What to make of all the polls on the government shutdown? You know, the ones that say that, to varying degrees, congressional Republicans are being blamed more than Democrats and Barack Obama.
Let me give a roundabout answer, based on a theory that people sometimes try to send messages through their responses to poll questions. I developed this theory after watching British political polls since the 1960s.
For the large majority of that time -- the major exception was the first eight years of Tony Blair's prime ministership -- voters have given negative job ratings to the governments of the day. Yet during that time, incumbent parties have won most general elections.
This is not necessarily a contradiction. Britons, with their two-and-a-half party system (the Liberal Democrats are the half), are adept tactical voters. If they live in a district where Lib Dems are stronger than Labor, then Laborites will vote Lib Dem to keep the Conservatives out.
In responding to polls, British voters who fear the government may go too far will express disapproval as a way of checking the prime minister's theoretically dictatorial, but in fact limited power. Backbenchers will pressure the PM not to go too far if his or her job approval is low.
In our two-party system, Americans seldom vote tactically. But I think they sometimes respond to polls tactically.
That helps explain why Bill Clinton's job approval went up 20 points when the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke and Republicans threatened impeachment. That looks like a plea to Republicans to drop impeachment.
Americans believe in the Twenty-Second Amendment, limiting the president to two terms. Clinton had been elected to a second term and was competently performing his day work. Let him serve that term out, voters seemed to be saying.
Continue Reading.....
No comments:
Post a Comment