Tag Archives: Gallup

Top 10 most liberal vs. most conservative states

I’m re-publishing this post from a year ago because Gallup just came out with its 2013 list.
Alabama has overtaken Mississippi as America’s most conservative state, but Washington, D.C., remains the most liberal state, as in 2012.

Gallup

Gallup just issued a report on how liberal vs. conservatives America’s 50 states are.
Frank Newport reports for Gallup, Feb. 3, 2012, that the measure of how liberal or how conservatives a state is depends on the percentage of the state’s population who self-identify as liberal or conservative.
By that yardstick, the District of Columbia, the seat of our feral gubmint, is the most liberal, no surprise there. Nearly 4 out of 10 (39.8%) of the residents of D.C. call themselves liberal, whereas fewer than 2 out of 10 (19.1%) D.C. residents describe themselves as conservative.
Mississippi is the most conservative state, with more than 1 out of every 2 (53.4%) Mississippians calling themselves conservative, and only 1 of every 10 (10.9%) Mississippians identifying themselves as liberal.
Here are the 10 most liberal states; the 10 most conservative states; followed by a table of all 50 states.

What’s interesting is that how liberal or conservative the population of a state are does not match up with political party identification. As an example, although conservatives outnumber liberals (35.2% vs. 25%) in California, it’s a “blue” state that consistently votes Democrat.
As shown by other polling data, Americans overall are significantly more likely to identify as conservative than as liberal. 40% of more than 218,000 adults 18 and older interviewed in Gallup tracking in 2011 said they were conservative, 36% were moderate, and 21% liberal. Only in the District of Columbia and Massachusetts did liberals outnumber conservatives.
I’m living in the wrong state, but then I already know that only too painfully well. 🙁
Read more on this, here.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

One day to election, what do the polls say?

Vote for love of country vs. Vote for revenge

Obama support among Catholics collapsing

Joel Pollak reports for Breitbart, Nov. 1, 2012, that a Pew poll says Obama’s lead among Catholic voters has declined from 54-39 in September 2012 to a mere two-point lead, 48-46. Among white Catholics, Romney has jumped to a 14-point lead (54-40) after being tied with Obama in September. To understand just how significant that is, consider that in 2008, Obama won Catholics by 9% (54 to 45) and lost white Catholics by just 5% (47 to 52). In 2004, the Catholic vote went narrowly to Bush overall (more widely among white Catholics), and in 2000 it went narrowly to Gore (and narrowly to Bush among white Catholics). The 14-point lead Romney currently enjoys among white Catholics is almost without precedent.

Hurricane Sandy has helped the POS

But a new poll by the Pew Research Center, one of the more reliable pollsters, showed the POS has edged ahead of Mitt Romney in the final days of the presidential campaign, helped by his perceived handling of superstorm Sandy. Obama now leads Romney 48% to 45% nationwide, among likely voters. Pew estimates that in the final tally, Obama will take 50% of the popular vote to 47% for Romney. The modest lead for Obama marks a shift from a week ago when the two were tied on 47% before Sandy. Among likely voters, 69% said they approved of Obama’s handling of the storm.

Other polls show a very tight race

Rasmussen: Romney 49% vs. Obama 48% among likely voters nationwide.

ABC/Washington Post: Obama 49% vs. Romney 48% among likely voters nationwide.

Gallup: Romney 48% vs. Obama 48% among likely voters in the “swing” battleground states.

CNN: 49-49 tie, but CNN’s sample is skewed in favor of Democrats (a D+11 sample). By comparison, the electorate in 2008, when Obama-mania was at its peak, was merely D+7, according to exit polls.

Polls of some battleground states:

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jtgQPJTEwHw]

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Romney surges ahead of POS in latest polls!

45th President of the United States of America (2013-2020)

The polls are looking worse and worse for Obama:

1. Gallup’s latest national poll of likely voters: 51% Romney v. 45% Obama.

2. Romney has closed a 26-point gap and is surging ahead of Obama in favorability ratings:

  • In March 2012, Pew Research Center had Obama’s favorable rating at 55% vs. Romney’s 29%. But now, it’s Romney 50% vs. Obama 49%.
  • Gallup also has Romney beating Obama on the favorability rating, 52% to 51%.
  • Even the liberal DailyKos/SEIU/PPP poll has Romney beating Obama on the fave rating, 49% to 46%.

3. Romney is now leading in three battleground states:

4. RealClearPolitics’s 2012 electoral map gives a plurality of Electoral College votes to Romney: 206 Romney v. 201 Obama (131 toss ups)

Former Democratic strategist Bob Beckel on Fox News’ “The Five” today:  “It’s over. If these numbers are true, it’s over.”

Keep praying, friends!

Pray for Romney! Pray for America!

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Distrust in media at all-time high; only 4 of 10 Americans closely follow politics

We have good news and bad news. First, the good.

A new Gallup poll finds that Americans’ distrust in Old Media is at an all-time high, with 60% saying we have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. [To which my reaction is: Only 60%?] Republicans and Independents account for most of that 60%. In contrast, Democrats are the most trusting.

The bad news is that fewer Americans (only 39%) are closely following political news than in previous election years, in contrast to the 43% of Americans who closely followed political news in 2008. Republicans, though the most distrustful of the Old Media, are paying the closest attention: about 1 of every 2 Republicans.

Here are excerpts from Lymari Morales’ article for Gallup, Sept. 21, 2012:

Trend since 1997: In general, how much trust and confidence do you have in the mass media -- such as newspapers, TV, and radio -- when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately, and fairly -- a great deal, a fair amount, not very much, or none at all?

The current gap between negative and positive views — 20 percentage points — is by far the highest Gallup has recorded since it began regularly asking the question in the 1990s. Trust in the media was much higher, and more positive than negative, in the years prior to 2004 — as high as 72% when Gallup asked this question three times in the 1970s.

This year’s decline in media trust is driven by independents and Republicans. The 31% and 26%, respectively, who express a great deal or fair amount of trust are record lows and are down significantly from last year. Republicans’ level of trust this year is similar to what they expressed in the fall of 2008, implying that they are especially critical of election coverage.

Independents are sharply more negative compared with 2008, suggesting the group that is most closely divided between President Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney is quite dissatisfied with its ability to get fair and accurate news coverage of this election.

More broadly, Republicans continue to express the least trust in the media, while Democrats express the most. Independents’ trust fell below the majority level in 2004 and has continued to steadily decline.

Trend: Trust in Mass Media, by Party

Attention Paid to Political News Lower Than in 2008

Americans tend to pay more attention to political news in presidential election years, and that is the case in 2012. However, Americans are less likely this year to be paying close attention to news about national politics than they were in 2008. The 39% who say they are paying close attention is up from last year — when Americans were paying a high level of attention compared with other non-election years — but down from 43% in September 2008.

Trend: Overall, how closely do you follow news about national politics -- very closely, somewhat closely, not too closely, or not at all?

Despite their record-low trust in media, Republicans are the partisan group most likely to be paying close attention to news about national politics, with the 48% who are doing so similar to the 50% in 2008 and up significantly from 38% in 2004. Independents and Democrats are less likely than Republicans to be paying close attention, with their levels of attention similar to 2008 and 2004.

Trend: Attention to National Political News -- by Party

Implications

Americans are clearly down on the news media this election year, with a record-high six in 10 expressing little or no trust in the mass media’s ability to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. This likely reflects the continuation of the trend seen in recent years, combined with the increased negativity toward the media that election years tend to bring. This is particularly consequential at a time when Americans need to rely on the media to learn about the platforms and perspectives of the two candidates vying to lead the country for the next four years.

The lower level of interest in news about national politics during this election year may also reflect the level of interest in the presidential election specifically. This survey was conducted immediately after the conclusion of both political conventions and thus may indicate the level of attention paid to those events in particular. Since this survey was conducted, Democrats’ enthusiasm about voting has swelled nationally and in swing states.

On a broad level, Americans’ high level of distrust in the media poses a challenge to democracy and to creating a fully engaged citizenry. Media sources must clearly do more to earn the trust of Americans, the majority of whom see the media as biased one way or the other. At the same time, there is an opportunity for others outside the “mass media” to serve as information sources that Americans do trust. [such as blogs!]

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

What Do Americans Mean by "Rich"?

A week ago on Dec. 6, 2011, in Osawatomie, Kansas, Obama fired the first shot in what Financial Times is calling a “class warfare election.”
In a speech that set out the guts of his 2012 campaign, Obama says the belief in capitalism, individualism, and small government, although is “in America’s very DNA,” not only “doesn’t work. It has never worked.”
Instead, Obama calls for a society where “everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, when everyone plays by the same rules” — whatever that means. Blaming the Great Recession on the “breathtaking greed” of the financial elites — the very same financial elites whom he has bailed out ($7.77 trillion to Wall Street!) and who are his cronies (e.g., Jon Corzine, ex-CEO of the now-bankrupt MF Global) — Obama calls on the rich to pay a higher share in taxes.
Words have different meaning to different people.
During the 2008 election season, in his now-famous encounter with Joe the Plumber, Obama had called Americans who make more than $250,000 a year “rich”. The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement say they represent the 99% and call those who are in the top 1% of income distribution to be the super “rich.”
Oddly, some who are in that top 1% insist they are not “rich”. Actress Roseanne Barr, who has a net worth of $80 million and supports the OWS movement, says Americans who make more than $100 million should have their heads chopped off.
Now we have polling data from Gallup about what ordinary Americans consider as “rich.”
Catherine Rampell reports for the New York Times, Dec. 9, 2011, that Gallup has surveyed Americans to ask what they believe the cutoff for being “rich” should be. The median response was that a person would need to make at least $150,000 to be considered rich. “Median response” refers to the income figure — in this case, $150,000 — that cuts the poll sample into two halves.
Here’s a breakdown of the responses:

Answers to Gallup’s survey question on the threshold for being “rich” vary by demographics. Men, those younger than 50, college grads, those with kids, city-dwellers, and those with more than $50,000 in annual household income cited a higher figure for what they consider to be “rich”:

According to the Tax Policy Center’s calculations on income distribution, a household earning cash income of $150,000 would fall somewhere between the 89th and 90th percentiles, that is in the top 10-11%. In other words, the typical American believes anyone in about the top tenth of the income distribution counts as “rich.”
Obama and others, on the other hand, have set the cutoff around $250,000 when discussing “raising taxes on the rich.” Households earning cash income of $250,000 are somewhere between the 96th and 97th percentiles, that is in the top 3-4%.
So if you make $150,000 or more a year, watch out for that hand reaching into your pocket!
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Where Are the Jobs For Americans?

Last Friday, the Obama administration crowed that economic recovery is picking up speed! The unemployment rate has fallen to 9% from 9.8% in just two months! – the steepest two-month decline in unemployment in a half-century, since the Eisenhower administration! More than half a million people found work in January!
Before we sing “kumbaya,” Gallup has more sobering statistics. According to Gallup, based on telephone interviews with approximately 30,000 adults, U.S. unemployment rate (those who are not employed, even for one hour a week, but are available and looking for work) is really 10% and the underemployment rate (those who are employed part time, but want to work full time) is as high as 19.2%.
Something is very wrong with the American economy. Here’s an article asking where are the 15 million jobs that were supposed to have been created in the past 10 years but weren’t. In theory, as American corporations outsource export low-skill labor-intensive manufacturing jobs, the displaced American workers acquire more education and move into higher-skill, higher-pay, tech-intensive jobs. But that didn’t happen — and economists don’t really know why, nor are politicians paying attention.
The article is long but well worth your read!
~Eowyn

The Phantom 15 Million
By Jim Tankersley – National Journal – Jan 21, 2011

America’s jobs crisis began a decade ago. Long before the housing bubble burst and Wall Street melted down, something in our national job-creation machine went horribly wrong. The years between the brief 2001 recession and the 2008 financial collapse gave us solid growth in our gross national product, soaring corporate profits, and a low unemployment rate—but job creation lagged stubbornly behind, more so than in any economic expansion since World War II.
The Great Recession wiped out what amounts to every U.S. job created in the 21st century. But even if the recession had never happened, if the economy had simply treaded water, the United States would have entered 2010 with  15 million fewer jobs than economists say it should have. Somehow, rapid advancements in technology and the opening of new international markets paid dividends for American companies but not for American workers. An economy that long thrived on its dynamism, shedding jobs in outdated and less competitive industries and adding them in innovative new fields, fell stagnant in the swirls of the most globalized decade of commerce in human history.
Even now, no one really knows why.
This we do know: The U.S. economy created fewer and fewer jobs as the 2000s wore on. Turnover in the job market slowed as workers clung to the positions they held. Job destruction spiked in each of the decade’s two recessions. In contrast to the pattern of past recessions, when many employers recalled laid-off workers after growth picked up again, this time very few of those jobs came back.
These are the first clues—incomplete, disconcerting, and largely overlooked—to a critical mystery bedeviling a nation struggling to crawl out of near-double-digit unemployment. We know what should have transpired over the past 10 years: the completion of a circle of losses and gains from globalization. Emerging technology helped firms send jobs abroad or replace workers with machines; it should have also spawned domestic investment in innovative industries, companies, and jobs. That investment never happened—not nearly enough of it, in any case.
If we can’t figure out why, we may be doomed to a future that feels like a long jobless recovery, no matter how fast our economy grows. “It’s the trillion-dollar question,” says David E. Altig, senior vice president and research director for the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, where economists are beginning to explore the shifts that have clubbed American workers like a blackjack. “Something big has happened. I really don’t think we have a complete story yet.”
THE LOST DECADE
We certainly didn’t see it coming. At the turn of the millennium, the Bureau of Labor Statistics predicted that the U.S. economy would create nearly 22 million net jobs in the 2000s, only slightly fewer than the boom 1990s yielded. The economists predicted “good opportunities for jobs” and “an optimistic vision for the U.S. economy” through 2010.
Businesses would reap the gains of new trading markets, the projection said, and continue to invest in technologies to boost the productivity of their operations. High-tech jobs would abound, both for systems analysts with four years of college and for computer-support analysts with associate’s degrees. The manufacturing sector would stop a decades-long jobs slide, and technology would lead the turnaround. Hundreds of thousands of newly hired factory workers would make cutting-edge electrical and communications products, including semiconductors, satellites, cable-television equipment, and “cellular phones, modems, and facsimile and answering machines.”

“U.S. companies … are privatizing the gains of globalization.” —Howard Rosen, Peterson Institute

When the job market peaked in 2008 on the eve of the financial crisis, the manufacturing sector had already shed 5 million workers since the decade began, with more layoffs to come in the Great Recession. Politicians, particularly those in the Rust Belt, decried the losses. Hardly anyone, meanwhile, noticed the more damaging shortfall in the national jobs picture: Every major occupational group was running far behind the 2010 job-growth projections—often to the tune of 2 million jobs per group.
The forecasters said that the economy would create 22 million jobs over the next 10 years. At the decade’s economic peak, though, that number stood at only 7 million. Job growth in the 2000s was the lowest of any decade ever recorded by the federal government, stretching back to the 1940s. As a result, workers were extremely vulnerable to the tidal-wave recession that washed away all of the decade’s meager gains….
Infographic
The national population grew faster than the labor force; in 2008, about 63 percent of working-aged Americans held a job, down from 65 percent in 2008, reversing decades of improvement in the employment-population ratio. Real middle-class incomes fell from 2000 to 2007—from a median of $58,500 to $56,500 another first in U.S. record-keeping.
It’s easy to see today why such alarming numbers went so undetected. The national unemployment rate stayed persistently low, between 4 and 6 percent, until the financial crash. Voters tend to associate the jobless rate with the strength of the economy. But the rate was low not because the economy was adding a lot of jobs, but because fewer people were joining the workforce—specifically, fewer women.
Female workers poured into the labor pool during World War II and steadily throughout the decades that followed. In the late 1990s, that trend began to end with about three in five women in the workforce. The phenomenon was a mathematical blessing for the unemployment rate, which measures the percentage of eligible workers who want to find jobs but can’t. When women’s employment demand stopped increasing, the economy didn’t need to create as many new jobs to keep the jobless rate low.
Blinded by low unemployment, lawmakers and economists overlooked two crucial warning signs of the nation’s deteriorating economic health. One was the percentage of working-aged men—the traditional backbone of the U.S. labor force—who held a job. The other was the number of jobs being created each month. Throughout the 2000s, both numbers nose-dived.
…American companies had adopted a more cold-blooded attitude toward recessions, one that fit the new model of globalization and automation. Technology made it easier to lay off your 100 least-effective workers and ship their jobs to India, or to replace them with a software program that made your remaining workforce dramatically more productive.
Infographic
OFF SCRIPT
Here is how the evolving global economy is supposed to work: Mature economies with high living standards, such as the United States, ship some of their lower-skill jobs to developing countries where wages are lower. The costs of the outsourced goods and services go down, and the buying power of the developing countries goes up. American firms reap higher profits, which they invest in developing higher-value products that can’t be made elsewhere and sell them to increasingly flush consumers at home and abroad. Laid-off American workers find jobs in the innovative industries that result.
That story has almost entirely come true for corporate America, whose record profits spurred strong GDP growth throughout the 2000s, but not for workers. “A lot of people have been displaced due to technology and outsourcing,” says Mark Thoma, an economics professor at the University of Oregon who writes the popular Economist’s View blog. Those workers have often settled into worse jobs than the ones they lost, he adds, if they have found work at all. “That’s not really what’s supposed to happen.”
…Lawmakers have still barely touched the question—they are too focused on taxes, regulation, and government spending, policy areas that hardly any economist has suggested as explanations for our lost decade of job growth. Researchers are just starting to piece together the evidence, and no one can yet finger the culprit.
EDUCATION AND INVESTMENT
Perhaps, some economists theorize, the United States isn’t creating innovative jobs because its workforce isn’t up to the challenge. For probably the first time in history, our young adults are no better educated than their parents. Nearly all our international rivals, in developed and developing economies alike, continue to make generational leaps in college graduation. Brainpower is still our comparative advantage with the rest of the world, but the advantage is shrinking.
“It is the best educated and those with the highest skills that derive the most benefits from a globalizing economy,” says Jacob Funk Kirkegaard, a research fellow at the Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics who studies global labor markets. “As the U.S. workforce becomes relatively less skill-intensive vis-à-vis the entire world, the broader benefits of the global economy, both in terms of job creation (and national well-being), are going to decline.”
Mounting evidence suggests that educational stagnation has already socked American workers, particularly men. David Autor, the associate chairman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s economics department, makes the case in a series of recent papers that globalization has effectively “hollowed out” much of the country’s middle-skill jobs—assembly-line, call-center, and bookkeeping occupations, for example—and replaced them with a computer or a lower-paid foreign worker. Those types of jobs typically required technical training but not necessarily a college degree. As the jobs disappear, the workers who held them are generally pushed into lower-skill, lower-paid occupations such as retail or janitorial services, because they lack the education to compete for higher-wage, higher-skill jobs such as engineering.Autor is pioneering the research into what he calls the “polarization” of American jobs into low- and high-skill camps, but even he isn’t sure whether his findings explain our national jobs crisis or result from it. “I don’t have a simple answer,” he wrote in an e-mail recently. “I think the prosperity in the 2000s, even prior to the crisis, was quite ephemeral, bordering on illusory. I’m not sure that’s a result of polarization per se. But it is a mystery why the good times ended” at the turn of the century. The completed circle of losses and gains from globalization, he added, is “what is supposed to happen in the long run. But it requires investment, adjustment, adaptation.”
Mention of that requirement raises another leading theory for our job-creation woes: American companies aren’t investing enough in domestic innovation and the jobs it should create.
One baffling aspect of the current recovery is why U.S. companies continue to sideline nearly $2 trillion in cash instead of using it to buy equipment or hire workers. That hoarding turns out to be a piece of a decades-long investment puzzle. American corporate spending on nonresidential plant equipment—factories and equipment, not houses or shopping malls—has fallen to its lowest rate as a share of the economy in 40 years. Businesses aren’t investing in American workers, either. The major productivity gains of the fledgling recovery, and in the 2000s in general, came largely from companies producing more with fewer employees.
The simple truth is that American firms are either returning the spoils of globalization and technology to their shareholders, spending them on new projects abroad, or both. “Globalization isn’t the problem,” says Howard F. Rosen, a labor economist and visiting fellow at the Peterson Institute. “U.S. companies are investing in plants and equipment, just not in our borders.… They are privatizing the gains of globalization. That’s really it. They’re our gains!”
Policymakers, Rosen adds, must learn why that is happening. “What motivates investment?” he says. “How do we stimulate investment? I personally think we should use that question to judge every economic policy that we do.” This is not an academic exercise. The mystery of why 15 million jobs never materialized could haunt our economy for the foreseeable future.
MORE LIKE EUROPE?
…What if the Peterson Institute’s Kirkegaard is correct when he says, “There is a significant risk that we wander aimlessly into a situation where U.S. labor markets … end up becoming much more European than they were before,” less dynamic, less innovative, with persistently higher unemployment. “That’s not a description that I use lightly,” he says, “because that’s a very, very bad outcome.”
It’s worth noting, as we look back at the last decade’s job projections, that American workers aren’t making many answering machines or modems. They’re also not making cell phones—even the market-moving cell phones that forecasters couldn’t conceive of 10 years ago.
Infographic
A recent paper by researchers at the Asian Development Bank Institute concluded that the iPhone, one of the United States’ top innovations of the past decade, actually contributes nearly $2 billion to our trade deficit because it is almost entirely produced and assembled in Asia…. Maybe Apple’s greed is at fault. Maybe the government is to blame for not making the industrial climate more hospitable to Apple and other job producers. The harsh reality is that workers, companies, and lawmakers all need to readjust if we ever hope to rev up the job-creation machine again.
SOME POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
Some free-market economists say that we could encourage more domestic investment by cutting corporate tax rates, although it’s fair to note that the jobs breakdown of the 2000s coincided with hefty tax cuts under President Bush. Still, liberal and free-market analysts alike have argued for a sweeping reform of America’s corporate tax code—one that would reduce rates while eliminating many deductions and provisions that give companies incentives to spend their global profits outside the United States. More narrowly, groups such as the Association for Financial Professionals have urged Congress to lower America’s tax rates on repatriated income, to levels closer to international competitors.Infographic
Some liberal economists say we should consider more direct industrial policy to force investment in innovative fields such as clean energy, to match China, Germany, and other competitors, or we should further curb foreign trade until the international playing field is more level in areas such as currency. Thoma, of the University of Oregon, says he has been lately rethinking whether the situation demands more pronounced government income redistribution to help those whom globalization has hurt the most.
Nearly all the economists interviewed for this article called education a key piece of any solution, and some were alarmed by the potential fallout from state and local budget shortfalls that could lead to cuts in primary, secondary, and higher education. As middle-skill jobs disappear in the United States, some experts recommend new policies to push more students into college or vocational school in order to swell the future ranks of highly skilled workers. Implementation could include more federal college aid or even a requirement that students complete a year of higher education after high school.
Others say that the government should revamp its approach to unemployment benefits, linking payments to job retraining in an effort to shift workers from disappearing fields….
It may be that Washington must take bolder steps to encourage higher-risk, higher-reward investments by companies flinching at the violent churn of the global economy…. Policymakers just now seem to be tuning in to the mystery of our changing situation. Before we can fix our jobs machine, we must figure out what broke it. As several economists noted, anyone who says they’ve solved the problem is lying.
This article appeared in the Saturday, January 22, 2011 edition of National Journal.

