Raleigh, N.C.- As its affiliated Republican Party's fortunes rose in the last year, Fox News' have declined. In January 2010, PPP showed Fox as by far the news outlet most trusted by American voters. In this month's poll, Fox is still relied on by more than some other competitors but is far behind PBS, tested for the first time. PBS is the only group trusted by a majority and distrusted by fewer than 40%.
A year ago, Fox's 49-37 (+12) trust-mistrust margin significantly outpaced ABC's -15, CBS' -14, NBC's -9, and CNN's -2. In the meantime, all but CNN have boosted their images. Fox now stands at 42-46 (-4), better only than CBS' -7 and ABC' s -8, but worse than CNN's -3, NBC's 0, and PBS' 50-30 (+20).
Both moderates (from -15 to -32) and liberals (from -40 to -76) have almost completely abandoned Fox. But it remains the most trusted by any one ideological group (conservatives, at 72-16) of any of the networks except PBS' 76-11 with liberals. Conservatives only mistrust PBS by a -32 margin, way less than their -49 of NBC, -51 of ABC, -53 of CBS, and -54 of CNN. The narrow moderate plurality (41% to conservatives' 40%) give PBS a +49, roughly two to three times their +26 for CNN, +24 for NBC, +17 for ABC, and +16 for CBS.
While Republicans have only slightly declined in their esteem of Fox (from 74-15 to 67-22), independents have gone from about even (41-44) to -16, and Democrats' mistrust has doubled from -22 to -43. PBS is the only channel at all trusted by independents, with a strong 44-32, but they do trust Fox more than ABC (-21) or CBS (-22) and only narrowly less than CNN (-15) or NBC (-14). A year ago, independents disliked most of the networks by around 30-point margins.
Particularly interesting in light of (1) past results from PIPA/WorldOpinion.org showing Fox most misinforms and PBS least misinforms their respective viewers and (2) conservatives' resurgence in desire to defund PBS/NPR for firing Juan Williams.
Cross-tabs for outlets by ideology on the flip, along with a reminder of the findings on misinformation.
A new bipartisan poll conducted for Mayors Against Illegal Guns, shows strong support for stronger gun control measures, including strenghtened implementation of existing laws as well new measures--both of which have been vehemently opposed by the NRA. Support for some measures ranges as high as 80 or 90 percent, while majorities opposed only two measures that were asked about. The poll of 1003 adults included a sub-sample of 451 gun owners, whose responses once again showed that the NRA does not represent the views of most American gun owners.
Three measures that polled over 90% support--including among gun-owners--were:
(1) Requiring gun owners to alert police if their guns are lost or stolen (94% support among all adults & gun owners).
(2) Fixing the gaps in government databases that are meant to prevent the mentally ill, drug abusers and others from buying guns (90% among all adults & gun owners).
(3) Requiring federal agencies to share information about suspected dangerous persons or terrorists, in order to prevent them from buying guns (91% among all adults, 93% among gun owners).
Another five measures had support of 80% or more:
(1) Fully funding the enforcement of the law Congress passed after the Virginia Tech massacre to prevent people with a history of mental illness from buying guns (89% among all adults and gun owners).
(2) Require all gun buyers at gun shows to pass a criminal background check (89% among all adults and 85% among gun owners).
(3) Prohibiting people on the terrorist watch lists from purchasing guns (88% among all adults and gun owners).
(4) Fully enforce gun laws currently on the books (83% among all adults and gun owners).
(5) Tracking bulk purchases of assault rifles, which have become the weapon of choice of Mexican drug cartels (81% among all adults and 80% among gun owners).
Another five measures had landslide support, in the 60s and 70s, while two measures had majority support in the 50s, and two measures were opposed by a majority. Charts showing the breakdown--including strength of support and/or opposition--are on the flip.
"Our coalition of mayors has fought for years to fix our federal background check system and close loopholes that give dangerous people a way to get around the requirement altogether," Bloomberg said in a statement on the poll's findings. "This poll shows that, particularly in the wake of yet another tragic mass shooting, Americans and gun owners agree with our efforts. If the tragedy in Tucson was not enough to ensure that Congress finally takes action, we hope this clear call for reform from the public will add to the groundswell of support."
Closing the so-called "terror gap" has particularly strong support. A 2010 Government Accountability Office report found that during the past six years, individuals on the terror watchlist were able to buy firearms or explosives from licensed U.S. dealers 1,119 times.
The NRA has opposed bipartisan legislation closing the gap on the grounds that the list is flawed -- some individuals are put on the list by mistake, while many who pose legitimate threats are never added.
But this position puts the NRA far to the right of even its members. A survey last year by conservative pollster Frank Luntz found that 82 percent of NRA members supported "prohibiting people on the terrorist watch lists from purchasing guns." Eighty-six percent agreed with the statement that the country can "do more to stop criminals from getting guns while also protecting the rights of citizens to freely own them."
There's strong voter support for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and allow restrictions on corporate spending, according to a poll conducted by PPP and paid for by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Ryan Grim of HuffPost has reported:
Nearly a fifth of voters remain undecided on an issue that has only been live since the Supreme Court overturned a century of legislation and precedent in a 5-4 ruling whose effect was visible to anybody with a television through the months of September and October. Of those who have an opinion, 46 percent said that "Congress should consider drastic measures such as a constitutional amendment overturning the recent Supreme Court decision allowing unlimited corporate spending in elections," while 36 percent disagreed. The survey, which was provided to The Huffington Post, was conducted by the liberal-leaning Public Policy Polling on November second and third and reached 548 voters.
A Constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress and must be ratified by three-quarters of the states. But, said Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.), the author of an amendment that would overturn Citizens United, there have been times in American history when amendments have caught fire and ripped right through the land. "The process is very rigorous, and it should be," Edwards told HuffPost. "But there have been plenty of examples of amendments to the Constitution that have happened, actually, with fairly rapid-fire when they catch on."
Edwards, an attorney, said she wrote the simple text of her amendment the night that Citizens United was handed down. "I really concluded that the Supreme Court actually put the challenge out to us, here in the Congress. They said, you know, you could make a judgment that this is not really good for the system, but the fact is that the Constitution doesn't allow you to regulate this. Congress, you have no-- the Court told us directly-- Congress, you have no authority to regulate. And when the Court says that so directly, it only leaves us one choice," said Edwards.
In the Senate, John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.) have both gotten behind the effort. "Max Baucus and I, probably, if we had to serve in the same body, we probably don't agree on a whole bunch of stuff. But on this, he really gets it," said Edwards.
"Max is always willing to work with anyone toward the common goal of making sure Montanans' voices don't get drowned out by out-of-control corporate campaign donations," said Kate Downen, a Baucus spokeswoman.
Adam Green, cofounder of the PCCC, sees the amendment as a winning political issue. "It's time to stop thinking small-bore. The solution to Citizens United is not merely disclosure, it's to overturn Citizens United -- and even last November's Republican-skewed electorate agrees," Green said.
The article goes on to note the barriers such an amendment would face: the parties' reliance on corporate spending, the GOP takeover of 19 legislative chambers in the midterms, but continues:
But, said Edwards, Democrats need to embrace the idea that the Constitution is a political ground worth fighting on. "A lot of progressives are not accustomed to using the mechanisms of the Constitution. The right has used-- has tried to do that an awful lot of times on a whole range of different things in state legislatures and across the board. And as progressives, we're not accustomed to doing that, and this is one instance, though, where the populist demand is there, and our energy and our policy has to match that demand and a Constitutional amendment does that."
And it notes:
The amendment has strong support from law professors and former attorneys general.
But one more thing ought to be noted: the barrier of GOP obstructionism on this issue could actually be turned into a blessing--although it won't be easy to do, at least at first. During the last election, big business managed quite successfully to channel Tea Partiers populist rage at the government, not them. And this won't be a hard trick to replicate in the future for most of the hardcore ideologues. But repealing Citizens United and directly confronting the untrammeled, anti-democratic power of big business could be just the thing to wreck havoc with the Tea Party narrative for the broader public. Having a clearly-defined fight over a Constitutional amendment to take back our democracy from big business would provide a constant narrative backdrop for all manner of corporate abuses, such as recent revelations of how fiercely the health insurance industry fought against health care reform. There is a real opportunity here--and if it does catch fire, as Donna Edwards points out if possible, that opportunity could huge. The only question is whether we're willing to think big enough to take advantage of it.
The 2010 elections can be described in many ways, but one way to view them is as a repudiation of the congressional factions with which the Obama Administration has negotiated with (and/or capitulated to) over the last two years.
Blue Dogs and "moderate/centrist" GOPpers were overwhelmingly defeated in primaries and in the general election.
The progressive wing of the Democratic party did not suffer such defeat. It is time that the President join the winning wing of his chosen political party.
At a minimum President Obama owes the progressives a nod of thanks and respect for their demonstrated ability to stave off the recent Republican Wave.
"Can you hear me?" That's the recurring refrain in a radio promo for this weekend's "Virginia Tea Party Patriots Convention," which-with an estimated crowd of 3,000-purports to be one of the largest rallies yet of so-called "Tea Party" sympathizers. The 60-second radio spot by keynote speaker Lou Dobbs features allegedly outraged Americans repeating that line, interspersed with un-attributed stats about how Americans supposedly oppose stimulus spending, health care, and other government spending policies "Maybe Washington can't hear us," Dobbs intones dramatically, "because they're just not listening."
Not listening to whom? For two years media obsession with the Tea Party has drowned out nearly every other voice in the public debate, a self-perpetuating feeding frenzy that has raised the volume on this population's views to a disproportionately deafening roar. Yet, as is shown all too clearly in Project Vote's recent poll report What Happened to Hope and Change? A Poll of 2008 Voters, these shouts for attention are coming from a segment of the population that is overwhelmingly white, wealthy, and older-and one that is out of touch with the needs and views of most Americans.
I just wanted to pull some of the more telling charts from Project Vote's report on their poll, starting with this one showing the actual composition of the American electorate:
At 32%, Obama's base of black, youth and low-income voters is 10% larger than the 29% of Tea Party supporters. Yet the amount of attention they get is far, far less. And they're never treated with a presumption of being "real Americans" who need to be listened to.
More on what folks have to say via a series of snapshot tables and snappy comments on the flip.
(It's not just the M$M, we here in the blogosphere have gotten a pretty distorted view of the electorate this cycle as well. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
Project Vote’s new poll, which reveals the “rising electorate” from 2008 has starkly different views about the role of government than Tea Partiers, has inspired some discussion on the mood of voters before the election in November. “What Happened to Hope and Change,” we ask, and several bloggers, columnists, and reporters (sometimes with a combination of relief and frustration) attempt to answer.
"Lorraine C. Minnite, the author of the study, argues that the poll shows that the media is paying too much attention to the concerns of the mostly white and better-off Tea Party," reported Linda Scott at PBS News Hour.
The poll's finding that Tea Partiers only make up 29 percent of 2008 voters, compared to the 32 percent of black, young, and low-income voters, who turned out in droves in 2008 was a "refreshing corrective," wrote The Nation's Chris Hayes.
"We've all spent so much time dwelling on the slights and accusations of the Fox News crowd, there's been shockingly little attention paid to the views, frustrations and convictions of what we might call the forgotten electorate, otherwise known as Obama's base," he wrote.
(Project Vote does some of the best & most important work out there, and this is very important information. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
Today, Project Vote released What Happened to Hope and Change? A Poll of 2008 Voters, a new report summarizing the results of a telephone survey of 1,947 Americans who voted in 2008, analyzing their views on the role of the government, government spending, and the budget. This unique poll not only surveys the historic 2008 electorate, but also includes special samples of black, low-income, and youth voters, and compares these groups both to a national sample and to self-identified “Tea Party” sympathizers.
“We wanted to learn more about the views of the black, youth, and low-income voters who overwhelmingly participated in 2008 election,” said Lorraine C. Minnite, director of research for Project Vote. “These voters represent roughly a third of the electorate, they will play an increasingly important role in American politics, and they fundamentally believe in a government that does more, not less. Yet their voices are largely ignored, and their views are not being represented.”
