During 1992, there was a recession which lasted until 1993. It was short but significant. President George HW Bush was also aloof and not proactive in working to improve the economy. Clinton capitalized on this and won by showing his ability to empathize with voters.
During 1992, there was a recession which lasted until 1993. It was short but significant. President George HW Bush was also aloof and not proactive in working to improve the economy. Clinton capitalized on this and won by showing his ability to empathize with voters.
By contrast:
1) We had a pandemic-induced downturn, which I'd call a short depression (very similar to what happened during the Spanish Flu) that had a quick recovery and months of healthy jobs being added for years.
2) People are still very much price sensitive these days. If the argument is that voters are worse off than they were four years ago, it's probably because of finances, ability to save and in direct correlation with inflation.
3) A sitting president resigning for the VP to run her own campaign months ahead of the election is historic. Kamala Harris still has capital in a way Biden didn't have.
Gallup is also not Professor Allan Lichtman, who has predicted Kamala Harris will win based on his keys methodology that digs more into what a polling firm like Gallup does. So Gallup's polling essentially predicted a Clinton win in 1992? Lichtman predicted a win for Clinton in 1992 as well.
How is it subjective? I'd say Lichtman has a good gauge at things from multiple variables and doesn't exactly use subjective methodology with his keys. If that was the case, he'd be biased towards Democrats all the time.
If there are facts that you argue he's wrong at, then share them.
From my standpoint, not as subjective as you think. Lichtman looks at multiple variables affecting the presidential race.
I've come to respect his analysis because frankly, polling firms don't look at multiple variables. They only focus on polling data methodology, which lends only insight as it relates to voter sentiment. Which can help getting an understanding on what is going on in the minds of voters.
However, polls change. The macroeconomic environment on the other hand isn't something polls always have the best ability to analyze, unless there are specific questions relating to that topic.
FYI, for those reading this, I re-edited my comment for clarity. I'm not trying to be biased towards Lichtman and his keys methodology.
However, Lichtman is one of the few professors and analysts out there who actually looks at multiple variables affecting the political environment as it relates to the presidential race and who could possibly win. If there are flaws, fine. As it relates to the presidential race the one thing Lichtman may not be the best at doing is predicting exact turnout.
Context is important here:
During 1992, there was a recession which lasted until 1993. It was short but significant. President George HW Bush was also aloof and not proactive in working to improve the economy. Clinton capitalized on this and won by showing his ability to empathize with voters.
By contrast:
1) We had a pandemic-induced downturn, which I'd call a short depression (very similar to what happened during the Spanish Flu) that had a quick recovery and months of healthy jobs being added for years.
2) People are still very much price sensitive these days. If the argument is that voters are worse off than they were four years ago, it's probably because of finances, ability to save and in direct correlation with inflation.
3) A sitting president resigning for the VP to run her own campaign months ahead of the election is historic. Kamala Harris still has capital in a way Biden didn't have.
Gallup is also not Professor Allan Lichtman, who has predicted Kamala Harris will win based on his keys methodology that digs more into what a polling firm like Gallup does. So Gallup's polling essentially predicted a Clinton win in 1992? Lichtman predicted a win for Clinton in 1992 as well.
I don't respect Lichtman. I think his methodology is subjective and changes a lot. I want to believe this year, but I just don't.
How is it subjective? I'd say Lichtman has a good gauge at things from multiple variables and doesn't exactly use subjective methodology with his keys. If that was the case, he'd be biased towards Democrats all the time.
If there are facts that you argue he's wrong at, then share them.
Tipped, but isn't his keys method very subjective?
From my standpoint, not as subjective as you think. Lichtman looks at multiple variables affecting the presidential race.
I've come to respect his analysis because frankly, polling firms don't look at multiple variables. They only focus on polling data methodology, which lends only insight as it relates to voter sentiment. Which can help getting an understanding on what is going on in the minds of voters.
However, polls change. The macroeconomic environment on the other hand isn't something polls always have the best ability to analyze, unless there are specific questions relating to that topic.
FYI, for those reading this, I re-edited my comment for clarity. I'm not trying to be biased towards Lichtman and his keys methodology.
However, Lichtman is one of the few professors and analysts out there who actually looks at multiple variables affecting the political environment as it relates to the presidential race and who could possibly win. If there are flaws, fine. As it relates to the presidential race the one thing Lichtman may not be the best at doing is predicting exact turnout.