Liberal Democrats, Liberal Independents, sharply diverge on Obama approval

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 15:35


PPP released numbers today arguing that little of the pushback against President Obama is coming from the left.  To demonstrate this, they focused on the subset of people who self-identify as both liberal and Democrats in their poll:

Our new poll suggests that liberal unhappiness with Barack Obama is still largely anecdotal and not very widespread. His approval rating with liberal Democrats is 95%, with only 3% disapproving of him.

On health care 88% of voters in that group say they're with Obama and only 7% are opposed. We simply are not seeing any broad evidence of push back toward him from the left for not advocating for single payer.

One caveat to these numbers should be that not all people who self-identify as liberals in polls also self-identify as Democrats.  Most self-identified liberals also self-identify as Democrats, but not all.

According to Gallup, during the first nine months of 2009, 20% of national adults self-identified as liberal.  Also according to Gallup, during the first nine months of 2009, liberals were 37% of self-identified Democrats, 18% of self-identified Independents, and 4% of self-identified Republicans:


Using Gallup's national party IDs, and cross-multiplying to get the percentages to involved reach exactly 100% (some people refused to self-identify), that would mean 63% of self-identified liberals also self-identify as Democrats, 32% self-identify as Independents, and 5% self-identify as Republicans.

Currently, Gallup's weekly tracking poll shows President Obama with an 78% approval rating among all self-identified liberals.  This includes an 89% job approval rating among liberal Democrats, and a 33% approval rating among moderate / liberal Republicans.  Even though Gallup did not provide data for this subset, when combined with their yearly averages to date, these cross-tabs suggest President Obama has a 62-65% approval rating among self-identified Liberal Independents.

A 62-65% approval rating is still pretty high.  The interesting point is that people who self-identify as both liberal and Independent diverge so sharply from people who self-identify as both liberal and Democratic.  Partisanship within ideological groups seems to have a big impact on overall political outlook.

There is a substantial minority of self-identified liberals who disapprove of President Obama's job performance--most of them just happen not to self-identify as Democrats.  In most cases, this is probably not because they think the Obama administration has not gone far enough to the left for its own sake, but rather because they don't see the country getting any better, and conclude that is because President Obama has not gone far enough to the left.  Afghanistan probably isn't helping much, either.

Overall, Gallup estimates that about 4-5% of the country are liberals who do not approve of President Obama's job performance.  This actually means President Obama is performing better among liberals than the Democratic Party as a whole.  Once again, according to Gallup, about 8% of the country thinks that the Democratic Party is too conservative, although the poll used in that measurement had a far higher margin of error than all of the other polls listed here.

Previously, I estimated President Obama's job performance among the Democratic Presidential primary electorate to be 75%.  Further, only about one-third of those who did not approve of President Obama self-identified as liberal.  Currently, due to a slight drop in his overall approval among liberals, I would estimate President Obama's approval rating among the Democratic primary electorate to be 74%, with slightly more than one-third of those who do not approve self-identifying as liberals.

Chris Bowers :: Liberal Democrats, Liberal Independents, sharply diverge on Obama approval

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Yes, but "if the czar only knew" (4.00 / 2)
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsme...

"There's some striking stuff in this CBS poll on Katrina. 58 percent disapprove of Bush's handling of the hurricane, and just 38 percent approve. But consider this -- only 20 percent say the federal government's handling of the disaster was adequate, while 77 percent say it wasn't. 24 percent say FEMA's response was adequate and 70 percent disagree. How is it, then, that Bush is rated so much better than the federal government he heads, and the disaster agency run by his appointee, the much-beloved "Brownie?" This is part-and-parcel of a very frightening cult of personality that's been erected around the person of George W. Bush ever since 9/11 with the effective complicity of the rightwing media.

I'm constantly reading Weekly Standard articles about how Don Rumsfeld or someone is messing something up and betraying Bush's pure and awesome vision, or seeing National Review writers talk about how Bush is a great president and it's too bad he doesn't care about limited government. Meanwhile, we've seen huge numbers of mainstream media types accept the view that "strong leadership," "moral clarity," and "bold vision" are the proper metrics for evaluating the performance of an elected official rather than actual policy results. The view that it's his fault when bad things happen -- or, at a minimum, that it becomes his fault when he refuses to take corrective action -- doesn't seem to occur to a very large number of people."

Now, where are Bush's numbers with the public and how do they view his presidency? That's the cautionary tale for Obama administration.


2 or 3 per cent (4.00 / 2)
The Bush campaign in 2004 was able to temporarily move his approval ratings up 2 or 3 points through a massive action that seemed incredibly well planned at the time.  That's it.

Obama right now has little room for error unless he starts cutting the real unemployment rate.  He's got a lot of time but positive things need to happen for ordinary people and not just the elite and the Villagers and the corporates.

None of the previous Presidents presiding over a similar long term economy survived (Van Buren, Cleveland, Hoover).  By making moves that led to immediate improvement, FDR won three more terms.  Geithner and Bernanke are too close to Hoover and Cleveland for my taste.

There is still time but not much.  Screw the deficits.  Screw the dogs.  Screw the insurance companies.  Screw Wall Street.  But never screw the poor, working class, and middle class in times like these to benefit the "(big) business community."


[ Parent ]
Choices, choices (4.00 / 1)
Obama right now has little room for error unless he starts cutting the real unemployment rate.

Such tricky choices: walk the fine line or cut the unemployment rate.  Hmmm...  Better columns from David Broder with marginal approval ratings or improve the lives of millions with high approval ratings.

I can't make up my mind.  These choices are just tooo tricky.


[ Parent ]
Well, he could always do both. (0.00 / 0)
You know, hide the real jobless rate behind government accounting tricks, thereby being able to say that unemployment is going down while he continues to posture over any sort of reforms.

Health insurance is not health care.
If you don't fight, you can't win.
Never give up. Never Surrender.
Watch out for flying kabuki.


[ Parent ]
Chris, I appreciate that you are trying to get to some real answers here. (0.00 / 0)
But the terms seem to be pretty muddled. After all, how could less than half of the Dems self-identify as liberal? Liberals a minority in the Democratic party?! And if the tag "liberal" has become so toxic that only a minority of Dems self-identify as such, how do you then conclude that liberals who are not Dems and are critical of Obama do not think in terms of left/right? Isn't it more likely that these liberal non-Dems are Greens, Socialists, and Anarchists?

Again, if a minority of Dems self-identify as liberals, then what kind of method defines the left as only the liberals in the Democratic party?

You say that "little of the pushback against Obama is coming from the left." But what left is that, the unthinking left? Given the policies of the administration, shouldn't we define the left by the pushback? The left is composed of those who are objecting to center-right policies from a leftist POV, no?


Liberal Self Identification (4.00 / 1)
The funny thing is self identified liberals have always been a minority, even in the liberal party.  There are lots of reasons for that.  For one, liberals tend to not like black and white ideology or strong identification with any group, so "independent" or "moderate" sounds better.  For conservatives who value "us versus them" thinking, it is important to self identify with the larger group.  If you think about it, it isn't surprising that the "us versus them" ideology has more self identifiers than the "we are all in this together" ideology.

Then you tack on all the media issues and so on, and it is really easy to see.

I also suspect that Nadarites call themselves liberal and independent because they don't want to be identified with the Democrats.  I'm not sure what percentage they would be, but I suspect that messes up some of the analysis that assumes independents are less liberal the Democrats.


[ Parent ]
Many progressives (0.00 / 0)
I grew up with in Vermont would never call themselves Democrats because they thought it was the Party of LBJ and the Vietnam War.

I would love to see the cross tabs, but my guess is liberal independents skew to those over 45...


[ Parent ]
Years ago (0.00 / 0)
on dkos A Gilas Girl argued that the term "liberal" had become for many pejorative in the same way that "feminist" was.

She knew many woman who were absolutely feminists, but would not identify as such.  Similarly, she argued, there were many who held liberal beliefs but would not self-id as liberal.

She was dead right.



[ Parent ]
I'm not sure what you are getting at here (4.00 / 1)
Chris Bowers is assuming that liberals critical of Obama are doing so from the left.  The point is that most of the criticism of Obama is coming from his right, that 95% of the country thinks that Obama is either too liberal or about right in terms of ideology.  Most self-described liberals still view Obama as "on of their own".  The left is defined as primarily liberal Democrats because they make up a huge percentage of all liberals.