So, there's this new Newsweek Poll with a number of questions about Islam and politics, including two specifically focused on Obama. I think that one thing these questions do is to demonstrate the significance of some things that Versailles--and not least the Obama Administration itself--has been trying to ignore.
First off, what both of the following say to me is that (1) identity-based culture wars aren't going anywhere, no matter how much Obama might wish otherwise. (2) Off-the-wall narratives about Obama being a Muslim and being foreign-born are not just strange anomalous opinions without political consequence. More on what they say, afterwards. Here's the first one:
The notion that Obama "favors the interests of Muslim Americans" is frankly ludicrous. But, then, so was the notion that blacks had too much influence in 1964. Yet, as I noted in a recent diary, that's exactly what a substantial number of people believed, particularly those who were more conservative:
I wonder what would have happened if Newsweak had a couple of different, but related questions. First: "Some people think President Obama was favoring Muslim Americans when he pointed out that the First Amendment guaranteed their right to build a mosque wherever they wanted. Others disagree, since he specifically said he had no opinion on whether it was a good thing for them to build the mosque. Which comes closest your point of view?" Second (Only for those who agreed with the first statement): Is there anything else specific you can point to as evidence that Obama favors Muslim Americans? In a formal sense, these two questions represent much better question design. But I actually think that by screening out a certain level of unreflective prejudice they would deprive us of important information. I'd like to have all the questions asked, so we could see how the responses differed.
The second question was even more revealing:
So a majority of Republicans think that Obama probably or definitely wants to impose Islamic law. Even more disturbing, the number of Democrats who know this is false is less than a majority!
This is cuckoo talk. It's on the level of a neighbor boy back in 1956 telling me the day after the Presidential election that Stevenson had been discovered to be a "Jap spy" and that Eisenhower was going to shoot him in the head on White House lawn. I was seven years old, and he was a year or two older. I was dumbstruck. I just couldn't believe that someone older than me could be so totally ill-informed. (WW II had been over for the entirety of both of our lives, just for starters. He didn't even know who our official enemy was.) Little did I know.
a key inquiry was nowhere to be found: "Do you know what Islamic law is?" Honest answers to that would probably tally in single digits.
It should be painfully obvious that these sorts of "beliefs" aren't factual beliefs from the realm of logos. They are moral beliefs from the realm of mythos, though those who hold them have no idea of the difference.
And this is the central fact of the ongoing culture war we are trapped within. This is the clash of civilizations within America. And one of those two civilizations has no stable equilibrium this side of utter barbarism.
Yesterday, in my diary, "The hidden manufacturing consensus", I said that one of most impressive things I ran into at Netroots Nation was a poll on manufacturing conducted for the Alliance for American Manufacturing by the Melman Group. I presented just one chart from the presentation of the poll results--delivered by Mark Melman--showing the strength of support for investing in manufacturing and prioritizing the creation of manufacturing jobs. I now want to drill down a bit deeper to discuss some of the other findings from the poll.
Let's begin with a couple questions that help set the stage, asking about people's perception of what's important for the nation's economy and for national security. Economy first:
Talk about a blindingly clear picture of how the Obama Administration has missed the boat in connecting with the American people's concerns. Under the spell of Geithner and Summers, Obama still thinks that Wall Street finance is the most important part of the American economy. It's a big part of the reason why he can't seem to focus on helping the real economy with anything more than token efforts. His virtual neglect of the industrial Midwest has been shocking, but these figures show that it's far more than a regional problem.
