I've been reading a bunch of conservative bloggers today arguing that if you look at the polls the right way, they show that Obama is really in trouble. Even squinting hard and invoking the Nine Secret Names of Buddha, I don't know how you get that from these numbers. Pretty much every poll that's come out since the speech has shown a quite sizeable bounce, proving me utterly wrong about the speech's appeal. (Which is not surprising, since what would really appeal to me is if Obama had brought a laptop, a copy of STATS and a few Oracle databases worth of data . . . )
Maybe the bounce will go back down; they often do. But it's pretty hard to deny that there has been a noticeable improvement in the appeal of both health care reform, and Barack Obama, since last week. Wishful thinking will not help advance your cause, and in this case, it won't even make you feel better if things go awry. Yes, yes, I know, concern troll and all that. The fact remains. Folks still like him, and they're even starting to like his health care plans, such as they are.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Palin gave McCain a bounce, and we saw how that turned out. Not that this will have the same result. But one can hope.
People are generally okay with Barack Obama, yes. But his healthcare plan? It isn't even mentioned in those numbers. The bounce may only mean that he projected a positive image of being smart and in charge during a time of general uncertainty, which people always like when they can get it. Meanwhile, those same data show that nearly 60% of the polled believe the country is on the wrong track...which says what?
I don't know what it says, but I would guess not much. If you look at the history of that statistic (available in the same link), the country is judged to be on the wrong track in more than 95% of the polls.
"Not much" it is, then. Better tell it to movertyperguy down below, though, he latched onto the same statistic and stapled it straight to Obama without qualification.
http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/09/ap_poll_shows_grim_sentiment.php
46% approval for healthcare reform, 17% approval for the stimulus, half of those surveyed believe that " deficit reduction should be a national priority over increased spending on health care, education or alternative energy".
The Republican strategy is to make the administration fight battles on every front, and Obama's obliged by opening so many fronts... and needing an awful lot of luck/fairy dust to make his final cost numbers on the whole package not look like handing a massive deficit to the next generation. And since the whole deal is a bundle, making him back off of anything is a win, and a question mark on how effective the guy can be if he can't get it done with a bulletproof majority. And it just gets worse if the economy isn't going like gangbusters by the '10 campaign season. Maybe not on the ropes, but not in a super comfy spot either.
It all depends on whether you're willing to take the time to look at the party breakdown internals or just take the polls at face value.
"Meanwhile, those same data show that nearly 60% of the polled believe the country is on the wrong track".
That's true, but a whole lot of those folks think the country is on the wrong track because it's not liberal enough.
That's true, but a whole lot of those folks think the country is on the wrong track because it's not conservative enough.
I'd imagine that a lot of the change in his approval rating isn't from people that he has convinced to change their positions, but rather from people who feel Obama now reflects their positions. That is, I think there were people who had voted disapproval for the President because he wasn't pushing hard enough for things like the public plan who have now registered approval with him after his speech.
Obama's in about as much trouble as Ronald Reagan was in the early stages of his recovery (let's call it the spring of 1983). In other words, because of the timing of the business cycle (in Obama's case most of the bloodletting occurred under W's watch) he's a lock for a second term.
Hopefully for all our sakes. But it's possible the uncertainty with regard to investment, which is one of the biggest, if not the biggest driver in economic growth and prosperity, might prolong that business cycle quite a bit.
But...how can this be? 70 quintillion Patriots marched on Washington just last Saturday!
Non-saracasm hat: it's just as you say: polls go up, polls go down. If you look at the last five Presidents, the average difference between their highest and lowest approval ratings was 50 points.
50 points!
Historically speaking, it's likely we have not yet seen either the highest or the lowest point of the Obama Presidency.
Really? Poll-wise, I pretty much think the high point was reached post-Inaguration. Who knows about the low point. Three years is a long time.
Does that mean that you know of some conservative blogs that are not written by loonies? As a "recovering Republican" who is way more conservative than the blogs I've found, I'd love to read some. How about a few suggestions?
Interestingly, Rasmussen (who shows a good-sized bounce) points out that few people watched the speech (he cites 15%), and that opinions are based on media coverage of the speech. I tend to think that a bounce would probably dissipate with a concrete plan, which we still don't have. Heck, we still don't know if public option is on the table. This point (about how support is high in the absence of concrete legislation), I believe, you yourself have already made in the past, Megan.
It's all well and good until the specifics come out. That's when the rubber really hits the road.
I think a more accurate statement would be that the large Dem majority in the House is in danger. It seems like after 2010, they will have a thin majority with the remaining Blue Dogs in the position of king-maker.
If the Reps field a decent candidate -- it will be interesting to see the Big O campaign without Bush to campaign against. I suspect whomever the Reps nominate, the Dems will try brand them as "Bush again"
In the New Jersey governor's race, that is exactly what the Dems are trying to do to the Republican candidate - citing "Bush's failed policies".
As a rule, a politician will run against a disliked opponent a decade after that opponent has retired. They'll be mentioned commonly in speeches for another 50, and the geeks(including the geeks who are elected officials, or who write speeches for elected officials) will be talking about them for as long as there's recorded history of them. It's far easier to brand an opponent by association than to brand them directly, and it's far easier to get your base riled up and donating time/money by mentioning their favourite devil than it is to do the same by limiting yourself to the race at hand.
