Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

IL: 2010 Sen, Gov (PPP 1/22-25)

Topics: poll

Public Policy Polling (D)
1/22-25/10; 400 likely Democratic primary voters, 4.9% margin of error
573 likely Republican primary voters, 4.1% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(PPP release)

Illinois

2010 Senate: Democratic Primary
32% Giannoulias, 20% Hoffman, 18% Jackson, 2% Marshall, 1% Meister

2010 Governor: Democratic Primary
41% Hynes, 40% Quinn

2010 Senate: Republican Primary
42% Kirk, 9% Hughes, 4% Lowery, 3% Martin, 2% Thomas, 2% Arrington

2010 Governor: Republican Primary
19% Dilalrd, 17% McKenna, 16% Brady, 13% Ryan, 11% Andrzejewski, 7% Proft, 1% Schillerstrom

 

Comments
Farleftandproud:

Not that it is related to this race, but how many of you think Bernanke should keep his job? I think too much contreversy over his financial decisions have really been troubling to me, and when two mavericks, John Mccain from the center/right and Bernie Sanders from the left, are going to vote against him, I would take that quite seriously. The bailouts of AIG were criminal in my opinion, and this is a topic progressives and some conservatives agree on.

____________________

Field Marshal:

I think all the bailouts in general were a terrible idea. While i don't think it was criminal, i feel the AIG bailout was the worst of the worst in that it adds significant moral hazard to the equation.

However, i feel that most of his other initiatives have been very successful and creative and the fact that he is an expert on the depression only aides us. His books on the depression are very good and most of them are non-technical so i highly recommend.

At this point, i think there are very few people that are more qualified for the position and this is really not the time to be changing course given his early successes in stabilizing the economy.

Just my 3 cents (its worth .01 more than most peoples!).

____________________

Stillow:

First, Kirk will not only wi nthe primary but probably wi nthe general.

Bernanke should go. What they are doing with interest rates is going to cause severe long term damage to our financial system. Greenspan helped caused this entire thing and Bernanke is just finishing up. Kick him out.

____________________

Xenobion:

I don't pretend to be an Economics Professor but Bernanke's perscription was a perfict fit for a non-Chicago supply side economist. The financial system needs to be protected to a certain extent and while many got to go off scott free, enough actually failed like Bear Sterns and Washington Mutual.

The upheaval of the Chicago School and the Reganites that protect it are coming to a cross-roads. Unfettered Neoliberalism will really be a facet of history in the late 80's and 90's. We've seen how the market can't self regulate itself and an ignorant congress (both Dems and Reps) can't be left to regulate it by their own devices.

Bernanke is the man. The FED is a puppet position. Economics is a soft science and its hard to examine all the tea leaves to find out what's going to happen. A good dose of Keynesianism is what we got and it has prevented this Recession from becoming a Depression.

____________________

Ryan:

Keynesianism is what we got, and it will not only bring us into a double dip but will slow down the recovery in the long term. The system was in the process of correcting itself when home prices were falling and the stock market crashed. It was painful, but it happened because these prices were too high to begin with. Propping up these bubbles, which is what TARP and the stimulus are attempting to do (by Obama's own explanation) will only put off dealing with the problem until a later day.

____________________

Stillow:

Do you call a liberal hot line to get this stuff or what?

____________________

Stillow:

Ryan

Well said...not only do they delay the problem, but the amplify the problem so it will be even more painful.

____________________

ChicagoKid:

The problem is the markets are not being followed, whenever you bailout banks and other financial institutions you put them on the rolls of government. Like any other entity the banks then have different priorities. That is the fault with Keynesianism and bailouts, you can't follow the markets and they become distorted. Instead of you and I choosing where the money goes and where we want it to go, government agents push the agenda. It won't work. Bernanke needs to go, high inflation will be coming soon, we need real growth not TARP and giving away cars.

____________________

Xenobion:

Keynesianism is not perfect it is targeted and useful if you know your target. Which we actually do and we know the problem industries. A Chicago/Supply Side decision would have wiped the Republican Party out, thrown us in a Depression that would have lasted 4 years at least. You can't have a multiplier effect when entire industries are in tailspin. The Keynesian response has stopped that and brought stability. This isn't rocket science we did the Chicago response during the Depression and allowed banks to bankrupt themselves. It resulted in 10 years of Depression till Keynesian policy was starting to be implemented.

People say we need real growth but don't get the fact that TARP and Cash For Clunkers were emergency provisions to give stability and faith in the markets. Try getting your grandparents to put money in a bank if they lived in the Depression. You need confidence that markets will temporarily be taken care of or face the natural progression of 20%+ unemployment rate. They do make the economy slump for a bit but they don't freaking devistate it like Argentinia or Russia where every investor in the world pulls out and never comes back.

The difference now is we are globally connected and to reboot the global economy that would have been taken down in a pure capitalist Chicago way would have been devistating to rekindle.

Chicago/Supply-Side/Milton Friedmanistic approaches to the economy are largely being debated and just listening to the debate now between the New Keynesians and the remanents of the Chicago school and you see we're at an impasse of the old ways of dealing with the economy when the Chicago School itself is becoming more critical of its own theories that supported Regan and Thatcher. Interesting times we live in but I doubt you'd find a reputable FED Chairman that would be Chicago School. Politically its devestating and would kill whatever policy would embrace it. Hell, who wants a 15% interest rate on a mortgate like in Regan's time?

____________________

Ryan:

"The Keynesian response has stopped that and brought stability."

It may have softened the fall, but the problem is that we are still propped up on a balance beam with further to fall via another market correction.

"Hell, who wants a 15% interest rate on a mortgate like in Regan's time?"

If it ends up being necessary (and I don't think that is for sure or not), than yes. I'd prefer that to run-away inflation, which a continuation of the current fiscal and monetary policies will bring about. Hopefully they'll get a lid on it before that happens. I'm encouraged that BO has called for a discretionary spending freeze. Now he needs to go one step further and starts decreasing discretionary spending instead of just not increasing it to even more unsustainable levels.

____________________

Field Marshal:

As someone with a masters in Econ, it is impossible to state that one school is better than another. The conclusive evidence is elusive (its like man-made global warming in that regard- and why i think its faulty- as there is no way for certain of knowing what would have happened).

There are numerous studies showing Keynesian, Supply-side, Austrian, Classical, Neo-Classical, etc. work and don't work.

This is why they call it the dismal science.


Ryan,

Don't be fooled about the spending freeze. It amounts to a 4 hundredths of a percent difference in total spending.

As i said previously, the federal government should be doing very little if any discretionary spending.

____________________

Xenobion:

I'd take 2 dips of -5% GDP than 1 10%. The problem with one huge fell swoop is you end up destroying a lot of your established economic capital and output capacity. Its the difference of taking a bullet head on or getting knocked out from the impact of the body armor. Recovery is not necessarily faster in 1 dip.

You look at the economies that didn't brace for impact and you can find an unfettered laissez faire approach to dealing with a recession/depression is perhaps one of the most brutal self inflicting pains a country can do. The swings in capital flow are so bad that it ends up directly affecting inflation (see Argentina).

People cry inflation but the FED since Volcker has always targeted inflation rather than employment to be the safegaurd of the economy. And it hasn't been since Carter that you've seen irregular levels of inflation. Eventually the gold market will bubble and we'll be back to normal.

____________________

Ryan:

"I'd take 2 dips of -5% GDP than 1 10%. "

This is true, but that is not what they are trying to do. The 10% discrepency (just to use a random number) between where are markets appeared to be and where are economy actually is was there in 2008. We took the 5% hit (again I'm just pulling the numbers from your example, but any number would show the same example), and the market has come back up 2.5%. What it needed to do was go down. The gains that have been made this year in the stock market(s) are nonsensical. We need that next 5% drop, or we are just setting ourselves up for that 10% fall in the future. I'm not saying that this will be a positive experience while it is happening, but it will be better in the long term.

"Don't be fooled about the spending freeze. It amounts to a 4 hundredths of a percent difference in total spending.
As i said previously, the federal government should be doing very little if any discretionary spending."

I agree, but at least it will be a step in the right direction, if it happens. With that said, I have little hope that this change will actually happen, much less prove to be a continuing trend.

____________________

Ryan:

"People cry inflation but the FED since Volcker has always targeted inflation rather than employment to be the safegaurd of the economy. And it hasn't been since Carter that you've seen irregular levels of inflation. Eventually the gold market will bubble and we'll be back to normal."

Inflation isn't a problem in the short term, but it will be in the long term if the current fiscal and monetary policies are held in place, particularly if the Fed is pressured by congress to keep interest rates at or near zero longer than it should (and hopefully they won't have to go close to 15% again).

____________________

Xenobion:

If the gains in the stock market were non-sensical then the original losses were also. People pulled out of the market and tightened their belts slowing the normal business cycle based off of not scarcity, or poor business preformance, but an overheated economy on the speculative risk of mortgage back securities. Every other country is trending out of a recession, what's so hard to believe that we're actually getting out of the recession?

There is no inflationary threat. People are doomsayers on this issue. 3% inflation is a natural rate and we had 1.9% for 2009, well below the average.

____________________

John:

Are commenters here objecting to the specific nature of these bailouts or just the idea of any bailouts for banks at all? If it is the later then perhaps they can say what they think the results of not bailing out the banks would have been.

As to correction/bursting of bubbles, absolutely, but it should have been done a long time before the recession not during it. Why would you think that it would be a better time or less painful doing it during a period when the economy is declining (with the real possibility of a financial meltdown), than waiting until the economy is at least back to growth?

'Keynesianism is what we got, and it will not only bring us into a double dip but will slow down the recovery in the long term'.

Firstly the stimulas package was about a third tax cuts, secondly what makes you quite so certain about the double dip? if you really are so sure I would suggest a lot of short selling is in order!

'The gains that have been made this year in the stock market(s) are nonsensical.'

The gains made this year are reasonably logical as the economy moves out of recession, it's the 10% (from your example) decrepency that was there before the recession which would be nonsensical. Besides the stock market often runs on a rather skewed sense of logic and given all the other problems with the economy I think this correction can probably wait.


____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR