Poll: Obama’s Support Nosedives Among Iowa Independents
Feb 21st, 2010 | 15 responses
President Barack Obama’s support among Iowa independent voters is taking a nosedive, a new Iowa Poll shows.
Mark Halperin reports on his lively The Page site:
On Obama approval among Iowa independents:
Currently: 38%
November: 48%On Obama’s handling of his job:
Currently: 46% approve
November: 49% approve
There is considerable analysis and speculation about why Obama is taking a hit among independent voter support. There is a wide variety of factors. And there is partisan spin (GOPERS: people don’t like Obama’s “socialist” agenda…DEMOCRATS: Independent voters are wishy washy were closet Republicans, anyway). But here is what I have noted before and will assert again:
His numbers among independent voters would be much different if the job picture was better. Even early on in the Obama administration there were predicts that job growth would be slow. But the Democrats and Obama made a fundamental error:
Early on Obama and the Democrats decided that three things: (1)they were going to use political capital (2)they were going to enact health care reform (3)they wanted to try and get through health care reform in the worst possible way.
They accomplished two of the three things: they used political capital — and they did health care reform in the worst possible way.
Health care reform sucked up all the seeming media focus (the American news media truly has trouble multi-tasking at times as infooutlets scramble to follow the story leader) and the impression to many voters was that Washington and the Democrats were fixated on health care reform — rather than scrambling to fix the job mess. The bulk of voters didn’t elect Obama in 2008 because they felt George W. Bush and the Republicans failed to enact health care reform; they gave the Democrats votes because they wanted change, particularly substantive change in the failing economy.
So while Wall Street stabilized, today almsot everyone knows someone who lost a job, or who works by the job and doesn’t get a paycheck — people who are still feeling the hit of a sick economy and wondering if they’ll have a job or their homes (or apartments) a year from now as jobs are not opening up and as those who don’t get paychecks find per-job income is harder to get.
Independent voters often analyze and then vote, versus starting out supporting a sports political team because they belong to it and want it to win. And if you stand back and look at the job picture, it’s still grim.
People collecting unemployment or getting grocery packs from churches aren’t standing in line talking about how they need health care reform and demand a “public option” (a phrase now as grattingly obnoxious as the medias “defining moment…” or “tried to change the subject” or “a Marine with his buddies” as if every Marine views every Marine as his “buddy”). They are talking about how they want a job — and the Democrats and Obama needed to at least feed the perception that they were focused like a laserbeam on that and not making deals with other Democrats to get the votes to get health care reform through Congress.
There needs to be an at least equal perception that the administration and Democrats are pullling out all stops to do something about jobs — and if in that GOPers try to obstruct it, the Democrats should take the ball and run with it.
But so far they seem clutching the health care reform ball.
Even if Obama’s big televised meeting with the GOP is a net plus for him, the context will be critical: what are the latest numbers on jobs? And how is the administration showing that it’s focused on this issue as well as issues such as whether to use reconciliation to shove health care reform through?
So while there are many factors in independent voter support, or lack of it, the context will still be: where are we now and were are we headed on the jobs scene?
UPDATE: Great Minds Think Alike Dept. Charlie Cook in the National Journal:
Cook: I sort of reject the notion that there is a communications problem with President Obama. I think it’s just fundamental, total miscalculations from the very, very beginning. Of proportions comparable to President George W. Bush’s decision to go into Iraq. While Bush went, “We’re going to go after Afghanistan as a reaction to 9/11,” and then just pretty soon got distracted and obsessed with going into Iraq with varying rationalizations that sort of evolved over time.
This was a case where I think the White House people could see, look at the president, the White House and congressional Democrats as sort of checking the box on stimulus, but found that kind of boring, and moved on to health care and cap-and-trade. And the thing is, Democrats piled all this cotton candy and pork and junk and pet projects into it, so it discredited the stimulus package in the minds of a lot of voters and at the same time, it wasn’t big enough. It was totally insufficient, yet they wanted to keep it under a trillion dollars because they didn’t want to spend a lot of political capital on a really big stimulus package because they wanted to save it for cap-and-trade and health care. And so we start off with the original sin of a very imperfect and inadequate economic stimulus package and then moving off the economy almost entirely going into cap-and-trade and health care.
And then when unemployment numbers started proving to be much, much tougher and it started becoming more clear that the stimulus package hadn’t worked properly, they just kept plowing ahead on health care. And this isn’t a communications problem. This is a reality problem. And I think they just made some grave miscalculations and as it became more clear that they had screwed up, they just kept doubling down their bet.
And so I think, no, this is one of the biggest miscalculations that we’ve seen in modern political history.
Now you can follow Joe Gandelman on Twitter.
15 Responses to “Poll: Obama’s Support Nosedives Among Iowa Independents”
Another good one….scary numbers for Obama. This is the result of letting Reid and Pelosi take control of HCR.
I concur joe. As an Independent voter, I did not vote for Obama because of HCR(that's a joke anyway), but because of a general message of change. I wanted our government lawlessness to stop, but Obama continue's this as well and is a liar to boot. He's pretty much done the opposite of what he said and promised. I knew I was taking a chance with this all to familiar message, so I should have listened to my instincts. He won't get my vote again! Any candidate that either of these parties put forward is nothing but a corporate shill/proxy.
I agree they've spent too much time on HC reform – this is the fault of both the GOP and some, opportunist parts of the DNC. Reform should have been done, but it's taken too much time due to Obama's insistence on being polite and the attempts from many to take advantage of the vacuum of power he left when he stepped away.
Of course, I'd love to hear actual thoughts about how to create more jobs. First one to insult my intelligence by stating that it is an economic fact that lower taxes create jobs gets a gold star stapled to an eyelid. Like I said – actual thoughts.
The problem is that a lot of the old jobs have been disappearing for a while, and that the downsizings across the board aren't exactly easy to reverse – the idiocy of the senate leaves employers wary of ambition – the legal situation of the future is shaky for them. Also, the bubble popped and so a new flow of money has to take shape in the void for commerce to create new jobs etc. Another stimulus isn't very plausible, but Obama knows that no matter how HC goes, he needs to put in new legislation that helps people employ and gets people off food stamps.
Joe,
More solid analysis, well done. I would add that the type of HCR was also a mistake in that it focused on extending coverage when most people (particularly independent voters) were primarily concerned about cost and sustainability. In that regard, partially paying for the extending coverage by diverting money from medicare – a popular if broken program, compounded that mistake. The Democrats still seem tone-deaf and too many, particularly the progressives, are buying into the sunk-costs fallacy on HCR and have convinced themselves that they have to pass something or suffer at the polls. Some kind of HCR may help bring out some of the base, but I think it's unlikely to convince independent voters to keep them in power.
They went down the wrong path on health care. They were right (and still are right) for pursuing it, because it IS an anchor on our economy, but yeah, they went down the wrong path, trying to simply share the costs among everyone instead of actually trying to bring costs down.
Although, I will say I doubt any president has had true success in his first year in office. How does this compare to other first-year Presidents??
Great analysis. I think this nails it:
And then when unemployment numbers started proving to be much, much tougher and it started becoming more clear that the stimulus package hadn’t worked properly, they just kept plowing ahead on health care. And this isn’t a communications problem. This is a reality problem.
Obama/Reid/Pelosi failed to recognize what the electorate was really concerned about and even when it became obvious they continue to focus on health care. With unemployment at 10% the best Obama can say about the stimulus bill is that without it things would have been worse, not exactly reassuring when he predicted unemployment would peak at 9% WITHOUT the bill.
Joe
I think you are hal correct here. Charlie Cook claims that the Stimulus Bill did not work, but there is ample analysis by a wide variety of agencies who looked at the results that it did work.
I do not think Independents are the most consistent or reliable indicators of any presidents success either. If Independents really want to bring down Health Care Costs, then they would have to say that we will cut services and “entitlements”. And we saw the specter of normal people holding home made signs saying “Government hands off my Medicaire!”
Most Americans, myself included, do not have a consistent political philosophy. We are pragmatic and operate on a case-specific ad hoc basis.
But Charlie Cook should not declare that the Stinulus Bill was a “failure” without noting the many Economists who disagree. As the New York Times wrote on their Business Pages, February 17th, 2010:
“Just look at the outside evaluations of the stimulus. Perhaps the best-known economic research firms are IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody’s Economy.com. They all estimate that the bill has added 1.6 million to 1.8 million jobs so far and that its ultimate impact will be roughly 2.5 million jobs. The Congressional Budget Office, an independent agency, considers these estimates to be conservative.”
Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/econ…
my intelligence”
The jury is still out, but you've mellowed. Is this rope-a-dope Sunday?
as a post script to the Stimulus calculations, today's New York Times Editorial notes that the largest group of people ever were reduced to poverty by the recession over the last two years and only the Stimulus funding has allowed the states to keep up.
More than ever, I wish we had politicians from no party who cared about our real problems and not “positioning” others into untenable responsibilities.
And they are responsibilities. We have a good life and a great country because our government has responded to people's needs as only a government can, from trying to make poverty bearable to disaster relief.
By holding the line against any changes, by claiming that President Obama has raised taxes and wants to cut Social Security and Medicaire benefits, the GOP has strengthened itself and weakened our nation. An ill-informed populace that is angry and cynical in whatever per centage is not a good thing, even if it does make the Democrats look foolish and vulnerable.
If the GOP sweeps in with its one size fits all answer of military spending, borrowing, and lower taxes for the most powerful, none of our problems in Health Care will be solved.
But congratulations to Frank Luntz! His words are just as real as his wigs and ultimately just as useless.
What is “worked?” I asked because the Administration made claims about what the stimulus would do and those claims did not come to pass. Undoubtedly the stimulus had some kind of effect, but no one really knows how much. That's not the problem though – the problem is the Administration continued to defend it even after it failed to deliver what was promised. It was a failure of expectations management.
There's a mix of things working against the administration, some of which are under his control, and some are not. I'm still convinced that the very idea of a stimulus, where everyone is looking at the outflow of money, but not the costs, is mostly a gimmick. But in the end, the administration is taking the blame for things that have been brewing for decades.
In a sense, it really doesn't matter what happens now, but what happens in 2011.
dear Andy, I am not an Economist and I rely on experts to fill in my knowledge deficits. According to many experts from a wide variety of backgrounds the Stimulus Bill had positive effects, including Job Growth.
As the author of the article, David Leonhardt, notes, you do have a point. President Obama has had modest success.
To claim that a Bill saved us from further disaster is not the same as saying the Bill cured all of our problems. I have been stuck on the fact that Real Incomes have mostly been static since 1972 in the West. We are stuck with the melange of Free Market, State-intervention, Capitalism which will never operate either as a purist would want it to nor as a Socialist ideal where taxes would be used to guarantee that everyone had access to building a dignified and meaningful life for herself/himself.
We are stuck in the middle and stuck in the muddle. I wish more places fostered conversation the way Moderate Voice does because many of us really are confused and want to work together to build the best economy and society and world, one block and neighborhood at a time.
The article is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/econ…
I disagree completely. The loss of independent support has next to nothing to do with healthcare or jobs, and everything to do with policies. This independent is horrified at the seamless continuation of nearly all of Bush/Cheney's un-American neocon policies by Obama.
The only difference between Obama and Bush/Cheney is that the torture of accused incarcerated terrorists has stopped. Obama continued 2 worthless wars, unlawful wiretapping, undermining of Habeus Corpus, the Wall St. looting of the US taxpayer. Needless to say, he enjoys my support about as much as Bush/Cheney, and for the same precise reason: He (just like the neocons) is un-American.
The fact that he turned healthcare over to his political enemies to turn into a giant taxpayer skimming operation for big Pharma and Big Insurance is merely a footnote to his other failure to provide “change we can believe in”. I know “change” when I see it. I suppose Iowans do as well.
I think independents and moderates are just simply sick of down your throat politics by the majority party. They didn't like it when Bush/Delay/Hastert did it and they don't like it when Obama/Pelosi/Reid do it.
” They didn't like it when Bush/Delay/Hastert did it and they don't like it when Obama/Pelosi/Reid do it.”
They approved of it for a long while actually. Because W was very good at milking 9/11, and democrats played along.