July 13, 2010
DEFICIT-REDUCTION MANIA HAS NOT SWEPT THE PUBLIC.... Democrats will very likely feel pretty discouraged about the new Washington Post/ABC News poll -- the news for the party is hardly encouraging. There were, however, a few tidbits for the political world to keep in mind.
In terms of the top-line results, Republicans will likely be delighted -- President Obama's approval rating is down; the public is deeply unhappy about the state of the economy; and Republicans enjoy a one-point edge in the generic congressional ballot, after Democrats led in each of the last four months. Among voters most likely to show up on Election Day, the GOP's margin is much larger.
There were a couple of trends that jumped out at me, though, beyond the obvious numbers. The first is that the public, while discouraged and pessimistic about the status quo, still doesn't much care for Republicans.
Respondents were asked, for example, how much confidence they have in various leaders to "make the right decisions for the country's future." For Obama, the number is 43%. For congressional Democrats, it's 32%. Congressional Republicans, meanwhile, is a distant third at 26%. Indeed, while support for Obama's handling on the economy has fallen quite a bit, the poll asked which political party voters "trust to do a better job handling the economy." Democrats still lead Republicans by eight points.
Dems aren't faring well in this political landscape, but it's not because voters are moving in large numbers to the GOP.
Arguably more important were questions about public attitudes on economic policy. The conventional wisdom suggests the public wants to curtail spending and is sympathetic to the right's arguments on prioritizing deficit reduction. The data is hardly one sided.
"Do you think the federal government should spend more money to try to boost the economy in a way that creates jobs, or do you think that whether or not jobs are created should be left to the private sector?"
I don't love the wording of the question, since it seems to favor a conservative perspective -- the phrasing neglects to mention that more public spending can in turn boost private sector hiring. Nevertheless, the public was split -- 48% to 48%. For lawmakers convinced there's a "backlash" against spending, results like these should matter.
There was also this:
"Because of the economic downturn, Congress has extended the period in which people can receive unemployment benefits, and is considering doing so again. Supporters say this will help those who can't find work. Opponents say this adds too much to the federal budget deficit. Do you think Congress should or should not approve another extension of unemployment benefits?"
It wasn't even close -- 62% want to extend unemployment benefits, 36% are more concerned with the deficit. For those who blocked the Senate from voting on this -- three times in three weeks -- the argument was that Americans, overcome with deficit-reduction mania, want Congress to stop spending. The evidence to the contrary is pretty clear.
Over to you, Ben Nelson.
—Steve Benen 11:20 AM
Permalink
| Trackbacks
| Comments (15)
So? Republicans will keep spinning their tale because they want the economy to fail in the short term and because their rich constituents benefit from it in the long term. Centrist Democrats will side with them because having to run for election is really scary, and maybe people will say nice things about you if you're "moderate". The media will continue to treat facts as back-page material and continue pushing a he said/he said narrative. Nothing will change.
Other than expressing ourselves in blog comments, what are we prepared to do about it?
Posted by: Equal Opportunity Cynic on July 13, 2010 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK
The thing is, general public opinion doesn't matter because 70% of them are not going to show up to vote in a midterm election. It's the party activists who turn out, and right now the Republican base is far more motivated than the Dem base is.
Posted by: some other guy on July 13, 2010 at 11:31 AM | PERMALINK
Exactly, what sog said.
But it's not like voters can punish this deficit-obsessed mindset at the ballot box anyway. In districts where Democrats are running as lightweight Republicans, what are you going to do? And those seem to be where the competitive elections are, at least in the Senate.
Posted by: Equal Opportunity Cynic on July 13, 2010 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK
What I read from this is that there aren't all that many people on either side of the political fence that are terribly motivated politically. Except that Tea Party nutters (who in a couple of cases could hurt the GOP as much at the Dems).
The MSM in their infinite laziness is listening to the squeakiest wheel and extrapolating "everyone" or most people from that.
Posted by: ET on July 13, 2010 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK
Steve, this is off topic, but can't you do something about the goddam pop-up ads on this site? There's a particularly annoying one that makes the site renew every time it starts to run, so that the screen will suddenly jump back up to the top of the page when your faithful reader is in the middle of trying to read something. This is exactly like having a book or magazine snatched out of your hands and slammed shut so that you have to hunt for your place before you can resume following the train of thought. Furthermore, I don't know what ad agency thought this was an appropriate venue for those ads, but someone should have told them that just because this site deals with politics, it doesn't mean they'll reach many tea-party types. The most freequent ad, which always appears first at the top of the page and then oozing up from the bottom, shows a very unflattering picture of a scowling Obama, with the text "Tell the Senate to say no to Obama's latest big labor scheme." There was one a few days ago, however, that really made me furious: it was the most unflattering picture of Barney Frank that they could find, against a pink background with a lavender inscription in curlique script that said "Do you support special rights for homosexuals?" Now, since at least the early 90's, "special rights" has been a well known term of art for "don't let the f****ts out of the closet."
I know blogging is not exactly a lucrative activity. I know that you need advertising money. But please, can't you get rid of this particular advertiser? Please?
Posted by: T-Rex on July 13, 2010 at 11:46 AM | PERMALINK
So what would it take to get the Dem base fired up? People are disappointed that Obama has been more centrist, more tepid, than we like, but, jeez, the current Republicans should be enough to motivate everyone to the left of Ghenghis Khan to vote for the non-Republicans.
Posted by: PTate in MN on July 13, 2010 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK
T-Rex: would you rather that advertiser waste his money here, or spend it elsewhere where it might actually have some influence on the opinions/behavior of mouth-breathers?
Personally, I'd prefer the minor inconvenience of ignoring it here.
Posted by: MCD on July 13, 2010 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK
MCD: You know, that's an excellent point. Perhaps looking at those obnoxious ads is the little personal sacrifice I can make to decrease the total stupidification of our national discourse. Now, if the webmaster could just do something about the way it makes the page jump back up to the top!
Posted by: T-REx on July 13, 2010 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK
I doubt politicans will pay much attention to the current poll.
What Americans need and want is of no concern to B. Nelson , Baucus , Blue dogs or Republican party.Therefore politicians will not change voting patterns . The corporate power will prevail in votes to regulate finance and climate as it did in Health Care. Congress wants only what will make the individual politician and corporation happy. Not what America needs to continue to grow economically. Stop the Wars the deficit will decrease!America is failing because the politicans are failing America!
Posted by: MlJohnston on July 13, 2010 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK
My question is, If we click on these ads, to they have to pay Steve or WM for every click? We could put them out of business pretty quickly if we all clicked, or is it a set price and not worth the risk?
Posted by: atlliberal on July 13, 2010 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINK
The ads are atrocious on here, I agree. On a PC not so bad, but try browsing on a smart phone. I have to kill all these floating ads, it takes several minutes to do so because the page refreshes... annoying as hell. Also, are there not enough liberal advertisers for this site? It is odd that there are right wing ads here. Still a loyal reader from the Carpetbagger days though.
Posted by: citizen_pain on July 13, 2010 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK
What I Tell You Three Times Is True
Friends, we must go OUT in the streets and MARCH to save the envrionment...AND the economy AND our health...
The US is 38th in lifespan below Cuba and France. Four years below Japan. Why?
Abd What Does Your Senator Plan to do about it.
Everyone...
1, 2, 3,:4
We want to live a little more
5, 6, 7, 8
Save us before its too latr
Posted by: KurtRex1453 on July 13, 2010 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK
"Also, are there not enough liberal advertisers for this site?"
No, there are not enough.
"It is odd that there are right wing ads here."
No, it pays. That's what matters.
THE END
Posted by: $ Talks on July 13, 2010 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK
@trex
I don't have a problem with refresh on Benin's site. I think it may be in your browser settings.
I can't find it on my current browser, but I remember when I set-up windows 7 for a friend, there was a setting that controlled the automatic page refresh function.
Posted by: cr on July 13, 2010 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK
I mentioned the Frank ad a few days ago... haven't seen it since.
Posted by: cr on July 13, 2010 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK