Holy Smokes -- Reasons Not To Smoke Stack Up

We were already working on a story on the relationship between smoking and well-being when we realized the American Cancer Society marks its 34th annual Great American Smokeout on Thursday. On its Web site, the ACS lists more than a few good reasons to quit smoking -- all of them having to do with benefits for physical health.

Our story today adds to that list of reasons, revealing how much better nonsmokers fare than smokers in terms of overall well-being beyond just physical health. We cut the data by income to make sure income wasn't the driving factor in what are truly remarkable findings.

Our story and analysis by Brett Pelham reveals that, across all income brackets, the difference in "net thriving" -- which is the percentage who are classified as "thriving" minus the percentage who are "suffering" -- is consistent and substantial. Not only do nonsmokers do better across the board, Pelham finds that "for those making less than $60,000 per year, not smoking appears to be the equivalent of moving up one income category in evaluative well-being. What's more, nonsmokers making between $60,000 and $90,000 per year have higher well-being than smokers in the top income bracket."


The story goes on to reveal that nonsmokers have higher emotional health and are less likely to have been diagnosed with depression than smokers. Smokers also fare worse than nonsmokers on our Basic Access Sub-Index, which includes questions about having enough money for food, shelter, healthcare, suggesting that in many cases the money spent on smoking would be better spent elsewhere.

Of course, it remains possible that people who choose to smoke are dealing with other things that push them lower on these measures. But even with income off the table, it is clear that nonsmokers are better off, physically and emotionally, than those who light up.

On Palin Watch: Pre- and Post-"Rogue"

Sarah Palin's book release this week will no doubt be considered a pivotal moment in her political career. Just as there was Palin pre- and post-VP pick, there will be Palin pre- and post-"Going Rogue."

From pre- to post-VP pick, Palin went from unknown to fairly well-liked almost overnight. After the election, the unfavorables eclipsed the favorables. Nearly one year and one resignation later, 50% of Americans were less than keen on Palin. As our Jeffrey M. Jones noted in our October story on Palin's favorability rating: "Palin's ratings have not recovered, and her current 40% favorable rating is the lowest for her since she became widely known after last year's Republican convention." Here's Palin's favorability trend, and you can see the complete data and precise survey dates here.



In our most recent read of 2012 presidential candidate preferences, Palin garners less support from Republicans than Mike Huckabee and ties Mitt Romney. Nearly two-thirds of all Americans (63%) say they currently would not consider voting for her for president and nearly the same percentage (62%) say she is not qualified to be president.

There is little doubt that Palin is trying to improve these numbers and her image overall with the release of her book. In fact, writing a book was tops on a to-do list Newt Gingrich penned for Palin back in August. There's already advice on how to get it right and many are eagerly anticipating the outcome.

Pundits and party loyalists will surely try to rush to a verdict on the book's effect on Palin's image. We'll track it empirically, reporting not on the voices of the few, but of the many. How the above numbers move over the next calendar year is certain to play a role in whether Palin takes a shot at the presidency for 2012. To make sure you're up to date, sign up to get our Election 2012 e-mail alerts and RSS feeds.

Your Opinions Count

One goal of this blog is to provide behind-the-scenes insights to what you see and read on Gallup.com and why we think it is important. Another goal is to provide you with a forum to give us feedback and suggestions.

At our core, we are a site that provides:

• Data-driven insights on the news of the moment.
• Daily and global tracking of metrics crucial to gauging political and economic stability.
• Behavioral economic data critical to understanding how world citizens think and behave.

We want our news to be easy to consume and use, both in terms of what we report and how we report it. If there is something you would like to see on Gallup.com, or have a suggestion on how to improve our news or how you get it, please feel free to post a comment or e-mail us at gallup_news@gallup.com.

Afghanistan From All Angles

As U.S. President Barack Obama weighs his options in Afghanistan, a new Gallup poll conducted over the weekend finds about a one-third of Americans (35%) supportive of Gen. Stanley McChrystal's request to send 40,000 more troops. But even more Americans (44%) would prefer that Obama begin to reduce the number of troops in Afghanistan. The rest would prefer to send fewer than 40,000 more troops or for troop levels to be kept the same as they are. We'll release this data in our lead story Thursday morning, along with results by party and analysis from our Jeffrey M. Jones. (Update: Read the story).

When we asked in October about sending more troops to Afghanistan without giving a specific number, Americans had shifted to being about evenly divided, from being slightly more opposed in September.

According to reports, a key factor in Obama's thoughts on Afghanistan is the amount of confidence he places in Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Doubts about Karzai reportedly run high in the administration and world leaders have stepped up the amount of pressure on him to eradicate the type of corruption that marred the country's August election. Gallup finds Karzai's own constituents highly skeptical, with 81% of Afghans perceiving widespread corruption in the government even before the election. In the same survey, 49% of Afghans said they thought additional U.S. troops would help stabilize the security situation in the southern provinces.

In making his decision, both about troop levels and overall mission objectives, Obama is said to be leaning heavily on his Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, who Americans also tend to view favorably.

You can read more Gallup news about Afghanistan and sign up for Afghanistan e-mail alerts or RSS feeds here.

Why You Should Care About What Other People Think

I had the opportunity today to listen to a presentation by James Fowler, co-author of Connected, at the iDiplomacy Symposium taking place at our headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Fowler and his co-author Nicholas A. Christakis examine how social networks form, evolve, and influence us. According to their research, we all operate in social clusters, which strongly influence our attitudes and behaviors. They have found that we are most strongly influenced by the people with whom we have strong, real relationships, as well as by the people who strongly influence those people. We are not as influenced by our more peripheral or loose connections.

From the lens of a person focused on reporting the attitudes and behaviors of people far beyond any of our own personal networks -- i.e., the views of all citizens in the U.S. and around the world -- I left with two main takeaways.

First, social networks have the opportunity to influence public opinion, in some ways even more so than politicians or advocates of a particular issue or action. This is because we're more likely to emulate the attitudes and behaviors of a person who is close to us than a person who is far from us. Further, it's important to understand how many people hold a certain viewpoint, because each of those people is a potential advocate or "influencer" for that viewpoint. The more people who hold a certain viewpoint, the more potential influencers you have, and the more networks to be influenced.

Second, because socially-connected people influence each other and because like-minded people tend to associate with one another, our own personal networks are rarely going to provide an accurate gauge of the bigger picture out there. The nationally representative data we collect at Gallup in many ways serve as a check on our own perceptions, which are likely affected by the attitudes and behaviors of the people closest to us and not necessarily reflective of what people think more broadly.

So, it turns out we absolutely should care, or at least be aware, about what other people think -- both those closest to us, and those far away. And we're best off if we acknowledge and understand why there's often a difference between the two.

What 700 Million Migrants Could Do

We've been flooded this week with interest in our findings on migration desires around the world -- specifically, the finding that about 700 million people around the world would like to permanently move to another country if given the chance.

The question asks specifically: "Ideally, if you had the opportunity, would you like to move permanently to another country, or would you prefer to continue living in this country?" The distinction between ideally wanting to move and actually moving is a big one.

As our Neli Esipova and Julie Ray put it: "If all adults who desire to move to another country permanently actually moved to their desired destination country today, some countries would suffer tremendous losses in human capital and others would be overwhelmed." They then reveal the five countries that would -- in the respondents' ideal world -- see the biggest population boosts, and the five that would see the biggest decreases.


While 24% of potential migrants said they would like to move to the U.S. -- far more than said so about any other country -- the U.S. did not make the top five list in terms of potential population growth. Friday, we'll release the entire list of countries in this study and their Potential Net Migration Index values -- for a complete picture of what could happen if every adult worldwide who had the desire to move to another country actually got that chance.

To be sure to get the story as soon as it is published, sign up for our world news e-mail alerts or RSS feeds.

The Scoreboard Heading Into 2010 and 2012

It's the end of the first quarter, and there's a lot of time left in the game. That's the sober truth for folks on both sides of the political aisle. 2010 is halftime -- though the score does count -- and in 2012, we crown a new champion.

Relishing their two gubernatorial victories, Republicans are feeling good about their chances in the second quarter, hoping for big gains at the half. Indeed, the stats from the first quarter suggest there's reason for Republicans to feel more hopeful than in contests past. Our must-read look at the political climate for 2010 breaks down the reasons why in great detail. In brief -- Democrats need to start putting more points on the board in terms of Obama's job approval, satisfaction with the way things are going in the country, Congress' job approval, party ID, and turnout.

Republicans, in the meantime, have every reason to keep their eyes on emerging victorious in 2012. Thursday morning, we're out with our most in-depth read yet of the potential Republican field for 2012. You can read the full story -- which Mike Huckabee fans will like -- at 5aET.