Majority of Americans, and Democrats, oppose troop increases in Afghanistan

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 13:25

President Obama job approval rating has been static for the past three months. Since mid-August, net job approval for President Obama has hovered in a tight, 5-8% net approval range. This range is very similar to the amount by which he won the 2008 election (7.27%), strongly suggesting that the national political environment has simply returned to its pre-election coalitions. President Obama's supporters are now the same group of people who voted for him last year, while his opponents are those who voted for someone else.

Since he is now relying on his pre-election coalition to maintain his overall support, any decision to further escalate American troop presence in Afghanistan is dangerous for President Obama. This is not only because a narrow majority opposes troop escalation in Afghanistan, but because the majority of Americans who oppose the troop escalation are members of President Obama's coalition (aka, mainly self-identified Democrats).

First, here is a summary polling on troop escalation in Afghanistan over the past month:

Support or oppose increasing the number of American troops in Afghanistan?

Poll Date Support Oppose

Mean Nov 11 43.6 50.2

AP Nov 07 43 54

CNN Oct 31 42 46

NBC Oct 24 47 43

ABC Oct 17 47 49

CNN Oct 17 39 59
Even if the October 17th CNN is removed from the average, a 48% plurality still opposes sending more troops to Afghanistan. What's more, the people who oppose sending more troops tend to self-identify as Democrats:

Democrats Obama Performance Troop Levels

Approve / Increase 54% 27%

Disapprove / Decrease 27% 52%
By a 2-1 margin, self-identified approve of President Obama's handling of Afghanistan, even though twice as many Democrats favor decreasing troop levels there as favor increasing troop levels.

Republicans Obama Performance Troop Levels

Approve / Increase 20% 57%

Disapprove / Decrease 58% 16%

Already, a 27% disapproval for President Obama among Democrats for his handling of Afghanistan is far above his overall job disapproval among Democrats, which only stands at 12.3%. If an additional 15% of national Democrats were to start disapproving of President Obama's overall performance, then his overall job approval rating would slide to around a net negative of 4-5%. Such a negative approval rating would seriously endanger the rest of his legislative agenda, from health care to climate change to financial regulations.

President Obama is not going to win back any significant number of Republicans, who overwhelmingly disapprove of his handling of Afghanistan despite approving of his policies there. It is also unlikely that he will win back a significant number of Independents until the economy shows real improvement. Right now, he is functioning primarily on a base of Democratic support, which an escalation in Afghanistan has the potential to damage.

President Obama is probably not taking these political considerations into account when determining troop levels in Afghanistan, but given the impact that an escalation could have on human lives in other areas--specifically health care and climate change--it would not be a terrible idea if he did.

Chris Bowers :: Majority of Americans, and Democrats, oppose troop increases in Afghanistan

Tags: Afghanistan, Obama administration, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

Majority of Americans, and Democrats, oppose troop increases in Afghanistan | 5 comments

Lessons of History: Medicare vs. Vietnam (4.00 / 3)

Apparently, given his approach to health care reform vs. Afghanistan, Obama thinks that LBJ was right on Vietnam, but wrong on Medicare.

Who knew?

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 12:44:04 PM CDT

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Yeah, right! (0.00 / 0)

President Obama is probably not taking these political considerations into account when determining troop levels in Afghanistan

And I've got some beachfront property in Kabul...

The truth is, both escalating and deescalating carries huge political risks. If he were to give McChystal much less than he wanted, Repubs, the MSM, and elements of the military would conspire to try to undermine him. The furor would threaten his agenda. Obama being Obama, he surely fears the opposition of the establishment more than he fears the disgruntlement of progressives.

The irony is the compared to the rest of his agenda, there is nothing more important, more transformative he could do, than refuse to perpetuate the war.

by: david mizner @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 12:48:32 PM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

By the way, Chris (0.00 / 0)

You were pretty supportive of Hawk Hillary as Obama's choice for SOS. Now that she's one of the leading voices inside the administration pushing for massive escalation, do you care to revisit that decision?

by: david mizner @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 13:14:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The pledge (4.00 / 1)

Considering the economics and Obama's pledge to the Blue Dogs to reduce the deficit in the near future, we can't afford Afghanistan. The money considertion is crippling Health Care Reform by delaying implementation and pushing a variety of bad options.

Lest we forget,LBJ had a great economy where establishment economists continually protested that the unemployment rate was too low. Even with that, the media was constantly telling us we had to choose between "guns and butter."

That was a big lie, btw. LBJ slapped on a modest tax surcharge and FY 1969 (then July 1968 through June 1969) recorded the one and only budget surplus in a 40 year period between Truman and Clinton.

If war spending slowed popular domestic programs then, it will cripple them now with the RW media machine. Cripple domestic spending. Cripple health care. Cripple the already slow recovery. Enhance the economy in red states heavy with defense contractors at the expence of blue states.

McChrystal is a public "servant", not a dictator. We can't afford him or Petraeus or any of the other tin horn crooks. Send then all packing and add Gates to the list.

by: David Kowalski @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 14:14:08 PM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Obama won't if Congress won't (0.00 / 0)

President Obama is probably not taking these political considerations into account when determining troop levels in Afghanistan, but given the impact that an escalation could have on human lives in other areas--specifically health care and climate change--it would not be a terrible idea if he did.

There's little doubt that the White House is taking politics into account when making these decisions, but for the moment, the only people who's views are relevant are in the Village.

The WH knows that no one ever lost establishment support or credibility by being against escalation.

On the other hand, the decision to escalate is only available because Congress allows it. Congress has complete power (not to mention the duty) to place any limits it chooses on war making. Members of Congress know that they will not be held accountable for decisions made by the executive branch.

If members of Congress faced pressure over their willingness to support escalation, without a plan, without an exit strategy, and without any way to pay for it - if they were forced to explain why they were allowing escalation to even be discussed when its clear that our military occupations in that part of the world fuel terrorism rather than combating it - the Obama Admin would start to pay attention to what bad policy and politics this is.

Who are the best keepers of the people's liberties? The people themselves. The sacred trust can be no where so safe as in the hands most interested in preserving it.
James Madison

by: David Kaib @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 18:18:53 PM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Majority of Americans, and Democrats, oppose troop increases in Afghanistan | 5 comments