The bottom line is, if you oppose Obama from the left, you have to realize that you really don't have that many people who agree with you and you have to plan your strategy and tactics so that you don't expect a tidal wave of popular uprisings like Bush expected marching into Baghdad.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both


[ Parent ]
Explain this sentence to me: (0.00 / 0)
"In most cases, this is probably not because they think the Obama administration has not gone far enough to the left for its own sake, but rather because they don't see the country getting any better, and conclude that is because President Obama has not gone far enough to the left."

[ Parent ]
I'm going to leave that to Bowers (0.00 / 0)
Because I'm not sure what it means either.  Maybe liberals who think that Obama is fine but that he needs to strategically pretend to be more liberal than he actually is to move the Overton window?

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
I guess what I'm questioning here is why a group made up of Repubs, (0.00 / 0)
Dems, and Independents should make up 100% of the population. Maybe things have changed recently, but it used to be that if you were an "independent," you were a disgruntled Republican. I am a registered Dem; I might call myself a Green, but I would never call myself an Independent.

Because things have and are changing (4.00 / 1)
The Democratic Party is now the party of moderate Republicans. This is something predictable from the strategies of the two parties over the last 30 years. The more the Republicans moved right the more the Democrats followed them. More importantly, to get off the right versus left scale, there are many issues that are starting to cause convergence across ideological lines that both parties are ignoring. Bank bail outs are a problem for both the left and right, but both parties ignore the problems with the bail outs. Transparency at the Fed is another such issues. There are many issues like this where neither party is really in the main stream of public opinion.  

[ Parent ]
I should have been clearer. "Independent" to me doesn't mean (0.00 / 0)
independent from the two parties. For me, it actually defines a set number of positions. I think both parties are corrupt to the core, but I would rather say socialist or anarchist, or Green. When I think "independent," I think of Anderson and Perot. Maybe this has changed.

[ Parent ]
I think so (0.00 / 0)
I am starting to move to the independent column, and I am in no way headed towards the GOP.  I have always been a left leaning moderate, but there is no place for someone like me in the Democratic Party. They are mostly interested in right leaning moderates or plutocrats. The fact is I am not particularly an ideologue. I am interested in figuring out what works. Thus, I can support a cap gains cut for small businesses and a public option because both are left leaning to me in their application, but I can not support something merely because someone has checked an idea off as being right or left. Despite the rhetoric, Obama is stuck on being a right leaning politician but wants to hide it. If he were truly a moderate, he would be focused on results. Clearly, he is not.  

[ Parent ]
It has changed or never was (4.00 / 1)
If you think of independents as generally moderate and located in between the two parties, then you would be wrong.  There are a certain number of people who identify as Democrat or Republican.  There's maybe 1% of the population who identify with a third party like Libertarian or Green.  And the rest, who decline affiliation with any party, are independents.  Within that group of independents, research shows that a great number of them are Democratic or Republican leaners who vote almost the same as actual party identifiers.  Some of these people, from conservative to liberal, probably value the sense of being a maverick that John McCain seems to relish in.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
No. Studies have been done, and historically, those who (0.00 / 0)
self-identify as "independent" vote Republican far more than they vote Democratic. Obama changed this in his election because of Bush. Someone who is located between the two parties is a conservative.

Do you see the difference I am pointing out here between self-identification as an independent and being placed in the category because one declines identification?


[ Parent ]
I wouldn't say "far more" (4.00 / 1)
The book I am looking at right now is a bit out of date, but from 1948 to 1992, independent voters went for the Republican presidential candidate at no more than about a 2:1 ratio (with 1956 being the exception).  More independents went for the Democrat in 1948, 1964, and 1992 and 45% or more of independents voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in 1960, 1976, and 1988, as well.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
OK, so what you are saying is that with the exception of 1992 (0.00 / 0)
and the last election, Independents went Republican from 1968 to 1992. I'm not sure how your figures argue against my point, and a 2 to 1 ratio is pretty high. And if 1956 is the "exception," then why do you say "no more than"? A lot of dissembling going on.  

[ Parent ]
Historically, independents haven't voted overwhelmingly Republican (0.00 / 0)
That's my point.  Over the period I cited, Republicans did better among independent voters approximately 53.6%-40.6% (numbers don't add up to 100 due to third-party candidates like Perot.)  I would not call that "far more", so maybe we are differing there.

In half the elections between 1948 and 1992, half the elections either had Democrats win among independents or lost but still had 45% or more.  I didn't have data in my book after 1992 and so don't include those years (1996-2008).

In the time period I mentioned, did Republicans win more independent voters than Democrats?  Yes.  Did Democrats win enough such that independents can legitimately be called a swing vote group?  Also, yes.

Having looked at it further, I see a graph (but no tables) which 50% or more independents went for Democrats in Congress every year between 1958 and 1992 except for 1968.  It's the same book I was looking at earlier, so no data after 1992.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both


[ Parent ]
Actually (4.00 / 1)
In Gallup polls, I believe Republicans+Democrats+Independents usually adds up to 98-99% of the sample size.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
This is a demoralizing post (4.00 / 2)
Ever heard of an early adopter?  Just because we aren't a large percentage doesn't mean we don't have an effect.  Look at how opinion slowly turned our way on the Iraq war?

Some voters are more active and influencial than others.

Also self identification means jack shit as far as I am concerned.  To many people liberal may mean kneejerk dem.   Also many lefties may shun the word because the associated with weak kneed neolberals,not to mention the fact that the 19 century definition was actually more like a right wing libertarian.

You have to look at actually opinions to gage ideology not "self-identified" tribal affiliation.

This is why I think people who are angry should vote third party or write in rather than not voting.   The election polls are the only ones that count.

My blog  


low information (0.00 / 0)
Most Democrats weren't dumb enough to mistake Obama for a progressive. That's why Obama had softer support among Democrats in the primaries and from the unions and women's groups. But they got what Obama told them to expect, a moderate Democrat who is pretty effective, so they are satisfied.

Independents are less sophisticated politically, they rarely vote in primaries and are what is usually called low information voters. Many of those independents who supported Obama mistook his rhetoric for policy, and so they are disappointed.

My take from this poll is that if Obama and Congress can deliver on health care reform then they will find plenty of support in the mid-terms from solid Democrats.


And yet (4.00 / 1)
Obama is more popular among liberal Democrats than among moderate/conservative Democrats.

The evidence clearly shows that Obama's drop in job approval since January comes mainly from independents and Republicans who thought Obama would be "post-partisan" but now believe he is just another liberal Democrat.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both


[ Parent ]
conversely (0.00 / 0)
The flip side of the same dynamic. Obama presented himself as all things to all people, many people projected their hopes onto him. But he was always a Democrat.

Most Democratic leaning independents are happy with Obama, he is governing as a Democrat. Independents and Republicans who bought Obama's "post-partisan" rhetoric failed to notice that he was proposing fundamentally Democratic change. They also don't follow politics closely enough to understand partisanship, or that the obstacle to bi-partisan cooperation is the Republican party's tactical approach to legislation. These are the people who would have voted for Perot on the theory that "politics" is what is wrong with government.

But in any case the decline of conservative support for Obama was not the subject of Chris's post. I was addressing the question Chris explored. The alienated people he is interested in would be more likely to vote for Nader, mistakenly thinking that projecting ideological purity can result in substantive policy change. Their approach is similar to the tea-baggers, and as poorly informed and politically self-destructive. Like the tea-baggers they are easy prey for hucksters.


[ Parent ]
There's that word "MOST" again..... (0.00 / 0)
And it's simply not true.  There are many, many liberal Democrats who have seen Obama's true colors now, and they have turned on him.  I am one of those liberal Democrats, and I wish I had somewhere else to go.  Hopefully, in the 2012 Presidential Primary, I will find a better candidate.  I WOULD NEVER VOTE FOR OBAMA AGAIN!

[ Parent ]
not from the polls (0.00 / 0)
Sure, I know some liberal Democrats who are unhappy with Obama. I'm a liberal Democrat who is largely satisfied with what he is doing. I have complaints on civil liberties, health care and financial reform, but I had those complaints in the primaries and still voted and worked for Obama in the general.

But the polls show most Democrats, 80%+, are satisfied with Obama. Only a handful of liberal Democrats are unhappy with Obama. Not most, not many, very very few.


[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox