Is Washington the South? That Could Explain A Lot

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 12:22


Barack Obama is wildly popular.  But in Versailles, not so much.  After all, he's a Democrat and now that Republicans have rejected his bipartisan gestures, it's clear that he's got cooties, just like all the other Democrats in DC, except maybe Ben Nelson.  

So Obama's continued popularity comes as a bit of shock to Versaillers, as seen in Politico with "Public still sky-high on Obama 'brand'":

With Barack Obama's victory in passing a massive stimulus package marred by days of bad press - as not a single House Republican backed the bill, his health czar went down in flames and his second pick for commerce secretary walked away - the administration has been cut down to size, and lost some of its bipartisan sheen.

Such, at least, has been the beltway chatter, but so far the numbers don't back it up.

Obama's approval rating remains well above 60 percent in tracking polls. A range of state pollsters said they'd seen no diminution in the president's sky-high approval ratings, and no improvement in congressional Republicans' dismal numbers.

And that's before the stimulus creates billions of dollars in spending on popular programs, which could, at least temporarily, further boost Obama's popularity.

"It's eerie - I read the news from the Beltway, and there's this disconnect with the polls from the Midwest that I see all around me," said Ann Seltzer, the authoritative Iowa pollster who works throughout the Midwest.

Those tracking polls are national, however.  They look different when you break them down by region.  Consider the following, from the Feb 9-12 DKos poll:

BARACK OBAMA
            FAV   UNFAV   NO OPINION
ALL         68     25         7
NORTHEAST   83     10         7
SOUTH       51     44         5
MIDWEST     71     21         8
WEST        73     19         8

In the South, the numbers look pretty much like the national election.  In every other region, however, his favorables are over 70%.

Regionals--plus non-South totals--on the parties and party leaders on the flip

Paul Rosenberg :: Is Washington the South? That Could Explain A Lot
First, let's look at Obama and the party leaders in Congress, with net favorables and the non-South totals added to the regional breakdown provided above.  The net favorables combined with the regional breakdown make it very clear that we still live in a very divided country.  It's just that the divide has shifted dramatically to left.  The South is narrowly divided, while the rest of the Country is overwhelmingly pro-Dem and anti-GOP, as can be clearly seen in the ratings for Obama, McConnell and Boehner:

In the South, Obama has a net favorable of 7 points, compared to McConnell at  -2. That's just a 9-point difference.  But outside the South, Obama's net favorables are an astronomical 58%, compared to McConnell's abysmal  -39%, a jaw-dropping difference of 97%.  Baehner goes from 16% down in the South to 107% down everywhere else.

Reid and Pelosi have much less dramatic swings.  Still, Pelosi trails Boehner by 2% in the South,  -11% to  -9, but wallops him elsewhere, +10% to  -49%, a 59% thumping.  Reid loses badly to McConnell--by 19 points--in his Southern stomping grounds, but crushes him by 33 points elsewhere,  -6% t  -29%. Reid is not a popular guy anywhere, really.  But outside the South, McConnell is running neck-and-neck with Dick Cheney and the Ebola virus.

The story is much the same when we turn to the parties, both in Congress and in general:

Congressional trail Republicans by 5 points in the South,  -32% to  -27%. But outside the South, the lead by 53%,  -7% to  -60%.  For the parties in general, it's even more tilted toward the Dems.  In the South, they barely lose by 5%,  -8% to  -3% for the Reps.  Outside the South, Dems have a 71% avalanche advantage over Reps, +30% to  -41%.

In short, every single matchup shows the South relatively close--except for McConnell creaming Harry Reids, while outside the South, Reps are justsimply demolished.

Well, up until the New Deal and then the Civil Rights Movement started changing things, it was axiomatic that Washington was a Southern town. These figures pretty much show that it still is.

Somebody needs to tell Versailles that the South lost the Civil War. And the President is a black.


Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Thanks for the work you are doing, Paul (4.00 / 12)
For a rational and interested person, this kind of information is worth a thousand opinion pieces by sold-out talking heads.

The real trick will be to place (and keep) information of this sort in front of as many American citizens as possible.

In other words, continually remind us all of how insane the past eight (more like thirty) years have been and that it doesn't have to stay that way.


Good Post (4.00 / 4)
I sent the numbers off to my IL Republican Congressman just as a reminder that he needs to be careful going forward.

What did Kennedy call it? (4.00 / 10)
"A city of Northern charm and Southern efficiency?" Something like that.

Montani semper liberi

I can't figure out what this post is saying (0.00 / 0)
The House somewhat represents demographics.
The Senate is 2 votes per state.
Is the House turning at 50% Obama support, or significantly more?
(And obviously the city of Washington DC is significantly more Democratic and pro-Obama than the federal district is. Does that mean the federal district is Southern, but the city is Northern?)

