Hiring Republicans

I put a question on Predictify.com asking how many of my new book would be in print by the end of January. The average of the predictions is over 304,000. http://www.predictify.com/AuctionView.aspx?ID=176

As the creator of the question, I get special rights to look at the demographics of the predictors to see what kind of correlations there are. I noticed there isn’t much difference in the predictions by religion or gender or level of education and so on. But two categories jumped out.

Notice the difference in average predictions by political affiliation:

Republicans:  352,000
Democrats:    286,000
Independents: 275,000

Are Republicans more optimistic than Democrats, and are they projecting that optimism on my book? That’s my hypothesis. And it tracks with the fact that independents have the lowest predictions. I think the cynics and pessimists are the people least likely to be part of an organized movement.

The other big difference in predictions was by employment:

Students:   325,000
Employed:   295,000
Unemployed: 164,000

Those predictions also track with what I imagine is the level of optimism for those demographic groups. Students are idealistic and don’t appreciate how hard the real world is going to be. They are optimists. People with jobs are likely to be far more optimistic than unemployed people.

Hypothetically, suppose researchers confirmed that Republicans are the most optimistic people by nature. Since optimism is an important contributor to success, if you were trying to fill a position in your company, would it make economic sense to favor Republicans, even if you held a different political view?

Speaking of my book, Stick to Drawing Comics, Monkey-Brain!, that I am shamelessly plugging all week, here’s a link to Amazon, or you can get it in your local bookstore. (I gave you two posts today to compensate for my inexcusable capitalism.)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591841852?ie=UTF8&tag=dilbertcom20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1591841852

Comments

[SkyRyeTui]

You "ASS-U-ME" that Democrats are pessimistic by nature and Republicans are optomistic. Independents you group to be cynics- (not appreciated)
How do you figure that "cynics and pessimist" would be less likely to be part of an organized movement!? Wouldn't these be the people that demand change and are less likely to "HOPE" or just be "Paitent" for things to get better. This would make your hypothisis- "Ass-backward"

[carlos]

I think that the (R)'s are actually being pessimistic and cynical. They consider you to be bad, since you criticize their obvious shortcomings, and they believe that far too many of your books will sell.

On the other side, everybody else is also being pessimistic and cynical, thinking that not enough people are going to buy your book. And then, they're going to order a copy. :)

[Gabriel]

No matter what the numbers are, your brain always tries to find a reasonable explanation for them.
regards,
http://www.donttalkaboutlife.com

[Victor]

Saying that Republicans "let people live their lives" is almost as funny as this wonderful blog.

I also find it weird that Republicans and Students are both optimistic, because younger demographics (like students) seem to have less Republicans. Maybe all the Democrats are just unemployed after they get out of school.

[Troy Camplin, Ph.D.]

I have little doubt Republicans are more optimistic. Sometimes that optimism can get us in trouble (the optimism around the Iraq War comes to mind), but more often it is a good way to govern (optimism that if you let people live their lives and spend their moeny as they want, they will do the right thing). On the other hand, a healthy amount of pessimism keeps on from going overboard (in this respect pessimism is conservative -- how ironic that the Democrats may in fact be the conservatives!). I personally prefer the position between optimism and pessimism: hope. So I hope you sell millions!

[Joe Allen]

Unemployed independents must hate waking up each morning.

[Andy Watt]

"Republican economics in UK? BWHAHAHAHA!

...

And I get ridiculed for my economic views? My goodness, go to college outside of the US/UK and take an economics course. Things may look a lot different."

Oh dear. I don't really want to start some kind of flame war with someone who gets touchy about having views on stuff. Especially on here.

I was suggesting that the money motive doesn't mix with public services - an unashamedly "democratic" agenda - and this had bearing on the original question about who would be best in the long view to push the book - and the next, and the next.

The argument that the UK doesn't have free _enough_ markets is definitely worthy of consideration (we've had plenty of discussion on here about closed minds) but I still think modern "psuedo darwinian" capitalist thought is simply not compatible with the provision of public services.

Tell me, is the USs "freer" economy giving you guys better healthcare? I'm sure I've seen comments on this very post regarding the state of healthcare provision in the US...

So in summation...
1. Don't try to wind me up with that odd attempt at textual braying laughter, it doesn't do you any favours (is it cribbed off Dilbert?)
2. Still think the book is better off in democratic hands - not for simple reasons of pessimism or optimism but because they'll take a longer view, having broadly more social conscience.

[Steven McDaniel]

"..Republican economics in UK? BWHAHAHAHA!
What is the rate of taxation in the UK? What is the degree of free social services? UKs problems are far more in-line with Democratic core values. And what is the situation? A poor economic climate where expenditures on infrastructure are not possible. And your solution is more government involvement? BWAHAHAHAHA!
And I get ridiculed for my economic views? My goodness, go to college outside of the US/UK and take an economics course. Things may look a lot different..." Chowder Maker

Chowder Head, I think you may be referring to my post, (Oh, you're talking to Andy Watt - Hi, Andy) so here goes, anyway: I spent 25 years in England, and the infrastructure is pretty well intact, like it is over here. They have their problems, and yes a Republican economics course in a country you approve of, (say, Transylvania?) may make me think a National Health system cripples a country and is a sinister plot by commies to keep the poor alive through a 'nanny state' ("And today's lecture is entitled, 'Are there no Workhouses?'"). However, you can't put a price on extending medical care to the poor - that should be a bipartisan imperative. Still, the 'bull' has already got out of the gate in the USA, so don't worry - a National Health system is unlikely. Trust me, even Hillary wouldn't implement one once she got to power through promising it, any more than her husband did.

[Dom]

What else do Republicans have left but hope?

[Adrian D.]

Noah Vaile:

It is my observation that Republican (the party leaders, anyway) insist on absence of dissent. That is why there are claims of people being "Republican In Name Only."

[TallDave]

"Hypothetically, suppose researchers confirmed that Republicans are the most optimistic people by nature"

This isn't hypothetical, several studies have shown conservatives are generally happier and more optimistic.

Really, this only makes sense. One of the strongest predictors of voting GOP is income; the more an individual makes the more likely they are to pull the lever for the Republican. Success and optimism are mutually reinforcing, esp. for entrepeneurs.

And the Dems, of course, are the party of the safety net. If you expect to need a safety net, it only makes sense you would want more welfare and other programs that involve taking money from the rich to help you.

[Michael LaRocca]

Sure, you gave me two blog entries in one day, and a DNRC Newsletter, but that's not enough to make me buy a book from a meth-head. I guess those 80,000 orgasms turned you into one hell of an optimist.

(I would explain that this is only a joke, but you've already tagged yourself as a meth-head to all the induhviduals who comment on your posts without reading them. Might as well invent the Internet while you're at it.)

[Michael LaRocca]

Sure, you gave me two blog entries in one day, and a DNRC Newsletter, but that's not enough to make me buy a book from a meth-head. I guess those 80,000 orgasms turned you into one hell of an optimist.

(I would explain that this is only a joke, but you've already tagged yourself as a meth-head to all the induhviduals who comment on your posts without reading them. Might as well invent the Internet while you're at it.)

[ChowderMaker]

Although you apparently have no appreciation of industry in this country, it has afforded us a standard of living where you even have the opportunities that you are arguing about."
FROM ANDY WATT:

Ah, the ever present battle between good (social policies,

"cohesiveness", the public good) and evil (the idea that market forces will create good wherever they go)...

Just take a look at what's happened to the public services in the UK and you'll see what Republican economics does when it gets involved: we now have water companies who don't invest in infrastructure and charge a fortune for water when 50% of the water leaks into the ground: a new re-nationalised railway track operator after the private one (surprise surprise) didn't invest in infrastructure, resulting in some pretty

--------------------------------------------------------

Republican economics in UK? BWHAHAHAHA!

What is the rate of taxation in the UK? What is the degree of free social services? UKs problems are far more in-line with Democratic core values. And what is the situation? A poor economic climate where expenditures on infrastructure are not possible. And your solution is more government involvement? BWAHAHAHAHA!

And I get ridiculed for my economic views? My goodness, go to college outside of the US/UK and take an economics course. Things may look a lot different.

[Noah Vaile]

While the information you provided seems to tell us none of what you interpret it to mean other research HAS shown that Republicans/Conservatives tend to be happier and more optimistic than liberals/democrats. This is most likely because the first group does not watch as much TV/listen to the raavings of the mass media as much as the latter group. This is because the MM tends to be negative and presents pessimistic news as much and as often as possible. The former group gets its information from more varied and trustable sources.

It would also indicate that the vast plurality of your readers and fans are Republicans, intellectual/intelligent and have jobs or reasonable prospects for getting one.

I don't thinkt hat any of this has to do with an "organized movement" though. Certainly both conservative and liberal thopught are less movements than ways of approaching the world. There is a great range within each of those intellectual approaches. It is simply that today the "liberal movement" has been hi-jacked to the far, anti-American and socialist left, the nanny-society & victimhood politics that we are all so familiar with. They then apply their own irrational hatred to all who disagree with them effectively polarizing the two sides without any input from those who they think disagree with them. Disagree in the slightest on any issue and you are effectively drummed out of the corps. Liberalism today has become a lock-step fascist intellectual lack of exercise. Probably why they tend to be less optimistic.

Why are independents less optimistic? Most of them have no values or positions- to them independence is a wishy-washy middle of the road stance on all things. They see themselves as not having a say or control in any fashion. And they see themselves as not deserving to either. To an independent all arguments have equal merit and therefore none at all. They need guidance. Not ridicule. BWA HA HA!!!!

[Steve]

Republicans are definately not more optimistic. If anything they are more cynical. Republicans probably just like your book more and thus are more likely to inflate the figures.

[GLK]

Im my little corner of the world I've noticed that, Democrats tend to believe they're 100% right 100% of the time. Republicans tend to leave wiggle room and aren't anywhere near as myopic and single-minded as the Dems would like everyone to believe. Consequently the former would seem far more pessimistic than the latter.

[Justin Fabian]

Brain regions responsible for optimism located http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN2443298420071024

Now if only you could turn their optimism into your sales...

[dsg]

I am a day late, I was traveling yesterday. But I did buy your book. I bought it at a news stand at Reagan airport. This means I paid an extra $10.00 for it, ~$26. I got the last one off the shelf so it must be selling well, also I couldn't find a copy at Logan terminal B. Do you see any extra money because I paid more? According to one of the chapters, I will probably enjoy it more than people who pay less so that makes me happy.

Anyway it made my flight better, I remember some of the topics, but not all, so it was fun to read. It does make a good book.

I do have some advice for those entering the blurb contest. The current back cover quotes seem a bit tame, so perhaps sticking closer to PG rated comments would be better.

Can you guess my political affiliation from this post?

[Steven McDaniel]

"They're less likely to demand employers pay for health insurance, and even less likely to demand universal health care. The former reduces the cost of labor, while the latter reduces the tax burden, leading us back to 1.
They are for high quality health care and not for low quality universal health care."
Chowder Maker

Well, last time I got on to someone who used this blog for a Democratic lefty party political broadcast, you know the stuff, Bush is mad, Cheney flew the planes into the World Trade Center so they could kill Iraqis for oil - it's good to lose the war so we can win the election, blare, drone. OK, so with Lowder Monkey here, we have the Republican equivalent. They both demonstrated why I am of neither party. Especially garbage like: 'We Republicans would rather have us rich jerks having 'good quality health care' than everybody having access to it.' Believe me when I say, universal health care is NOT a communist plot - unless you see the Hippocratic Oath obligating us to extend medical care to everybody, regardless of ability to pay, as a communist plot. I lived in England (NOT a socialist country) for 25 years and received excellent health care for free every time I went to the hospital, including operations, and the cost is spread to the rich and poor. Over here, medical bills are the cause of 50% of all bankruptcies, including insuperable copays for those with the best insurance like Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Even rich people with long term illnesses like cancer end up not able to afford continued chemotherapy when their insurance runs out, even after losing their houses through being unable to afford the copays (I saw all this on Fox News, by the way). It freaked me out when my son got a splinter over here and we had to go to the emergency room after trying to remove it ourselves. We ended up with bills from the hospital, the doctor that saw him, and the organisation that did his blood pressure. I'm surprised the janitor didn't invoice us. One problem fiscal conservatives have is that Christians care about the poor, (which of course is a socialist plot).

[Phred]

Scott,

I'm horribly off topic (an yes, I will add your book to my growing Scott Adams collection) but have you seen the new Wacom Cintiq 12WX.

http://www.wacom.eu/index2.asp?lang=en&pid=96

It's close a price point I'd be comfortable with, and lap portable. I remember your post on drawing techniques and use of WACOM products.

Are you considering giving this one a try (comes out in Nov/at least in Europe) and posting a review.

Thanks

[Gametheory]

Will you upload all the posts that did not made it to the book? What about people's comments to the posts that disappeared?

DO IT, MONKEY BRAIN!!!

By the way, it would have been cool to have a "country" option to verify the optimism hypotesis.

[Rachel]

HI Scotts,

Congratulations of your new book.

On the other hand, I am sad that I cannot view the history articles on this blog. I like many of the past articles and I am regretting now that I didn't save it, though I thought everything published on the blog is supposed to be free...

[Andy Watt]

"Although you apparently have no appreciation of industry in this country, it has afforded us a standard of living where you even have the opportunities that you are arguing about."

Ah, the ever present battle between good (social policies, "cohesiveness", the public good) and evil (the idea that market forces will create good wherever they go)...

Just take a look at what's happened to the public services in the UK and you'll see what Republican economics does when it gets involved: we now have water companies who don't invest in infrastructure and charge a fortune for water when 50% of the water leaks into the ground: a new re-nationalised railway track operator after the private one (surprise surprise) didn't invest in infrastructure, resulting in some pretty horrific accidents - I note that corporate manslaughter legislation once again proved to be a toothless paper tiger here - we have hostpitals with privatised cleaning services which don't clean properly as they're watching the frigging pennies and (well, duh) we get superbugs in hospital which are killing us, we have zero joined-up public transport in terms of buses, etc so we all take our cars everywhere...

the list goes on, but market forces, when introduced into these services (which give us a good chunk of the quality of life we so dearly love) have completely destroyed anything that lay good therein. The relentless need to deliver value to shareholders results in diminution of quality of service (however incrementally).

The money motive does not equal social good.

Scott, ask a democrat to look after your book (speaking in this hypothetical argument). While the Republican might get a hard-on at the thought of the cash, the Democrat will know who to pitch it to. He's got some of the same outlook (especially when it comes to the content). The Republican will just cover your book in crappy blurbs pitched at just the right level to sell it (the argument being that market forces will encourage our $-pupil'd Repub to do anything and everything to sell the book). But...

If you use the Democrat then you might sell more books later.

[AA]

A good CEO/Big Boss shouldn't be an optimist.

He should be someone with the (rare) ability to see things exactly as they are.

Republican? Uh huh. Right.