(Note also this second piece says the unemployment rate is the most important macro factor influencing presidential approval - so by your argument that pres approval is wholly a function of macro factors, Biden's should have improved over past year+ with UE rate rock bottom.)
The study says the reduction of the unemployment rate from a rate that’s slightly above 7% or higher is what improves presidential approval. When Biden took office, unemployment was 6.4%.
(There also the study’s implication that the plus-7% unemployment was persistent before its reduction, which would exclude short-term spikes like the one at the start of the pandemic under Trump. The study also says media attention on the high unemployment is a factor in how its reduction improves presidential approval. The media focus on the 2020 spike was on its pandemic, not policy, causes.)
I didn't even mention those two linked articles because I didn't have time to read them all the way through. But looking at the abstract and conclusions suggested that neither of them suggested presidential approval was a causal factor in anything. Each seemed to be looking at presidential approval as an outcome meausure.
From the first link:
With respect to the first question, we incorporate salience into a time series model of George W. Bush’s approval ratings. This suggestion has not been explored often in the aggregate time series framework and certainly not in the George W. Bush presidency. In doing so, we argue that the impact of environmental factors (including war, economy) should vary with the relative salience of the economy over the course of each president’s tenure in office. When we incorporate salience into a model of Bush’s aggregate approval, we find that the factors shown to affect approval for previous presidents, namely peace, prosperity, and security, also account for Bush’s approval.
and the second:
Contrary to previous empirical studies that find a linear link between economic conditions and presidential approval, this study argues for and finds a nonlinear relationship. A threshold regression is used to assess potential nonlinear relationships between macroeconomic variables and presidential popularity. A quarterly data analysis for the 1960Q1–2012Q2 time period reveals that domestic factors prevail in shaping presidential approval. Most compelling is evidence of a threshold relationship involving economic conditions: When unemployment is slightly over 7%, its decline impacts significantly and favourably on presidential approval, an effect that virtually disappears below the threshold value. Change in consumer sentiment affects presidential approval in a limited way, while inflation shows no association at all. These results combine to encourage further investigation of nonlinear processes in the nexus of economics and politics.
make up your mind, dude. Can a presidential approval rating sometimes cause other political outcomes, or not?
I don't think I ever wrote that presidential approval NEVER causes any other political outcomes. But here's the thing -- let's assume for a minute that there was no polling on Biden's job approval. Do you think absent the polling that the economic news by itself would cause any of the same outcomes? Or do you think voters and other politicians would be blissfully unaware of any of the problems facing the country without Gallup or Rasmussen telling them that people disapprove of Biden's job as president?
I think the economic news by itself would cause some of the same outcomes. But aside from the macro/exogenous stuff, I also believe the approval rating is a function of how people perceive the president is actually performing, ie how competent, strong of a leader, likable, etc. And, right or wrong, and for whatever reason(s) that we don't need to rehash, Biden doesn't get high marks on that stuff. One point I believe I made 10-11 mos ago was that the Afghanistan withdrawal was the first real test Pres. Biden faced, and he didn't ace it, which suggested to me that he had been a bit exposed and may have difficulty with subsequent crises.
Again you're making obvious, common-sense statements and calling it a victory lap. Ray Bolger FTW.
Yes, I realize that a president's approval in and of itself is not causal. And I realize that the approval rating is a function of a combination of factors, some controlled by the president, some not. I also know that the sun rises in the east.
I believe anyone who reads my previous posts would reasonably conclude that I grasp the approval-rating concept sufficiently. If you believe otherwise, please show direct evidence to back this up. But stop with the straw men. Thank you.
and I'd count this as walking back your comments on presidential approval. And why do I? Because if this was your position from the start, I never would have argued with it to begin with.
Amended my statement earlier today. I didn't realize I made it twice - it was hasty/careless writing on my part. So you can go on the amended statement which aligns with everything I said before that and everything I said after that. There is no walking back of my argument about the significance of the presidential approval rating -- it is the same in Aug 2022 as it was in Aug 2021.
The inflation bit was shorthand and more importantly, only tangential to my argument that inflation will be a headwind for progressive candidates in 2024. That argument has not changed.
Amended my statement earlier today. I didn't realize I made it twice - it was hasty/careless writing on my part. So you can go on the amended statement which aligns with everything I said before that and everything I said after that. There is no walking back of my argument about the significance of the presidential approval rating -- it is the same in Aug 2022 as it was in Aug 2021.
The inflation bit was shorthand and more importantly, only tangential to my argument that inflation will be a headwind for progressive candidates in 2024. That argument has not changed.
So there is no walking back of either argument.
so let's call it "amending" instead of walking back. Either way, you are making changes of substance. Because in both cases, I would have had zero reason to disagree with anything you wrote had those been your words from the outset.
and in both cases there was a fair amount of back and forth before you decided to make those adjustments.
wouldn't it have been easier if you were just trying to clarify, to do it right away instead of engaging in drawn out back-and-forth?
I do suggest being more careful with your allegations. Like when you say I have a tendency to make statements and then walk them back, way back. I have no such tendency.
Apparently.
(Note also this second piece says the unemployment rate is the most important macro factor influencing presidential approval - so by your argument that pres approval is wholly a function of macro factors, Biden's should have improved over past year+ with UE rate rock bottom.)
(Note also this second piece says the unemployment rate is the most important macro factor influencing presidential approval - so by your argument that pres approval is wholly a function of macro factors, Biden's should have improved over past year+ with UE rate rock bottom.)
The study says the reduction of the unemployment rate from a rate that’s slightly above 7% or higher is what improves presidential approval. When Biden took office, unemployment was 6.4%.
(There also the study’s implication that the plus-7% unemployment was persistent before its reduction, which would exclude short-term spikes like the one at the start of the pandemic under Trump. The study also says media attention on the high unemployment is a factor in how its reduction improves presidential approval. The media focus on the 2020 spike was on its pandemic, not policy, causes.)
I didn't even mention those two linked articles because I didn't have time to read them all the way through. But looking at the abstract and conclusions suggested that neither of them suggested presidential approval was a causal factor in anything. Each seemed to be looking at presidential approval as an outcome meausure.
From the first link:
With respect to the first question, we incorporate salience into a time series model of George W. Bush’s approval ratings. This suggestion has not been explored often in the aggregate time series framework and certainly not in the George W. Bush presidency. In doing so, we argue that the impact of environmental factors (including war, economy) should vary with the relative salience of the economy over the course of each president’s tenure in office. When we incorporate salience into a model of Bush’s aggregate approval, we find that the factors shown to affect approval for previous presidents, namely peace, prosperity, and security, also account for Bush’s approval.
and the second:
Contrary to previous empirical studies that find a linear link between economic conditions and presidential approval, this study argues for and finds a nonlinear relationship. A threshold regression is used to assess potential nonlinear relationships between macroeconomic variables and presidential popularity. A quarterly data analysis for the 1960Q1–2012Q2 time period reveals that domestic factors prevail in shaping presidential approval. Most compelling is evidence of a threshold relationship involving economic conditions: When unemployment is slightly over 7%, its decline impacts significantly and favourably on presidential approval, an effect that virtually disappears below the threshold value. Change in consumer sentiment affects presidential approval in a limited way, while inflation shows no association at all. These results combine to encourage further investigation of nonlinear processes in the nexus of economics and politics.
make up your mind, dude. Can a presidential approval rating sometimes cause other political outcomes, or not?
I don't think I ever wrote that presidential approval NEVER causes any other political outcomes.
Except for the umpteen times you have said presidential approval is not a causal factor. Did you mean that not as an absolute statement? It reads absolute to me.
If you meant presidential approval causes other political outcomes sometimes, then you should have made that clear from the beginning, as we would be in agreement.
Amended my statement earlier today. I didn't realize I made it twice - it was hasty/careless writing on my part. So you can go on the amended statement which aligns with everything I said before that and everything I said after that. There is no walking back of my argument about the significance of the presidential approval rating -- it is the same in Aug 2022 as it was in Aug 2021.
The inflation bit was shorthand and more importantly, only tangential to my argument that inflation will be a headwind for progressive candidates in 2024. That argument has not changed.
So there is no walking back of either argument.
so let's call it "amending" instead of walking back. Either way, you are making changes of substance. Because in both cases, I would have had zero reason to disagree with anything you wrote had those been your words from the outset.
and in both cases there was a fair amount of back and forth before you decided to make those adjustments.
wouldn't it have been easier if you were just trying to clarify, to do it right away instead of engaging in drawn out back-and-forth?
Before today I was not on here since last Wed. I amended the statement I made twice, today upon it coming to my attention.
Not even bothering with the inflation gotcha which had no bearing on my main argument. If you really maintain that's me walking an argument back, I think that's just you being disingenuous.
I do suggest being more careful with your allegations. Like when you say I have a tendency to make statements and then walk them back, way back. I have no such tendency.
Apparently.
(Note also this second piece says the unemployment rate is the most important macro factor influencing presidential approval - so by your argument that pres approval is wholly a function of macro factors, Biden's should have improved over past year+ with UE rate rock bottom.)
Someone with a tendency to walk things back would have walked back that study's application to Biden, who has never had an opportunity to reduce the unemployment rate from 7 percent or higher while president.
Except for the umpteen times you have said presidential approval is not a causal factor. Did you mean that not as an absolute statement? It reads absolute to me.
If you meant presidential approval causes other political outcomes sometimes, then you should have made that clear from the beginning, as we would be in agreement.
Summary: Topic of Biden approval rating brought up. Rehash of previous debate mostly. There were some straw men introduced, and I hastily and erroneously categorized the statement "presidential approval is not causal" as one of them. In doing so, I stated "presidential approval is not causal," when in fact that's not my belief and never has been my belief. Upon realization of that, I walked forward my erroneous walk-back.
Summary: Topic of Biden approval rating brought up. Rehash of previous debate mostly. There were some straw men introduced, and I hastily and erroneously categorized the statement "presidential approval is not causal" as one of them. In doing so, I stated "presidential approval is not causal," when in fact that's not my belief and never has been my belief. Upon realization of that, I walked forward my erroneous walk-back.
Summary: Topic of Biden approval rating brought up. Rehash of previous debate mostly. There were some straw men introduced, and I hastily and erroneously categorized the statement "presidential approval is not causal" as one of them. In doing so, I stated "presidential approval is not causal," when in fact that's not my belief and never has been my belief. Upon realization of that, I walked forward my erroneous walk-back.
ok
Well, net result is you changed your tune, I didn't.
My view then and now was approval rating is meaningful and holds implications for stuff.
Your view was approval rating is not causal, which changed to approval rating is not causal, except when it's causal.
Well, net result is you changed your tune, I didn't.
My view then and now was approval rating is meaningful and holds implications for stuff.
Your view was approval rating is not causal, which changed to approval rating is not causal, except when it's causal.
Whatever, here's today's report on polling about stuff.
"Democrats have made slight gains in the public’s preference for party control of Congress since the spring. Currently, 38% of Americans say they want the Democratic Party in charge and another 12% have no initial preference but lean toward Democratic control. Republican control is preferred by 34% with another 9% leaning toward the GOP. The combined 50% who choose the Democrats is up from 47% in June and 44% in May. Republicans’ 43% support level is down from 47% in June and 48% in May."
Summary: Topic of Biden approval rating brought up. Rehash of previous debate mostly. There were some straw men introduced, and I hastily and erroneously categorized the statement "presidential approval is not causal" as one of them. In doing so, I stated "presidential approval is not causal," when in fact that's not my belief and never has been my belief. Upon realization of that, I walked forward my erroneous walk-back.
ok
Well, net result is you changed your tune, I didn't.
My view then and now was approval rating is meaningful and holds implications for stuff.
Your view was approval rating is not causal, which changed to approval rating is not causal, except when it's causal.
I didn't change my view.
I have no idea if for example Joe Manchin sits around and looks at Biden's approval rating and decides how he votes based on whether it's a 40% or a 55%. I doubt it's that kind of thing, but I try to never say never about anything. But generally speaking, a presidential approval rating is not a cause. It's an effect.
I have no idea if for example Joe Manchin sits around and looks at Biden's approval rating and decides how he votes based on whether it's a 40% or a 55%. I doubt it's that kind of thing, but I try to never say never about anything. But generally speaking, a presidential approval rating is not a cause. It's an effect.
I doubt that Biden's approval rating was a factor for Joe Manchin.
I have no idea if for example Joe Manchin sits around and looks at Biden's approval rating and decides how he votes based on whether it's a 40% or a 55%. I doubt it's that kind of thing, but I try to never say never about anything. But generally speaking, a presidential approval rating is not a cause. It's an effect.
I doubt that Biden's approval rating was a factor for Joe Manchin.
so do I. But would I say never, ever, ever do some people in Washington base their behavior on an approval number by itself, and not take events or a president's actions into account? No I wouldn't say NEVER.
Well, net result is you changed your tune, I didn't.
My view then and now was approval rating is meaningful and holds implications for stuff.
Your view was approval rating is not causal, which changed to approval rating is not causal, except when it's causal.
Whatever, here's today's report on polling about stuff.
"Democrats have made slight gains in the public’s preference for party control of Congress since the spring. Currently, 38% of Americans say they want the Democratic Party in charge and another 12% have no initial preference but lean toward Democratic control. Republican control is preferred by 34% with another 9% leaning toward the GOP. The combined 50% who choose the Democrats is up from 47% in June and 44% in May. Republicans’ 43% support level is down from 47% in June and 48% in May."
Makes total sense. Scotus, Jan. 6, specter of Trump all working against GOP favorability recently. Not sure how that connects to Biden and/or his approval rating, if that's your aim.
Well, net result is you changed your tune, I didn't.
My view then and now was approval rating is meaningful and holds implications for stuff.
Your view was approval rating is not causal, which changed to approval rating is not causal, except when it's causal.
Whatever, here's today's report on polling about stuff.
"Democrats have made slight gains in the public’s preference for party control of Congress since the spring. Currently, 38% of Americans say they want the Democratic Party in charge and another 12% have no initial preference but lean toward Democratic control. Republican control is preferred by 34% with another 9% leaning toward the GOP. The combined 50% who choose the Democrats is up from 47% in June and 44% in May. Republicans’ 43% support level is down from 47% in June and 48% in May."
Makes total sense. Scotus, Jan. 6, specter of Trump all working against GOP favorability recently. Not sure how that connects to Biden and/or his approval rating, if that's your aim.
I thought the whole point was that presidential approval was connected to voting for Congress, and I was just noting the current polling about Congress.
I think the economic news by itself would cause some of the same outcomes. But aside from the macro/exogenous stuff, I also believe the approval rating is a function of how people perceive the president is actually performing, ie how competent, strong of a leader, likable, etc. And, right or wrong, and for whatever reason(s) that we don't need to rehash, Biden doesn't get high marks on that stuff. One point I believe I made 10-11 mos ago was that the Afghanistan withdrawal was the first real test Pres. Biden faced, and he didn't ace it, which suggested to me that he had been a bit exposed and may have difficulty with subsequent crises.