You can't figure it out? .. (4.00 / 5)
Paul is busting on the TradMed for continuing to have their collective heads up their own asses

[ Parent ]
Paul .. (4.00 / 1)
have you ever read The Affluent Society? ....  specifically Chapter 2

Eons Ago (4.00 / 1)
Along with The Power Elite and The Lonely Crowd.

Now, reading all those books in roughly the same time period is triangulation I can believe in.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
I've made this point elsewhere (0.00 / 0)
The polls that the Republicans are paying attention to aren't those of Feb 2009, but of Nov 2010.

How is it surprising that the larger populace, which is following the back-and-forth in Washington only through the corner of its eye, has not appreciably moved on Obama's numbers only three weeks into his Presidency? Is it really plausible that his numbers would be materially affected so early on in his honeymoon period? Isn't it far more plausible that there will be a lag time in any effect on his numbers?

The real shift here is in the narrative going forward. Obama's bipartisanship schtick is now officially defunct -- whether he or the Republicans are to blame is mostly irrelevant, because it was always Obama's claim that he would be able to break the old way of doing politics. That he has not brought any such change must be accounted his failure to deliver -- and Republicans will be all over that throughout the remainder of his term in office. What now is Obama's unique contribution to American politics, if he can't change anything in the process as he had promised?

And of course the thing that the Republicans in particular find worth celebrating is that they have indeed drawn a clear line in the sand, on the other side of the stimulus. They are seeking to exploit that stand not now, when it may not prove particularly popular, but in Nov 2010, when it may be easy to cast as a courageous, principled rejection of a policy that has -- according to them, and with some superficially plausible evidence -- failed.  

It was the economy, stupid, in 2008; it will be the economy, stupid, in 2010 and in 2012.

The hope is that by 2012, the economy will turn around, and hence the politics. But if the stimulus is too small, it may well be that we will have only an L-shaped recovery -- it may be that the depth of the L will be less with the stimulus than without it, but politically that distinction will likely prove mostly meaningless.


I agree with everything you said except (4.00 / 1)
Obama getting the blame for bipartisanship failing. As long as the media reports that Obama made overtures, and as long as the public sees the symbolic gestures he will continue to make as more substantive, then the republicans will be blamed, just like they're blamed for it now. At worst for Obama, the failing at bipartisanship will be a net zero politically, although it probably weakened the stimilus package which can be a harbinger of things to come politically.  

[ Parent ]
Several Points (4.00 / 5)
(1) Of course the current polls tell us little what 2010 will be like.  But what happens between now and then is what determines whether the GOP's focus on those far-off polls is a stroke of genius, or just a stroke.

(2) As I've pointed out above, although Obama's approval level is unmatched by any other, the pattern I describe is replicated in virtually every case.  Dems crush Republicans outside the South, and battle close to a standstill within it, with the exception of Reid vs. McConnell.  So this mitigates the argument you're making around Obama.  It doesn't deny that it carries a germ of truth, but it indicates that there's more going on as well.

(3) I am no fan of Obama's bipartisan shtick.  Indeed, I've criticized it for years.  But I don't think he's going to drop it.  If he's smart--not just clever--he will fundamentally reformulate it to focus on reaching out to ordinary folks, not party leaders.  I'll have some more to say about this in an upcoming diary.

(4) I agree 100% that the stimulus is too small.  One of the things Obama is going to have to do is come back and do this again---and this time, do it right.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
DC is not Versailles (4.00 / 6)
Obama is wildly popular in Greater Washington, not just the city, but the whole region. Obama won every precinct inside the beltway, every single one. The wired thing about Versailles is that they don't even talk to their next door neighbors.

The Georgetown Safeway was selling Obama cookies for cying out loud. The Commander Salamander store on Wisconsin Ave still has a Giant poster of Obama out front.

DC is in many ways a Southern city, it is certainly socially segregated. But the wired disconnect we see between the Repubican/Pundit/StinkTank access of hubris has nothing to do with the city and everything to do with our rotten political culture.


"Washington" Here Is Shorthand For The Washington Establishment (4.00 / 6)
Obviously.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I think it needs to be emphasized (4.00 / 3)
Even in its most privileged enclaves, Greater Wash DC LOVES Obama. People outside the area need to understand that the Republican/Pundit/Stink tank access of hubris is just a narrow cult disconnected not just from the country, but from their own neighborhood.

[ Parent ]
Change I can believe in (4.00 / 3)
NoVA went from 2 Republican House members and 1 Dem to 2 Dems and 1 Rep.  Suburban Maryland moved leftward by ditching Al Wynn for Donna Edwards.  Virginia replaced a Republican Senator for a Dem in both 2006 and 2008 and voted Democratic for President for the first time since 1964.  It is quite possible that Frank Wolf who represents the outer VA suburbs and northern Shenandoah Valley will retire soon and be replaced by a Democrat.

