Bush a divider not a uniter on economy too

[banyon]

Red-State-Colored Glasses

In yet another sign of political polarization, Democrats and Republicans can’t even agree on how well the economy is doing. Throughout the 1990s, there was little partisan disagreement on the topic: even during politically fraught periods like the Republican Revolution of 1994 and the impeachment of Bill Clinton, voters on both sides of the political divide held roughly similar views about the health of the American economy. Since George W. Bush’s election in 2000, though, Democrats’ and Republicans’ perceptions of economic matters have steadily diverged, to the point where in a recent Pew poll, 56 percent of Republican respondents rated the state of the economy as either “excellent” or “good,” whereas only 28 percent of independents and 23 percent of Democrats judged that it was doing well. This divide holds true regardless of income: poor, middle-class, and well-off GOP voters were all far more likely than their Democratic and independent counterparts to say that the economy was in “excellent” or “good” shape.

Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200605/primary-sources)

source (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=268):—“Economy Now Seen Through Partisan Prism,” Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
http://www.theatlantic.com/images/issues/200605/primarysourceschart1.gif

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Considering that Republicans manage the economy to get the boost out of the top 1% of wage earners at the expense of all the rest, and that that particular strategy has worked in this administration (much to the chagrin of everyone else's pocketbook and the health of the nation overall) this comes as no surprise.

[SBK]

Considering that Republicans manage the economy to get the boost out of the top 1% of wage earners at the expense of all the rest, and that that particular strategy has worked in this administration (much to the chagrin of everyone else's pocketbook and the health of the nation overall) this comes as no surprise.

Before Bush's term is up you'll see the Dow Jones hit an all time high. How does that only benefit the upper 1%?

[jAZ]

If (as has often been suggested) you consider the independents as the benchmark for reasonable/moderate (whatever term you prefer) public opinion, then it's pretty easy to see which party is more out of the mainstream.

[Frankie]

Bush a divider not a uniter on economy too
But he is "a decider." :p

[banyon]

Considering that Republicans manage the economy to get the boost out of the top 1% of wage earners at the expense of all the rest, and that that particular strategy has worked in this administration (much to the chagrin of everyone else's pocketbook and the health of the nation overall) this comes as no surprise.

But this poll goes all the way back to Bush I. The repubs weren't satified then with the economy.

I think it goes further than that. I think it's a fundamental change in the way media relays economic (or for that matter, all) information.

[alnorth]

People, including the moderates and most from both parties, are woefully ignorant about the economy. The political junkies will set their opinion based on whether their preferred party was recently in power, and everyone else will buy whatever the media sells them. Incidentally, stories about a bad economy sell more newspapers than good stories.

[banyon]

People, including the moderates and most from both parties, are woefully ignorant about the economy. The political junkies will set their opinion based on whether their preferred party was recently in power, and everyone else will buy whatever the media sells them.

I don't think that you have identified the z variable here. It's not as if people weren't woefully ignorant about the economy in 1992.

Incidentally, stories about a bad economy sell more newspapers than good stories.

Stories about the economy sell papers?