The most recent post in Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight Blog for The New York Times discusses what he calls "The North Dakota Paradox"--i.e., the fact that Obama is extremely unpopular in North Dakota despite the fact that the local economy is in good shape. Silver also notes the Obama is still relatively popular in states with deep economic troubles.
This would seem to suggest very strongly that, in terms of 2012, it's NOT about the economy. And yet, Nate seems to go into overdrive to suggest that no one should come to that conclusion.
Well, if no one should do so, what is the conclusion? Certainly, it seems that the popularity (or lack thereof) of the President is being driven by something.
Would it be too much to ask to see if the levels of Obama's popularity correlate to anything at all?
Including the issue that no one wants to talk about? The one that rhymes with "face"?
Frankly, a comparison of the demographics of North Dakota with those of more pro-Obama states might lead one to conclude that the answer is as obvious as I think it is. Why else would corporations be sitting on record profits, as Nate himself points out? Even when they effectively control both houses of Congress?
Possibly because they want the White House to be the "white house." Again. After all, to these people, nothing is ever enough. Or ever will be.
UPDATE at 6:00 p.m.. I knew about this, as can be seen from my earlier post. It may indeed be the answer; as some of the comments suggest, it shows how capitalism can be mixed with socialism, which is something I wholeheartedly support. It may indeed mean that North Dakota is an exceptional case. On the other hand, if it is the explanation, why is the state's politics so relentlessly red (as Nate himself points out)? Maybe he's right that the jury is still out. But I think the court of public opinion ought to call it back in, and poll it closely.
No comments:
Post a Comment