Of course, Maryland and DC also voted for Obama.

The DC region is now solidly blue but the punditry and elite media is solidly Republican.  Well, they are the establishment, highly (over)paid with huge expectations of more and taking direction from corporate honchos more interested in advertising than in actual reporting.  When the Time crew "lost" the merger to AOL (55% of stock) they won the aftermath and they have been Republican bootlickers since the 1920s.  CNN post-Ted Turner has been pushed hard right.  GE management is pushing NBC, CNBC, and even MSNBC right.

The problem is elitism and corporatism.


[ Parent ]
DC always feels to me (0.00 / 0)
like occupied territory. Maybe a better description would be -- the DC Green Zone despises Obama but the people love him?

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Only if you don't include the permanent (4.00 / 1)
residents of Washington.  I am guessing if polled them he would be more wildly popular than in the northeast.   Official Washington is the South.

My blog  

Another way to read these numbers... (4.00 / 2)
is that in the South people are only exposed to Right-wing news/pundits whereas in the rest of the country, people are regularly watching/listening to more progressive news/commentary sources. My understanding is that the airways are dominated by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. in the South so most people hear almost nothing else. Alternative sources like and NPR/PBS are meager and truly progressive outlets like Pacifica radio are virtually nonexistent. Labor unions, progressive churches, and other direct person-to-person progressive connections are also very sparse and feeble in the South.

There is much work to be done in the South and in the Washington establishment. But it looks like we're doing great everywhere else.


Second Stimulus (0.00 / 0)
I still say there will have to be, at least, a second stimulus package in 6 to 8 months. I also think the economy will start to revive around the middle of 2010, which should be just in time to insure that the Democrats get a bullet-proof 60+ seat majority in the Senate.  

I Hope You're Right (0.00 / 0)
But in the meantime, state and local governments are going to take an incredible beating, the likes of which hasn't been seen probably since the Great Depression.  And, of course, the people they serve...

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
FDR (0.00 / 0)
FDR had to push through multiple stimulus packages in his first year. I have a hard time believing a group of Democrats don't understand the history of the modern party well enough to know that the greatest Democrat ever had to do stimulus in multiple chunks.

This first package should help arrest the free fall. A second package, at least, will be necessary for some real growth.

I think Krugman is right: Obama's people and Congressional Democrats are scared crapless of the T word (trillion). One way to avoid the T word, is to break stimulus up into multiple packages in the 7-800 billion range.


[ Parent ]
This Would Be FIne If They Had Only Taken Care Of the States First (4.00 / 1)
State governments are going to be slashing budgets, because they can only depend on money that's been appropriated now.  This is a trickle-down disaster, and it's not waiting to happen, it's happening already.

What's more, as if that wasn't bad enough, it reveals a more general lack of understanding of the real-world consequences of their politically-driven deal-making, compromises and maneuvering.

I understand that politically-driven deal-making, compromises and maneuvering are part of the job.  But without getting the connection to real-world consequences, they are just incredibly bad at their job.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
We'll See (0.00 / 0)
There's also the potential for separate health care and renewable energy packages that could unburden the states considerably. The real key, to me, is that Obama and his cadre understand that this isn't something you fix with one shot. If they stop now, they're damned fools, and he's in serious peril in 2012. They've got to keep pushing recovery packages in various sectors of the economy until they fill in enough gaps to stimulate some real growth.

[ Parent ]
The Problem Is It Will Be Too Late (0.00 / 0)
States are working on their budgets now.  They're going to have to make drastic cuts because the money simply isn't there.  And when states cut their budgets, all sorts of organizations that depend on them will cut their budgets as well--school districts, hospitals, counties, etc.

Even police departments.

It's already happening.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
to describe dc as a "southern town" is a stretch.... (0.00 / 0)
DC is an international city, with a lot of different demographic groups. There are black, Latino and white "locals"  with southern ancestry, but who have  international, northern and western roots as well. A large chunk of the DC population comes from other places -- especially the professional governmental corp. and the private sector that services it.  You cannot say the same about Memphis, Mobile, Tampa, and other true Southern cities.

Besides, Democrats perform extraordinarly well in DC politics. In local elections, the Democratic nominee for mayor automatically wins. And virtually all of the council members are Democrats.  DC always votes for the Democratic presidential candidate, and Obama won the District by a 93-7 vote!!! http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/state/#val=DC . Also, 75 percent of the voters in DC are registered as Democrats. http://www.dcboee.org/voter_st... (click the November 2008 stats tab).

