Comments on: When Good Leaders Hit Bad Times

By: sean

sean — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 02:17:47 +0000

When things aren’t going well, swing voters are more inclined to vote for change. Many or most of these swing voters are not making a “fundamental attribution error”; rather they suppose new personnel will be less committed to the status quo and readier to take fresh initiatives. Beyond that, it’s always hard to argue with success and easier for an opposition to argue against an incumbent that’s associated with setbacks, and hence a change in the state of economy will change the state of the beauty and image contest between the parties. I think it’s excessively strong language to conclude therefrom that the swing voters make a “fundamental attribution error”. You should delete the word “fundamental”.

By: Rimfax

Rimfax — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:57:29 +0000

Good post, but I’d argue that the state of the US economy is far from unrelated to the Australian employment rate.

By: Sinclair Davidson

Sinclair Davidson — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 08:00:30 +0000

they’re not you’re

By: Sinclair Davidson

Sinclair Davidson — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 07:59:44 +0000

I haven’t read the paper, and I probably should, but how do you know you’re ‘good’ leaders?

By: Tristan Cooke

Tristan Cooke — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 06:32:44 +0000

I have to say this is one of the best posts I’ve ever read on this blog, or on an election to explain why voters just flop about.

Though he overstates the case and is, perhaps, too much of a market libertarian ”myth of the rational voter” by Bryan Caplan is a great read for anyone who enjoyed this post.