Will Obama stab the Democratic Party in the back at the State of the Union?

by: Paul Rosenberg

Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 15:00


Barack Obama got to become president in part because he clearly defended core traditional Democratic values--including a strong defense of Social Security:

But there's deep concern that he may abandon that support in his State of the Union, despite the fact that it would be an unmitigated disaster for him to do so.  After all, such an abandonment would be perfectly in line with his new-found enthusiasm for slashing regulations.  But a new A Democracy Corps/Campaign for America's Future poll clearly shows what an unpopular move this would be,focusing on the two most likely forms of "compromise" that Obama is likely to consider:

Richard (RJ) Eskow has a very clear read on this at Huffington Post:
 

Paul Rosenberg :: Will Obama stab the Democratic Party in the back at the State of the Union?
If Obama Moves Right He Loses Everybody -- and Everybody Loses

The latest Democracy Corps/Campaign For America's Future poll on jobs and the economy has a clear message for the president and his party: Stand up for jobs, and protect Social Security and Medicare. The results couldn't be clearer. Yet it's still rumored that the president's State of the Union will emphasize deficit reduction over job creation, and the White House has refused to assure worried Democrats that the president won't also propose cuts to Social Security.

How many polls will it take to convince the White House that this is political suicide? How many expert analyses will it take to persuade them that its premature to make deficits the priority when the country desperately needs jobs and economic growth?

Eskow goes on to paint a devastating picture of how Democratic strength has eroded, drawn from the poll:

Support for Congressional Democrats among young voters is plunging, as the 63-18 percent difference drops to 50-39 percent in a hypothetical 2012 match-up. And these numbers don't capture the lost intensity of support, either.

After the 2008 election, the Obama team boasted that it had built an independent, youth-based team around its Internet lists that it could mobilize to win future elections. But the number of young voters plunged by more than half in 2010. 51 percent of voters aged 18-29 showed up in 2008, and that number plummeted to 20.4 percent last November. That's even fewer than voted in 2006. The party's lead in union households, another Democratic stronghold, has dropped from 37 points to 18 points.

The president and the party still have some very strong relationships: suburban voters, unmarried women, and African Americans are still very solid. And the president's negatives have dropped sharply since the election. But two core constituencies, the young and union members, are crumbling.

The picture's even bleaker among key groups of swing voters. Congressional Democrats are trailing by 23 points among white non-college voters, and Obama's losing them to Sarah Palin by 22 points (and to Romney by 21). Obama's losing white seniors to Palin by 8 points, to Romney by 25 points, and other Democrats are losing them by 16 points. Congressional Democrats are losing rural non-South white voters by 31 points, and Obama trails both Palin and Romney (losing to Romney by 26 points).

So the question becomes, what should the president and Congressional Democrats do -- and what shouldn't they do -- to improve their electoral chances?

But there is a stunningly simple and straightforward solution to this mess:  Be a Democrat!

The Way Out

The answer, as it turns out, is: The right thing. The rumored priorities for the State of the Union are exactly the opposite of voters' priorities. When asked to name the two biggest problems right now, the overwhelming answer was "jobs and the economy."

Unemployment and outsourcing ranked first and second, with a total of 74 percent of respondents placing them in the top two. "Deficits" were included by only 18 percent; 18 percent said "wages have not kept up with the cost of living," and 17 percent said "the economy is not growing." The total blend of answers paints the picture of a country devastated by job loss and economic setbacks.

In a similarly-structured question, 46 percent said Congress' top priority should be "economic recovery and jobs," 34 percent said "protecting Social Security and Medicare," and only 15 percent said "reducing the size of the budget deficit." Another 14 percent included "investing in new infrastructure and new industries" as one of their two top priorities.

Should Social Security benefits be cut? White seniors said no, by 48 percent to 36 percent, and the "don't cut" voters felt much more strongly about their position. White non-college voters said "don't cut" by 55 percent to 35 percent. Voters in districts that turned Republican in 2010 opposed cuts by 57 percent to 34 percent. Even suburban voters were opposed, 60 percent-34 percent.

Unfortunately, Obama has faced this same question repeatedly in the past.  When faced with the choice between representing the people--even substantial numbers of Republicans--or kowtowing to brain-dead Versailles convention wisdom, the dead brain cells win out every single time.

Will this time be any different?


Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

He doesn't care. (4.00 / 5)
I think there is plenty of reason to believe that he'll cruise to re-election, and I certainly think he is confident of that, rightly or wrongly. About the Democratic Party he doesn't give a rat's patootie. He hardly even pretends to care about it (while eviscerating it) the way Clinton did.

what's more surprising (4.00 / 1)
is the lemming-like behavior of the Congressional Dems.

They read polls too (or at least pay people to do that).


[ Parent ]
If and when, he gets behind "cuts" (4.00 / 9)
he'll claim to be modernizing it and making it more progressive. That's what the Center for American Progress does in its proposal that includes substantial benefit cuts. CAP, remember, has close ties to the Admin.

http://www.americanprogress.or...

Check out this Orwellian shit:

Gradually phase in progressive changes to benefit the formula. The benefit amount for the bottom 67 percent of income earners will not change under this proposal. The initial benefit amount for the top one-third of income earners will grow more slowly than is currently the case. These changes in the benefit formula will be gradually phased.

They call it progressive because the bottom two-thirds of income earner won't see cuts. But the top-third includes millions of middle-class people.

Look for Obama to "improve" Social Security.



Overton (4.00 / 10)
I guess in a world where raising the retirement age is seriously considered, which is highly regressive (rich people live longer), this is progressive.  Shows the power of shifting the Overton Window, eh?

My opening bid is we lower the retirement age back down to 62, increase benefits by 20% and pay for it by adding a new tax bracket: 50% at $1 million, and 50% AMT at $10 million.


[ Parent ]
I like it (4.00 / 5)
Dems have these golden brands in Social Security and Medicare, yet never propose expansions in these immensely popular programs. We must never give people what they want, never ever.  

[ Parent ]
I suspect a lot of Democrats are ashamed of Social Security and Medicare (4.00 / 1)
and wouldn't create them if they had to do it all over again.

Me, I'm all for expanding them.  Just as we should have Medicare for All, we should have "Social Security for All", which would be a basic income guarantee for every American.


[ Parent ]
If that's your opening bid, the conservatives will just water it down (0.00 / 0)
to what's basically the status quo.

[ Parent ]
In a word, a big fat NO. (4.00 / 6)
This is a guy who just stated in an op-ed that the number one problem facing the US economy is too much regulation. Not housing. Not the financial crisis. Not off-shoring. Not high unemployment or aggregate demand more generally.

Regulation.

So at this point, I'll offer the conjecture that when he speaks of the economy, he's defining that word in a  way that bears no relationship to reality... or at least the reality that 99% of Americans have to live with. At this point, given the economic destruction he's visiting upon this country, he's flirting with the label, "Worse Than Bush," although that's still pretty hard for me to grasp. Still, he seems to be in the ball park, or at least he's pulling into the parking lot.

If all the pre-SOTU rumors are correct--and I see no reason to doubt them at this point--we're going to hear some rousing militarism and a lot of talk about deficits, "belt tightening," "shared sacrifice" and so on. And thanks to Obama's oh-so-brilliant tax cut plan, Social Security is now officially a part of that "sacrifice," since the shortfalls in funding due to the tax holiday will have to come out of the General Fund.

Voila! It's now fair game for deficit talk!

More sadly, polls like this one from Gallup are probably feeding Obama the notion that he can do no wrong:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145...

So while 70% generally are saying he's not bringing the change they wanted, Dem approval is still remarkably high, even while he's making sure they take a massive hit to their standard of living. So I'm sure the White House is feeling their oats at the moment. If they think they can get away with this scam, they probably feel like they can get away with anything.

Unless the Democratic base wakes up and smells the bullshit, this will likely continue ad nauseum...

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates


Agree with you, but in all fairness (0.00 / 0)
the President never actually said anything about regulation being the "number one" problem in his op-ed.

[ Parent ]
You sir, are no Calvin. (4.00 / 1)
For Calvin once said to Hobbes:

Questions that I already know the answer to, I don't have to ask!

And the stuffed tiger nodded knowingly.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


This just in: Froomkin on this very subject (4.00 / 5)
The lede is pretty weak, but lower down, we have some great pull-quote material here:

Greenberg said his surveys show that even in the context of deficit reduction, cutting Social Security benefits is hugely unpopular. "There is no stomach for bringing Social Security in any way into this debate, and it fundamentally damages progressives and Democrats if they bring Social Security into it," he said.

"It's a great way to really solidify our losses," Lake said.

The pollsters also noted a huge disconnect between the inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom that the deficit must be addressed through entitlement cuts and what voters think.

"Usually, Beltway conventional wisdom is about 95 percent wrong, plus or minus 5 percent," Lake said. "On Social Security, it's about 105 percent wrong."

"When it comes to Social Security," said Molyneux , "opinion elites are from Mars. Voters are from Venus."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

So I'll put the question out there: Are the Democratic Elites committing political suicide just to spite the proles and punch teh hippies? Or are they just hyper-greedy morons addicted to some hugely powerful hallucinogen?

"This planet has - or rather had - a problem, which was this: most of the people living on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movements of small green pieces of paper, which is odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy." - Douglas Adams


"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

If he does anything but stab Democrats in the back, (4.00 / 1)
I'll be amazed.  He's pissing off the Teamsters and truck drivers right now, too.  Apparently, he is going to refund and enact the part of NAFTA that will allow Mexican trucks to roam our roads at will.   I really hope he loses in 2012.  Nobody should be able to lie like he did to get elected and get to keep it.    

Loyal Democrats can get fed up (0.00 / 0)
People will get to the point where they will not vote for Obama, regardless of his opponent. At least, with McCain I knew what I was getting. With Obama it's been all smoke and mirrors.

Actually, McCain might have become more progressive if elected, but there is no hope for Obama, who loves the attention of the elite, that club usually closed for "lesser people" of income, race or religion.


I got so fed up... (0.00 / 0)
two years ago (didn't even wait until he was elected) that I not only will not vote for him I'm no longer a Democrat (registered as unaffiliated after voting for Uncommitted in my state's 2008 primary)

[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox