your category headings are questionable. (0.00 / 0)

how do you extrapolate 'identities' based on an aggregate of poll responses?  

someone may trust obama but be more radical on the bailout than most other 'obama trusters,' or may not trust obama but not because he isn't economically progressive enough.  you are collapsing distinctions that your poll (commendably) left open.  

---

by: seabrook @ Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 20:36:37 PM UTC

Spreadsheet (0.00 / 0)

He should have a spreadsheet of the results, so can see more than just aggregate totals in each category.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 20:48:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

well (4.00 / 2)

While the categories aren't perfect, the correlation is pretty good.  Of the bailout supporters, only 4 said they don't trust Obama.  Most of the people who don't want to support primary challenges also supported the bailout, as do most of the people who answered 'I don't know' to that question.  

88 out of the 90 people who don't trust Obama also don't support the bailout.  Most of the 'I don't know' on Obama didn't support the bailout.  About a third of the people who support Pelosi came from the no bailout group, while two thirds come from the much smaller pro bailout group.

I should open source the data so you can play with it.  When I figure out how to strip out the email addresses I'll do that.  

---

by: Matt Stoller @ Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 20:57:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

thanks for the clarification. that answers some of the questions (0.00 / 0)

but not all of them.

like: what is the distinction, policy wise, in question #2 between "shame on them" and "they should have used their leverage?"  it seems more stylistic than substantive, and certainly not significant enough to base a major 'ideal-type' distinction on.

my take on these numbers is the following:  70ish percent of openlefters are upset about the bailout and think it shouldn't have been passed without significant progressive alterations.  most of these people are unsatisfied with pelosi's tenure, and support primary challenges for most, if not all, of those dems who voted for the bailout.  (we are progressives, most dems in congress aren't -- of course we want to primary most of them).  

however, a lot of the anti-bailout and anti-pelosi folks still trust obama.  the fifth question was vague, so many of us probably meant different things when we decided to say that we 'trust' or 'don't trust' obama.  trust is not a category that i generally employ when thinking about politicians, despite the fact that it is widely used.  

---

by: seabrook @ Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 21:32:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

k. that was the critique.... (0.00 / 0)

but i'm really glad that you are working to determine our perspectives on these questions.  i would welcome more polls like this in the future, and i generally think they are a great way to figure out where we are on some of these big, strategy-type questions.  

at this point, i imagine that you are confident that if you start pushing for primaries, most of us will be on board and have your back.  which is good to know, no?    

---

by: seabrook @ Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 21:38:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm surprised (4.00 / 1)

at the use to which this data was put.

I felt like I answered the questions individually - and didn't anticipate the conclusions that would be drawn from them as a group.

For example, for the last question, I generally support Democratic primary challengers. I didn't look at this question through the lens of recent history at all.

Also, the question about Obama seems awfully broad and difficult to draw conclusions from. Like many progressives, I do have doubts about whether Obama mirrors my political views.

But I trust that Obama will be able to chart a course most likely to achieve major legislation - even if that legislation might not be the most progressive version. But Obama's consummate strategic vision & ability to communicate his message and bring people along eases my mind a great deal.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

---

by: vernonlee @ Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 21:44:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

sure (0.00 / 0)

I felt like I answered the questions individually - and didn't anticipate the conclusions that would be drawn from them as a group.

And I didn't anticipate the conclusions, either, nor are they finalized.

---

by: Matt Stoller @ Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 21:50:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That last question is way too ambiguous. (4.00 / 1)

Which incumbent Democrats are you talking about?  Certainly some deserve it, but all of them?  Or just all of them who voted for the bailout?  Giving us only Yes/No/Don't Know as our options muddles what we really think.  Why didn't you have the option like in the 3rd question when coupled with other bad votes?  That's an infinitely better question to ask to truly get the mood of OpenLeft readers.

I will add, though, that we need to stop acting like a bunch of reactionaries ("OMG he voted for the bailout; kick him out of office!!!1!!!1!!!") if we are to effectively push for change.

---

by: BruinKid @ Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 21:06:23 PM UTC

primaries are good (4.00 / 6)

We were right about Lieberman. Even if a primary doesn't work, it can move an incumbent on at least the top-down/bottom-up axis if not the left/right axis (see: Harmen, Jane). Even if a primary doesn't even happen, it can at least shut an incumbent up when it comes to criticizing the base (see: Tauscher, Ellen). And in the best case, not only do we dump the dead weight but win a great progressive (see: Edwards, Donna).

The Thanksgiving to Winter Solstice is the sweet spot for figuring out the next steps in reforming our party. Hopefully, here and elsewhere, there will be a lot of discussion about where we need to go, who is in the way, and which of those members are in districts where a primary makes sense. Then we can roll up our sleeves and start organizing while the insiders are worried about which inauguration parties to attend.

On twitter: @BobBrigham

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 21:08:09 PM UTC

I don 't really feel that any (0.00 / 0)

of these categories accurately describe me, and I am not very friendly to the idea of being put in a category, either.  But then, I didn't participate in your poll, so I guess it's not too surprising that I don't see myself there.

---

by: Querent @ Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 21:19:45 PM UTC

of course (0.00 / 0)

I am not very friendly to the idea of being put in a category, either.

If you don't like being put in a category, you aren't going to believe that any of these categories describe you.  

---

by: Matt Stoller @ Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 21:51:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I stopped answering halfway (0.00 / 0)

through, as the questions seemed less well-considered than Stoller's usual stuff.  

---

by: JoelN @ Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 21:38:10 PM UTC

I like labels. (0.00 / 0)

   I didn't take the poll (sorry) but I suppose I'd be a progressive reformer.  I want some primaries.  I'm pissed at my representative, Joe Sestak.  He's more vulnerable to a primary challenge than he was before the bailout.  I just can't imagine anyone taking him on.  I think a primary challenge to Patrick Murphy would be more dangerous and less warranted.

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy

---

by: cilerder86 @ Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 22:33:47 PM UTC

Useful poll (4.00 / 1)

My one objection would be the forced binary between supporting or not supporting primary challenger to reactionary Dems amounting to a de facto fatwa against general election independent/third party challenges.

It is a mistake to reject this option a priori, in my opinion.

Arguably a fatal mistake.

---

by: John Halle @ Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 23:06:25 PM UTC

Progress=? (0.00 / 0)

It seems to me that you are making a litmus test out of support for the bailout in that anyone who supported the bill is only a regular democrat, not a progressive. Does this litmus test apply to favored progressives like Donna Edwards also?

As I said in my poll comments, I believe that characterizing this bill as a 700 billion dollar giveaway is inaccurate as my understanding is that it will be nearly impossible to lose all 700 billion.

Congressional Dem's were between a rock and a hard place. On one hand, I suppose they could have tried to pass some pony plan of progressive goodness, but it would have had to have the approval of both the blue dogs (who would probably whittle it down to not much pony) and Bush (who would love to beat the Dems over the head for playing politics). Such a plan would have been a godsend to Republicans who could have voted against it en masse and accuse Dems of playing politics in a crisis (our new best message against McCain). It would also tie Dem's to Bush, thereby blunting our strongest argument for congressional candidates (much as McCain did for his experience argument with the Palin pick).

I supported the bill, not without reservations mind you, because of my individual assessment of the realities of the situation.

My main concern right now is getting Obama elected as president and securing as many democratic seats as possible. This bailout is not the end all of the economic crisis, and the better showing we have on November 4th, the stronger our hand will be in further efforts to stabilize the economy, which I feel (like Krugman) will likely occur before January 21.

I think it's too close to an election to be taking a gamble that the public will realize what awesome goodness progressive democrats were able to come up with at the expense of discarding a bipartisan bill.

Besides, there are lots of institutional players with a lot of power in positions to make it appear that a wholly democratic plan that is forced on Bush is seen as failing (not the least of these being Paulson and Bush who ultimately would be tasked with implementing any plan).

That said, I fully support efforts to target blue dogs, and I think that the mere threat of such challenges should help to moderate their conservative tendencies. But I believe the single greatest opportunity to move toward enlightened, progressive governance in this country is to elect Obama and as many Dems as we can get right now. I also think that that was a major factor in the decision of those progressive Dem's that backed this bill. And I don't hold it against them in the least.

---

by: lloyd @ Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 00:43:21 AM UTC

Pragmatic Progressive (0.00 / 0)

One last thing. From my answers in the poll I suppose I would fall under the "Democratic Regular Insiders" category. I propose that a more accurate description for me would be "Pragmatic Progressive".

---

by: lloyd @ Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 00:56:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

you sound more like this: (4.00 / 1)

Democratic Regulars: Another 10% supported this bailout, and they don't know about Pelosi, but they basically think that Democratic leaders do the right thing.  They aren't sure about primaries, but would probably support going after very conservative Democrats in liberal districts.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:03:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The missing category (0.00 / 0)

... should have been obvious from the name of this very site: Leftist. i.e., someone who was radicalised by reality and has never really trusted the Dems (including Obama)!

---

by: ravi @ Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 02:32:17 AM UTC

Democratic party and democracy (4.00 / 2)

Oh for goodness sakes -- I've haven't been radicalized by the failures of the Democratic leadership -- I've been radical as long as I can remember. I may differ from some (most of whom are not here) in thinking that in practical terms that means I have to build support for inadequate Democrats. But the Democratic party is simply a tactical necessity for anyone serious about small "d" democratic progressive power. It can't be expected to be any better than we organize the forces to make it.

The "bailout" episode is simply that, yet another episode in which progressive and regressive forces contested and the balance of forces was revealed. More work ahead...

Can it happen here?

---

by: janinsanfran @ Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 04:32:25 AM UTC

"I don't think most of us rejected a bailout per se" (0.00 / 0)

Well, imho this is an important question you should have asked, Matt! Why didn't you?
:-/

---

by: Gray @ Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:40:34 AM UTC

Woof. Bunch of critics in this thread. (0.00 / 0)

I think the survey and the results rocked.  More of this plz.  

---

by: texas dem @ Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:41:37 AM UTC