18 Comments Add your own

• 1. Menlo Bob  |  May 1st, 2008 at 12:00 pm

  Define heed. We do have a public opinion poll–it’s called the election.

• 2. Mike Carroll  |  May 1st, 2008 at 12:08 pm

  Its been done and found wanting. See Clinton, William Jefferson, administration of.

• 3. Pat Cunningham  |  May 1st, 2008 at 12:13 pm

  Bob: We’re talking about between elections, as the survey to which I linked makes clear. As for “heed,” allow me to quote the dictionary: “to give consideration or attention to.”

  Mike: What are you talking about? Clinton’s administration was successful by most measures and was more popular than Reagan’s. And what makes you think Clinton paid more heed to polls than other presidents have? Every administration in the past 40 years or so has had its own polling operation. Politicians are fond of saying they don’t “govern by polls,” but that’s utter nonsense. They read polls far more closely than the rest of us do. And besides, as the survey to which I linked indicates, people WANT the pols to heed the polls.

• 4. Pat Cunningham  |  May 1st, 2008 at 12:26 pm

  A few other thoughts on politicians and polls: The pols sometimes are greatly surprised by polls. The Terri Schiavo case is a classic example. The Washington crowd, especially the conservatives, were sure that they would endear themselves to the masses by meddling in the Schiavo matter. They were wrong. Instead, most Americans were appalled at the government’s meddling in the case, as indicated by polls at the time. Even most self-proclaimed conservatives and a plurality of evangelicals looked askance at the political posturing. Hence, most of the politicians who had sought to exploit Schiavo’s misfortune for their own gain never again uttered her name in public. These pols may not have changed their minds about the Schiavo case, especially from a moral standpoint, but the polls scared them away from further public discussion of the matter.

• 5. Mike Carroll  |  May 1st, 2008 at 12:34 pm

  Pat-a fair number of Clinton administration members, anonymously and otherwise, commented on the heavy reliance of Bubba on opinion polls. It only made sense, he had no actual governing philosophy or principles, he only wanted the power. It was often said that Hillary actually believed what Bill was saying.
  And what does popularity have to do with being a good President? The lowest Presidential popularity numbers on record belong, not to Bush, but to Harry Truman. Only the Kool-Aid drinkers think the Clinton administration was successful.
  I’m not saying you should be oblivious to public opinion, you just shouldn’t govern per the polls.
  By your argument, would the Civil Rights Act have passed?

• 6. Pat Cunningham  |  May 1st, 2008 at 12:48 pm

  Mike, Mike, Mike: What are we going to do with you? So “only Kool-Aid drinkers think the Clinton administration was successful”? You couldn’t be more wrong. Before the current presidential campaign started in earnest and sharply eroded Bill Clinton’s popularity, his administration won high marks from most Americans. In a Washington Post-ABC poll just last year, two-thirds of respondents approved of the job Clinton did as president. Even one-third of Republicans gave him high marks. Lot of Kool-Aid drinkers there. But don’t get me wrong. I don’t think politicians should blindly bow to public opinion in every case. Greatness sometimes amounts to leading the crowd rather than following it.

• 7. Pat Cunningham  |  May 1st, 2008 at 12:56 pm

  Still another thought: I did a post on this matter mainly because I found the survey results somewhat counterintuitive. On many occasions, I consider the prevailing opinions of the masses ill-informed and ridiculous.

• 8. Mike Carroll  |  May 1st, 2008 at 1:20 pm

  “On many occasions, I consider the prevailing opinions of the masses ill-informed and ridiculous.”-Yep
  And I will repeat-Popularity does not equate with a successful presidency. As I have said before-give me that failure Truman and you can have Bubba.

• 9. Menlo Bob  |  May 1st, 2008 at 3:51 pm

  President Bush said that he’d govern without an eye on the polls. President Clinton had high poll numbers and, aside from welfare reform, it seems to be his entire legacy. Polls suggested that ignoring al Qaeda was a good bet.

• 10. ROTStar  |  May 1st, 2008 at 5:07 pm

  So Pat — your supporting polls for governing by using a poll on polls?

  So you supported the invasion of Iraq then, right? Most Americans did. Oh and how about keeping capital gains tax rates low – most Americans disagree with Obama about that one, so you would be okay with that, right?

  Being a Republican form of government is one of the reasons we have endured longer then any other elected from of government.

  Governing by any poll other then the one in November is setting yourself up for failure. Americans are smart but for the last 100 years we have been fed the idea that we have a democracy and as such when the majority want something the government should give it to them, thus increasing the power of a centralized government.

  It all becomes a ploy to stay in power and buy votes.

  Regarding the Clinton Presidency when even the encyclopedia says (Grolier, The American Presidency):

  Still, good presidents make the most of what they do face and move public opinion in their direction, and Clinton failed to do that. The fund-raising speech took precedence over the bully pulpit. Rather than chart a bold new course or seek the winds of change, Clinton followed the currents of popular opinion. Rather than set the terms and tone of public debate, he governed by polls. And so historians may judge the Clinton presidency, as do many Americans today, as a mixture of promise and disappointment.

  You know you have an uphill PR battle for the ages.
  David

• 11. Pat Cunningham  |  May 1st, 2008 at 5:18 pm

  David: Where in my post does it say I’m ” supporting polls for governing”? I’m just saying that most Americans, according to the survey by the University of Maryland, want the pols to heed the polls. And I’m saying that lots of pols do, in fact, follow the polls closely. If you promise not to put words in my mouth, David, I won’t put any in yours. Deal?

• 12. Pat Cunningham  |  May 1st, 2008 at 6:04 pm

  Incidentally, David, you seem not to have read comment No. 6 above where I said: “But don’t get me wrong. I don’t think politicians should blindly bow to public opinion in every case. Greatness sometimes amounts to leading the crowd rather than following it.” Or comment No. 7 where I said: “I did a post on this matter mainly because I found the survey results somewhat counterintuitive. On many occasions, I consider the prevailing opinions of the masses ill-informed and ridiculous.”

  In other words, you put words in my mouth without having read my words to the contrary when they were available here for you to see before you sent your comment.

  I see from some of your other comments that you’d like to have a blog on this site. Good luck with that. I really mean that. But I have nothing to do with such decisions. I’m just a free-lancer in this gig. However, I’ll offer you some unsolicited advice: I don’t think your failure to read this post and the comments carefully recommends you for the job. Nor do your slams at the Register Star. That’s not the way to ingratiate yourself with the people who do make the decisions.

• 13. ROTStar  |  May 1st, 2008 at 7:14 pm

  Pat, your right - my apologies
  David

• 14. Pat Cunningham  |  May 1st, 2008 at 7:20 pm

  David: Apology graciously accepted. And I welcome further input from you.

• 15. Pat Cunningham  |  May 1st, 2008 at 8:05 pm

  By the way, David: your apology was the 1,700th comment on this site. Thanks for the milestone.

• 16. ROTStar  |  May 1st, 2008 at 9:24 pm

  Pat,

  Freelance huh? I had offered to blog gratis to provide a an actual balanced outlook to the blogs here. (I like your deal better.)

  When I hadn’t received a single reply, not even a, “no thanks,” to at my 6 offers since your move here from the Rascal so I sorta gave up on ingratiating my self. I pretty much figured there was no hope and no interest. However my offer still stands.

  Oh, and blogs are about making mistakes, admitting them, and correcting them online. They are the daily reactions (free of editors) and are often wrong. So that shouldn’t really impact blogging qualifications — most bloggers err, it comes with the territory.

  I am more interested in seeing balance on the blogs here.

  I remember when Rockford had the Morning Star and the Register Republic and don’t want to see all the functions of the online business shifted to an out of town servers. I am fine with conglomerates, but also think local blog coverage offers something valuable that even papers can’t offer.

  Thanks for the note on the milestone! Congratulations on 1700!
  David

• 17. ROTStar  |  May 2nd, 2008 at 4:07 am

  Let me just clarify my last comment — blogs are not FOR making mistakes, but as has often been discussed, mistakes are an inherent feature of blogs and are often corrected by the comments.
  David

• 18. Menlo Bob  |  May 2nd, 2008 at 4:56 pm

  “I remember when Rockford had the Morning Star and the Register Republic..”

  I remember as a delivery boy delivering the Rockford Register Republic. An awful job in the winter. Now days a newspaper would be sued for hiring 12 year olds to deliver their product on bicycles. Whoever came up with the idea of hiring illegal aliens to toss them out the window of pick-ups is a genius.

Leave a Comment

Name Required

Email Required, hidden

Url

Comment

Security Code:

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed