Data in the News

Union Membership in 2011

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) recently released a report on union membership in 2011, and how the membership rate compares across regions and industries. The Editor's Desk summarized some of the findings and provided visuals. Some findings of note:

 -"The union membership rate for public-sector workers (37.0 percent) was substantially higher than the rate for private-sector workers (6.9 percent)."

 -"Within the public sector, local government workers had the highest union membership rate, 43.2 percent."




-"In 2011, 29 states and the District of Columbia had union membership rates below that of the U.S. average, 11.8 percent, while 21 states had higher rates. All states in the Middle Atlantic and Pacific divisions reported union membership rates above the national average, while all states in the East South Central and West South Central divisions had rates below it."

2012-02-03

Median Weekly Earnings by Age, Race and Ethnicity, Sex

The Editor's Desk, a publication from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), summarized a report on weekly earnings of wage and salary workers in the fourth quarter of 2011. The size of the gap between men and women in median weekly earnings varied by age, race and ethnicity, but at every level, men out-earned women.

2012-01-31

Economic Desperation Breeding More Ponzi Schemes?

The Economist's daily chart highlights the growing number of exposed--and investigated--Ponzi and fraud schemes in the U.S., and the magazine suggests that the weak economy may be the cause. It writes that "lean economic times...make get-rich-quick schemes more tempting, and desperation breeds gullibility." And those schemes that do exist are often more easily exposed during tough economic times, "when it becomes clear who has been swimming naked."

2012-01-30

Debunking Myths About Food Stamps

In a recent article, the Chicago Tribune aimed to debunk popular misconceptions about trends in welfare spending and the welfare recipient population, issues that "the Republican presidential race has brought...to the forefront." Reporter Dawn Turner Trice wrote, "When it comes to welfare, perceptions have often trumped reality."

The article provides fact-based commentary on political strategies regarding welfare, including the following:

• "Though blacks are disproportionately represented among food stamp recipients, far more whites receive such assistance. When recipients identified themselves by race in 2010, 34 percent were white, 22 percent were black and 16 were percent Hispanic, the Agriculture Department said."

• "Food-stamp spending has indeed increased under Obama, but its steady climb began under President George W. Bush."

• "The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan think tank, said anti-poverty programs make up about 20 percent of the federal budget, and that's been true over the last three decades when both Republicans and Democrats have been in power."

• "Among the big social safety net expenditures in 2011 are Medicaid ($274 billion) and refundable tax credits, including the earned income tax credit ($102 billion). Food stamps ($71.8 billion) and cash assistance ($6.9 billion) constitute just 2.2 percent of the federal budget, but they pack a bigger wallop when it comes to public perceptions."

The article also quotes Michael Dawson, director of the Center for the Study of Race, Politics and Culture at the University of Chicago, regarding Republican efforts--specifically, those of Newt Gingrich--to bring up welfare as an issue, as saying: "It's a tired tactic but one that's sometimes effective in mobilizing white racial resentment."

2012-01-30

Cultural Inequality in the U.S.

In a recent Wall Street Journal article, Charles Murray discusses the emergence of what he refers to as “cultural inequality” in the U.S. since the 1960s. According to Murray, this cultural inequality is a result of the formation of a “new upper class” and “new lower class” that no longer share an “American way of life.” Among the qualities that Murray uses to define this so-called American way of life are marriage, male employment, religion and marital births. The interactive graphic from the article shows statistics relating to all of these items for people aged 30-49 that are defined as upper middle class (“with at least a college education working in managerial jobs or high-status professions”) and working class (“with no more than a high school education in blue-collar, low-skill or service jobs”) from the 1960s/1970s and the 2000s. The data seem to support Murray's concept of a new cultural inequality in the US, as more members of the working class appear to have fallen away from the “American way of life” than members of the upper middle class over the last 4 or 5 decades. For example, while the marital rate of the upper middle class have fallen from 94% to 83% since 1960, the marital rate of the working class plummeted from 84% to 48% over the same time period. A similar trend can be seen in the rest of the graphic, with the working class experiencing a larger percentage increase in males with jobs working fewer than 40 hours per week and a larger percentage increase in those calling themselves non-religious.

2012-01-27

A Look at the Top 1% Shows Shift to Finance, Stability Within its Ranks and High Political Engagement

The Economist took a look at the top one percent and "the changing complexion of America’s rich." It highlighted Mitt Romney as a reflection of this change, because "the wealthiest 1% of Americans not only get more of the pie," but also because "they are increasingly creatures of finance." There have been wealthy presidential candidates before, but Romney represents "the first candidate from the world of high-octane finance."

The Economist writes of the shift to finance, "According to an analysis of tax returns by Jon Bakija of Williams College and two others, 16% of the top 1% were in medical professions and 8% were lawyers: shares that have changed little between 1979 and 2005, the latest year the authors examined (see chart). The most striking shift has been the growth of financial occupations, from just under 8% of the wealthy in 1979 to 13.9% in 2005. Their representation within the top 0.1% is even more pronounced: 18%, up from 11% in 1979." A graphic from the New York Times also focuses on the occupational distribution of the top one percent.

Also indicative of the shift to finance, it appears that the wealthiest of the wealthy are now employed in financial occupations, a change from years past. "[Steve] Kaplan [of the University of Chicago] and Joshua Rauh of Northwestern University note that investment bankers, corporate lawyers, hedge-fund and private-equity managers have displaced corporate executives at the top of the income ladder. In 2009 the richest 25 hedge-fund investors earned more than $25 billion, roughly six times as much as all the chief executives of companies in the S&P 500 stock index combined."

What does a household in the top one percent make? "The average household income of the 1% was $1.2m in 2008, according to federal tax data." But The Economist notes, "The ultra-rich skew that average upwards: admission to the 1% began at $380,000 in 2008." Of course, income is not the only measurement of wealth: "Measured by net worth, rather than income, the top 1% started at $6.9m in 2009, according to the Federal Reserve, down 23% from 2007."

The Economist cites Mr. Kaplan, who argues that the move to finance largely accounts for the growth in the wealth gap. "Updating a series developed by Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, Mr Kaplan notes that the share of income going to the 1% reached an 80-year high of 23.5% in 2007, only to sink to 17.6% in 2009 as the financial markets deflated (see chart). The trend is even more pronounced for the top 0.1%, whose share of total income rose to 12.3% in 2007 but sank to a still disproportionate 8.1% in 2009."

Research indicates that inequality in the U.S., as measured by the share of total income that goes to the top one percent of earners, has grown faster than in other countries. The Economist surmises that among other factors, this development could be resulting from "the relatively large role of the financial sector in English-speaking countries...[as] even more of the top 1% work in finance in Britain than in America."

Chances are that if you are born wealthy, you are likely to retain your wealth as an adult: "Membership in America’s 1% is relatively stable; three-quarters of the households in the percentile one year will still be there the next. Although the proportion shrinks over time, one study found that the vast majority of the top 1% were still in the richest 10% a decade later." The reason for this is fairly straight-forward: "rich parents tend to produce rich kids." Their children go to college and graduate institutions at a disproportionately high rate; "According to Gallup, 72% of the 1% have a college degree, and half have a postgraduate degree; those are two to three times the proportion of the other 99%." Numbers also indicate, "The 1% are more likely to be married and to have children."

And if you're born wealthy, it's likely that you'll marry someone from a similar economic background. "The rich also increasingly marry people like themselves. Mr Bakija and his co-authors found that between 1979 and 2005, the share of spouses of the 1% who had blue-collar or 'miscellaneous' service-sector backgrounds declined slightly, from 7.9% to 6.4%. The share of spouses who worked in finance, property and law rose from 3.5% to 8.8%."

Individuals in the top one percent are likely to be politically active, and although their political preferences are somewhat "eclectic," they tend to lean toward the Republican party. "Politically, Gallup polls find that the 1% are more likely than the 99% to identify themselves as Republicans (33% to 28%) and less likely to be Democrats (26% to 33%)." They rate the budget deficit as their central concern, and unemployment as their second; the other 99 percent of Americans prioritize these concerns in the reverse order.  

The Economist writes that individuals in the top one percent "are far more politically engaged than the average 99-percenters," citing a study which showed that "68% make campaign contributions, nearly half had contacted a member of Congress and a fifth had solicited contributions on behalf of a candidate."

How would individuals in the top one percent describe themselves? Often, it is difficult to locate an answer: "Most of the 1% prefer not to talk about their good fortune."

2012-01-21

Negative Press Coverage Plagues Front-Runner Romney

According to the Pew Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism, Mitt Romney is receiving more negative press coverage than at any other point in the GOP race.  Romney, who won the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary, will compete against remaining GOP candidates in South Carolina's primary on Saturday.

According to Pew's analysis, this increase in negative coverage for Romney may reflect opponents' efforts to attack the current frontrunner through negative advertisements.  In particular, negative discourse regarding Romney revolved around his career at Bain Capital.  According to an article on the Politics and Government Blog of the New York Times, GOP candidate opponent Newt Gingrich described Romney's work at Bain as "rich people figuring out clever legal ways to loot a company."

According to the same report, Ron Paul is currently receiving more positive coverage than any other candidate.  Almost half of the coverage of Ron Paul over the past week has been positive; according to the report, Paul has been described in many press accounts as "having little chance of winning the nomination." 

Of all GOP candidates, Rick Perry currently is criticized the most, with his negative coverage nearly double his positive coverage.  Coverage of President Obama from January 9, 2012 to January, 15, 2012 included fewer positive mentions than any of the GOP candidates.  Only 10% of coverage regarding Obama was positive.  These data come from an analysis of more than 11,000 news websites and mentions on Twitter.

2012-01-20

New Paper Finds Global Abortion Rate Stalling

2012-01-20

Gingrich Surging in South Carolina

Nate Silver unequivocally answers a question he posed yesterday--does Newt Gingrich have momentum in South Carolina?--in his FiveThirtyEight blog post today: "Yes, Mr. Gingrich does have momentum — and a lot of it." He writes, "Six different South Carolina polls have been released so far today, and they show a split in their results." Three of them, automated polls by Rasmussen Reports, Public Policy Polling and InsiderAdvantage, "have Mr. Gingrich in the lead...by margins ranging from 2 points to 6 points."

The polls strongly indicate that Mr. Gingrich's performance at the Monday debate has contributed to his rise in the polls. Marist for NBC News, one of the more traditional polls conducted by live interviewers, "showed Mitt Romney leading by 10 percentage points." But when Marist "split its results," it appeared that the debate did indeed give Mr. Gingrich some momentum with South Carolina voters. Mr. Silver writes, "Mr. Romney’s lead was smaller — 5 points — in the post-debate sample." Further, the aforementioned automated polls that show Mr. Gingrich in the lead "were conducted on Wednesday, after the debate and the qualified endorsement Mr. Gingrich received from Sarah Palin."

The FiveThirtyEight forecast model suggests that Mr. Gingrich is, in fact, gaining significant momentum. According to Mr. Silver, "The model now shows a virtual tie in the race, with Mr. Gingrich projected to get 34 percent of the vote and Mr. Romney 33.6 percent and each candidate having about a 50 percent chance of winning."

Most of Mr. Gingrich's gain, however, does not appear to be connected to a drop in the polls for Mr. Romney. Mr. Silver notes, "Mr. Gingrich has gained ground in the polls more than Mr. Romney has lost it. Two days ago, our forecast had Mr. Gingrich with 22.6 percent of the vote, so he has gained about 11 points since then. Meanwhile, Mr. Romney’s projection has declined less than 3 points — to 33.6 percent from 36.1 percent — over the same interval."

So where is Mr. Gingrich getting his new projected votes? According to Mr. Silver, "Mr. Gingrich’s gains have come from Rick Santorum and Rick Perry (who dropped out of the race today and endorsed Mr. Gingrich), as well as from undecided voters." Mr. Silver does go on to acknowledge that automated polls, because they usually do not call cell phones and "also generally have lower response rates than traditional polls," may not be the best source.

For now, Mr. Silver anticipates that the Saturday primary could yield a number of different results. He writes: "Our research shows that high levels of volatility and disagreement in the polls make polling aggregation methods less reliable. In other words, the margin of error on the forecast is especially high, enough so that either Mr. Romney or Mr. Gingrich could emerge with a clear victory by the time that the vote takes place on Saturday."

2012-01-19

Compared With OECD Countries, Latin America Trails in Effort to Reduce Poverty, Inequality

The Economist recently summarized a report by the OECD which supports findings that "compared with rich countries, Latin American countries still fall short" in the fight to "reduce poverty and inequality." Even within the OECD, which The Economist recognizes as "a club of mostly rich countries," it is a Latin American country, Chile, which performs the worst in these efforts.

The report, according to The Economist, identifies Chile as the OECD's "most unequal member." (Although Brazil is shown in the visual, it is not an OECD country). Further, Chile "also finished third from the bottom, ahead only of Mexico and Israel, in relative poverty, measured by the share of the population earning less than half the median income."

The Economist notes, "Governments can reduce poverty and inequality through taxes and cash transfers." It argues that Chile does not effectively reduce poverty or inequality because of deficiencies in these areas. In Chile, "Government spending on health, education and social policies is low, around 16% of GDP; the OECD average is around 27%." And that's not Chile's only problem: "Tax evasion by corporations and individuals alone is estimated to cost the government some 2.5% of GDP."

The Chilean government has introduced a program, Ingreso Ético Familiar, aimed at fixing these problems. But The Economist points out that "the new cash transfer programme only targets the extreme poor." So how could these problems in Chile be better targeted? The Economist suggests, "More efficient and progressive taxes would raise revenues and reduce inequality." Looking forward in Chile, The Economist notes, "Better job opportunities and higher quality education are needed to improve labour productivity and boost growth."

2012-01-19

For First Time, China's Urban Residents Outnumber Rural

The Economist's daily chart focuses on the movement of China's people into urban areas. At the end of 2011, and according to data from the National Bureau of Statistics, 1.35 billion, or 51.3 percent of China's residents lived in cities, meaning that for the first time the country's "city-dwellers now outnumber its rural residents." According to The Economist, as recently as "1980 less than a fifth of China’s population lived in cities, a smaller proportion than in India."

In the ten years that followed, the Chinese government "remained wary of free movement, even as it made its peace with free enterprise." It "sought industrialisation without urbanisation," only to ultimately realize that "it could not have one without the other." And although the percentage of city-dwellers is on the rise, it seems that the Chinese government's wariness toward urban development has slowed the movement of its citizens to cities. The Economist notes, "Even now, its ratio of city-dwellers is, if anything, low for an economy at its stage of development."

2012-01-18

Fed Apparently Blindsided By Financial Crisis

2012-01-17

3.2 Million Job Openings in November

A report from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) shows that there were 3.2 million job openings in November, unchanged from October. This is still below the 4.4 million job openings that were recorded when the recession officially started in December 2007, though it exceeds by one million the number of openings in July 2009, which was "the most recent trough for the series." According to the report, "The number of job openings has increased 30 percent since the end of the recession in June 2009."

The report notes, "Several industries saw increases in the number of job openings over the year, while the number of job openings decreased for finance and insurance, professional and business services, and federal government. The Midwest and South regions had increases in the number of job openings and the West experienced a decline over the year."

The BLS Editor's Desk further summarizes, "There were 2.8 million job openings in private industry. Within private industry, there were 87,000 job openings in construction, and 606,000 in education and health services."

2012-01-16

Early Polls Show Romney's Lead in South Carolina Shrinking

Nate Silver of the FiveThirtyEight blog writes that the first South Carolina GOP primary poll contradicts his earlier prediction that Mitt Romney would increase "his modest lead in the South Carolina polls once his victory in New Hampshire was reflected in the surveys there." Instead, the poll, an automated survey from InsiderAdvantage, "shows Mr. Romney’s lead contracting in South Carolina," though Silver "urge[s] a lot of caution in interpreting it."

The poll "was conducted on Wednesday and shows Mr. Romney with 23 percent of the vote, just 2 points ahead of Newt Gingrich at 21 percent. The poll has Rick Santorum and Ron Paul tied for third place at 13 percent, with Jon M. Huntsman Jr. having moved ahead of Rick Perry for fifth place."

But Silver is not completely sold on InsiderAdvantage. He writes, "InsiderAdvantage has a mixed track record and rates fairly poorly in the FiveThrityEight pollster ratings, which is one reason to interpret these numbers with some care. In addition, Matt Towery, the head of InsiderAdvantage, formerly served as the head of Mr. Gingrich’s political organization from 1992 until Mr. Gingrich left Congress."

Silver does note, however, that "another polling firm that rates more highly, Public Policy Polling, said in a series of Twitter messages that it has also detected a tight race between Mr. Romney and Mr. Gingrich in South Carolina, with little evidence of favorable momentum for Mr. Romney following his New Hampshire victory."

Negative early news for Romney in South Carolina is partially offset by early polling in Florida, however. Silver writes: "Confusing matters further is that a poll of Florida, from Rasmussen Reports, did show some gains for Mr. Romney. The poll, conducted on Wednesday, showed Mr. Romney with 41 percent of the vote there, better than he has done in any prior survey of the state. The poll also showed Mr. Gingrich’s numbers on the decline." Silver predicts that "if the initial results from South Carolina and Florida are confirmed by other pollsters, they would suggest that Florida could play a backstop role for Mr. Romney, in somewhat the same way that New Hampshire did for him relative to Iowa."

However, at this stage Silver suggests that we wait before attaching much weight to the early poll results from either South Carolina or Florida. 

2012-01-13

Obama Loses Latino Approval with Rise in Deportations

The majority of Latinos in the United States oppose the way in which the Obama administration is addressing the deportation of illegal immigrants, according to a survey conducted by the Pew Hispanic Center.   

Foreign-born Hispanics are much more likely than native-born Hispanics to be aware of the increase in deportations since Obama assumed office.  Whereas 55% of foreign-born Hispanics were aware of this trend, only 25% of native-born Hispanics were.  Awareness of the increase in deportations is most prevalent among Hispanic individuals who have greater chances of being deported.  Almost three-quarters of Hispanic immigrants who do not have United States citizenship or a green card, a population with a high risk of being deported, are aware that deportations have increased under the Obama administration.

2012-01-12

Countries Compared on Nuclear Security

2012-01-11

Ranking Countries by Misery Index

2012-01-11

Record-High Percentage of American Independents

2012-01-10

New Study Shows Teachers--and Test Scores--Matter in the Long-Term

A new study by three economists suggests that elementary- and middle-school teachers who help increase their students' standardized-test scores have a significant, positive and lasting impact on those students' lives in the long term. Their influence extends beyond academics, as good teachers also mean "lower teenage-pregnancy rates and greater college matriculation and adult earnings," writes the New York Times. The study tracked the lives of 2.5 million students over 20 years, "allowing for a deeper look at how much the quality of individual teachers matters over the long term."

Although the economists set out to challenge the use of value-added ratings, which according to the Times "measure the impact individual teachers have on student test scores," researchers ultimately found that "controlling for numerous factors, including students’ backgrounds...the value-added scores consistently identified some teachers as better than others, even if individual teachers’ value-added scores varied from year to year." They concluded that "using value-added scores would lead to fewer mistakes, not more."

And the positive effect of teachers who increased student test scores was striking. The Times notes, "Replacing a poor teacher with an average one would raise a single classroom’s lifetime earnings by about $266,000, the economists estimate. Multiply that by a career’s worth of classrooms." The researchers surmise that the same results would be obtained by replacing an average teacher with an excellent teacher: "Given the difficulty of finding, training and retaining outstanding teachers...the difference in long-term outcome between students who have average teachers and those with poor-performing ones is as significant as the difference between those who have excellent teachers and those with average ones."

The positive effect of an excellent teacher on one individual student is less impressive than that teacher's potential impact on the entire class taken together, of course. "All else equal, a student with one excellent teacher for one year between fourth and eighth grade would gain $4,600 in lifetime income, compared to a student of similar demographics who has an average teacher. The student with the excellent teacher would also be 0.5 percent more likely to attend college." Still, "students with top teachers are less likely to become pregnant as teenagers, more likely to enroll in college, and more likely to earn more money as adults."

The study will likely add fuel to the value-added score debate, as many people--and teachers' unions--"say that isolating the effect of a given teacher is harder than it seems, and might unfairly penalize some instructors." The researchers of this study are firmly on the other side: "The authors argue that school districts should use value-added measures in evaluations, and...remove the lowest performers." One of the researchers, Harvard Professor John N. Friedman, was quoted in the Times as saying, “The message is to fire people sooner rather than later.”

2012-01-10

Obama Starts New Year with 46% Job Approval

Gallup polling in early January finds that President Obama's job approval rating is at 46 percent, an improvement over most data since August 2011, when his approval typically scored in the low 40 percent range. Obama recorded "monthly approval averages of 41% in August, September, and October, and 43% in November and December." According to Gallup's Jeffrey M. Jones, "The current 46% rating for Obama, based on Jan. 2-4 polling, is one percentage point below his recent high three-day averages of 47% in Dec. 29-Jan. 3 and Dec. 21-23 tracking." The rating is still lower than last January, however, when Obama averaged 49 percent approval over the month.

