Poll: Obama Disappoints and Polarizes
As President Barack Obama campaigns in Massachusetts to try and help Democrats keep a Senate seat that could either make or break health care reform — and possibly his entire remaining agenda — a new Washington Post/ABC News poll underscores his present predicament: he’s going to Massachusetts to use some of what pundits call his “political capital” but his problem is that his political capital has greatly shrunk.
A year into his presidency, President Obama faces a polarized nation and souring public assessments of his efforts to change Washington, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Nearly half of all Americans say Obama is not delivering on his major campaign promises, and a narrow majority have just some or no confidence that he will make the right decisions for the country’s future.
Most likely the belief that he is not delivering not only comes from Republicans. Many liberal/progressive (pick the term that fits your bias) Democrats are increasingly disappointed at Obama for not completely embracing their agenda, not confronting Republicans more fiercely, seeking compromise with GOP moderates, and for following some policies that provide continuity with Bush administration policies. It was predicted before Obama took the oath that he might have problems with his party’s own progressive wing and he most assuredly has…along with the predictable problems with GOP conservatives.
More than a third see the president as falling short of their expectations, about double the proportion saying so at the 100-day mark of Obama’s presidency in April. At the time, 63 percent said the president had accomplished a “great deal” or a “good amount.” Now, the portion saying so has dropped to 47 percent.
Republicans are particularly critical of Obama’s efforts in general and on big domestic and foreign issues. Just 20 percent of Republicans approve of his overall job performance, compared with 87 percent of Democrats. That partisan gap is bigger than any that Presidents Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush or Ronald Reagan ever faced among the general public. It’s about on par with divergent ratings of George W. Bush across his second term.
Meanwhile, the poll indicates that one factor that helps Obama is the existing face of his partisan opposition — which isn’t an inviting face to many Americans.
But Obama continues to benefit from GOP weak points. Three-quarters of all adults lack confidence in the Republicans in Congress to make good decisions for the future, and when it comes to assigning blame for the nation’s economic woes, about twice as many fault the George W. Bush administration as do Obama’s.
And the poll finds some differences in perceptions about Obama when it comes to race:
There is a growing racial divide in public assessments of Obama. African Americans overwhelmingly approve of the job he is doing, just as they did in April. There has also been little change in the numbers saying he has accomplished a lot so far. But among whites, a sense that Obama has achieved at least a good amount and his approval rating have both dropped nearly 20 points.
The bottom line: unless there is an event or devolopment that reverses the trend, Obama’s clout is decreasing and his image is deteriorating.
Not a good sign for a President now on the hustings to use his political capital to help a Democratic candidate that many experts now believe is seriously on the political ropes.
USA TODAY’s lively The Oval blog notes:
Don’t be surprised if President Obama campaigns in Boston today as if his entire agenda is at stake.
Because it may be.
An upset win by Republican Scott Brown in a special election Tuesday would give the GOP 41 votes in the U.S. Senate. That’s enough to filibuster any Democratic initiative, and that includes pending health care legislation.
Brown is reportedly ahead in the race. Some Democrats and bloggers have suggested that if Brown wins, the Demmies can stall seating him and vote to pass health care reform. Some have suggested the Democrats can use the reconciliation process. Most likely the outcome would be as Rep. Barney Frank frankly said: health care reform — and arguably the moment Obama had to be a transformational President — will be definitely dead.
Bill Clinton’s term and political clout were never the same after his attempt at health care reform crashed and burned, and neither will Obama’s. Even worse news for the Democrats: if the Massachusetts seat goes Republican, new and old media analyses about it being a blow to Obama and the Democrats will likely help spur on the downward poll spiral and the Democrats will likely lose even more Congressional seats in 2010 than many thoughtful political experts predict now.
32 Responses to “Poll: Obama Disappoints and Polarizes”
What we are looking at, if Brown wins: Pres. Obama, one year after his inauguration as the most powerful political player on the planet, will be a lame duck who commands greatly reduced political power. Pres. Obama will limp along, possessing little power, and will pose and posture a lot. If it happens, this loss of power will be, completely, Pres. Obama's fault.
Such a fate is, for most Americans, a brain breaker: how did it happen in almost exactly 12 months? Here's how: Pres. Obama is incompetent for the office. America hoped he would be competent; expected he would be competent; ignored a lifetime record which was devoid of accomplishment. The election of Pres. Obama was, perhaps, the inevitable result of an America which increasingly believes succeeding is largely about luck. The likely result of electing an unaccomplished man has come to fruition: rarely has a POTUS possessed so much political power; never has a POTUS squandered his power through such incompetence. Pres. Obama appears not to be shrewd enough to succeed at the job, and may not be up to successfully managing a small enterprise (he's never accomplished such a thing before, ever).
All the above said: the more interesting scenario might be a Coakley win, and then to watch what effect a close Massachusetts election has on Pres. Obama's fortunes.
BTW, looking at the facts of what has transpired over the previous 30 months (campaign, election, and first year in office): I think my opinion is quite moderate.
The trend here is for Obama to come in at the last moment. Clearly, he has had some other important issues that took priority. Unfortunately, this move looks desperate for the Democrats. I think that something more serious is behind this. It seems the Democratic party has lost its focus and, in spite of the obvious source of our current economic situation, they are not effectively messaging on a national or local level. How can we be only 1 year into a Presidency and expect such a dramatic turn around. I am disappointed that the candidates that the Democratic party has put forward are not of higher quality. They may be good people, but, one would expect more from someone who is trying to follow up Kennedy's act. Did the Massachusetts Democrats become complacent? What role does the DNC have in this debacle?
In spite of your assertion that this is a referendum on Obama, I would argue that it is more of a reflection of the complacency of the Massachusetts Democrats and local political issues with considerable National impact. Furthermore, incompetence appears to have created the landscape for Obama to come to office, i.e., the incompetence of George W. Bush and the incompetence of the McCain campaign and/or RNC.
The DNC are unworthy of the issues and the people they represent. Hopefully they will be punished harshly, their careers and names ground into dust.
However, in the face of an unbelievably nihilist, horrible and self-serving opposition and a contingency of sedate, two-faced establishment democrats, Obama's problems are to be expected.
Obama let the stimulus become weak for no reason, to appease the same GOP that still depicts it as a super-mega-death-rape-socialism-stalinist-leftist waste of money today. That's an illustrative dynamic.
Brown poses as a man of the people and an independent. But he has flip-flopped from earlier issues in order to appease the simplistic, reflexive and unquestionable edicts of the harder right that has taken over the GOP. This, too, is representative for a larger pattern. Right-wing identity-politics and political correctness given a purple-wash and ideology-free, “little-man” veneer.
Basically, Obama's allies are as apologetic and inhibited as his enemies are devoid of shame and inhibitions. He is a good, honest and reliable man beset by the most pathetic and bestial American polity in decades.
To a degree, he can be blamed for having faith in the establishment democrats and the opposition.
I wonder…maybe if instead of looking at presidents we compared the difference in media and the divergence of where people get that media we may find a reason as to the recent polarization in our politics. After all you can't have two separate cultures living in two separate contemporary news realities and expect better results. I wouldn't really point anywhere but Fox news, the extreme tone taken is so different from the rest of the media, I am ignoring MSNBC here because so does much of America lol, that it creates two totally separate realities of what is actually going on in the world and why. Opinion and the rise of opinion journalism as the dominate form is the most likely moment I would point to but in such an environment polarization is expected to say the least.
For the world that sees Democrats as angels and Republicans as demons, the epic moment of victory would be tragically lost.
But back in the real world, we would return back to normal, where the majority party can control the agenda, but not dominate it. They'd learn to adjust. There is a lot of garbage that they could have cleaned up, but they never even talked about doing that. Same stuff, different day: I'll lose no sleep either way.
Of course the nation is polarized and disappointed! Why wouldn't they be? Look at what's been happening to this country. The nation should be disappointed, but mostly with itself for allowing a gaggle of cynics and government haters control the narrative. As long as people are going to be as dumb as a box of rocks when it comes to figuring out who is worth listening to and who isn't, then things will continue to get worse. This isn't a horse race we're talking about here, it's our fate. This is just one chapter of it, but the theme is the same. The blame goes to the people. Forget all the false equivalence parroting and the petty party-centric interpretations of cause and effect. The realities exist whether they are convenient to our perceived “side” or not. One party has been sowing the seeds of failure and the other has been trying to fix what the other broke (sorry if that factual observation is too discomforting for anyones gentle psyche) Society has the attention span of a 2 year old now and is only a bit smarter, that goes for independents and moderates too I'm afraid. This country needs a history lesson like fish needs water, but they spend too much time reveling in bogus talking points to be able to see what is really happening, what has already happened, and what will happen if they don't get a clue. I won't be holding my breath, but I won't buy into all the amnesia and all the false ideology either. Being a realist is hard work, a lot harder than being a party pawn, any party pawn, but especially a republican party pawn in the 21st century. One more time: the blame goes to the American people.
It's OK. The President did a wonderful job in Mass today.
Lost in the whole story about Obama, The MA election, and the health care bill is at the base of the whole situation is that Coakley's an exceedingly bad candidate who ran an exceedingly bad campaign. She appears out of touch and elitist. She reminds me of John Kerry, who was such a poor candidate he lost what should have been a win for the Democrats, and also Bob Dole, a terrible candidate who was nominated mainly because he'd paid his dues for so long.
DaGoat, agreed that Coakley is a bad candidate. She's just not as bad as the one she's running against.
Good analysis ProfElwood. One doesn’t have to go to far back in history just to the Clinton administration after the Dems lost the midterm election. A lot was accomplished during this period that I never thought could be achieved. We went from a large debt to a surplus in a very short period of time. Welfare was reformed with the emphasis changed from handouts to helping recipients to get on their feet and on their own. We also struggled with a recession at the beginning of Clinton’s administration and had to struggle through cuts to various programs but we got through it and finally wound up with one of the strongest economies I have ever seen in this country. All this and more happened while the President and Congress were controlled by two different Parties.
When it comes to politics I prefer a rational and mature approach. Opposed to this is the I am right therefore if you disagree with me you must be an idiot school of modern politics. Thanks for your insight and true historical knowledge ProfElwood.
I agree with you on Kerry and Dole. But even a bad candidate should have walked over the opposition in Mass. Democrats better start listening to what the people are saying and not the spin that they themselves are putting out.
Sorry, no. In the later, more stagnation. More “nothing getting done”. More people suffering the loss of everything they've worked for because they cannot afford healthcare, or, the high premiums for crapy insurance. You must like to see people suffer prof. What “garbage” Prof? Please let us in on the details for the “garbage” they COULD HAVE cleaned up.
What was it that they missed, Mr. Generalities?
DaGoat, agreed that Coakley is a bad candidate. She's just not as bad as the one she's running against.
Of the two he seems to me to be the more moderate candidate, which I think is desirable. I'm not saying he's ideal, maybe not even all that good, but better than Coakley
Patriot Act, Farm subsidies, Tobacco subsides, Peanut rights, Lobbying, The President's ability to start undeclared wars, No child left behind, The looming Social Security crisis, the RBRVS contempt for family doctors, pork, Mandatory minimums, dairy subsidies, corporate welfare, ethanol subsidies (methanol or biodiesel would have made sense, but not ethanol), who gets the interest on all the Fed loans, … I don't have the time to remember all of them.
Some of that is being removed Prof. I disagree with the ethanol though. No sense in burning food and it still pollutes. Now if we had sugar cane, maybe. Hey might be able to grow in Haiti though. You may have stumbles upon something here Prof…
However in the end, we must stop polluting the air.
You've read my comments before: we've got better reasons than AGW to be getting into renewable power now, using our personal money. I'm in the middle of some research on that now.
“Coakley's an exceedingly bad candidate who ran an exceedingly bad campaign”
I caught on to that. The sex crime episode, in particular, probably has affected the results. Also not to be ignored is the current effort by the Dems with health care “reform” (which Coakley supports in a don't-question-anything-or-think way, based on a recorded comment I heard her make) is a desire to levy taxes on medical devices and affect their makers, who are a rare modern niche business in that state.
“Bob Dole, a terrible candidate who was nominated mainly because he'd paid his dues for so long.”
Absolutely! Bill Clinton had NO respect in 1996 and was DOOMED. Lead it to the stupid Old Guard to resist reform after 1994, and anoint or coronate Bob Dole that year. (“It's My Turn Now — and in 1996, Now, With Virtue! [tm]“) The Tenth Amendment prop at his campaign appearances was tiresome.
The only thing to say about the GOP now is that at least back then, they actually were purposeful.
I meet hundred of people in the course of a few days. I have nebver met one who wasn't thrilled with the job performance and personal life of President Obama. Who would you suggest that could do a better job?
To Politico and all others who believe that the President of the United states is a child attending grade schoo lwaiting to get his report card from a group of jealous failures who have the temerity to grade this President who is performing so admirably for this country. How would you know what the elements are upon which he should be graded? Have you performed the tasks? Have you earned a degree in being the Prtesident? Why don't you and yours grow up?
“Now if we had sugar cane, maybe.”
Or,
http://plants.usda.gov/factsheet/pdf/fs_pavi2.pdf
made into
http://nabc.cals.cornell.edu/pubs/nabc_19/NABC1…
Bio-diesel from algae is my guess for the next best alternative. It has a relatively high yield per hectare and can be harvested more continually. It's not quite ready for prime time yet, however. Diesel is also the main fuel of trucks, rail, shipping, construction, and a lot of other industrial machinery, not to mention some cars and pickups, so it's a lot more useful.
Any of those 100 people would be out since they are less than candid (wait, that is a key politician attribute).
All “thrilled”, what institutions are they in? Even the far-lefties on this forum admit they are less than thrilled, except for FT, who is on the strange drugs he found on a mountain top in Micronesia.
Nuclear.
Ask any Frenchman, or better yet a French woman, and they will tell you. The U.S. asleep again, dragging its feet and tripping over silly programs like ethanol from corn. If it was any good (you can't even pipe it), you could buy ethanol from Brazil if there was not a 52 cent/gallon tariff. A Bush goof and O continues it.
“Bio-diesel from algae is my guess for the next best alternative.”
It may have a future. Bio-diesel seems to be established already. Now if only we could change the situation in this country with small Diesel vehicles, and the current lack thereof. (Owners of such vehicles just shake their heads at all the debate about fuel efficiency of current vehicles, largely non-Diesel vehicles)
http://www.practicalenvironmentalist.com/automo…
Maybe with breeder-reactors. Even good uranium ore is pretty weak, and requires a lot of fuel (remember that construction equipment still uses diesel) to extract. Nuclear could easily be jumping from the frying pan and into the fire. If you like doing that, vote Democrat in 2012.
vote Democrat in 2012.”
Not nice. I think there are now small footprint N. plants out there. Meantime nat. gas could transition us and leads to less “global change”. If you are nuclear expert, declare yourself and I will back off.
Oh, don't give me that: you know that we're all experts on everything here. I did find this guide, but it's got limited value, since it uses 1999 as a base usage year. If nuclear took off, then the years could be considerable shorter … or longer with the right technology.
http://www.nea.fr/html/pub/newsletter/2002/20-2…
There also water usage, which is a major factor in many states, except for floating nuclear, which can make fresh water. And, yes, I'm sure that there's other factors and technologies that I'm missing.
But, since my homemade reactor still isn't working, I'll probably be stuck with wind or solar until I can figure out what I'm doing wrong.
Nuclear is a lot older than both of us. Think sun.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/19/want-more-g…
And, I deny being an expert at being an expert, except for this thread.
LOL with your reactor, I hope the lemmings don't glow in the dark or run off to cliff dive.
Not a bad idea, but that cooling tower may be a problem.
There's also been a couple of nuclear plants that had to shut down in the southwest for a couple of days due to water shortages.
I'm in Indiana: the closest thing to a cliff around here is at the edge of a ditch. And I haven't had any problems with any animals around here, at least not since my tree started eating them.
The sun is down here in NYC, so I have to shut this one down.