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Gallup: Unemployment Increases to 10.1%

Of late, there are several pieces of dismal news on the economy about which I felt in a quandary: Do I post them here and risk being alarmist, or should I sit on them until I’m sure?
Now I’ve decided to post those news because they are confirmed by this morning’s jobless numbers of 9.6%: “The U.S. economy unexpectedly shed jobs in September for a fourth straight month as government payrolls fell and private hiring was less than expected.”
According to Gallup, however, even those figures understate what’s really going on.
Unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, increased to 10.1% in September — up sharply from 9.3% in August and 8.9% in July. Much of this increase came during the second half of the month — the unemployment rate was 9.4% in mid-September — and therefore is unlikely to be picked up in the government’s unemployment report on Friday.
Gallup's U.S. Unemployment Rate, 30-Day Averages, January-September 2010
Certain groups continue to fare worse than the national average. For example, 15.8% of Americans aged 18 to 29 and 13.9% of those with no college education were unemployed in September.
America’s underemployment (those who are employed part-time but want a full-time job) also increased to 18.8% in September from 18.6% in August and 18.4% in July.
Gallup concludes that “the sharp increase in the unemployment rate during late September does not bode well for the economy during the fourth quarter, or for holiday sales. In this regard, it is essential that the Federal Reserve and other policymakers not be misled by Friday’s jobs numbers. The jobs picture could be deteriorating more rapidly than the government’s job release suggests.”
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

57% of Americans Distrust the Media

Only 57%? LOL
Here’s another reason for our distrust:
C-Span was so embarrassed by the anemic turnout for Saturday’s 10-2 counter-rally by the Left that they used a crowd shot from the Right’s 8-24 “Restore Honor” rally to make the 10-2 CommieCon look more populous!
~Eowyn

Distrust In US Media Hits Record High, As CNBC…Viewership Drops To Multi-Year Low
Tyler Durden –  Zero Hedge – Sept 30, 2010
In today’s “less than surprising data point” category, the clear winner is Gallup’s analysis of people’s ever increasing distrust in the mass media. From 46% in 1998, the percentage of people who indicate they have “not very much/none at all” trust in mass media has grown to a stunning 57% currently. This is an all time record, as the general public perception toward the MSM has flipped over the past decade. Is it becoming increasingly more difficult to lie to the average American? In this time of unprecedented economic upheaval, where the political regime depends on just how far any given administration’s lies can penetrate amongst the broader population, this may well become the most critical factor in determining policy for the future. And with ever increasing alternatives of non-traditional media, could the legacy ad-supported media model, which by definition is one which espouses the status quo, be doomed precisely by the slow but steady education of the average American, who intuitively realizes that nearly every “fact” appearing in the media, especially that supported by any given political party, is a lie?
From Gallup’s study on media distrust:

For the fourth straight year, the majority of Americans say they have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. The 57% who now say this is a record high by one percentage point.
Distrust In US Media Hits Record High, As CNBC (And Especially Mad Money) Viewership Drops To Multi Year Low Media%201 0

The 43% of Americans who, in Gallup’s annual Governance poll, conducted Sept. 13-16, 2010, express a great deal or fair amount of trust ties the record low, and is far worse than three prior Gallup readings on this measure from the 1970s.
Trust in the media is now slightly higher than the record-low trust in the legislative branch but lower than trust in the executive and judicial branches of government, even though trust in all three branches is down sharply this year. These findings also further confirm a separate Gallup poll that found little confidence in newspapers and television specifically.

Bottom Line
Gallup’s annual update on trust in the mass media finds Americans’ views entrenched — with a record-high 57% expressing little to no trust in the media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly, and 63% perceiving bias in one direction or the other. At the same time, the steady nature of these views stands in contrast to Americans’ views of the three branches of government, which are all down sharply this year. Thus, in an environment in which few institutions elicit high levels of trust, it appears the media are neither gaining nor losing significant ground — but are just managing to hold steady.
Which brings us to CNBC. If the above study is indeed correct, one would correctly guess that the viewership of the station once known for fair and objective analysis and breaking news reporting, and has now devolved to nothing more than the butt of jokes on financial media propaganda, should have plunged, even as the market remains as volatile as ever, with the VIX currently trading at levels not seen since the March highs. As the chart below shows, using data compiled from Nielsen, focusing on the ad revenue-critical target demo, this is in fact the case.
Distrust In US Media Hits Record High, As CNBC (And Especially Mad Money) Viewership Drops To Multi Year Low CNBC%20viewership 0
For sampling purposes we have picked three key segments: the Business Day section, Closing Bell, and, of course, Mad Money. As is self-evident, since the market crash, broad CNBC viewership has plunged by more than half, while shows like that anchored by Jim Cramer, whose only purpose is to get as many naive, “dumb money” viewers invested in the market at any given moment to facilitate the offloading of stock by hedge funds and other asset managers, have lost over two thirds of their historical viewership. Of course another explanation is that with the ever declining interest in the broader public in all matters financial, CNBC is meterly a byproduct of an audience that is increasingly aware it is being taken for the proverbial ride, and just refuses to “tune in.” And since it is now CNBC’s sworn role to protect the status quo and to lie daily that none of the all too obviously horrendous things in the economy are taking place, the cable station’s very survival is now in question. It appears the only hope the administration, and its propaganda tentacles such as NBC Universal/CNBC have of regaining viewership, is the ceaseless dumbing down of America, or the return of credibility of the Mainstream Media itself. Alas, as the Gallup data has demonstrated, this is not only happening, but precisely the inverse is transpiring.

Please follow and like us:
0