Really Hairy? So do you think this “theory” will be accurate with regard to this election? Besides the fact that you offered a truism at the beginning, your single citations does not necessarily support your theory. It looked at all presidential elections, not just non-incumbent elections. So it includes data from 1980, 1984, 1992 and 1996 (assuming they went back that far and no further) which are not comparable to today.
And let’s not even mention the fact that there isn’t even an incumbent VP running as in 1988 and 2000. Also the media would love for us to believe dissatisfaction with Bush is due completely to his conservative policies rather than split between those who think he is too conservative and those, like myself, who think he hasn’t been conservative enough. All of which brings us full circle to Rob’s original point that McCain isn’t Bush although the media and other democrats will try to portray him as such.
kbiel - 01:05pm on 05/13/2008
Kbiel,
So do you think this “theory” will be accurate with regard to this election?
What I think about the theory is moot. I will repeat from above: ”And if newspapers rely on it to decide the newsworthiness of their stories, they are, at the very least, acting reasonably.”
It is a credible, peer reviewed theory that has existed in political science for decades. It isn’t limited only to cases where the incumbent VP is running—so it is applicable to this election. Thus the media is reasonable to consider Bush’s popularity a newsworthy subject in the matter of McCain’s chances.
Rob attacked the newsworthiness of the report, I respond that given what we know about the effect of an incumbent’s popularity on a same-party candidate’s chances, it is a reasonably newsworthy report.
Was that easy logic for you to follow? I can add “ifs” and “thens” if you want.
Additionally, your repeated use of the word “truism” keeps reminding me of that scene in The Princess Bride where Montoya says to Vizini, “You keep using this word… are you sure it means what you think it means?”
Hairy Polemic - 02:05pm on 05/13/2008
...it is a reasonably newsworthy report.
Nope, it’s just more self-serving propaganda from an MSM that wants a Dem elected, and will use any excuse, including agendized polls, to sell their partisan bullshit.
Really Hairy? So do you think this “theory” will be accurate with regard to this election? Besides the fact that you offered a truism at the beginning, your single citations does not necessarily support your theory. It looked at all presidential elections, not just non-incumbent elections. So it includes data from 1980, 1984, 1992 and 1996 (assuming they went back that far and no further) which are not comparable to today.
And let’s not even mention the fact that there isn’t even an incumbent VP running as in 1988 and 2000. Also the media would love for us to believe dissatisfaction with Bush is due completely to his conservative policies rather than split between those who think he is too conservative and those, like myself, who think he hasn’t been conservative enough. All of which brings us full circle to Rob’s original point that McCain isn’t Bush although the media and other democrats will try to portray him as such.
Kbiel,
What I think about the theory is moot. I will repeat from above: ”And if newspapers rely on it to decide the newsworthiness of their stories, they are, at the very least, acting reasonably.”
It is a credible, peer reviewed theory that has existed in political science for decades. It isn’t limited only to cases where the incumbent VP is running—so it is applicable to this election. Thus the media is reasonable to consider Bush’s popularity a newsworthy subject in the matter of McCain’s chances.
Rob attacked the newsworthiness of the report, I respond that given what we know about the effect of an incumbent’s popularity on a same-party candidate’s chances, it is a reasonably newsworthy report.
Was that easy logic for you to follow? I can add “ifs” and “thens” if you want.
Additionally, your repeated use of the word “truism” keeps reminding me of that scene in The Princess Bride where Montoya says to Vizini, “You keep using this word… are you sure it means what you think it means?”
Nope, it’s just more self-serving propaganda from an MSM that wants a Dem elected, and will use any excuse, including agendized polls, to sell their partisan bullshit.