U.S.A. mood affiliation fact of the day

Democrats’ trust in government data has shrunk over time; Republicans’ trust has grown. Today, with their party in unified control of government, Republicans are slightly more likely than Democrats to believe official government economic stats; 58 percent of Republicans completely or somewhat trust these numbers, compared with 52 percent of Democrats.

That is from Catherine Rampell.

Comments

This is why politics makes people stupid.

+1

I wouldn't say "why," but it's certainly evidence for the fact

"Politics are essentially deceit and coercion." (Orwell). "Politics are money, TV and bull shit." (Bill O'Reilly)

They particularly don't trust facts and statistics that run contrary to their agendas and power grabbing.

Welp, it is the day to decide if silence is complicity. Thread:

https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/959390721815076870

John McCain is not complicit.

https://twitter.com/SenJohnMcCain/status/959471227038584834

Im a bit suspicious. The big change comes from a different poll than the other two:

"In a January survey, YouGov asked Americans whether they trust or distrust the data about the economy that is reported by the federal government. This question has previously been asked by Marketplace/Edison Research."

Are we sure this is a change in attitude and not a change in methodology?

Several of Trump's appointees to run agencies have stopped issuing data, or require that the data be first approved by the Trump appointee before being published. Do the the Trump appointees give one the feeling of confidence in the accuracy of what's coming out of government agencies? I might be giving Democrats more credit than they deserve, but anybody who actually reads a newspaper is aware that morale among the employees in government agencies has collapsed.

+1

Yeah. I believe NBER has been left alone, but when the general public reads of "guidelines" for the publication of scientific research, and removal of data, they may confuse the systems and domains.

Trump administration forbids CDC officials from using 7 words and phrases

Report: Trump admin scrubbed mentions of climate change from websites

I am highly confident that NBER is reporting exactly the numbers they say they are (and productive discussion is on what they mean), but NBR isn't the whole story.

But certainly blaming the voter, the citizen, in this situation is harsh and incomplete.

NBER is outside the President's reach. Or Congress'. It's a private public institution.

Census, BEA, BLS, are Federal agencies staffed by government employees who swear/affirm to defend the Constitution which means they follow the Supreme Law of the Land.

The regulations created by administrative procedure law to implement law are fixed and objective rule of law.

Trump totally ignores the data reported by these agencies because he wants his own facts too prove he's the greatest ever.

Thank you for the corrected list. I pulled NBER from the air, and should have checked my agencies.

The first link is false

https://www.snopes.com/2017/12/15/trump-administration-bans-cdc-officials-using-certain-words/

Everybody agrees that the words were used, there is just CYA or clarification, depending on your point of view, on how they were used:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/11/health/cdc-word-ban-hhs-document/index.html

But regardless, my main point was that these stories do shape public perception of government research and data, and the extent that it might be shaped from the top.

Your third link is just SOP for any organization. I could never speak officially for my employers, they always had a communications department for that.

These scientists work for us, our tax dollars. The Obama rule seems sensible use of that resource. It was sure, talk to the press but on background and without name or departmental endorsement.

The new rule, don't talk to anyone, may be normal for a profit making company, responsible to shareholders, but that is a bit different IMO.

These scientists work for us and should feel free to share what they learn, in the public domain.

"Be an anonymous source" is inherently biased in favor of social advocates pushing an agenda and people with media connections.

When you are on background with a reporter that isn't really anonymity.

But sure, maybe that is more reason to make things more explicitly in the public domain.

Why shouldn't publicly funded science be open science?

Those scientists are government employees sucking at the government teat and only get to use government resources to publish their views if their direct superiors permit it. If the spoiled, sanctimonious scientists don't like it they can get another job somewhere where they have greater latitude to run their mouths. If the people don't like it they can elected new people to the legislative and executive branches willing to change matters.

I think that's pretty screwy, Anon7. And so do most people, according to this poll:

Overall, a solid majority of adults in the U.S. say government investment in both basic science research and in engineering and technology “pay off in the long run” (71% and 72%, respectively). A minority says government investments in either area are not worth it.

http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/01/chapter-3-support-for-government-funding/

Be aware of where you stand, I guess.

Straw man. People's perceptions of the overall usefulness of the spending is entirely separate from whether government scientists should be able to ignore their political superiors and spout off as they please.

"ignore their political superiors and spout off as they please"

The scientific method is rather founded on free inquiry, free discussion, and the freedom to decide ones beliefs.

If the government does science (of the non-defense non-classified sort) it will be both more efficient and free from secret agenda when done publicly. With full public scrutiny.

Speaking of the scientific method, only in Francis Bacon's utopia of the New Atlantis do scientists get to operate without significant political restraints. Our government scientists--who have their own private agendas despite your idealization of them--can run their mouths as private citizens or find jobs elsewhere. Either way they will still do much better than they deserve.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/02/dol-hid-study-showing-tips-rule-could-cost-workers-billions.html

Proposed rule. The administrative procedure act is unlikely to be followed by Trump appointees resulting it any such rule being invalidated by a 9th district court and upheld by the 9th circuit appeals court as in violation of law in short order.

That is the nature of the deep state: it forces the administration follow the law which prevents political action in rule making.

>morale among the (Democrat) employees in government agencies has collapsed.

Fixed it for you!

I though everyone sucking on the teat of a government job was a filthy Democrat? They're probably unionized too.

And their unions donate 95% to Democrats. The more you know.

You really have to ask whose reporting, official sources, or Trump and his appointee's quotations.

I doubt if morale is low at ICE, and the Obama administration was guilty of playing with the numbers on deportations. Or how about those inflated Obamacare enrollment numbers? So the public does have reason to be skeptical, and their partisan lens will affect their views.

Names? Agencies? Specifics?

". . . that morale among the employees in government agencies has collapsed." The bloated bureaucrat rank-and-file may be afraid of abandoning thousands of bull shit regulations, lays-offs, pay cuts. The criminal higher-ups (notably IRS, DoJ, FBI) that feloniously meddled in the 2016 election might be worried dropping soap in prison showers.

“During the Sept. 28, 2015, media event, Trump described an unemployment rate in the range of 5 percent as "such a phony number."“

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/30/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-unemployment-rate-may-be-42-perc/

Amazing how the accuracy of the BLS reports improved so quickly.

In any case, resident Trump has seven more years to fix it.

What I find interesting in the poll results is that when the Democrats were in power, the percentage of Republicans who mistrusted government data was around 60%. Now, with Republicans in power, the percentage of Democrats who mistrust government data is hovering around 30%. So, obviously, each party is equally prone to "mood affiliation." :)

Mood affiliation depends on priors. The left is the left because of its preference for government.

The left is the left because of its preference for government.

You're leaving out defense hawks and social conservatives in your theory. The right has its big government preferences as well.

Democrats are liars who abuse public trust. We know it and most of them know it.

Republicans know nothing Trump says is fact and thus every statement he makes is never considered Federal government data? Likewise for everyone of his appointees.

Democrats consider the President's statements about the economy to be official Federal government economic data?

Objective observers will trust Federal government economic data because it's produced by the deep state of Federal workers who swore to defend the Supreme Law of the Land which requires they objectively collect , process, and report economic data, and believe the deep state has kept itself intact defending the Coonstitution.

"Today, with their party in unified control of government, Republicans are slightly more likely than Democrats to believe official government economic stats; 58 percent of Republicans completely or somewhat trust these numbers, compared with 52 percent of Democrats."

Two-fifties of Republicans completly distrust official government economic stats?

BTW, this is a very odd day to report a shift in trust of government as mood affiliation.

Yesterday FBI Director Wray went public with his objections, cutting against the wishes of a president who appears to prize personal loyalty above all.

That's Gen. Michael Hayden talking, but perhaps some of you will wish to write him off, as a victim of "politics" or "mood affiliation."

On this, I agree with you. We're going from an administration that promoted partisanship in it's departments to one which is sanitizing them. These are real changes being made.

"a president who appears to prize personal loyalty above all" doesn't seem an improvement to me .. in fact, it seems quite un-American.

Taking the musings of a blogger as quotable fact is no way to go through life, son.

lol, you didn't have to even follow the link.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hayden_(general)

"I'm the Preident's wingman"

Sure seems necessary to prize loyalty. Look at the news recently? FBI agents colluding to help Hillary? Fake dossier paid for by Hillary campaign used as excuse to spy on Candidate Trump? Do you think that's American?

Geez TMC. Most people reading this will have some understanding of the FISA process.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court

I cannot imagine how Anonymous thinks that supports him at all.

Come on Careless, TMC goes full "Fake dossier paid for by Hillary campaign used as excuse to spy on Candidate Trump"

That is not the way FISA court works. You must present to a judge a case that espionage is in play.

Or do you, mood affiliation, approve of espionage sometimes?

So, guy who can't pick a name, how stupid do you feel today, since it turned out that's exactly how it worked?

Huh?

My answer regardless:

https://twitter.com/Comey/status/959635493968318464

This too,

https://twitter.com/DavidAFrench/status/959482554809282560

And finally,

https://twitter.com/Alyssa_Milano/status/959627967654608896

Gen. Hayden doesn't like public disclosure of intelligence information period (i.e. the public does not have "the right to know") and supported the full range of intelligence gathering methods used under President Bush. Hayden is correct and we'll see if you trot him out again when the shoe is on the other foot.

Isn't the point that I didn't have to trot him out during the Bush or Obama administrations?

