The first hundred days concept is ridiculous as shown both by objective analysis and by a media swoon over Hillary’s first hundred days as “not-President.”
Pravda . . . um, I mean the mainstream media has been tremendously excited about what it characterizes as the failure that is President Trump’s first hundred days. A few stalwart conservatives have pushed back, and God bless ’em for doing so, but the reality is that most Americans who only passively absorb headlines are thinking “Hmmm. Maybe Donald Trump is a failed president.”
What’s great about Scott Adams is that he’s sidestepped the whole debate and pointed out how perfectly stupid the entire first hundred days concept is:
In science, you don’t have much of an experiment unless you have a control case for comparison. For example, you can’t know if a drug helped with a particular disease unless you study the people who didn’t take the drug at the same time as those who did.
But the pro-science people forget this concept when thinking about politics. Where is the control case for Trump’s first 100 days?
Is it George Washington’s first 100 days?
Is it Jimmy Carter’s first 100 days?
And which prior president came to office in 2017 with identical problems and the most polarized political environment in history?
And just how long is it supposed to take to revise Obamacare? Do we compare it to the time Abe Lincoln repealed and replaced Obamacare? Or how about the time those other presidents repealed and replaced Obamacare in the year 2017?
Only after making that objectively intelligent point does Adams discuss the subjectivity of the analysis. After all, we conservatives are thrilled by Neil Gorsuch, an appointment that the drive-by media sees as a disaster.