UCLA Political Scientist says Newt Gingrich is Biggest Threat to Obama

---

We hear a lot of speculation from journalists who are experts at . . . uh, . . . journalism. But there actually is an academic specialty on the study of politics. It’s called “political science.“

After watching in frustration as the nation’s press corps has written the history of one presidential election after another, UCLA political scientist Lynn Vavreck finally decided something had to give.

“It takes academics three years to analyze all the data and figure out what really happened in a campaign, and that is almost always in contrast to what has already been written into the record by journalists,” she said. “But by that point, nobody cares anymore.”

So she and research partner John Sides are foregoing the stately pace of scholarly journals — at least during the 2012 election.

“With technology being what it is, academics can survey people much more quickly than has been possible in the past, and we can put our assessments out there at the same time as journalists,” she said.

To that end, Vavreck, an associate professor of political science and communication studies at UCLA, and Sides, an associate professor of political science at George Washington University, will be surveying 1,000 people a week beginning Jan. 3 and ending on Election Day in 2012.

They will post findings from DATA POINTS 2012, as they’re calling their in-depth survey, on two blogs: The Monkey Cage and Model Politics.

---

Watch the video of Vavrek up above. It was made back in December. She talks about Gingrich starting at 1:58

---

UPDATE:

I apparently won’t be able to watch the GOP Debate in Florida tonight live and livesteaming is a little too much for my 5 year-old E-Machine (Dell clone) so there won’t be a separate debate thread tonight. Besides, I already drank my weekly ration of beer last night watching football.

I’ll probably follow the Drunk Blog at VodkaPundit and try to watch some of it later. If there is anything noteworthy I may post about it for the morning. I’ll be around for a while though.

OWS? They said this was the line for the new iPhone!

---

This is an open thread.

---

Good Dawg!

Miss me?

---

Forbes:

Clinton Best President in Last 66 Years; W and Obama Worst

In July 2004, Forbes published Presidents and Prosperity – a special report on America’s presidents since 1945. After updating that report’s seven economic performance measures to reflect the economic performance of George W. Bush and Barack H. Obama, the conclusion is clear: William J. Clinton was our best president in the last 66 years while W and Obama hug the cellar.

Here are the seven performance measures that Dan Ackman, the report’s author, used to rank the presidents:

Here are the seven performance measures that Dan Ackman, the report’s author, used to rank the presidents:

GDP growth
Disposable income growth
Employment growth
Unemployment rate decline
Inflation decline
Deficit reduction
Stock market increase

Based on these statistics, Clinton came out ahead of the pack. Here’s how well Clinton did on these seven measures:

GDP growth: +3.6% average annual growth – from $7.5 trillion in 1993 to $9.9 trillion in 2000
Disposable income growth: +3.5% average annual growth — from $5.5 trillion in 1993 to $7.3 trillion in 2000
Employment growth: +2.3 million jobs/year – from 120 million to 138 million
Unemployment rate decline: 0.41% per year – from 8% to 4.7%
Inflation decline: This is the one area where things got worse as inflation actually increased an average of 0.05% per year – from 3.3% to 3.7%
Deficit reduction: -$48 million per year – from a budget deficit of $255 billion to a surplus of $127 billion
Stock market increase: +17.4% a year – from an S&P 500 of 433 to 1,343

While Clinton did not outdo his presidential peers on all of these measures, his most impressive performance came where it mattered – in disposable income growth, GDP growth, job growth, employment growth, and deficit reduction.

Clinton was such an exceptional leader that when he entered office a Gallup poll of public confidence in the economy was at an all-time low and in the summer of 2000, months before the end of his term, that same poll indicated public confidence in the economy at an all-time high.

---

The article goes on to try to give Poppy Bush a lot of the credit for the prosperity of the Clinton years. I’m always leery of that type of argument – it might make sense for the first year or so, but at some point the guy currently occupying the Oval Office deserves the credit or blame.

I am still amazed at how many people on the left despise Bill Clinton. The best economy in half a century and the Democrats ran away from it. It was like they were afraid of getting blamed for peace and prosperity. The Republicans were trying to put Ronald Reagan’s name on everything (and his face on the dime) and even now they run for office claiming to be “just like Ron” but the Democrats treat the Clintons like lepers.

---

---