reagan’s first three years.

The declines in government jobs in both the Reagan and Obama presidencies coincided with major recessions, of course, which reduced tax receipts for all levels of government. If Mr. Obama had had his way, state and local government job losses in 2011 could have been reduced with more federal assistance, but such proposals were blocked by Republicans in Congress.

There is no reason to think Mr. Obama is as happy about the reduction in government workers as some Republicans. But like it or not, the Obama administration has turned out to be anything but a big-government one.

Some other notes from today’s jobs report:

Manufacturing employment, the subject of my column today, rose by 23,000 jobs and was up by 225,000 jobs, or 1.9 percent, for the year. It was the second consecutive annual increase after 12 declines in a row. Construction jobs increased by 0.8 percent in 2011, the first annual increase since 2006.

</div></div>

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/under-obama-a-record-decline-in-government-jobs/

Soflasnapper
06-21-2012, 12:05 PM
Notice that this last article explains why Ezra Klein got it wrong. Local governments also shed jobs (and more so) in Reagan's first 3 year period (during a vicious recession), even if state government jobs only fell the first year.

In this case, local governments were very dependent upon real estate values for their revenues, and this time, for the first time, all those values became depressed at the same time across the country.

As the usual engine to pull us out of recession-- lower interest rate fueled housing starts and construction sector jobs-- became unavailable for years to come, states relying on a sales tax, or an income tax, also had very depressed revenues. Rinse and repeat. (Reagan's situation had a very high interest rate regime in place which could be eased, and was, resulting in the boom in the construction sector.)

Even helping to partially ameliorate this kind of situation would require an unprecedented level of federal revenue sharing, which didn't occur back in these other situations (and wasn't so needed). Obama did a little of that in the stimulus (about 1/3rd of it going to support local governmental spending), but as that ran out, we've seen the inevitable transpire.

Given the federal government's bad financial shape, the huge deficits we're running, and the propaganda campaign to demonize public sector workers, there is slim to no chance for selling this possibly necessary measure to the people or the Congress.

Frankly, the old pension and health benefit promises to the older retired workers are becoming more obviously unaffordable (although a matter of binding contracts), even though it is more the health care costs running amok than the modest CPI pension increases. To maintain those contractually guaranteed payments will require still more hardship and slashing of current governmental workers' wages and benefits.

That would be true even if these retirements weren't gamed in the final years of work, to allow for 6-figure annual payments in retirement pay (indexed to inflation as well), but those are very substantial abuses that cost a ton of money. Those at least ought to be rolled back, but it would be only a small part of what is required.

We're headed for a profound re-set, the tearing up of contractually and legislated promises, along with the steep fall in living standards being made explicit. Although that is probably necessary, it ought to be done in a just way, and that is wholly improbable (cf: Mitt R-Money's budget proposals for the current blueprint).

Gayle in MD
06-21-2012, 12:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Notice that this last article explains why Ezra Klein got it wrong. Local governments also shed jobs (and more so) in Reagan's first 3 year period (during a vicious recession), even if state government jobs only fell the first year.

In this case, local governments were very dependent upon real estate values for their revenues, and this time, for the first time, all those values became depressed at the same time across the country.

As the usual engine to pull us out of recession-- lower interest rate fueled housing starts and construction sector jobs-- became unavailable for years to come, states relying on a sales tax, or an income tax, also had very depressed revenues. Rinse and repeat. (Reagan's situation had a very high interest rate regime in place which could be eased, and was, resulting in the boom in the construction sector.)

Even helping to partially ameliorate this kind of situation would require an unprecedented level of federal revenue sharing, which didn't occur back in these other situations (and wasn't so needed). Obama did a little of that in the stimulus (about 1/3rd of it going to support local governmental spending), but as that ran out, we've seen the inevitable transpire.

Given the federal government's bad financial shape, the huge deficits we're running, and the propaganda campaign to demonize public sector workers, there is slim to no chance for selling this possibly necessary measure to the people or the Congress.

Frankly, the old pension and health benefit promises to the older retired workers are becoming more obviously unaffordable (although a matter of binding contracts), even though it is more the health care costs running amok than the modest CPI pension increases. To maintain those contractually guaranteed payments will require still more hardship and slashing of current governmental workers' wages and benefits.

That would be true even if these retirements weren't gamed in the final years of work, to allow for 6-figure annual payments in retirement pay (indexed to inflation as well), but those are very substantial abuses that cost a ton of money. Those at least ought to be rolled back, but it would be only a small part of what is required.

We're headed for a profound re-set, the tearing up of contractually and legislated promises, along with the steep fall in living standards being made explicit. Although that is probably necessary, it ought to be done in a just way, and that is wholly improbable (cf: Mitt R-Money's budget proposals for the current blueprint). </div></div>


I think the worst could be avoided, if the Dems could win back the majority, and the president is re-elected.

I am going to view this poll as the beginning of a trend, lol. Helps me to sleep more soundly. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

The Dems actually had very little time with an actual majority, given two Dems weren't seated, one from illness, and the other due to a recount, and Repiglican obstructionism, preventing him from being sworn in and taking his rightful place in the congress.

Typical.

G.

Soflasnapper
06-21-2012, 01:00 PM
They always had a majority. You are referring to the super-majority, and you are right about that.

Gayle in MD
06-21-2012, 01:03 PM
You're right, of course, lol. Thanks. But not filibuster proof, correct?


G.

Soflasnapper
06-21-2012, 06:46 PM
Not with 60 Democratic votes, ever.

They got to 60 with 2 or 3 independent votes, and 2 very ill senators (EMK and KKK Byrd), who missed votes.

Theoretically, as of when the loyal family retainer type guy was appointed as the interim replacement, they could have maintained the 60 votes longer (although Byrd's health was still critical). However, and it should be noted, Reid did not use his own control of 60 votes when he had it to ram anything through, excepting ACA, and I'm not sure he used it then. If he did, that was the sole use. THUG!

LWW
06-22-2012, 03:56 AM
Yes, he is a thug.

BRAVO!

Soflasnapper
06-22-2012, 10:29 AM
A milquetoast cannot be a thug. Reid's obviously a milquetoast.