Wednesday, June 3, 2015

BloggeRhythms

Two news items today present an interesting scenario regarding pollsters, their recent performance, and their worth.
 
Vanessa Gera writes on myway.com: “In recent elections in Israel, Britain and Poland pre-election polls failed spectacularly to predict election results, sending shock waves through entire nations on election night. Now many research pollsters are analyzing these fiascos in search of ways to do better in the future.”
 
However, if the significant polling errors were truly caused by the major factor suspected so far, there doesn’t seem to be much hope for pollsters improving their performance in the future.
 
While no definitive conclusions have been reached to date, in the Polish and British cases experts point to political correctness as being a major factor. Because it seems “people lie to the pollsters because they are ashamed to admit their true intentions.”
 
Ms Gera explains that, “In Britain, there appears to be the phenomenon of "shy Tories" — people who secretly harbor the intention of voting Conservative, still stigmatized as a "mean" party, telling pollsters they'll vote for the more socially progressive Labour. In Poland, people may have been embarrassed to admit they were voting for the right-wing presidential challenger, saying they supported the more moderate incumbent. And sometimes non-voters declare an intention to vote due to the stigma of not voting.”
 
At the same time, new US polling data shows that the president isn’t doing very well at all.
 
According to Scott Clement @washingtonpost.com, “Historically, Obama's standing is below the 56 percent average of presidential approval ratings in Washington Post/ABC News and Gallup polls dating back to the 1930s. His 45 percent mark is also just below average for other two-term presidents at this stage. He is significantly higher than George W. Bush (35 percent) and Harry Truman (24 percent) but lower than Ronald Reagan (52 percent), Bill Clinton (59 percent) and Dwight Eisenhower (64 percent) at this point in their presidencies.
 
“A bigger challenge for Obama's personal legacy is the sheer intensity of disapproval, which was also seen under George W. Bush. Nearly four in 10 (38 percent) strongly disapprove of his job performance, while 22 percent strongly approve.”
 
The poll numbers are quite interesting. Because if the premise proposed by Ms Gera in today’s first item above, about voters secretly harboring their intention of voting Conservative rather than being perceived as “mean,” the president’s approval numbers are likely overstated. Which means that the Democrats hopes in the next election are considerably worse than they appear at present.  
 
Reader, TheATLMac, summed it up this way:
 
“ The cities are exploding in crime, violence, and racial animus.
- The economy is contracting
- Average weekly payroll is down
- The number of people on means tested assistance is at levels not seen since the 70's.
- ISIS is conquering the middle east.
- The administration is giving Iran nuclear weapons.
- China is exerting its power in the South China Sea.
- Putin is expanding Russia's sphere of influence in Europe.
- The administration continues to lie, cheat and abuse citizens without facing any recourse.
Gee, I wonder why Obama's popularity is so low. Must be because he hasn't done enough to curb global warming.”
 
Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.
 
Greg Gordon and Anita Kumar @mcclatchydc.com, titled their article today: “Bill Clinton’s Wall Street cash puts wife in an ethical spot.”
 
The authors begin, “Ten of the world’s biggest financial institutions – including UBS, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs – have hired Bill Clinton numerous times since 2004 to speak for fees totaling more than $6.4 million. Hillary Clinton also has accepted speaking fees from at least one bank.
 
“And along with an 11th bank, the French giant BNP Paribas, the financial goliaths also donated as much as $24.9 million to the Clinton Foundation.”
 
The ethical aspect arises because, “Many of the speeches and donations were made at times when the host banks were under Justice Department scrutiny. Just a couple of weeks ago, for example, UBS agreed to plead guilty to a felony wire fraud charge for manipulating benchmark interest rates and also admitted to breaching a 2009 pledge to commit no more crimes in return for a prosecution deferral. 
 
“All told, the same 11 banks have paid more than $81 billion – yes, that’s with a B – over the last six years to resolve federal investigations into alleged corruption, a McClatchy analysis found.”
 
The article goes on to provide significant detail derived from the author’s research, and is well worth reading. The text highlights the hypocrisy and double-standard underlying the down-to-earth image Bill Clinton’s wife is trying to convey. It also provides insight as to why she avoids meeting the general public, as well as media people in an open forum. Because questions might be asked she’d obviously prefer not to answer. Especially relating to income.
 
In that regard, the authors further relate that, “That money flow has enmeshed the former and would-be future first couple in an extraordinary web of financial entanglements: with Arab governments, Canadian mining interests, U.S. energy giants and the largest banks on Wall Street, to name a few. Republicans and Clinton’s Democratic challengers all contend she is too financially beholden to special interests to lead the nation.”
 
So, one would have to assume that if it proves true that polls no longer reflect accurate voter intents, and people frequently hide their feelings from others, it’s quite possible that Bill’s wife shrinking popularity is even worse than presently indicated. Which leads to the question that’s been asked here frequently lately: Mayor Bloomberg are you reading this?
 
That’s it for today folks.
 
Adios

No comments:

Post a Comment