Versailles Vs. America, Part #305,693

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 08:00


That title may be a bit out of date, as I started this diary before last weekend, then held it back in hopes of getting cross-tabs that I've yet to receive. But the prospect of a jobs bill now seems a good deal more hopeful than it did just 11 days ago, and these poll numbers--only from the 11 Confederate states--are a powerful reminder that doing a jobs bill now would be politically very smart: favored 3-1 by all voters, and by a whopping 32-1 by Democrats.  Aid to states is also favored strongly: 2-1 by all voters, and more than 5-1 by Democrats. From the latest Winthrop Poll:

On the flip: Who's to blame for the financial situation.

Paul Rosenberg :: Versailles Vs. America, Part #305,693
Surprise, surprise, the winner is: the banks!  Equally surprising: Only Republicans manage to blame the Obama Administration more then the Bush Administration!  What genuinely is surprising is how little difference there is between Democrats, Republicans and independents in their assessments of blame for all non-political actors.  The figures very only slightly in virtually every category--around 10 points at the high end, usually five or less:


Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Versailles Vs. America, Part #305,693 | 22 comments
Interesting (0.00 / 0)
favor or oppose gov't giving aid to banks and financial companies; Republicans favor at 16.3%?
Lean something new about one's browser every day. (0.00 / 0)
Tough luck if you miss the shift key and hit the enter key instead.  I didn't think it was possible to bypass preview.

That 16.3% figured surprised me.  I expected it to be higher among those who self-identify as Republicans.  I expect there to be diversity of opinion within that group, but I didn't expect this much opposition from a group I thought would be more sympathetic to Wall Street.

[ Parent ]
On actual policy, Republican voters support a great deal of progressive programs. (4.00 / 2)
The level of lying, and dissembling and slight of hand allows Versailles and the local media in red states to sell a lot of "populist" policy as 'conservative'

Thats why they ask people if they "identify" as "conservative" to come up with support figures, and avoid polling on policy, reportoing on policy support. They can pretend that 'liberal' policy has no support by citing 'identity' conservatives, and leave out reporting support for the policy completely.

One of the things that most needs doing is the informing of 'scared' and 'weak kneed' and 'spineless' Democratic party Politicians, so they get afraid of being seen as not supporting 'liberal' policy, and not afraid of being 'identified' as liberals.

The lying by Lincoln, who lies about supporting the Public Option to her constituents, is part of the set of Democrats who are not spineless, as she knows if she did what her constituents want, she would be leading on progressive issues.

She isn't spineless, she is bravely misleading her constituents to the right, on purpose.

What percentage of "spineless" Democrats are instead far to the right of their voters, and pushing that way despite their wishes, is unknown. BUT, it helps us, helps voters and helps the 'spineless' elected Democrats to get this informational as widely spread as possible. This article needs wide circulation.

Please please, openlefters, email this article, cross-post this article, talk at the water cooler about this article, hell print iot up and post it at work's bulletin board.

This needs to be widely spread, America is being ill served by ALL its media, we know what want, the press wont let us have it. The press and pretend spineless conservadems.

We need "more better democrats" we need New Deal Dems elected, we need more independent media. And as Obama's stated position is now a good way to the left of whats being put on the floor of our legislatures, perhaps we could start saying "Obama needs our help, they are trying to stop his program, we need more better dems."

Also, on 'bipartisanship' I urge WH PR people to start talking about making the Rethuglican leaders listen to their voters, their voters who want a Public Option, stimulus help, strong bank regulation and breaking them up.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
Don't Forget-0-These Are SOUTHERN Republicans (4.00 / 1)
A nationwide sample would be interesting to see as a way of comparison.  After all you can't get much more Yankee than Wall Street.

"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 ]
whoops! (0.00 / 0)
Read right by only from the 11 Confederate states.  Thanks for the gently deliverd prompt to pay attention.
[ Parent ]
Probably the Republicans (0.00 / 0)
The idiologic conservatives could probably care less that the banks failed.  Their assets would simply be carved up and the loss in taxes would be adsorbed by the federal treasury.  It's more indicative to me as the idiologic split in the republican party.  

Conservative......CNN news:Nopenhagen: US PRES 2 WKS LATE ATTEND 1 DAY, GORE JOURNEY BY TRAIN.
[ Parent ]
Fantastic DATA! Thank you so much, and thanks for the analysis! (0.00 / 0)
FOUR!

This is almost as good as winning an election.

Such damn good news, so infuriating!

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

I bet these numbers would be even higher (4.00 / 3)
if they were framed as about achieving economic opportunity / security for all as opposed to (generic) problems in the economy.

They would simply sky rocket if the Democrats could consistently make that argument.  These numbers are where they are despite the fact that one party beats an incessant drum of free market ideology and the other party plays the same beat with an occasional - the market should be limited a little - note.  

Given that people are largely receiving one message about the economy, these sort of results (which are not surprising if you pay attention to this sort of thing) are stunning.

Here's a question (maybe for when you get the cross tabs). I wonder if respondents are pointing to different things (do those who say yes to blaming consumers, usually say no to corporations) or do some dole out lots of blame and others very little?

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

That's EXACTLY Why I Asked For The Cros-tabs! (0.00 / 0)
So I'll certainly be posting about it once I know.

"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 ]
This reaffirms my views regarding the two party system (4.00 / 2)
Basically, my theory is that what we see in elections creates a perverse outcome regarding what voters are trying to convey because they essentially only have two choices on the ballot.

Several have argued to me in the past that voters are stupid because they will often vote against interest, but recently, I have come to the conclusion that what is happening with voters is that they see Choice A or B on the ballot. Because neither is representative of what you describe in your polling data above, the voter is forced to show their protest of the status quo is sometimes contradictory ways.

Electing a conservative because the so-called liberal is a part of the status quo rather than because they actually agree with the conservative. The perverse result happens when DC interprets that as the voter being in ideological agreement rather than admitting the voter only had 2 choices. It is like trying to fit a square in a circle. DC will say the voter is a circle when the voter is still a square, but trying to fit into the limited choice given. Nate Silver touches on this recently in his discussion of independents, and how people  may misunderstand who an independent is:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...

I should point out that I believe this misinterpretation is probably deliberate on the part of DC. It serves their status quo to pretend x means y rather than x means x, but there was only y on the ballot.

As the two parties have become so dominated by neoliberalism, it has made is nearly impossible within this frame for the voters to voice their economic concerns due to the distortion that the two parties create.

So what's my point here? Well your data supports the idea that there are indeed issues of which there are consensus, but those issues are ignored by the DC status quo through the two party system. Not an incredible discovery to make, but one I think we need to remember is a part of how DC gets away with what it does.  

Indeed (4.00 / 1)
As I've repeatedly pointed out, conservative voters support the welfare state, and have little interest in Grover Norquist's agenda.

It's clear why conservative politicians would want to keep this hidden.  Democrats?  Not so much.

As a party, it makes no sense at all.  But as an instrument of ruling class power, it's a lot more straightforward. Still, given how the party works, there is a complex mix of motives at work at multiple different levels.

It's the same with foreign policy, too, btw.  The American people aren't just opposed to the Afghanistan War. They are generally opposed to overseas interventions, much less long-term wars, which is why they have to be lied to so much.

No one in Versailles wants to hear that.

"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 ]
The other element concerns contests for power within the party (4.00 / 4)
The conservadems and neoliberals owe their power within the party to earlier efforts to portray the Democrats problems at the presidential level as a product of too much power for liberals and constituencies other than white Christian men.  The myth of McGovern (or in an earlier age, communism) was used to bludgeon other elements of the party on the one hand, while the carrot of corporate money was dangled with the other.  For some, it is better to hold the reins of power within the Democratic party even if that means hobbling the party's ability to build enduring majorities. (They may be fooling themselves, or only fooling others, or a little of both - I take no position on that.)

The same dynamic holds true for big money consultants, whose strategies revolve around big money donors and wooing a small segment of independent voters.  Thankfully for them, large scale donors insist that the same old boy club be hired as consultants before they will open their checkbooks, terrible win records be damned.  

Funders, leadership, consultants and conservative Dems all need each other to maintain their power, and may need a largely pro-Republican political climate in which to do so. Their own strategies reinforce that climate - making it a self fulfilling prophesy.  

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
I keep going back to the public option (4.00 / 2)
and how the DC press, politicians and shills completely ignore all polling on the subject that has really been consistent for years on the subject to favor claiming that the public is against or uncertain about the public option. They are trying to create a narrative that has no relationship to the reality of where the American center is.

Below is polling data that I cite from 2005 because I followed the issue closely enough to see just how manipulated we are as a society by DC political narratives. The point of the data is to illustrate that the DC narratives and claims about where the poll is on public or government based health care even from the start of the debate had no relationship to what the public believed.

"2. The public wants the government to play a leading role in providing health care for all. For example, in an October, 2003 Washington Post/ABC poll, by almost a two-to-one margin (62 percent to 33 percent), Americans said that they preferred a universal system that would provide coverage to everyone under a government program, as opposed to the current employer-based system. Similarly, in Kaiser polls from 1992 to 2000, a large majority of the public agreed that the federal government should guarantee medical care for people who don't have health insurance. In a slightly different question asked more recently by Kaiser in June 2003, more than seven in ten adults (72 percent) agreed that the government should guarantee health insurance for all citizens, even if it means repealing most of the tax cuts passed under President George W. Bush, while less than one-quarter (24 percent) disagreed with this statement. Finally, the last time Gallup asked whether the federal government should make sure all Americans have health coverage, they agreed that was a federal government responsibility by 62-35 (November, 2002).

3. American overwhelmingly agree that access to health care should be a right. In 2000 just as in 1993, eight in ten agreed that health care should be provided equally to everyone, and over half agreed "strongly" or "completely". In addition, in 2004, about three-quarters (76%) agreed strongly or somewhat that access health care should be a right.

4. The public says it is willing to pay more in taxes to provide every American with health care coverage. In August, 2003, Pew found Americans favoring, by 67-26, the US government guaranteeing "health insurance for all citizens", even if that meant repealing most of "recent tax cuts". And the majority was scarcely diminished (67-29) by referring not to repealing tax cuts but more directly to "raising taxes". Similarly, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner/Public Opinion Strategies (GQR/POS) found, in January, 2004, a 69-28 majority saying they would be willing to pay more per year in federal taxes to assure every American citizen received health care coverage.

4. But support for universal coverage drops significantly if such a program would mean limitations on access to medical care. For example, while 62 percent in the October, 2003 WP/ABC poll said they wanted universal health care system run by the government, rather than the current system, that support dropped to 35 percent if that limited choice of doctors and to 38 percent if that meant longer waits for nonemergency treatment.

5. Moreover, willingness to pay more in taxes for universal coverage is a "soft" commitment. For example, when phrased as whether the respondent would be "willing to pay more-either in higher insurance premiums or higher taxes--in order to increase the number of insured Americans", 51 percent say they would not, compared to 45 percent who say they would. And, in the GQR/POS survey, when asked how much they'd be willing to pay in additional taxes to assure universal coverage for American citizens, 40 percent would not name a dollar figure at all and 16 percent named a figure under $100.

6. The public is also not completely clear on whether the federal government actually has to lead the way on universal coverage. When asked specifically about responsibility for covering the uninsured, four in ten people (43 percent) do say that the federal government should have the most responsibility for providing health insurance coverage to the uninsured, but two in ten (20 percent) say that state governments should be most responsible, and about one in ten (11 percent) say that employers should be most responsible. Another two in ten (18 percent) think that the responsibility belongs to none of these or to another group. (June 2003 Kaiser poll)"

http://www.emergingdemocraticm...

There are some points of uncertainty, but there is not this deep dislike that the DC narrative claims for government action on health care. Indeed, the fact that the numbers for the public option only went up after all that happened this summer should be an indicator to the Democrats, were they not a party captured by corporate interests, that the public is strongly in favor of health care with the public option.

It was a point of clarity for me that what DC describes as "center" as little if anything to do with the public.  It really has been a way to see behind the curtain by comparing what was polled before the spin of the recent health care battle and what we see now versus what the press is reporting. Much of this data indeed comes from polls that they conducted. So, they have no excuse for making such false claims on health care reform like the public option.


[ Parent ]
A Significant Number (0.00 / 0)
Over 70% of respondents said that consumers too on too much debt.  These thoughts will be taken into the voting booth when the voter considers what congress is doing with his money.    

Conservative......CNN news:Nopenhagen: US PRES 2 WKS LATE ATTEND 1 DAY, GORE JOURNEY BY TRAIN.
Should have read (0.00 / 0)
Over 70% of respondents said that consumers took on too much debt.

This position will resonate with those citizens that are facing bankruptcy.  

Conservative......CNN news:Nopenhagen: US PRES 2 WKS LATE ATTEND 1 DAY, GORE JOURNEY BY TRAIN.

[ Parent ]
This is part of the right wing frame on the crisis of captialism. (4.00 / 3)
According to the right wing frame, the crisis is bad poor people who wantonly tried to live in houses, tried to pay their mortgages and tried to get ethical moral contracts with banks. These evil mortgage payers fooled unfortunate bank executives and made our system go belly up.

The avaricious banks, the bribed members of congress allowing casino bank practices and usurious lending rates and trick balloon lending are blameless according to this frame. In fact its Acorn's fault, according to this frame, by advocating for poor people (read race here).

The right doesn't care about banks doing no work and getting rich, the right doesn't care about the ripping off of an entire generation's savings, homes and the loss of 20% of America's equity, so long as they and their friends continue to get some of the loot.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
How is this number any different (0.00 / 0)
from the other over 70% numbers listed above? And why would voters specifically take that number into the voting booth? And even if they did, what does this mean?

Given that Congress and the Fed funneled massive money to banks already (but not to consumers) it seems these numbers would suggest that the blame of the banks would be the most politically relevant fact.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
If 70% of respondents say that consumers took on too much debt (0.00 / 0)
When 70% of respondents say that consumers took on too much debt, they are placing the blame on the individual creditor.

These feelings are expressed in the voting booth when thinking about the various mechanizations of congress and its elected representatives.  Thus they vote no more often than voting yes on expenditures that raise their taxes.

I don't think the average voter cares if the bank went under.  We are in an historical period currently in numbers of bank closures.  Generally these take place on Friday night.

I sometimes believe (I can be corrected in this thought) that massive funds were poured into the banks because this hid the actions of congress and fannie mae backed mortgages.  Congress had something to hide.  Thus the saying "too big to fail."  Some posters swear by avarce and greed of the banks.  I think that it was more the laws of unintended consequences that got the whole banking/mortgage thing going.  Congress had provided the nudge to the housing and banking industry and now it had to correct that "nudge" by spending a lot of tax money to make up for the shortfalls in worth of the "bundled mortgages".  The bankers were promised that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would make them good.  Thus a lack of oversight of the banks and unintended consequences of congressional promises.  

Conservative......CNN news:Nopenhagen: US PRES 2 WKS LATE ATTEND 1 DAY, GORE JOURNEY BY TRAIN.

[ Parent ]
Every one of these questions asked about "blame" (0.00 / 0)
That is not an interpretation of the question, it is the wording of the question - all of the questions. You are still singling one out for unstated reasons.

Again, it makes little sense to pick out that one question, and ignore the others, when if their taxes go up it will be because of wars, tax cuts to the rich and Wall Street bailouts (and for the latter, the bankers made billions while consumers were screwed.)

Obviously, one might believe that voters would be fooled into thinking that the little people are at fault (or maybe the little people plus Democrats) which seems to be your position (although it is hard to tell.) But these polling questions, of the most conservative region of the country, demonstrate that this is not the case.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
Local issues (0.00 / 0)
when if their taxes go up it will be because of wars, tax cuts to the rich and Wall Street bailouts (and for the latter, the bankers made billions while consumers were screwed.)

Taxes go up for many reasons.  The voter knows that he will have to pay for them.   The American society knows that there is a price to be paid for anything.  Thus in the voting booth when he can directly affect his own expenditures for something he doesn't agree with, he will vote no.

Yes, I take a shot at Democrats for continueing to personally bail out non-performing Wall Street bankers.  Also a shot at Chris Dodd for lying to us.  And to think he had the chutzpa to run for president!   I can't fire the bankers but I can fire those that pay them.

Conservative......CNN news:Nopenhagen: US PRES 2 WKS LATE ATTEND 1 DAY, GORE JOURNEY BY TRAIN.

[ Parent ]
I don't know about these polls (4.00 / 1)
which of course are only a "snapshot in time" of what ACORN-funded pollsters claim the public believes at any given time, but my gut tells me that they're all wrong, because they contradict what I want to believe the public actually believes. And my gut, like Dick Cheney's judgement, is demonstrably NEVER wrong. Now scuze me while I go fill it with breakfast...

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
More Economic Collapse Background (0.00 / 0)
This round table talk is a little dated (October 2008) and long, but should be required viewing by everybody:

http://fora.tv/2008/10/20/Naom...

It's been a year since some that discussion - what have we done to fix the root causes of the problem?

NOTHING.

Versailles Vs. America, Part #305,693 | 22 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox