Congratulations to my friend Vivek Wadhwa, who was just named an Outstanding American by Choice:
The Outstanding American by Choice initiative recognizes the outstanding achievements of naturalized U.S. citizens. Through civic participation, professional achievement, and responsible citizenship, recipients of this honor have demonstrated their commitment to this country and to the common civic values that unite us as Americans.
Vivek wrote about America’s other immigration crisis here.
Budget Talks: President Obama presented his budget to the nation this week. In a new CBS News/New York Times poll, just 32 percent approved of the way he is handling the federal budget deficit while 59 percent disapproved. Independents (65 percent) and Republicans (93 percent) disapproved, while Democrats (64 percent) approved. In an ABC News/Washington Post poll last week, 38 percent approved and 58 percent disapproved, including 44 percent who disapproved strongly.
Religious Institutions and Contraceptive Coverage: The political repercussions of the Obama administration’s recent decision on religious institutions and contraception coverage remain unclear. Thirty-eight percent in the Pew Research Center’s survey said they had heard “nothing at all” about “a proposed federal requirement that religiously affiliated hospitals and colleges, along with nearly all other employers, cover contraceptives in their employee health care benefits, even if the use of contraceptives conflicts with the religious position of these institutions.” That’s a big “don’t know” response, and we don’t know at this point if these people will enter the controversy or not. Sometimes opinion takes time to settle. Polls taken thus far in the heat of the controversy have yielded different results.
One thing we do know now: white Catholics almost always vote for the winning presidential candidate. Barack Obama was the first candidate since 1976 to lose them (47 to 52 percent for McCain) and still win.
Hardliners on Iran?: A new poll from Pew finds that 58 percent believe it is more important to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking military action, while 30 percent say it is more important to avoid a military conflict with Iran, even if means they may develop the weapons. Democrats were more likely (38 percent) than Independents (34 percent) and Republicans (16 percent) to want to avoid conflict.
Sixty-four percent said tougher economic sanctions on Iran will not work.
Still, when CNN and the Opinion Research Corporation asked what the United States should do now to get Iran to shut down its nuclear program, 17 percent answered take military action now, 60 percent use economic and diplomatic efforts but not take military action right now, and 22 percent said take no action at this time.
Syrian Unrest: A new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll shows that 25 percent believe the United States has a responsibility to do something about the fighting in Syria between government forces and anti-government groups, while 73 percent do not.
Small Business Hiring: Eighty-five percent of small business owners told Gallup recently that they were not hiring. When asked why, the top response was they didn’t need new employees (76 percent). Following closely behind were worries that new hires wouldn’t produce enough new revenue (71 percent), concerns about the economy (66 percent), and cash flow (53 percent). Forty-eight percent were worried about the potential costs of healthcare and 46 percent about new government regulations. Among small business owners who are hiring and currently looking for new employees, only 7 percent said government tax incentives allowed them to hire.
In episode #45 of Banter, Mark Hemingway, the online editor of the Weekly Standard, sits down to discuss his distaste for political fact checking. Why doesn’t he like facts? Mark argues that these sites often reach beyond their mandate, analyze subjective statements, or attempt to disguise opinion journalism as fact. Mark discusses some of the more blatant instances of bad fact checking before going on to discuss the current state of the Republican primary caucus. Finally, we get into the differences in writing and ideas between the Weekly Standard and National Review.
You can listen to the podcast here and subscribe on iTunes here.
Love in the Air: Forty-six percent of Americans told CBS News interviewers that they believed in love at first sight, while 50 percent said they did not. In a Pew poll, 28 percent agreed with the statement that there is only one true love for each person. Of those who thought there was only one, 79 percent said they had found that person.
China’s Rise: Next week, Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping will visit the White House. Xi is expected to become China’s next president. In Gallup’s February World Affairs poll, 52 percent of Americans picked China as the world’s leading economic power, followed by 32 percent who chose the United States. A few years ago, China and the United States were virtually tied. In 2007, 58 percent told Gallup that what happens in China was vitally important to the United States. In the new poll, 70 percent gave that response.
Nixon in China: Forty years ago, after Richard Nixon’s trip to China, positive impressions of China soared. They plummeted after Tiananmen Square, from 72 percent having a favorable opinion in a February-March 1989 Gallup poll to 34 percent in August after Tiananmen. In Gallup’s latest, 47 percent have a favorable view, and 50 percent an unfavorable one.
Let’s Get Moving: Last year, when the Pew Research Center asked Americans to tell them how important 22 different issues were for the president and Congress to address, combating obesity ranked dead last as a top priority, right below global warming. There’s no indication that it is a higher priority now, but Americans do think they could shed a few pounds and they’re concerned about the kids. In another Pew question from 2011, 57 percent said the government should play a significant role in reducing obesity among children.
Gallup has been tracking Americans’ weight status for some time. Last November, the organization revealed that self-reported weight for men and women was nearly 20 pounds higher than it was in 1990. As our actual weight has increased, so has people’s ideal weight.
Congressional re-election prospects: In August 2011, 18 percent told ABC/Washington Post pollsters that they were inclined to reelect their own member of Congress. In a new February poll, 34 percent said they would be willing to do that. But members of Congress shouldn’t celebrate the uptick. In ABC/Post polls, this number usually hovers around 30 percent.
Recession Unhappiness: In February 2007, when asked how happy and content with the way things are going in their lives by NBC/Wall Street Journal pollsters, 61 percent of respondents rated their happiness at eight or above on a ten-point scale. In late January, 48 percent of respondents rated themselves that way.
The System: Only 26 percent were optimistic about our system of government and how well it works in a new ABC/Washington Post poll. Twenty-three percent were pessimistic and a plurality of 49 percent was uncertain. The pollsters noted that respondents who think the economy is improving are 20 points more likely than those who don’t think it is to express optimism about the country’s system of government.
For this online symposium, we posed the following question to a variety of all-star pundits and commentators: What can Mitt Romney do to make conservatives like him?
Jonah Goldberg, AEI fellow and founding editor of National Review Online.
At a public policy think tank there is an obvious bias in favor of the idea that public policy matters, even in presidential campaigns. And it does matter. But its importance is not always easily quantified or universally valuable. A great politician can get away with some weak planks in his platform. A well-known and established philosophical ally can skate by saying, in effect, “trust me.” Mitt Romney has no such advantages. He is not a great politician (which probably speaks well of his character). And he does not have a universally recognized record of fighting for conservative causes. He’d no doubt object to that assessment, but the fact remains that thus far he has been unable to convince a large segment of conservatives that he’s a reliable fighter for their causes.
Hence, suddenly embracing some new, bold policy proposals has less utility for him than it might for some other candidates, for the simple reason that it would reinforce—again, for some voters—the perception that he has no core convictions and that his policies are poll-driven. That doesn’t mean it wouldn’t help. But if the question is “What can Romney do to get conservatives to like him?” I’m not sure a new pro-growth tax plan will get him too far.
I have no doubt my colleagues at AEI can suggest a host of substantive improvements to Romney’s platform. But his problems have less to do with what he’s selling than the man who is selling it.
Jay Cost, staff writer for the Weekly Standard.
There is probably very little he can do to win over the sorts of conservatives who have been opposing him to date. Instead, his goal is to make sure that Santorum or Gingrich do not make in-roads into the coalition he built in Florida and New Hampshire. To date, the Romney coalition has centered on winning “somewhat conservative” voters and dominating “moderate” voters, while ceding “very conservative” voters to Santorum and/or Gingrich. If he can continue do that, he should win Arizona and Michigan later this month, then Massachusetts, Ohio, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington on Super Tuesday. He’ll probably lose the Southern primaries (like he did in South Carolina) and a few Midwestern caucuses (like he did on Tuesday), but that won’t be sufficient to stop him.
As for the general election, that should take care of itself. Enthusiasm is an over-rated concept in American electoral politics. After it’s all said and done, everybody’s vote still counts the same, whether it is cast grudgingly or lovingly. For the general election, conservative opposition toward Obama will likely be so intense that the GOP will not have an enthusiasm gap. Witness 2004: there was no great affection for John Kerry, but Democratic turnout was still strong because George W. Bush was so disliked by the Left.
Jim Geraghty, author of the Campaign Spot at National Review Online.
As Bob Dole said, “where’s the outrage?”
He can hold a press conference on the steps of the Department of Justice building detailing everything we know and don’t know about the Fast & Furious scandal, and contend that Obama has turned a blind eye to egregious misjudgments and implausible excuses from Attorney General Holder. He can lay out, in great detail, how Obama failed to bring a culture of accountability to Washington as promised, and pledge that he will.
He can point out that the federal government has no business telling Catholic institutions that they must violate their principles by providing birth control, and that the action suggests that the Obama administration deems religious liberty to be conditional and secondary to the whims of Planned Parenthood.
He can lay out that Obama’s administration sent millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars to one well-connected energy firm after another—Amonix, EnerDel, Solyndra, SunPower, BrightSource, Tonopah Solar Energy—and how, in case after case, taxpayers have gotten little or nothing in return, while his donors prosper.
He can point out how the president ought to be ashamed for signing legislation to end the D.C. scholarship program, a program that helped underprivileged Washington children attend the same elite private school that his own daughters attend.
Each week brings some new example that Obama is nothing like the moderate, sensible uniter that he campaigned as, and is in fact governing in a combative, nasty, punitive, and vindictive manner. In short, he can—he must!—demonstrate to conservatives that he actually feels the outrage that they feel, and that he’s as determined to end it as they are.
Matt Lewis, senior contributor at the Daily Caller.
There are three things that Mitt Romney can do if he is to woo conservatives.
The first is symbolic, but important. He must reach out to conservative opinion leaders—and not just the handful who have been cheerleaders for him in the past. In the last decade, I have interviewed Newt Gingrich half a dozen times. He has been on my podcast. He has spoken at various movement conservative events I have attended. Conversely, my contact with Mitt Romney involves once hurling a question at him at a press conference—which he promptly parried.
Typically, the only time I hear from Romney’s staff is when they want to complain about something I’ve written. Romney and his team seem more comfortable talking to Politico or the HuffPost than to center-right journalists or outlets. Thus, I cordially invite Mitt Romney to come on my podcast. And I invite him to come to the Daily Caller and sit for an editorial meeting. If he can’t handle questioning from the Daily Caller staff, how can he handle Barack Obama?
Second, Romney must present some big and bold ideas. Herman Cain had 9-9-9 and Rick Perry had an optional flat tax, but what has Romney proposed? His campaign is safe and conservative and boring. He clearly hoped he could run a “paint by numbers” campaign based on risk avoidance. That hasn’t worked. Romney must now come out with some bold ideas so that he can actually have a mandate for which to govern.
Lastly, Romney has to really believe it. People can sense when you’re faking. And it seems like Romney is faking his conservatism. The first voter Romney must persuade is himself—then he can appeal to the rest of us.
Andrew Rugg, research assistant for AEI’s Political Corner.
Conservative preferences have been remarkably fluid and dynamic so far in this election cycle. In many ways, pollsters have struggled to keep up with opinions that shift rapidly. I don’t believe, however, that conservatives are looking for the most conservative candidate. A plurality of the Republican electorate, after all, is composed of those who self-identify as “somewhat conservative.” Most place an emphasis on the ability to beat President Obama.
A more important quality, I believe, is trust. Conservatives want someone whom they can rely upon. It’s one of the many reasons why polling shows that conservatives emphasize character over intelligence in their nominee. With millions of dollars of ads being launched back and forth in this campaign, voters are hit with often contradictory messages. If the ads are to be believed, Newt Gingrich is either a closet liberal or a chief architect of the Reagan Revolution. In this environment, the ability to trust a candidate will trump other considerations. A sense that a candidate is trying to be someone who they are not or is speaking over voters becomes a red flag.
Rick Santorum has effectively been able to talk about his working class roots as a way of proving he’s a reliable, trustworthy conservative. Unfortunately, Mitt Romney is not his best when he talks about himself. But he has a genuine story to tell if his book and concession speech in Colorado are any indication. He needs to tell it. By doing so he can build trust among conservatives. My advice would be to throw out the polling and focus groups and concentrate on his conservative story.
Right before this week’s debate between AEI’s Jonah Goldberg and Reason Magazine’s Matt Welch over whether libertarians are part of the conservative movement, Banter sat down with each of the participants to get an in-depth account of the ideas they planned to bring to the debate.
Matt makes a strong case as to why libertarians are different than conservatives, why they offer more realistic solutions to America’s problems, and why libertarianism is ultimately incompatible with conservatism. We also discuss the future of the libertarian movement, the Ron Paul phenomenon, and why the Libertarian Party might not have a long future as a third party alternative.
Listen to part 1 with Matt Welch.
In our interview with Jonah, he makes the case that libertarians and conservatives share the common goal of furthering liberty. Even if libertarians and conservatives have their disagreements, this love of liberty binds them together in a common movement. Jonah also shares his thoughts over the future of the conservative movement and CPAC, the large conservative conference held in Washington every year.
Listen to part 2 with Jonah Goldberg.
It’s somewhat amazing that the media, and even the Republicans, have failed to comment on what might be the real significance of the Obama campaign’s reversal on the use of a super PAC. When the campaign began many months ago, Obama’s advisers seemed reasonably confident that his campaign would be well funded, some suggesting that he could have the first billion dollar war chest.
Recently, however, the campaign has walked back that idea, suggesting that while he was doing very well in his fundraising efforts, a billion-dollar campaign was never on their screen. The early numbers, indeed, show him doing better than he did at this stage in 2007. But that has to be expected. He is now a sitting president; in 2007, he was just a new face running an uphill campaign against a heavy favorite.
However, the decision to endorse a super PAC may suggest that the Obama campaign’s money problems are more serious than anyone had thought. In 2008, Obama raised almost $800 million, a record. If he were able to do just as well this year, he wouldn’t need a super PAC, but apparently his advisers have recognized that he will fall well short of the 2008 total.
The news reports on this reversal have focused on whether this was a hypocritical move, some showing the president scolding the Supreme Court about the Citizens United decision in his 2010 State of the Union address. On the other hand, the Obama campaign has defended the decision by saying that, given all the money being raised by Republican super PACs, Obama could not afford to enter this battle less than fully armed.
Both of these reports may be obscuring the real news—that by endorsing a super PAC, the Obama campaign may be acknowledging serious funding problems. This is because a super PAC must remain completely independent of the candidate it is supporting and thus cannot be relied on to project the consistent and integrated message that a modern campaign requires, or to run ads in the places and on the issues that a candidate may need to shore up his or her support.
Despite the attention they have received in the media, super PACs are not always helpful to well-run campaigns and can seriously compromise campaign strategies and tactics.
For example, let’s suppose that the Obama campaign’s internal polling shows that he is losing support in, say, the Midwest, and that the reason is a shift away from Obama by Catholic women. This information cannot legally be transmitted to the super PAC, so it is unable to provide assistance where it is really necessary. Even more important, a super PAC can do affirmative harm to the campaign it is supporting. Let’s assume that the Obama campaign uses its own funds to develop and run a soft-focus ad that shows him speaking earnestly about his concern for the future of parochial school education, a tack that is designed to appeal to middle class Catholic women. However, at the same time and in the same states, the super PAC runs an ad criticizing the Republican candidate for opposing abortion—an appeal to young single women. The appeal to Catholic women will be compromised or even vitiated by the message in the super PAC ad.
Thus, to rely on a super PAC is not an easy decision for a campaign, entailing benefits and risks. It doesn’t mean that the Obama campaign is girding for a fight; it may just as well mean that the Obama campaign is facing unexpectedly serious funding problems.
Remember way back when Mitt Romney was a lock, Rick Santorum was done, and the general election looked like a complete toss up? As Ferris Bueller put it, “Life moves pretty fast. If you don’t stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.”
These Intrade betting market charts show just how quickly things can change in politics these days.
First up is the Romney Roller Coaster:
Next is the Santorum Surge:
And the Newt-plosion:
Finally, the Obama Boost:
Over at The Corner, AEI’s Henry Olsen gives his two cents:
What does this mean? It means the GOP base really does not want Romney, at least yet. Caucuses are traditionally dominated by a party’s base. Four years ago, when Romney was the favorite of non-southern, very conservative voters, he swept to victory in caucus states outside Iowa. Today, when he is the favorite of moderates, it appears his enormous edge in organization is not paying off.
Charles Murray’s new book has been getting lots of attention, and I wanted to take a look at what liberals who disagree with him had to say (believing I’ll learn more from the critics than I will from those who agree with him). So I searched for criticism of Coming Apart and here are sentences from some of the critiques:
“I haven’t read Murray’s book, and probably won’t.” (Kevin Drum)
“While I haven’t yet read Murray’s latest book…” (Greg Anrig)
“I haven’t read Murray’s book…” (Jon Chait)
No additional comment required.
Is Nevada Romney Country?: In 2008, Mitt Romney won the Nevada GOP caucuses with 51 percent of the vote. Next in line were John McCain and Ron Paul with 13 percent each. In 2008, 26 percent of Nevada caucus goers were Mormon. Also, GOP caucus goers split about whether the economy (37 percent) or immigration (35 percent) was the top issue facing the country.
No Trump: In January, Fox News and Pew Research Center polls got similar responses in questions about Donald Trump’s possible endorsement of a candidate. Sixty-two percent in Fox’s poll (and 64 percent in Pew’s) said his endorsement would make no difference to them in casting a vote. Of the rest, more thought it would be a negative than a positive. In Fox’s poll, 27 percent said it would make them less likely to vote for a candidate and 10 percent more likely. Those responses from Pew were 26 and 8 percent, respectively.
Friendly to Religion?: “The decision has been made,” said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney yesterday, referring to applying rules requiring health insurers to cover contraceptive coverage to Catholic hospitals and other groups. In a November Pew poll, 30 percent said the Democratic Party was friendly to religion, 40 percent neutral, and 20 percent unfriendly. Those responses for the GOP were 43, 26, and 19 percent respectively.
Favorite Sport: In a recent Harris poll, 36 percent of adults who follow at least one sport say professional football is their favorite sport, while just 13 percent say baseball is. African Americans, those aged 30-39 years, and those with some college are more likely to list professional football than baseball as their favorite sport. Those aged 50-64, Hispanics, and Easterners are more likely to favor baseball.
Super Bowl Predictor Fumbles?: Does the winner of the Super Bowl predict the presidential election? The formula goes something like this. If the AFC team (in this case the New England Patriots) wins the Super Bowl, a Republican will take the White House. If the NFC team (NY Giants) wins, a Democrat will.
After the Pittsburgh Steelers (AFC) won in 1980 and the Los Angeles Raiders (AFC) did in 1984, Ronald Reagan won the election. George W. Bush also won after the 2004 New England Patriots (AFC) victory. But the NFC results haven’t been as clear. In some instances, like when the Washington Redskins (NFC) and Bill Clinton won in 1992, the Dallas Cowboys (NFC) and Bill Clinton won in 1996, and the New York Giants (NFC) and Barack Obama won in 2008, the formula holds up. But in 1988—Redskins (NFC) and George H.W. Bush—and in 2000—St. Louis Rams (NFC) and George W. Bush—the Super Bowl did not predict the winner.
“Nothing is more important to Congress than reducing income inequality,” said Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada.
Really? Nothing?? What’s truly worrying is that Reid may well be correct, at least for his half of the Hill.
The question of whether the Keystone XL pipeline, to bring oil-sand oil down from Western Canada to the Gulf Coast, rests on politics, which, often enough, rests on public opinion polls.
And here’s some recent polling data:
Source: www.energyvisually.com
It’s hard to believe, looking at a poll like this, that President Obama’s going to win a lot of support for his decision to red-light the Keystone pipeline. It also suggests that Republicans aren’t going to let go of the issue any time soon.
Newt Gingrich is already in some hot water over his contract with Freddie Mac, which Gingrich claims was for services as a “historian.” With that in mind, we should be worried about statements like the one I’ve bolded below (from the LA Times):
“I am fed up with politicians in either party dividing Americans against each other,” Gingrich said, speaking to hundreds of supporters packed into the Great Basin Brewing Co. here. “I am running to be the president of all of the American people, and I am concerned about all of the American people. … My goal is to find steps for every American to have a job, every American to work, every American to be able to buy a house. I believe that America was founded on the dream that we are in fact created equal and we have a chance to go out and have a chance to pursue happiness.”
Hopefully, this is just pie-in-the-sky political rhetoric, but given his connection with Freddie Mac, I feel there’s cause for concern. Gingrich may in fact believe that having every American own their own home is a good thing; if he does, he’d be repeating the same mistakes that policymakers made throughout the 1990s and 2000s.
It was this exact sentiment that led to the housing crisis. Politicians in Washington decided that homeownership was a Good Thing: America would only experience benefits from an increased homeownership rate. Consequently, the politicians teamed up with banks, home builders, securities firms, real-estate agents, and, of course, the GSEs in an attempt to turn the dream of every American owning a home (the 1990s version of “a chicken in every pot”) into a reality.
We all know how that turned out.
Mitt Romney nuked Newt in Florida, winning most key groups and most issues. But here are a few more data points from the race that you might have missed:
*Very conservative voters were a third of the Republican primary electorate. They voted 41 percent for Gingrich and 30 percent for Romney. “Somewhat conservatives” were a slightly larger share, and they voted decisively for Romney, 52 to 32 percent. Newt also won those who strongly supported the Tea Party, 35 percent of voters in the GOP primary. Newt won those who said the most important candidate quality was being a “true conservative.” They were 14 percent of GOP voters, and Newt won them by 44 to 11 percent.
* White born-again/evangelical Christians made up 40 percent of the electorate yesterday. They split fairly evenly between Gingrich and Romney—38 and 36 percent, respectively.
* Overall, 15 percent of GOP primary voters said Gingrich’s positions were too conservative and 24 percent not conservative enough. Those responses for Romney were 7 percent and 41 percent, respectively.
*A sweep: Romney won all income levels, education groups, age groups, marrieds and unmarrieds, and men and women.
* The top issue in Florida, as elsewhere, was the economy (62 percent) followed by the budget deficit (23 percent), abortion (7 percent), and illegal immigration (3 percent).
*On immigration, there appears to be a big change in GOP voter attitudes. Thirty-eight percent of GOP primary voters checked a box yesterday saying illegal immigrants working in the United States should be allowed to apply for citizenship, and 27 percent would allow them to stay as temporary workers. In the 2008 Republican primary, 29 percent of voters said illegal immigrants should be allowed a path to citizenship, 29 percent allowed to say as temporary workers. Still, only 3 percent of 2012 Florida Republican primary voters said illegal immigration was the most important issue to them.
My pal Art Laffer heaps gobs of praise on Newt Gingrich’s tax plan (an optional 15 percent flat tax for individuals, 12.5 percent for businesses, no investment taxes) today in the WSJ. He notes that each of the main components has been tried elsewhere to great success:
Hong Kong, where there has been a 15% flat income tax on individuals since 1947, is truly a shining city on the hill and one of the most prosperous cities in history. Ireland’s 12.5% flat business income tax propelled the Emerald Isle out of two and a half centuries of poverty.
I agree. I love, love the idea of a flat consumption tax, which is really what Gingrich is proposing since he would also get rid of investment taxes for individuals and allow full and immediate expansion of capital investment by business.
If only Gingrich were as bold and specific when it came to cutting spending. Even Laffer admits in the op-ed that the Gingrich plan—despite faster economic growth—would be a revenue loser to the government. Now, that’s not such a big deal if you also plan to slash the size of government. But Gingrich doesn’t say what he would cut, aside from, dare I say it, grandiose projections like this one in his “21st Century Contract for America”:
Strong America Now, an organization dedicated to bringing modern management to government at every level, estimates that we can save $500 billion a year in spending through proven waste-cutting and value-enhancing techniques from the private sector, such as Lean Six Sigma.
Boy, I hope he’s right. But I would be more impressed if Gingrich moved beyond “waste-cutting and value-enhancing techniques” to actually cutting something. It is possible, you know. Last summer, Senator Tom Coburn released a 600-page plan to cut spending by $9 trillion over the next decade. It had a lot of stuff like this in it:
– Reduce the number of limos owned by federal agencies. Savings: $10.4 million a year.
– Eliminate NSF’s Social, Behavioral, and Economics (SBE) Directorate. Savings: $2.8 billion.
– End the Parole Commission, which was eliminated by Congress along with federal parole in 1984. Savings: $12.9 million per year.
Coburn didn’t just wave a Lean Six Sigma magic wand over the budget to make the red ink go away. He went over the federal budget line by line to identify and exorcise wasteful, duplicative, or unnecessary programs. Newt should do the same. Mitt Romney, too. Americans can see what’s happening in Europe right now and understand that the out-of-control spending must end. Government will need to be cut. Presidential candidates should be as specific about what austerity means as they are about cutting taxes.
Jonah questions the usefulness of Intrade, doubting whether the “wisdom of crowds” actually generates much predictive value when it comes to political prognostication. Don’t betting markets just follow the consensus, which generally follows the poll? Well, a 2010 study looked at that very issue:
In keeping with similar research by Berg et al and others, this dissertation found that market prices tend to be better predictors of political event outcomes than corresponding polls. This superiority was observed over all time periods studied, with Intrade market prices correctly predicting the winner 36% of the time in the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination contest (compared to 13% for polls) and 54% of the time in the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination contest (compared to 45% for polls).
And this past October, the Washington Post took a look at Intrade and came to this conclusion:
For example, in the 2004 election, Intrade was predicting that George W. Bush would win by August. On the other hand, the market did not see Hillary Clinton’s New Hampshire victory in the 2008 primaries coming. Of course, no one else—including Clinton—did either.
And, Intrade has successfully predicted events for which there are no polls—for example, that former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards would be the 2004 Democratic vice-presidential nominee and that Donald Rumsfeld would resign as secretary of defense in 2006. (Politics aside, Intrade has shown a knack for predicting Oscar winners.)
And how about Intrade versus the pundits in 2008:
On the morning of Election Day, I printed out the expectations from the Dublin-based Intrade market as well as a roundup of predictions from nearly two dozen political consultants, journalists and academics that appeared at the Huffington Post. The Intrade bettors expected Mr. Obama to end up with 364 votes in the Electoral College — one less than he actually got. None of the pundits came so close. Alan Abramowitz, a political scientist at Emory, came closest with prediction of 361; all the rest were off by at least 12 votes. Nate Silver, the much-talked-about statistician at FiveThirtyEight.com, underestimated Mr. Obama’s tally by 18 votes. Many of the pundits underestimated Mr. Obama’s total by more than 25 votes, like Chris Matthews, Arianna Huffington, and the strategists Paul Begala, James Carville and Alex Castellanos.
I could go on and on. A 2004 study concluded “Prediction markets are remarkably accurate information aggregation mechanisms.” They are not perfect, of course. But I was made a believer in 2004 when the exit polls said Bush was a sure loser and Intrade gave a different story.
Believe, Jonah, believe!
I don’t want to start a war with my AEI colleagues, specifically Intrade junkies Mark Perry and Jim Pethokoukis, but can I offer a small bit of skepticism about Intrade?
I understand why prediction markets are interesting. But am I the only one who thinks they are incredibly overblown? On any given day, some friend of mine will blog or tweet or otherwise opine about how Mitt Romney is now at X on Intrade or how Newt Gingrich now has a 29.3 percent chance of Y on Intrade. I am always at a loss about how much, if at all, I should care about this information.
From what I can tell, the “prices” for shares in political candidates have been all over the place over the last year. So how predictive are they, really? It seems to me they don’t really measure the likelihood of anything so much as the prevalence of certain aspects of conventional wisdom. It’s a clever way to poll people in a given moment, not some ingenious new mechanism for gleaning the future.
When I complain about Intrade to some of my Intrade-obsessive friends, they say that the numbers change because the facts on the ground change. And in the end, the accuracy is great. Well, first of all, isn’t that true of conventional wisdom, pundits, polls, etc. too? In the end, everyone’s accuracy is great. The closer you get to an actual event, the more ironclad the predictions that that event will occur become. Predictions that your plane will crash in a giant fireball decrease precipitously once the plane’s wheels safely hit the ground, and they drop to zero when the plane parks at the gate.
It reminds me a bit of that scene from Fletch when Chevy Chase pretends to know someone who died.
Dr. Joseph Dolan: You know, it’s a shame about Ed.
Fletch: Oh, it was. Yeah, it was really a shame. To go so suddenly like that.
Dr. Joseph Dolan: He was dying for years.
Fletch: Sure, but… the end was very… very sudden.
Dr. Joseph Dolan: He was in intensive care for eight weeks.
Fletch: Yeah, but I mean the very end, when he actually died. That was extremely sudden.
At the very end, when Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, or Rick Santorum actually wins the Republican nomination, Intrade will predict that outcome perfectly. Until then, it’s just another kind of focus group.
Or am I wrong? What is the metric that proves the value of Intrade? I am open to correction on all of this.
Editor’s note: See Jim Pethokoukis’s response here.
• Up in the air: In a CNN poll of likely Florida Republican primary voters, 64 percent said they will definitely support their preferred candidate. Twenty-five percent said they might change their mind. A Quinnipiac poll this week found 61 percent of likely Florida Republican primary goers said their “mind is made up” and 38 percent said they “might change their mind.” Going into the South Carolina primary, CNN found that 53 percent of likely South Carolina primary voters said they would definitely support their candidate and 38 percent might change their mind.
• Unfair to you, not to me: Forty-five percent told Gallup pollsters that the economic system in this country is fair, 49 percent unfair. But when asked if they think the U.S. economic system is fair to them personally, 62 percent agreed and 36 percent disagreed.
• Economic worries: Fifty-one percent told Gallup that they are worried about being able to maintain their standard of living. Gallup notes that “Americans’ economic anxiety today is most similar to what it was in 1992, though Americans are slightly less worried about not being able to pay medical bills now (43 percent) than they were in 1992 (48 percent).”
• Dinner with the boss: When asked by Suffolk University who they would rather have dinner with, Obama or Romney, 51 percent of Floridians said Obama and 35 percent picked Romney. When asked about investment advice, 53 percent said they would prefer to get it from Romney and 28 percent Obama. Equal numbers said they would respect Obama and Romney as their boss.
• The High Court: Seventy-five percent told Kaiser Family Foundation pollsters that the Supreme Court justices sometimes let their own ideological views influence decisions. Seventeen percent said the justices usually decide cases based on legal analysis. In the poll, 54 percent thought the Supreme Court should rule the individual mandate is unconstitutional. Seventeen percent said it’s constitutional and 29 percent were unsure.
• Third party politics: Forty-eight percent told ABC/Washington Post pollsters that the country needs a third party. Forty-nine percent disagreed. Sixty-one percent of Independents agreed. Far fewer nationally (22 percent) said they would vote for a third party candidate.
• John Boehner and Harry Reid: In the Pew Research Center’s January poll, 21 percent had a favorable view of John Boehner and 40 percent an unfavorable one. A large 39 percent either never heard of him or could not rate him. The responses for Harry Reid were 18 percent favorable and 38 percent unfavorable. Forty-four percent couldn’t rate him. Both Boehner and Reid were less popular with their own party members in the new poll than they were in March 2011.
As the GOP primary heats up, it appears that Ron Paul’s “End the Fed” message is catching on. In South Carolina, Gingrich dove head-first into the Gold Standard fray, promising a “gold commission” modeled after the double-digit inflation-battling commission built by Ronald Reagan (that, coincidentally, overwhelmingly rejected returning to a gold standard, and had Ron Paul as a member).
Ron Paul, a subscriber to Austrian Economics, has been advocating a return to gold for years. Part of his argument is that gold’s meteoric rise signals impending doom for the dollar. Between the massive debt overhang and distrust of the Fed, Paul argues that people will lose faith in the U.S. financial and monetary system.
Noteworthy, then, are the returns on asset classes in 2011.
If, as Paul and Gingrich argue, we are facing economic doom, shouldn’t gold be at the top of the list? And shouldn’t interest rates be rising? And shouldn’t inflation be going through the roof?
Yet, as AEI economist John Makin notes:
First among the reasons for low interest rates is the fact that actual inflation has been coming down. U.S. headline inflation is almost a full percentage point below where it was about four months ago and it is expected to fall further toward midyear. Inflation in Germany is coming down and Japan is actually experiencing deflation… The negative shocks of 2011 including the Arab spring, Japan’s tsunami-nuclear disaster, the ugly midyear battle over the U.S. debt ceiling, and the 4th quarter intensification of Europe’s sovereign debt crisis, all contributed to elevated risk aversion. As inflation risks abate, the safe haven represented by high-grade government bonds looks even safer. For households and firms wishing to hold a high level of very liquid safe assets another alternative is U.S. treasury bills that are highly liquid and continue to be favored assets.
In other words, inflation is low and dropping, interest rates are low and will remain so, and markets view U.S. sovereign debt as their safest haven. Maybe the gold-bug-predicted crisis is still yet to come?
This week marks the one-year anniversary of the protests in Egypt. Since that time, NATO forces have intervened in Libya and the American military has largely withdrawn from Iraq. Foreign affairs have received little attention from both the Republican presidential candidates and pollsters alike. But the few polls released since the Egyptian protests show that events in Egypt and the Arab world have not altered Americans’ views on foreign intervention.
Americans are reluctant to intervene internationally. Only 15 percent said the United States should try to change dictatorships into democracies (November, CBS). When asked if the United States should use military force to stop governments from attacking their own citizens, equal numbers (39 percent) said the United States should and should not.
These views may explain why the military intervention in Libya is viewed so negatively. A plurality (49 percent) told CBS pollsters in November that the United States should have stayed out of military involvement in Libya. Only 37 percent said it was the right thing to do. Surprisingly, this feeling stretched across partisan divides.
At the same time, large numbers of Americans conclude that some threats warrant military intervention. When asked if the United States should initiate military action “if Iran continues with its nuclear research and is close to developing a nuclear weapon,” 54 percent agreed (November, CBS). Thirty-eight percent disagreed. Similarly, 65 percent think the United States should take military action against countries where terrorists are hiding. Twenty-two percent disapprove.
Part of the reason Americans remain reluctant to intervene internationally rests with the low priority they give to foreign affairs as a national concern. Pew Research Center notes that over the past five years, terrorism has dropped 11 points as a “top priority” for Congress and the president. Domestic affairs and the economy remain the national priority by a large margin. But Americans have not become isolationist in the wake of the Arab Spring. They remain willing to take action as necessary.
This blog is a part of an Enterprise symposium, “Egyptian Revolution: One Year Later.“
There was a lot in President Obama’s address last night that will satisfy his polling team. Many of the president’s proposals rest on solid ground when it comes to public opinion. But at the same time, on many of the night’s major topics, Americans hold views that pull them in multiple directions. Support for the president’s agenda isn’t clear. In three areas in particular, the president will need to argue his policy proposals supersede competing concerns.
1) Fairness. The president’s proposal to increase taxes on the wealthiest Americans receives wide public support. In a recent CBS poll, 60 percent agreed that taxes should be increased on those earning a million dollars or more. But when it comes to the issue these tax increases are intended to address, the deficit, Americans aren’t eager to pay more. Americans generally prefer spending cuts to tax increases as a solution to the deficit. In a December AP-GfK poll, 60 percent preferred that lawmakers focus on cutting services as opposed to increasing taxes in order to balance the deficit.
2) Wall Street. Wall Street isn’t exactly the most popular institution in America, so the president certainly scored points making the case for increased regulation of the financial sector. In Gallup’s annual confidence in institutions poll, Wall Street ranked 16th out of 16 institutions tested. But attitudes towards the financial sector are also related to concerns over the economy. A majority of 54 percent told Harris pollsters in 2011 that Wall Street benefits the country overall and 62 percent agreed that Wall Street is absolutely essential because it provides the money businesses must have for investment. In addition, Americans are highly suspicious of new regulations. A majority of Americans told National Journal pollsters that government regulation of businesses has been a “major factor” in the current economic slowdown.
3) Outsourcing. The president challenged American companies to bring jobs back to America and clearly took issue with companies outsourcing jobs overseas. It’s no surprise that outsourcing isn’t exactly a popular phenomenon among Americans. Sixty-seven percent told National Journal pollsters in 2010 that outsourcing had played a major role in the high unemployment of the past few years. But when you ask Americans about trade with other countries, their views are more mixed. Most Americans acknowledge that they benefit as consumers from international trade. A majority also believe that American companies benefit overall.
In Governor Mitch Daniels’s response speech, he laid out alternative policies and claimed these proposals rested on core American values. Both the president and the governor focused on similar goals, like helping the middle class, and both laid claim to American values as support for their proposals. Public opinion seems to be receptive to both interpretations. It seems that both the president and Republicans have their work cut out for them.
When President Obama delivers the final State of the Union address of his first term tomorrow, he will face, literally, the most unpopular Congress in polling’s history. All recent polls put Congress’s rating below 15 percent. One pollster saw it dip below 10 percent in 2011, and others have proclaimed in their releases that Congress’s standing in 2012 was lower than ever before. Democrats there tend to be a little more popular than Republicans, but their marks aren’t good either.
Individuals are usually more popular than institutions, and President Obama’s ratings are higher than Congress’s. As Senator John McCain joked with reporter Mark Shields, Congress’s approval is “down to blood relatives and paid staffers.” The chart below in the latest ABC/Washington Post poll demonstrates how low Congress has fallen.
The new issue of AEI’s Political Report looks at views on the State of the Union.
South Carolinians are generally considered by pollsters and politicos to be values voters. Nestled firmly in the heart of the Bible Belt, South Carolina is home to culture war bastions like Bob Jones University and is associated with such famous values clashes as Berkeley County Detention allowing inmates to read nothing but the Bible in their cells.
But South Carolina, a state that has gone for the Republican candidate in every election since 1980, has a rather spotty history of picking candidates who are themselves embodiments of Christian values. A few noteworthy figures:
1. Strom Thurmond – Perhaps the most influential politician ever in South Carolina, Thurmond fathered a child out of wedlock and vigorously supported segregation and other racist institutions.
2. Mark Sanford – The former governor of South Carolina and head of the Republican governor’s association was famous for marketing his faith to conservative evangelical voters. But in June 2009, Sanford’s mysterious hiking trip in the Appalachian Trail unearthed a nearly decade-long extramarital affair. Sanford also violated campaign finance law more than 61 times.
3. John C. Calhoun – Calhoun, a titan of American history, was a key figure in the Petticoat Affair, a social disaster that destabilized the Jackson presidency. The intellectual godfather of the South’s Civil War, Calhoun championed nullification, slavery, and succession.
4. Francis Pickens – Pickens was the architect of South Carolina’s succession from the Union at the outset of the Civil War. Ostensibly a champion of state’s rights, Pickens was an ardent supporter of the slave system. According to Calhoun, Pickens had “a strong enfusion of envy, jealousy, and vanity in his composition.”
5. Andrew Butler – South Carolina senator who, while vehemently supporting slavery, fathered several children with his slave mistresses.
6. Preston Brooks – On May 22, 1856, Senator Preston Brooks beat Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts with his heavy walking cane. Sumner took more than three years to recover from his wounds.
7. Newt Gingrich – The former Speaker won the South Carolina presidential primary on Saturday despite his three marriages, two of which were dissolved while his wives were battling serious illness. Gingrich is also the only Speaker in history to be convicted of a House ethics violation.
For voters who are said to care deeply about a personal morality, South Carolinians have overlooked an awful lot of personal indiscretions.
As the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade approaches, we updated our historical collection of public opinion polls on abortion. Since questions were first asked regularly in the mid-1970s, abortion attitudes have been remarkably stable. Below are eight major highlights from the new study.
1. A Gallup question that has been asked more than 50 times since 1975 shows that most people consistently put themselves in the middle on this issue, saying that abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances. The last time Gallup asked the question in 2011, a majority (51 percent) gave that response. Another 26 percent said it should be legal in all circumstances and 20 percent illegal in all.
2. Opinions on abortion are deeply ambivalent. Americans are at once pro-life and pro-choice. On the one hand, substantial numbers tell the pollsters that abortion is an act of murder. On the other, they say that the decision to have an abortion should be a personal choice.
3. The July 2011 Gallup question shows that 47 percent consider themselves pro-choice and 47 percent pro-life.
4. Solid majorities want to keep abortion legal, but they are willing to put significant restrictions on its use.
5. Americans favor waiting periods, parental consent, and spousal notification.
6. Americans support first trimester abortions, but large majorities oppose second and third trimester ones.
7. Large majorities of Americans think partial birth abortion should be made illegal.
8. Americans do not favor a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. In most polls, 60 percent or more say they do not want to see the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade.
To view the full study, click here.
• A 15 percent tax rate?: Polls consistently show that Americans don’t think the rich pay their fair share of taxes. The issue doesn’t usually have much political punch because people generally feel they are doing OK and gaining ground. It’s not clear they feel that way today. As for how much the rich and the rest of us should pay in taxes, polls conducted over the past two decades show that Americans believe no one should pay more than 25 percent in total taxes. Our AEI Public Opinion Study on tax attitudes includes the questions.
• The enthusiasm contest: New polls suggest Republicans are winning the enthusiasm contest. In the new CBS News poll, 41 percent of Republicans compared to 21 percent of Democrats said they were more enthusiastic than in past presidential elections. In the new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, 54 percent of registered Republicans and 49 percent of Democrats said they were extremely or very enthusiastic about voting in the presidential election.
• Abortion: Abortion is never far from the surface of our politics. For a look at attitudes over the 39 years since Roe v. Wade was decided, see our AEI Public Opinion Study.
• Romney’s favorables: A CNN/ORC survey of adults finds 43 percent have a favorable impression of Romney and 42 percent an unfavorable one. A Fox News poll of registered voters finds 45 percent with a favorable opinion and 38 percent an unfavorable one.
• Healthcare coup?: Although the attacks by his Republican rivals have been intense, Romney bests his Republican competitors on this issue. In a new ORC/CNN poll, 30 percent of Republicans said he would do the best job, 20 percent said Gingrich would, and 15 percent Paul.
• Negative campaigning: When registered Republicans were asked by Fox News who had conducted the nastiest campaign, 29 percent said Newt Gingrich. Mitt Romney followed with 13 percent.
• Socialist?: Twenty-six percent of Americans say they would mainly describe the policies of Barack Obama as socialist in a CBS/New York Times poll this week. When asked about their opinions of socialism, 33 percent of Americans had a positive view, 49 percent a negative one, and 18 said they didn’t know enough to say.
• Immigration concerns: In a new Gallup poll this week, 64 percent say they are dissatisfied with the level of immigration into the country. Twenty-eight percent are satisfied. The issue ranks high as a national concern. In Gallup’s poll, immigration ranked third out of 17 issues tested.
• Life for the next generation: Thirty-four percent told Fox News pollsters that life for the next generation of Americans will be better than life today and 53 percent said worse. Partisan responses varied widely. Fifty percent of self-identified Democrats, 29 percent of Independents, and only 20 percent of Republicans said life for the next generation would be better.
The American Enterprise Institute takes no institutional positions on policy advocacy or political campaigns. The views expressed on The Enterprise Blog represent those of the individual writers.