Jones writes, "Obama's approval rating will be a critical indicator of his re-election chances this year. If he can sustain higher approval ratings through early November, his odds of winning a second term will increase." Historical data has shown "that all presidents since Eisenhower with approval ratings above 50% have won re-election easily." More recently, "George W. Bush was re-elected in 2004 with 48% approval at the time of the election." But Obama would not have to fall very far for Jones to anticipate trouble: "If Obama's approval rating reverts to the low 40% range, he would have a difficult time defeating a Republican in a two-candidate race."

Jones identifies independents as a key group Obama must target if he hopes to increase his approval rating. "Currently, 81% of Democrats, 42% of independents, and 10% of Republicans approve of Obama. By comparison, last January, when he had an overall monthly average of 49%, Obama's approval rating was 83% among Democrats, 47% among independents, and 13% among Republicans."

One potential reason for the modest uptick in Obama's rating this month "could be the improvement in Americans' economic confidence in recent days." But Jones says " it is unclear whether that will last." Further, "January brings challenges for Obama to maintain higher approval ratings, given that much of the political focus will be on the Republican nomination contest, with the GOP candidates seeking to point out Obama's shortcomings as president in order to help their chances of winning the nomination."

Obama does, however, have the State of the Union address January 24, which according to Jones presents "a unique opportunity for him to directly state his case for re-election to Americans."

2012-01-09

U.S. Poor Less Likely to Rise Ranks than Poor in Comparable Countries

Jason DeParle of the New York Times highlights a troubling development: The country of the frequently cited--and much lauded--American Dream is struggling to provide opportunities for economic mobility to its poorest citizens. America is falling behind comparable countries, and "Americans [today] enjoy less economic mobility than their peers in Canada and much of Western Europe."


As Occupy Wall Street and the recession that helped bring about the movement's rise gain the public's attention, even the political right has started to acknowledge the seriousness of class differences. The Times comments: "Liberal commentators have long emphasized class, but the attention on the right is largely new."


DeParle identifies deep poverty and problems in the educational system as two central reasons for America's failure to sufficiently provide the necessary opportunities for social mobility. According to DeParle, the former "leaves poor children starting especially far behind," while "the unusually large premiums that American employers pay for college degrees...increases the importance of family background and stymies people with less schooling."

He cites a project led by Swedish economist Markus Jantti, one that DeParle says "found that 42 percent of American men raised in the bottom fifth of incomes stay there as adults. That shows a level of persistent disadvantage much higher than in Denmark (25 percent) and Britain (30 percent) - a country famous for its class constraints."

2012-01-08

Airline Customer Service Rankings

2012-01-06

You Are Not What You Eat?

In a recent Wall Street Journal article, Ron Winslow discusses a study on weight gain that is to be published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Participants in the study, "25 young, healthy men and women," were all fed 1,000 excess calories a day for 56 days as part of either a low-protein, normal or high-protein diet. The amount of carbohydrates was kept constant across all three diets while fat intake varied according to the protein intake of each diet (higher protein diets had lower fat intake and vice versa). As the chart from the article (above) indicates, increases in body fat were the same across all different diets. According to Winslow, this suggests that the amount of excess caloric intake alone affects body fat increases, as opposed to the nutritional content (fat, protein, carbohydrates, etc.) of a diet. However, as the chart also indicates, those consuming a low-protein diet experienced a decrease in lean body mass while those following the normal and high-protein diets experienced an increase. This is suggested to contribute to overall weight gain being significantly lower for those following a low-protein diet. While the study suggests that high protein diets do not prevent increases in body fat, it may lead some to believe they are superior because they support lean body mass. As Dr. Bay, a researcher at Pennington Biomedical Research Center, puts it, "there is no health-related benefit to a reduction in lean body mass," and loss of lean body mass is "not what you want to happen."

2012-01-05

Mormon Republicans Loyal to Romney; Atheist Republicans Disproportionately Go For Paul

According to Gallup, Republican and Republican-leaners of voting age who identify as Mormon are disproportionately likely to support Mitt Romney, while Ron Paul garners more support among atheist Republicans than he does among Republicans of all religious denominations. Romney collects 71 percent of the Mormon Republican vote, exceeding the 23 percent he scores among all Republicans, and Paul garners 19 percent of the atheist vote, more than the 10 percent of all Republicans who support him. Gallup surmises that Paul's support among atheist Republicans at least partly reflects "the youthful skew in Paul's support and the tendency for young Americans to have no formal religious identity."

But Republican voters do not always support the candidate who shares their religious denomination: "Catholic Republicans were no more likely than average to support the two Catholics in the GOP race, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum; Protestant Republicans did not disproportionately support any particular candidate." 26 percent of Republicans who identify as Catholic support Gingrich, less than the 28 percent of all Republicans who support him. And four percent support Santorum, only slightly more than the three percent of all Republicans who support him.

Similar to Catholic Republicans, Protestant Republicans "reflect the overall sample average in their candidate support." The three major Protestant candidates are Ron Paul, Rick Perry, and Michele Bachmann (who has just suspended her campaign). Paul only gets 10 percent of the Protestant vote, which matches his score among all Republicans; Perry gets eight percent of the Protestant vote, only one more percentage point than his support among all Republicans; and Bachmann scores seven percent of the Protestant vote, just surpassing the six percent of all Republicans who support her.
Although Romney attracts the vast majority of the Mormon Republican vote, Mormons represent a relatively small percentage of the voting population. Gallup writes: "Given that Mormons constitute about 2% of American adults and 4% of Republicans nationally, the more important factor may be any possible effect that Romney's faith has on the vote of highly religious non-Mormons, a much larger voting bloc. The current data show that highly religious Protestants do give Romney slightly lower support than he gets among all Republicans, although the five-point difference is not huge."

2012-01-04

Pew: Public's Frustration with Congress Could Cost Republican Incumbents in 2012

The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press reports that "discontent with Congress has reached record levels, and the implications for incumbents in next year’s elections could be stark." Two-thirds of respondents say that "most" congressional members should be voted out of office in 2012, the highest percentage on record. And Americans are not very forgiving of their own; 33 percent say they do not want to see their own representatives reelected. According to Pew, this "matches the all-time high recorded in 2010, when fully 58 members of Congress lost reelection bids – the most in any election since 1948."

Survey results suggest that the American public is particularly frustrated with the Republican Party, and that Republican incumbents stand to lose the most from the public's discontent. Pew comments: "A record-high 50% say that the current Congress has accomplished less than other recent Congresses, and by nearly two-to-one (40% to 23%) more blame Republican leaders than Democratic leaders for this." Americans are critical of Republican leaders' political approach: "By wide margins, the GOP is seen as the party that is more extreme in its positions, less willing to work with the other side to get things done, and less honest and ethical in the way it governs. And for the first time in over two years, the Democratic Party has gained the edge as the party better able to manage the federal government."

Americans are not putting all the blame on Republicans, of course; they appear to be dissatisfied with Congress as a whole. Democrats survive with more approval than Republicans, but Americans still do not view them very favorably: "Just 31% approve of how Democratic congressional leaders have performed." Still, comparisons between the two parties do indicate that congressional Democrats are at the very least less-disliked than Republicans. For example, while a minority of Americans approve of Democratic congressmen, an even smaller percentage (21%) say they approve of the job Republican leaders have done. In addition, the Democratic Party has retained more support from its base: "While Democrats approve of the job their party’s leaders are doing by a 60% to 31% margin, only 49% of Republicans approve of the GOP leaders in Congress are doing, while 44% disapprove."

The negative Republican attitude differs from the recent historical trend; in recent election cycles, voters from the political party with a House majority say that a majority of congressional members should be reelected. Now, however, "seven-in-ten Republicans say most members of Congress should be replaced, as do 73% of independents and 60% of Democrats."

Americans largely single out current congressional members, and not the political system in which they serve, as the problem.  Pew writes: "In assessing Congress, 55% of the public says they think the system can work fine, it’s the members that are the problem. Just 32% say they think most members have good intentions but the political system is broken. The balance of opinion is virtually identical across party lines."
Independents do not express positive views toward either political party, but they are especially critical of Republicans. "By a 54% to 30% margin they say the Republican Party, not the Democratic Party, is more extreme in its positions, and they are twice as likely to label the Republicans than the Democrats as the less honest and ethical party (42% vs. 21%)."

If congressional members--particularly Republicans--hope to hold onto their jobs come 2012, it seems they will have a lot of work to do.

2011-12-27

Archived Announcements

Looking for an older announcement? Try visiting the Teaching With Data blog.