Is the sky blue? Depends on what Donald Trump says.

[Virgil Showlion]

An interesting article about research into a phenomenon we've long observed on YMAM (source, bold by me):

At a time of already deep fissures among American voters on political, cultural and economic issues, [US Pres. Donald] Trump further polarizes the public as soon as he wades into the debate, according to the results of a Reuters/Ipsos poll. The poll suggests any effort to reach a consensus on key policy issues could be complicated simply by Trump’s involvement.

The survey from Feb. 1 to March 15 of nearly 14,000 people asked respondents to consider a series of statements Trump has made on taxes, crime and the news media, among other issues. In many cases, the data showed that people will orient their opinions according to what they think of Trump.

Republicans, for example, were more likely to criticize American exceptionalism – the notion that the United States holds a unique place in history – when told that Trump once said it was insulting to other countries. They were more likely to agree that the country should install more nuclear weapons, and they were more supportive of government spending for infrastructure, when they knew that Trump felt the same way.

Democrats moved in the opposite direction. They were less supportive of infrastructure spending, less critical of the judiciary and less likely to agree that urban crime was on the rise when they knew that those concerns were shared by Trump.

For a graphic on the poll results, see tmsnrt.rs/2o5nbfF

“I’m basically in disagreement with everything he says,” said Howard House, 58, a Democrat from Jacksonville, Florida, who took the poll. “I’ve almost closed my mind to the guy.”

Trump is not the first president to polarize the public. A 1995 poll by the Washington Post found that Democrats appeared to favor legislative action when they thought it was then-President Bill Clinton’s idea, and a 2013 survey by Hart Research Associates showed that both positive and negative attitudes about the 2010 Affordable Care Act intensified when called by its other name, Obamacare.

A classic case of the tail wagging the dog.

It appears our little corner of paradise isn't the only place where Pres. Trump's opinion on the colour of the sky automatically determines what the sky's colour surely is (or surely isn't) for three quarters of respondents.

Let us all revel in the normalcy of our irrationality!

ETA: The comparison feature in the tmsnrt.rs/2o5nbfF link is cool. Highly recommended.

[Virgil Showlion]

I'm surprised the survey opinions don't swing more than they do. There are a few huge swings, but most are in the 10-20% range.

I suspect that if they polled from message boards like ours, where years of attrition have taken their toll and only the die-hard wonks remain, we'd see far more drastic swings. The effect we're seeing is muted by all those reasonable, consistent people being thrown into the sample with us.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Hardly surprising.

[OldCoyote]

Apr 6, 2017 12:40:06 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I'm surprised the survey opinions don't swing more than they do. There are a few huge swings, but most are in the 10-20% range.

I suspect that if they polled from message boards like ours, where years of attrition have taken their toll and only the die-hard wonks remain, we'd see far more drastic swings. The effect we're seeing is muted by all those reasonable, consistent people being thrown into the sample with us.

Yes, there was a dozen or so of these posting on this board,,,, Thank god I am not one of them!

I really do miss many of those that we had posting on the financial section of this message board!

[OldCoyote]

I think Trump is going to do a lot of good things, I just wish he could keep his mouth shut a lot of time!

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Apr 7, 2017 6:41:18 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

I think Trump is going to do a lot of good things, I just wish he could keep his mouth shut a lot of time!

I think the biggest issue with politics is that politicians need to be concerned about the next election, almost as soon as they are elected, and therefore that can make it more difficult to do things that are probably necessary but wildly unpopular (i.e. cutting our budget and making decisions on which programs to cut that will undoubtedly cause outrage).  Sometimes I wonder if congressmen and women, as well as Senators and the President were just limited to one term in each area, if we'd get more things done instead of constantly kicking the can down the road until there are no other options.  People might still be worried about the next election (i.e. a congress person wanting to get elected into the Senate and some Senators wanting to be elected as President), but for the most part we might get some different outcomes since most people wouldn't be beholden to political parties (i.e. fall in line or we will run somebody against you in the next primary).  Maybe increase Congress limits to 3 or 4 year terms, keep Senate at 6, and President at 4.  There are advantages to having new people coming in with new ideas as well.