Sure, why not? Republicans are still running against Jimmy Carter, and doing their best to try to paint Obama as Carter... hell, they're still running against FDR...
If Obama wanted better short-term polling, he got it. Unfortunately, the things he promised are still impossible, which makes his long-term problem worse, because now his credibility is on the line. It's also not going to help his credibility that two of the examples of the awful state of our healthcare system turn out to be fact-challenged. (Don't they vet anything or anyone over there?)
This is the difference between campaigning and governing. Catchy sound bites, cost-free magical ponies that will fix all our problems, and not-quite-true anecdotes don't cut it anymore. People are also starting to notice his calls for civility are coupled with attacks on his critics, and his denunciations of "scare tactics" and "misinformation" are usually followed by just that.
"... if you look at the polls the right way, they show that Obama is really in trouble ...I don't know how you get that from these numbers."
58.8% of those polled believe that Obama has the country on the wrong track.
I don't know how you could possibly see these numbers as anything other than Obama is really in trouble; as are those who hitch their wagon to his star.
Those are the number who think the country is on the wrong track, not necessarily that Obama has it on the wrong track. I thin the causality is the other way around myself, if the country wasn't pretty f*ed up, Obama never would have been elected in the first place. (Or for that matter GWB before him.)
Obama is running the country. He's the President.
When people say the country is on the wrong track, they're criticizing Barack Obama, who has put us on this track.
He won. He's changing America as he promised. And people are responding to that.
58.8% are responding negatively to the track that Barack Obama has put the nation on.
Obama is running the country.
What Constitution did you read?
Dude, you made up nearly all of this post out of whole cloth. The poll is what it is and not more -- you don't get to play Six Degrees of Barack Obama with it and get taken seriously.
The drama of the joint session speech helps him, of course. The pathetic kowtowing of the Times/networks also helps. But in the end he is pushing a manifestly unpopular piece of legislation. Voters ejected the democrats in '94 not because of their failure to pass health reform, but rather the fact they proposed it in the first place.
And the same result will occur in 2010 as a record number of incumbents are fired for trying to impose the federal government into the most personal aspect of our lives.
If incumbents want to control federal government health care costs, it should get out of the health care providin' bidness.
I didn't like the didactic quality of the speech, but Obama seems to project a sense of gravitas that is lacking in the figures attacking him. People are frightened by the economy and their prospects in it, and it is reassuring that the President is able to speak plainly and calmly amidst so much bluster. I think he enjoys speaking truth to bullies. An incrementalist he is not. The reforms he wants are enormous, but perhaps that is his strategy. He asks for so much, knowing that getting just a fraction would be huge in any other time.
Gravitas?
I got another feeling ... like he's looking down his nose at me.
Barack Obama projects an unearned sense of superiority. It's grating. Someone should send him the book: "How To Win Friends and Influence People."
You don't do that by saying "We won." or "They can't stop us."
Indeed, we can stop him. Barack Obama has forgotten what country he lives in.
Thanks for stopping by, Mr. Axelrod!
"People are frightened by the economy and their prospects in it ..."
President Barack Obama, asked how he would lead the country out of this economic disaster, called out Kayne West as a "jackass" after spending precious time watching the MTV Music Awards instead of making banks "small enough to fail."
In other pressing entertainment news, Chris Dodd called Miley Cyrus a "whiney fatty."
Megan,
Were you, perhaps, reading the blog of that noted conservative Mickey Kaus? Here's what he wrote:
A three point change in the net (dis)approval rate for Obama's health care plan is well within the margin of error. So, yes, I'd conclude there wasn't much of a bounce on this issue.
Does this mean Obama is "in trouble"? No. It means his program is in trouble; but the program's by no means dead. Still, Obama can't be happy about the way his plan is polling right now.
Agree on the first, but "starting to like his health care plans," is a bit too strong. You're extrapolating a lot from the first derivative in one poll. We have to see if it continues, or if it's a temporary bump, or simply a permanent but one time bump. If you made the same statement a week or two ago you'd be forced to conclude that everyone was going to hate the health care plans.
4 points is a "sizable" bounce? Are you trying to rationalize your vote?
What I don't understand is why it would move at all.
Nothing changed, we have no new information.
I hate when people accuse everyone "on the other side" to be idiots, but one would almost be forced to conclude the bounce is due almost entirely because of the force of his personality...
Did I miss something more substantial in the speech?
Why did you assume that everyone decides who to support based on information? Surely that's not how people decide who to elect in the first place.
Why do you think conventions always give the candidate a bounce?
If as you think, people change their minds on basis of substance.
I think it helps that Baucus's relatively centrist proposal has dominated the news post-speech instead of the various House proposals.
If people think that Obamacare includes citizenship verification, legitimate bars to covering abortion through any public plan, and that the existence of a public plan is itself doubtful, it's not surprising that they like it better than when they thought Pelosi would be writing Obamacare.
"The Bounce" has already disappeared, it seems:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform
Zogby doesn't find much good news here, which backs up my earlier point that specifics reduce support substantially.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/94681
BTW Megan, nice timing on this one. A day after you post, the bump is completely gone. :-)