Poll: Public Opposes Extension Of Cash For Clunkers
A new Rasmussen poll finds that the public opposes an extension of the Cash For Clunkers program -- but the program itself doesn't get a failing grade.
A 44% plurality say that the program was a good idea, against 38% who say it was a bad idea.
Respondents were then asked this question, explaining the current problem: "The government initially planned to spend $950 million on the cash for clunkers program. That money has run out. Should Congress authorize additional funds to keep the program going or should it be cancelled?" The result was 33% in favor of extension, to 54% for canceling it.
Assuming that all the people who thought the program was a bad idea are also for canceling it, there appears to be an additional middle ground of folks who at once think the program was good, but also say that the amount that's already been spent was enough.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
A new Rasmussen poll finds .
August 4, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would be nice if we had more reports contextualizing the benefit the program has had for American car companies and showrooms, and the potential impact on emissions. So far, I hear 9 reports of "IT COST X DOLLARDS" to each disparate report of "Ford sales up 1.6%"/"Dealers making good"/"New-car carbons equal out after 5 years for net benefit"...
August 4, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rasmussen polls reveal such bias toward the GOP positions, shouldn't there be a refraining from reporting on them unless there are collabrating evidence of confirming data; At least, on TPM!
August 4, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
please don't insult my intelligence as a tpm reader. i am fully capable of understanding a rasmussen poll for what it is.
August 4, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
A poll from Rasmussen with findings critical of something the Democratic President is in favor of.
Wow. Who'd athunkit?
August 4, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I knew it was Rasmussen before I even read the article.
August 4, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure this Rasmussen poll reveals so much a bias against a Democratic position as it does the fact that many Americans don't understand what they're being asked to render judgment on in the first place.
Maybe that's because of the way the question was asked or maybe it's the tendency of Americans to not want "those other people to get too much of the money" (sure, it was a good thing, but hurry, let's shut off the spigot while we still can). Either way, the respondents either didn't truly understand what they were being asked or didn't see that their response was illogical.
If anyone's ever been on jury duty, they'll have familiarity with both of these maddening--and typically American--traits.
August 4, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, there might be a middle ground as you describe. On the other hand, they might have polled a certain percentage of people who'd already traded in their clunkers, and saw no need to extend the program.
August 4, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
From their (rather hard to find) methodology statement:
I've always had a problem with this. They sample about a thousand people. Their sample skews old, rural and, though they don't say it, white. To "compensate," they give more weight to whatever younger, urban and non-white people do answer. The problem is that the opinions of those younger, urban and less white people who do answer are representative of the whole population and that's simply not a statistically valid assumption given the size of the respondent subgroups.
So, for example, if you drew a thousand names out of a hat, you would expect about a 130 of them to be black. In fact, however, say they only get 90 blacks who'll answer the phone and respond to your questions. When they weight those 90 up, they're essentially assuming that the opinion of those 90 is representative of the entire U.S. black population. I don't really have the skills to calculate margins of error and confidence intervals anymore, but I remember enough of my long-ago classes in that stuff to know that if that's true, it's purely by chance.
It's not surprising their results are always more pleasing to the GOP.
August 4, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have talked to numerous friends about the "cash for clunkers" deal and they were all for, maybe I should start writing their names down, so I too can create a poll.
This ludicrous, I don't mind for a more nuanced version of the overall benefits of this program or the drawbacks but IMHO it looks like a win win for business and customers alike. I mean hell if we can get 10 percent of the idiots who drive to work alone in their gas guzzlers(SUV's) everyday to purchase a car that gets 8 mi a gallon that means less oil consumed by those drivers (if their habits remain the same). So what is the problem. I have heard the argument that government has shown signs of mis-management because they ran out of money so quick, but that really does not make any sense. To me it looks like it was managed quite well.
August 4, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone here really give a flying fuck about *any* Republican Rasmussen poll?
August 4, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes. i find them endlessly amusing.
August 4, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is this obsession with Rasmussen polls on TPM? By the same blogger too, every single time. Seriously. It is a proven fact that Rasmussen skews to the right. Yet every week TPM gives him more publicity. Hello? It is biased! Stop posting biased polls every week as if they are meaningful.
August 4, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Weren't here during the primaries or the summer before the general, I take it?
Eric covers the poll beat at TPM and he reports them all, good, bad or indifferent. I think Zogby is the only one that's so facially awful that its no longer acknowledged here.
August 4, 2009 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I'm opposed to simply renewing it as it is.
If it ran out of money that fast, then it was WAY too generous. How about cutting the "cash" by half or a third? You can double or triple the number of new cars sold for the same price.
August 4, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with the others. Rasmussen means nothing.
Moreover, leadership requires making wise policy choices that create good outcomes. Asking every five minutes "What do you think?" is a good way to get nothing done.
Plus, people might not always like what is ultimately good for them. Would I like to pay no taxes at all? Sure!! (Maybe Rasmussen can ask me about it.) But I'd then be quite unhappy when no firetrucks come to prevent my house from burning down and the local school and fire dept shut down.
August 4, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
the toplines:
gotta love rasmussen! he only asks the extension question with the program price tag in it but doesn't ask the same question with the program results for context.
and i absolutley adore the stupidity of question #4: How likely is it that new car sales next year will be hurt by the “cash for clunkers” program?
what the fuck???
August 4, 2009 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have talked to numerous friends about the "cash for clunkers" deal and they were all for, maybe I should start writing their names down, so I too can create a poll.
This ludicrous, I don't mind for a more nuanced version of the overall benefits of this program or the drawbacks but IMHO it looks like a win win for business and customers alike. I mean hell if we can get 10 percent of the idiots who drive to work alone in their gas guzzlers(SUV's) everyday to purchase a car that gets 8 mi a gallon that means less oil consumed by those drivers (if their habits remain the same). So what is the problem. I have heard the argument that government has shown signs of mis-management because they ran out of money so quick, but that really does not make any sense. To me it looks like it was managed quite well.
August 4, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I checked out several locations to see if I sould trade in my clunker, but I found the dealers did not want to give any discounts off their sticker price since they were selling so many cars with taxpayer income.
So,,, I've decided to just wait and when the taxpayer money runs out and the dealers are once again negotiating I will most likely just sell my 454 Chevy Silverado to an individual, use the income as a down payment on a vehicle which I will be able to discount from the sticker price.... probably save me a whole lot more than using this program.
Of course this IS an excellent opportunity for dealers, since they are getting full sticker price AND $4500..
August 4, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Republicans have spoken. We won't listen
August 5, 2009 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, it would be good to at least make it stricter -- so that only reasonably fuel efficient cars would be subsidized, and not, as apparently in some cases BUYING Hummers.
An idea I have supported is to have a large flat subsidy (which could supplement existing cash-for-clunker policies, as well as replacing them) which could be several thousand dollars or more; then, for each mile per hour less than a high target level (like 60mph or greater, like hydrogen-powered vehicles), there would be a substantial reduction, breaking even at some fairly high mileage level, like 40 mph. Then very high mileage cars would be boosted, while the others would at least see a modest reduction in their cash-for-clunker subsidy
August 5, 2009 2:59 AM | Reply | Permalink