A couple of days ago, following the Gibbs’ “professional left” remarks, John Cole posed a serious question over at Balloon Juice,
At any rate, as I sit here waiting for special Ed to douse himself with gasoline and set himself on fire in a teary farewell to his MSNBC audience to protest the remarks by Gibbs, I’m wondering what exactly would have made the very vocal few happy. And I mean vocal few, as this PPP piece points out[.]
First off, I thought Chris Bowers did a good job of calling the reliability of Public Policy Polling’s numbers into question,
PPP’s polling showing Obama with a higher approval among self-identified liberals is irrelevant. Gallup’s four-week sample is based on over 14,000 registered voters, producing a self-identified liberal subsample of 2,500 to 3,000, with a margin of error of less than plus or minus 2. By contrast, PPP’s last monthly survey was based on 667 registered voters, thus producing a liberal subsample of about 100-140, with a margin of error of plus or minus 9.
The PPP numbers are irrelevant given their astronomical margin of error.
So, you know, there’s that.
But whether you’re Robert Gibbs or John Cole, there seems to be a pervasive belief that only hardcore liberals are really frustrated/disappointed with the Obama Administration’s performance to date. And if those whiny titty-babies would just suck it up, we could get on with salvaging this election and keep trying to plug away at things for another two years.
Except that an August 2010 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows that this belief just isn’t true.
Among various tidbits (like the Tea Party getting higher approval than either Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid), the poll shows that by almost any measurement, respondents felt that the Administration had fallen short of expectations. In some cases very far short.
In fact, the only area that respondents felt the Administration had lived up to expectations was in “Improving race relations”. Just barely 45:44%.
There were some obvious areas where disappointment was expressed, like:
- “Reducing government spending” (22:70%), and
- “The federal budget deficit” (20:67%).
There were also some areas that were not altogether surprising, like:
- “The environment” (42:46%),
- “The war in Iraq” (41:50%),
- “Health care” (39:55%), and
- “The economy” (29:66%)”.
And then there were some disappointments that really jumped off the page, like:
- “Standing up to big business and special interests” (37:54%),
- “The war in Afghanistan” (37:57%),
- “Improving oversight of Wall Street and the banks” (33:54%), and
- “Changing business as usual in Washington” (26:65%)
Of course, there are a few different ways you could choose to read those results, but a not unreasonable interpretation is a pretty round rejection of the incrementalist approach that Democrats have chosen to take. On most issues, the Administration has been relatively lock step with the Blue Dogs and centrists of the Democratic Party, if not always in word then almost always in deed. And on more than one occasion, the Administration has seemed to care more about what Republicans have to say on a given issue than the liberal elements of its own elected members and base.
And so what I think would make the “professional left” “happy” would be a general acknowledgment that their views aren’t Pyrrhic. And that in some of the more startling areas of disappointment, such as standing up to big business and improving oversight of Wall Street, liberals views were actually more in step with the general mood of average Americans than Republicans’, Blue Dog Democrats/centrists’, and the Administration’s. That acknowledging those views and maybe even working more strongly towards them would have benefited both the Administration and the Party.
I mean, as was pointed out in a recent poll for Citizen Opinion (and this poll, for that matter), the troubles that Democrats are facing in November aren’t due to some sudden love affair between the American electorate and the GOP. This is a protest vote. Some of the reasons for that protest are largely beyond the control of Democrats. But, as we’ve seen, plenty of them are not.
And so ultimately, Democrats don’t stand to lose the House in November because they overreached and went to far on various issues. Rather, the midterms looks as grim as they do because very early on Democrats started buying into the Republican argument that they were overreaching and chose to self-moderate in ways that meant they actually didn’t go far enough for a lot of voters.
Will Truman 
Patrick Cahalan 
Cornelius 
wardsmith 
Tod Kelly 
Tom Van Dyke 
Murali 
James Hanley 
Borat: “I do a picture, only small, of the Tishnik Masacre. Where many Uzbeks…crushed!”
Kindly Gray Hippie: “How did you feel when you drew this?”
Borat: “Very proud!”.
KGH: “I’m just listening with sadness…a little sadness for your people…?”
Borat: “Yes…no, it is not sad. It is us who do the kill!”
When in doubt,
{ 17 comments }
“Rather, the midterms looks as grim as they do because very early on Democrats started buying into the Republican argument that they were overreaching and chose to self-moderate in ways that meant they actually didn’t go far enough for a lot of voters.”
You mean partisan Democrat voters, surely. The independents, however, are the ones who believe the administration and congress went too far. If the Democrats choose to take these results as evidence that they haven’t done enough, then the midterms will, indeed, be grim.
@Mike Farmer, I’d say Yglesias is consistently right on this subject that Democrats timidity on these subjects are going to exactly be their downfall.
Firstly because by starting off from the Center instead of the Left, they were forced to compromise even further to the right and also upset their base while gaining virtually no support or credit from anyone on the nominal Right. After all, anything and everything Democrats do is Communism.
Secondly, by passing a stimulus half the size their own economic teams recommended and watering down their health care reforms mostly into the future (not to mention failing to even try to get their nominees for the Fed and a number of other posts through the Senate), they’ve all but guaranteed a dismal mood in general with a weak economy. That will push independents to vote out incumbents in droves without actually undercutting the deficit hawks constant cries.
We do not have a center-right voting populace. We do, however, have a center-right to strongly conservative political system. It’s called the Senate. The anti-majoritarian 60-vote requirement for moving progressive legislation in the Senate is strongly aggravated by the fact that the low population States, strongly tend toward the Republican party. So the relatively few Republican voters from these States can prevent the passage of otherwise popular legislation. Such is life.
On national security, though, I’m simply outraged. While Glenn Greenwald’s rants can run just a little over the top, his basic premise — that the Obama Administration has set bi-partisan precedent for appalling practices in the name of National Security — is correct.
Mike F: there are in fact relatively few true independents.
I enjoy John Cole, Balloon Juice and E.D.’s presence there. But anyone familiar with JC knows how he feels about us “whinny titty-babies.” We’re WTB’s. And he has long record of saying so.
That supposed “national poll” at PPP is not even linked. The only recent poll that I remember indicating an 85% approval rating for Obama was the Net Roots, “professional left,” convention poll of a few weeks ago.
The conventional wisdom I hear expressed most often is that us WTB’s are going to stay home in November because we’re WTB’s,
After His Magnificence’s election I sort of thought the American voter was pretty much a “give me some of your stash”, commie-dem. But the polling numbers I’m hearing on right-wing radio, if accurate, indicate that the electorate, while full to bursting with “stupid white people,” is not as radical left as I previously thought.
If that’s the case, it may be that ‘a hard rain is going to fall’ on the dems, just as it will on the nation because of his Holiness’s policies. The problem is that our marginaly documented Kenyan president has truly fouled the waters and surely the RINO/Neocon GOP hasn’t the cohones to right this great wrong.
@Robert Cheeks, Your not just moving the Overton window cheeks, your ripping it out of it’s R.O.
@theotherjimmyolson, thank you!
Mr. Cheeks, If you believe anything you hear on right wing radio you need even more help than I previously thought. Second, the only person I know who insists on being called his holiness is that pedophile pushing pontiff who took a vow of poverty and lives in a billion dollar house.
@dexter45, Ouch, ouch, ouch!
Dude, I like the Pope, ‘viva poppy!’ You gotta chill…way to much hate there. I’m afraid this election may be a little hard on you, ha, ha, ha!
It was a pretty stupefying thing to say. I kind of admire the doubling down in a way, though, and in fact I actually quite admire the phrase “Professional Left.” I think it actually does get at a divide that is real in progressive politics, or in the progressively-inclined voting public to be more exact. Where Gibbs is flat wrong is to say dissatisfaction is limited to the PL. But that goes to some extent back to the discussion I was having with Mark about the 85% out of NN. A lot of those people have massive gripes, obviously more than justified, with the admin. But they couch it in terms of support. I *think* what Gibbs was trying to say, inartfully, was that those gripes are legitimate, but how you couch them matters (to the admin’s feelings, and they would argue to the elections, which, again they would argue, progressives should want Dems to win more of than fewer almost no matter what. All that being perfectly self-serving of course). Whether you say, “I support the president but he’s really dropped the ball here here and here,” or “The president is a lying corporate sack of shit who’s broken basically every campaign pledge except escalating the war ad he and the Dems can go screw, I’m out” rather matters in terms of Democratic politics. It’s not a politically persuasive or intellectually compelling argument, but it has the advantage of honesty in terms of where they stand in relation to the ideological core of their base. They’re basically saying, ‘What you see is what you get; we gave it our best and no we’re not perfect (which in the Democratic mind is a concession implied by even deigning to take up a comparison with W.), but there aren’t going to be any more goodies for a while so it’s gut check time, it’s time to rally to the flag. That might not be the best strategic message, but it is a discernable one to em at least, and I don’t think an entirely unfair one. Probably a dumb one, yes. But not unfair – honest in fact.
@Michael Drew, Agreed. Frankly I’d think that some serious base talking from Obama and every other Democrat is their best bet. Non presidential elections often turn on the base and Obama can’t just let his sit this one out. Beyond me how he fixes the mess he’s in but at least it isn’t worse.
I just want to know what the amateur left thinks about all of this.
@E.D. Kain, Well, I don’t know .I went pro in 1968.
This is a job that will have echoes for those familiar with Redstate.
Keep pointing out that the other party would be worse.
Keep pointing out that, as “bad” as your guy is, he’s doing a lot of good things too, important things.
Point out that the only thing that matters is X (where X can be “the war on terror” or “health care for our Nation’s children”).
If someone criticizes how X is being handled (e.g., they bring up the TSA or Insurance Companies), point out how the other party would be worse.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Folks who were Fiscal Conservatives under Bush have seen this game before.
*blink*
Chart
Just out of curiosity, by what rationale is the Republican Party possibly worse than the Democrats from a fiscal conservative standpoint?
Dude! You got a link from Strike The Root! Awesome!
From Scott’s post:
“…a not unreasonable interpretation is a pretty round rejection of the incrementalist approach that Democrats have chosen to take. “
Am I understanding it correctly that he thinks that what the public wanted was big, bold liberal leaps? If so, wow, someone missed the mark. The perceived liberalism is what is hurting Democrats right now, not a public that wishes they would do more of it.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 3 trackbacks }