Many of us had civil liberties concerns under Bush and Obama, but we were concerned then with the reach of the law. Now we are worried that "personal loyalty" is supposed to supersede that.

We'll see if Democrats in Congress (or another Democratic president) can resist the temptation to politicize intelligence in a similar manner in order to play what Hayden regards as silly partisan games.

It doesn't seem odd to me that people would have greater trust in their political allies than their adversaries.

I was just thinking about this on my drive home last night.
As a libertarian, I've been reading for years other libertarians who complain how hypocritical the Republicans are with respect to government spending, talking about small government and balanced budgets when out of office , but then busting the budget and increasing spending when in office. So I was not at all surprised by congress's support for Trump's infrastructure spending plans, or by the failure to cut spending in line with the tax cut.

When I am somewhat surprised by however, is how muted other libertarians have become on spending. One can't exactly complain about politicians lack of principles when the voters don't have any either.

We can't win on spending but we can win on equality as opposed to legalized racism and sexism offered by the left.

You're wrong on both propositions. Nobody cares about affirmative action except a handful of cranks. It's effect on actual employment is trivial. And spending matters way more than whether a marginal black person/woman gets admitted to Harvard over a marginal white man.

+1

" Nobody cares about affirmative action except a handful of cranks. It’s effect on actual employment is trivial. And spending matters way more than whether a marginal black person/woman gets admitted to Harvard over a marginal white man."

The implication of your statement is that eliminating affirmative action should not have much in the way of negative consequences.

You're correct. It's effect is mostly symbolic. Almost nobody practices affirmative action except college admissions boards.

"Almost nobody practices affirmative action except college admissions boards."

That's not true. Large corporations absolutely bias new hiring for in favor of women and minorities. Not grossly, but enough to impact the numbers.

I suspect corporations only do it just enough to avoid an EEOC lawsuit. An even more trivial effect than the effects on college admissions at best. The people who harp on this stuff appear to have something more invested in this than a feeling that they themselves are personally victimized by affirmative action.

Immigration is all that matters for libertarians. The only way you get more libertarians is to make them via sexual reproduction or import them from countries like Norway.

Nobody cares about affirmative action except a handful of cranks. I

I'm amused to be called a crank by an admirer of Rachel Dolezal.

Rachel Dolezal is a much more interesting person than you are.

It's odd that a handful of "cranks" insist (some violently) on having affirmative action programs that are controversial enough to provoke other "cranks" who manage to persuade SCOTUS to take up the issue on numerous occasions.

“Nobody cares about affirmative action except a handful of cranks. ”

This is a bizarre comment. Just off the top of my head I know that Caltech - which bases admissions on merit - has an Asian student population that’s almost half of the total, while Harvard’s Asian population is just 20%.

How many Asian kids were deprived of their dream despite doing the work that was required, and apply that across all schools and companies in the country, every year.

Hardly a handful of cranks.

California has a lot more Asians than the east coast. It is completely unsurprising that elite schools on the West Coast would have way more asians then the East Coast.

And let's remember that affirmative actions affects people on the margin. It's the difference between a black kid *almost* getting into CalTech and an Asian kid almost *not* getting admitted and the reverse. Black kids on the margin get a few more admissions, and Asians/whites on the margin get a few less. BFD.

Spending is never going down. The choice you have is runaway deficits from welfare payments to Third World immigrants (and our own retirees of course) or runaway deficits plus a few nice infrastructure projects and maybe money in your own pocket. We're only left with dystopian choices assuming mass deportation of illegal aliens isn't coming.

Yes, I'm familiar with the common human ability to rationalize post facto stuff that their own side does.
That's my entire point.

Democrats in power: Fuck you cut spending.
Republicans in power: Fuck it, let's just build a wall, whatever.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/03/americans-give-economy-highest-marks-since-financial-crisis/

First, these polls are a little BS. They show more about the need to educate the public then anything else. I would expect there to be a partisan shift, but there is one party's constituents that constantly shift more. There is one group that seems to have a significant blind spot.

Actually the graph shows that the parties net shift tends to be very similar:

Positive view of American economy:
Democrats 2008 11%
Republican 2009 10%

Democrats 2017 60%
Republican 2017 61%

Over an 8-9 year period, both sides had very similar shifts.

However, during the Bush years there was a large positive delta for Republicans over Democrats. During the Obama years there was a large positive delta for Democrats over Republicans.

I'm going to pull out my crystal ball and predict that:
During the trump years there will be a large positive delta for Republicans over Democrats.

So, your link seems to confirm the point.

The Atlanta Fed is known for occasionally wild forecasts but if their prediction today of 5.4% growth this quarter is true, Democrats are going to have a hard time being cynical.

I suspect this has something to do with the Trump administration’s censorship of scientific data, particularly related to climate change.

Comments for this post are closed