Well, it depends. Bad press isn’t good, and neither is high unemployment. To the extent either of those are the result of gridlock, it’s probably bad for popularity.
Unemployment has little to nothing to do with gridlock. Gridlock is a product of extreme partisanship and the refusal of the party in the majority (whichever that is at the moment) to compromise with the minority. In this cycle moderates from both parties compromised on a large infrastructure bill, and partisan stimulus legislation created the inflation that is wreaking havoc on the economy and democratic prospects in midterms (US inflation is more than double that of countries that passed more appropriately sized stimulus).
I believe the point is that good government policy can greatly lower unemployment, so gridlock that prevents such policy will increase unemployment. I don't think your characterization of gridlock is quite right either: if the House and the Senate were 100% partisan and Democrats refused to compromise with Republicans, they could still pass a bunch of stuff because they have a majority.
Also, what makes you say our inflation is double? Seems like we're a couple points above EU countries, and that can be attributed to our reliance on foreign labor and capital.
Right, but if moderation is more popular than extremism, and part of moderation is less activity, then shouldn't any structural components that contribute to less activity improve popularity?
Sorry if this is a dumb question: Don't you need an X axis here to see how much action these politicians take? Maybe political moderates aren't popular, maybe moderates who don't do much are popular?
Not this year. Say goodbye to almost all of those red state Dems who have to run on Biden's horrific record. This is going to be a whoopin' of Biblical proportions. The media and big tech will try again to bury the truth about the Biden family crime syndicate and the radical left wing policies supported by these "moderates", but the cat's out of the bag now.
On what planet are Warner, Kaine, Klobuchar and Whitmer "moderates"?
And Warner DOES NOT have a +19 approval rate from any legitimate polling process. He just barely, by a handful of votes won reelection, and that was in a race where the national party did not support his opponent!
I think your causation is backward. People who can win elections in a state that heavily favors the other party will of necessity be "moderates", and that condition of course results in a large gap between personal and party favorability. This doesn't provide useful information about what a person should do to be popular in a more competitive state or one which heavily favors your party, because your extremists are both more numerous and don't have their expectations tempered by the other party's dominance. Those people won't vote for the other party - but they might not vote at all, and with so few genuinely persuadable voters today that can be decisive.
And, of course, this whole discussion ignores that outcomes can be discontinuous on policy, such that "moderate" policies can actually lead to worse outcomes than either extreme: for example, a "moderate" might spend resources to try to prevent a disaster, but not enough to do so, resulting in both the disaster and the loss of the resources.
I have more respect for both Progressives and Conservatives than 'pragmatic' moderates who think sitting on their hands while normal people starve to death is a noble cause
The premise is unproven. In fact, the list disproves it. Governors Abbott, DeSantis, Whitmer et al would bristle at the "moderate" label, as would their supporters and opponents.
I am familiar with Oregon and Ron Wyden's approval isn't state-wide only in the two most populist counties, Lane and Multnomah. It makes me question the rest of this poll.
For a minority party state-wide candidate to be elected, they need lots of cross-party support. For a majority party candidate, not so much, not at all, or even not all of their own party. Is Collins more popular than King? Brown more so than Portman? Does it make them more effective?
Manchin's stances on expanded CTC, social programs, abortion and coal are well to the right of the American median, to say nothing of the worldwide median (to the extent that such a thing can be articulated-- easier for some issues than others). If your theory of politics relies on the notion that Joe Manchin is "solidly left," it ought to be strangled in its crib to put it out of its misery.
The reason the Moderates are "popular" is that both parties hope to be able to swing their votes to their side. The Moderates are not really popular, they just hold out hope to either side that they will change their vote.
I understand the love for Susan Collins. She votes mostly with the democrats. No different than Romney or McCain when he was alive. Manchin votes mostly with the Republicans.
Well, it depends. Bad press isn’t good, and neither is high unemployment. To the extent either of those are the result of gridlock, it’s probably bad for popularity.
Unemployment has little to nothing to do with gridlock. Gridlock is a product of extreme partisanship and the refusal of the party in the majority (whichever that is at the moment) to compromise with the minority. In this cycle moderates from both parties compromised on a large infrastructure bill, and partisan stimulus legislation created the inflation that is wreaking havoc on the economy and democratic prospects in midterms (US inflation is more than double that of countries that passed more appropriately sized stimulus).
I believe the point is that good government policy can greatly lower unemployment, so gridlock that prevents such policy will increase unemployment. I don't think your characterization of gridlock is quite right either: if the House and the Senate were 100% partisan and Democrats refused to compromise with Republicans, they could still pass a bunch of stuff because they have a majority.
Also, what makes you say our inflation is double? Seems like we're a couple points above EU countries, and that can be attributed to our reliance on foreign labor and capital.
https://www.employamerica.org/blog/importing-constraints-durable-goods-inflation-in-context/
Right, but if moderation is more popular than extremism, and part of moderation is less activity, then shouldn't any structural components that contribute to less activity improve popularity?
Sorry if this is a dumb question: Don't you need an X axis here to see how much action these politicians take? Maybe political moderates aren't popular, maybe moderates who don't do much are popular?
Part of moderation is not doing that much, I think!
So shouldn’t congressional gridlock make Presidents more popular?
1) Gretchen Whitmer a moderate? You just lost your credibility. 2) I despise moderates. They’re leftist enablers.
Not this year. Say goodbye to almost all of those red state Dems who have to run on Biden's horrific record. This is going to be a whoopin' of Biblical proportions. The media and big tech will try again to bury the truth about the Biden family crime syndicate and the radical left wing policies supported by these "moderates", but the cat's out of the bag now.
Is that like the "red wave" you guys swore was going to happen in 2020?
On what planet are Warner, Kaine, Klobuchar and Whitmer "moderates"?
And Warner DOES NOT have a +19 approval rate from any legitimate polling process. He just barely, by a handful of votes won reelection, and that was in a race where the national party did not support his opponent!
Shhhhhhhh. You're ruining the narrative.
I think your causation is backward. People who can win elections in a state that heavily favors the other party will of necessity be "moderates", and that condition of course results in a large gap between personal and party favorability. This doesn't provide useful information about what a person should do to be popular in a more competitive state or one which heavily favors your party, because your extremists are both more numerous and don't have their expectations tempered by the other party's dominance. Those people won't vote for the other party - but they might not vote at all, and with so few genuinely persuadable voters today that can be decisive.
And, of course, this whole discussion ignores that outcomes can be discontinuous on policy, such that "moderate" policies can actually lead to worse outcomes than either extreme: for example, a "moderate" might spend resources to try to prevent a disaster, but not enough to do so, resulting in both the disaster and the loss of the resources.
There are a lot of names on that list who are not "moderates".
Would you rather be a moderate or someone who stands for something? Being popular doesn't necessarily mean you're in the right.
I have more respect for both Progressives and Conservatives than 'pragmatic' moderates who think sitting on their hands while normal people starve to death is a noble cause
The premise is unproven. In fact, the list disproves it. Governors Abbott, DeSantis, Whitmer et al would bristle at the "moderate" label, as would their supporters and opponents.
I am familiar with Oregon and Ron Wyden's approval isn't state-wide only in the two most populist counties, Lane and Multnomah. It makes me question the rest of this poll.
Wow. Just wow. It’s stuff like this that makes libs feel informed? Fodder.
For a minority party state-wide candidate to be elected, they need lots of cross-party support. For a majority party candidate, not so much, not at all, or even not all of their own party. Is Collins more popular than King? Brown more so than Portman? Does it make them more effective?
3 years - a lot has changed. Uh, Doug Jones lost reelection in a landslide. The correct title should be "the most popular politician WERE Moderates"
Manchin is most certainly NOT a moderate, he is very solidly left.
It's just that the rest of his party has become so incredibly ultra-radical and ultra-extreme that he seems less so by contrast.
Manchin's stances on expanded CTC, social programs, abortion and coal are well to the right of the American median, to say nothing of the worldwide median (to the extent that such a thing can be articulated-- easier for some issues than others). If your theory of politics relies on the notion that Joe Manchin is "solidly left," it ought to be strangled in its crib to put it out of its misery.
The reason the Moderates are "popular" is that both parties hope to be able to swing their votes to their side. The Moderates are not really popular, they just hold out hope to either side that they will change their vote.
I understand the love for Susan Collins. She votes mostly with the democrats. No different than Romney or McCain when he was alive. Manchin votes mostly with the Republicans.
None of that is true