But on to your larger point....You could also interpet the poll numbers you cite as indicating that predominately blue territories are more extremely partisan in their hatred of Republicans.  Pelosi and Reid, for example, have lower than 50 percent approval ratings across the nation, but are only a little lower in the south -- even though Pelosi would perform miserably across the South in an actual election. But the blue states judge the two Republicans you listed, plus generic ones, very negatively.

Although I find your analysis interesting, I am a bit uncomfortable with activists engaging in party cheerleading.  It seems unhelpful from the standpoint of social movement mobilization. Although I have read your helpful critiques of the Democrats, you sometimes revert back to Democratic Party cheerleading.  But in others, this pride liberals from criticizing Demmocrats, demanding more of them, and from finding potential coalitions across  parties.

I have no particular "fondness" for the "Democratic" label or hatred of the Republican label, although I have only voted for Democrats in two decades of voting. Instead, I judge people on ideology, activism, and consistency.  For all of the boasting that Democrats do, WE have a lot of holes to fill in terms of race, gender, class, sexual orientation and other major issues.

How helpful, for example, is the knowledge that regions outside of the South love the Democrats, when these other regions actually have more racially segregated and class-isolated schools, with all of the predictable inequities associated with those patterns? The North won the war, but life for free slaves was riddled with inequality. So I readily accept your Civil War analogy and its application to today's political culture.

Today, however, progressive "radicals" do not have leadership positions in Congress like they did during Reconstruction.  Barbara Lee and Dennis Kucinich might be the ideological heirs of Republicans Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens, but they lack the power that those individuals had in Congress.  When viewed in historical context, the "blue" revolution of today does not make me salivate. From the "Duh" Files: Effusive Political Adoration Does Not Lead to Social Change


Please Read More Carefully (4.00 / 2)
Several points here:

(1)

to describe dc as a "southern town" is a stretch....

It's historically accurate.  Much of the public infrastructure was built by slaves.  It had slave markets. It was segregated up into the Civil Rights Era.

(2)

DC is an international city, with a lot of different demographic groups....

Besides, Democrats perform extraordinarly well in DC politics.

I'm very aware of both these facts.  International? Sure. It was 18 years ago, but I still remember the incredible Ethiopian meal I had in Adams Morgan shortly before the Gulf War was launghed. And I know quite well how heavily Democratic DC's electorate is.  I've been a supporter of DC statehood for over 20 years, and I know how bitterly the GOP opposes it.  But that's precisely why I bring up the point about DC's past rep as a Southern town, it's a reminder of where the disconnect originally came from between the people of the city and the elites who dominate its business of politics.

(3)

But on to your larger point....You could also interpet the poll numbers you cite as indicating that predominately blue territories are more extremely partisan in their hatred of Republicans.

I didn't interpret them any way in terms of hatred for Reps vs. love of Dems.  Rather, it's your interpretation that is debatable, as I'll explain. I focused on the gap.  And the reason for that is quite simple:  there are long-standing trends whereby Congressional leaders are held in low esteem, with Congress as a whole regarded even more unfavorably.  That's why looking at straight approval numbers is extremely misleading, approval margins less so, and comparisons of approval margins the least misleading of all.  Comparing congressional to presidential approval ratings is comparing apples to crab apples.  Comparing congressional leaders to one another is a fair comparison: winesaps to McIntoshes.

(4)

Although I find your analysis interesting, I am a bit uncomfortable with activists engaging in party cheerleading.  It seems unhelpful from the standpoint of social movement mobilization.

Right. Because you catch more flies with arsenic than you do with honey. But, seriously, the fact that you see this as cheerleading says a lot more about you than it does about me.  I never said that this was proof the Dems were great, or even--aside from Obama--wildly popular.  As I said above, I was talking about partisan approval gaps.  And the point of stressing how large those gaps were outside the South was to underscore the depth of support there is for Democrats to be Democrats and not Republicans.  It's cheerleading, all right--in the sense of "You've got the ball on their one yard-line, now score, dammit!"

Skipping down....

(5)

When viewed in historical context, the "blue" revolution of today does not make me salivate.

Me neither, as you'd know quite well if you'd been here long enough to read my critique of how ambiguous and problematic this realignment was shaping up to be.  But you go to culture war with realignment you have, not the realignment you'd like to have.

(6)

From the "Duh" Files: Effusive Political Adoration Does Not Lead to Social Change

Ironic that you should post this link, since he's taking off on a John Judis diary wherein the New Republic is following the Open Left line.  The frontpagers here have been saying all along what Judis is just now getting around to.


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Effusion (0.00 / 0)
The negative favorability for McConnell, Boehner, and the Congressional Reps even in the South was very gratifying. The end.  

Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear.  

USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox