PPP polling: Bad news for democrats in the Midwest

[bigdarryl]

Is this a right wing polling firm.The reason I ask is it has nothing good to say about democrats http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/03/tough-times-for-dems-in-midwest.html

[DCBob]

1. Ignore all polls for a few days.. until the full impact of HCR passage takes effect...

The numbers will change dramatically in my opinion... in a positive direction.

[bigdarryl]

2. this polling firm is claiming health care isn't the number one issue on voters minds

they say jobs and unemployment

[DCBob]

4. Well that is no doubt correct..

So why the headline.. "Bad news for Democrats" ?

[terrell9584]

10. Unemployment at 20%

And no attention has been paid by the majority party to cutting it in the minds of the public perhaps?

[DCBob]

11. 20%??... that's not the official rate.. regardless its beginning to drop..

BTW, in case you did not realize it a jobs bill was just signed into law last week...

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/87581-obama-praises-jobs-bill-but-says-more-is-needed

Clearly not enough but it should help and there will probably be more job-related legislation passed before Nov. Its an eternity until election day so it all depends what happens in the next few months.

[terrell9584]

12. The official rate is bullshit

I know someone who graduated college in the winter. Got a job. Got laid off after a month.

Now, would you believe that he is not officially counted as unemployed by the government even though he has no job? See, he's not counted because he did not work long enough to get entitlement to unemployment and the official unemployment stat counts only those people taking checks. If you aren't getting an unemployment check you are counted as unemployed by the government.


Most economists, even pro-corporate ones like Reich, concede that the real unemployment rate is somewhere between 20-25%.

[DCBob]

13. Lighten up Francis. You can call it whatever you want.. its dropping...

and as long as voters see significant improvement by Fall, Dems will be fine. IMO.

[DrToast]

14. He is unemployed. You have no idea what you're talking about

Whether or not you're collecting unemployment has absolutely no bearing on whether or not you're considered unemployed.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#where

[terrell9584]

17. Actually yes it does

I've been to college. I know exactly how they compile those statistics. And I can distinctly remember when Bush was always criticized for claiming "new jobs were created" when it was really just people going off the unemployment rolls.

And it's not just me saying this. When you have economists on both the right and the left saying that real unemployment is around 20% and when you have the government even saying in the U7 that it is more like 17% those should be signals that the 10% is not accurate.


10% unemployment does not compute to the job market that is actually out there right now. And very few of the people who are unemployed actually believe that 10% number if you poll them. They are more inclined to believe the U7 or the other unofficial estimates.

[DrToast]

18. Dude, this isn't my opinion. I included a link to the BLS that outlines their methodology

You're going to have to do better than "Nuh uh." The unemployment rate is not calculated from unemployment benefits.

By the way, there's no such thing as U7. You got that wrong, too. I'd provide you a source on that, but you wouldn't read it anyway.

[terrell9584]

19. U7, U6, same damn thing

You know, the government also says that Oswald killed Kennedy with a single bullet but the public (rightly) doesn't believe that one either.


Just because the president is of my party doesn't mean I'll give the government a pass when I think they are manipulating data and I view the unemployment statistics as manipulating data. The massive losses in sales and tax revenues don't match up with 10% unemployment. I'm sorry. And despite what you say the U3 rate actually is a list of people who are receiving unemployment payments.

We know for a fact that Bush covered up the growing unemployment problem by claiming that new "jobs" were created everytime people dropped off the rolls.


Why would more than a few major economists be up front with disputing the 10% rate if it was not true. It doesn't serve Rob Reich any to go out and say the real rate is around 20% and yet he did.
http://golis.blogs.pressdemocrat.com/10284/what-is-the-real-unemployment-rate/


And even if you take the "official" rate which vastly underestimates the number of the unemployed you'll find that some classes have been hit harder than others. In the working classes, by the official rates, there are several brackets where the official rates are above 30%. At the upper brackets, it's almost nothing.


We need a true FDR style jobs program, one that will create 10,000,000 or more immediate jobs, to help put people back to work. And no more bank bailouts because they didn't do a thing

[DrToast]

20. Okay, you're venturing into Glen Beck territory

Simply believing something really really hard, doesn't make it so. You sound ridiculous.

The unemployment rate has never been calculated by those receiving unemployment benefits. If you refuse to acknowledge that, I'm just wasting my time.

[karynnj]

5. It doesn't matter what they say -

It is highly likely that seeing the administartion as a giant tied down by the Republican Lilliputians made it look like Democrats were ineffective and unable to do anything - at a point where people are hurting and help is needed. This will change that.

The high unemployment will continue to hurt, but as it becomes clearer that the Republicans are not offering solutions and are standing in the way, who is blamed might shift (or at least blame will be spread.) Not to mention, Republicans, for the most part, voted against the 2 job bills worked on this month.

There are other things, currently below the radar - such as comments from McCain and others that they are going to refuse to do anything to "punish" the Democrats. (Given what they've done this Congress, how would that change anything?) They are going as far as to refuse to all the unanimous consent for the committees to meet later than 2pm - which is always waved. They are in complete temper tantrum mode.

[grantcart]

15. That misses the point entirely. Abortion and guns aren't number one either

But for people who have opinions about guns and abortion it is their only issue.


For millions of people who are suffering with their insurance or don't have any they will be voting on that one issue.

[okieinpain]

8. i think it will change postive just because people will not

have to hear the bickering every day.

[Kdillard]

3. I believe they are a good polling firm. I also believe they are correct when

They say it is about the economy. If in the next few months the economy shows jobs being added and Dems are able to run good candidates who understand the local issues things can turn around. Also November is still a good few months away we will see what happens.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

7. If the election were held today.....

I love that phrase. You know the only time "if the election were held today" has any relevance?

On Election Day.

You're right. November is light years away, and improving employment numbers make a world of difference.

[Jennicut]

6. PPP is a Democratic-leaning polling firm. Usually pretty accurate. However, all the polls that were

done before HCR passed should be taken with a grain of salt because I think Obama and Dems overall will have higher #'s in the next month or so. Jobs is the # issue but looking effective and getting something big accomplished will help the Dems...look at Gallup for Obama and healthcare approval. It already went up. Even Rasmussen went up a few points(!).

[Teaser]

9. Nah, PPP is Democratic and quite reliable

but we've hit our nadir already. It should be an upward climb from here on out for us. A hard slog, yes, but upward nonetheless.

[grantcart]

16. Good now they won't take any race for granted

But the reality is that polls that show generic candidates at this point are pointless.


Incumbents always appear lower in polls and then end up winning them - why?


Because 6 months ahead of polling the incumbent's negatives are well known and the challenger's isn't.

By the time the election comes the challenger's negatives go way up and the advantages of the incumbent are increased especially when people are worried, better the devil they know than the challenger who might be worse.