And for national security, the results are similar, if not quite so lop-sided:
The idea that other sectors of the economy can replace manufacturing is soundly and broadly rejected:
One of most impressive things I ran into at Netroots Nation was a poll on manufacturing conducted for the Alliance for American Manufacturing by the Melman Group. I'll have more to say about the poll tomorrow--and my link here is by way of a heads up for those who just don't want to wait. But right now, I just want to share one chart from the entire presentation, because it helps to illustrate a very important point: despite decades of neglect by our political leaders in Versailles, the issue of manufacturing jobs as a core national necessity has as much salience as any of the favorite Versaille issues of the moment. And here are the figures to prove it:
Of course there's no doubt that "Creating manufacturing jobs" gets a boost from the even more popular "Creating jobs". But look at "Strenghtening manufacturing in the country," which is lower down in the "most important", but second only to "Creating jobs" in the total of "most important" and "very important". Now some of the other top-rated issues are basically just long-time conservative issues, products of decades of hegemonic warfare, pushed forward in the absence of any coherent progressive counter-narratives.
But that's all the more reason to take note of the importance of manufacturing--not least because it strikes such a contrary note to the predeclictions of the neo-liberals, whose current dominance of the Obama Administration is proving so damaging for the Democrats, who really ought to be cementing their dominance for the next forty years right now.
As I said, I'll have more to say about manufacturing in light of this poll tomorrow. But let this serve as a clarion call--this is key to how we move forward in asserting an economic politics of inclusion, a politics that's bottom-up and works for everyone, not just for those who think they can talk such a good game.
Moments ago on the Senate floor, Kansas Senator Pat Roberts compared health care reform to a pivotal moment in American history. Of the following five options, can you tell us which it was...
A) The passage of the Social Security Act
B) Pearl Harbor
C) Man walking on Moon
D) Balloon Boy
E) None of the above
Another example showing that Versailles conventional wisdom is crap. And that Dems face real problems if they further weaken health care reform, rather than strengthen it. Something to help strengthen our resolve in fighting back against the Dems who voted against us last night. We're going to need a lot more polling like this next year.
Here's a summary of our poll of 800 Virginia Democrats and Independents who voted for Obama in 2008 but didn't turn out for gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds in 2009:
Creigh Deeds seen as "not progressive enough" by huge margin. 64% of Democratic Obama voters and 58% of Independent Obama voters said Deeds was "not progressive enough" compared to only 8% of Democrats and 16% of Independent Obama voters who said he was "too far to the left."
Obama's voters want the public option. 88% of Democratic Obama voters and 80% of Independent Obama voters favor a public health insurance option to compete with private insurance plans. 93% of those polled said health care is "very" or "somewhat" important when they vote.
Creigh Deeds hurt by opposition to public option. When asked, "Before the election for Governor, Democratic candidate Creigh Deeds said he would side with conservatives and push for Virginia to 'opt out' of the public insurance plan. Did this make you more excited or less excited to vote in this year's election, or did it have no impact?" 41% of those polled said it made them less excited, only 6% said it made them more excited (7 to 1).
Without a public option, Obama voters will continue to drop off in 2010. 43% of Democratic and Independent Obama voters said they are less likely to vote at all in the 2010 general election if Congress does not pass a public option as part of health care reform, compared to only 8% who are more likely to vote. If they do vote, by 46% to 6%, they will be less likely to vote for a Democratic candidate if Democrats do not pass a public option.
Frequent church-goers were the only demographic subgroup to show no decline in GOP allegiance from 2001 to 2009, according to a new survey brief from Gallup. Declines among conservatives and those 65 and older were also minimal--the only bright spots reported for the GOP:
Democrats gained most from further consolidating support in their strongest demographic groups, rather than winning over Republican core groups, a shift that goes contrary to President Obama's repeated overtures to the GOP base:
Aside from education, for which the parties were basically at even strength in 2001, the Republicans' losses tend to be greater among groups that were not strong GOP supporters to begin with. These include self-identified liberals and moderates, church non-attenders, and lower-income and young adults. Thus, a big factor in the GOP's overall decline is the Democratic Party's consolidating its support among normally Democratically leaning groups.
Last week, Gallup reaffirmed what polls have been telling us for a few years now: Americans are sick and tired of rigged trade policies that they know are selling them out:
The most interesting thing about the poll, though, is not its numbers, but Gallup's analysis.
The pollsters note:
As with many policies, there are pluses and minuses to foreign trade. And while many economists and political leaders may hold a more pro- than anti-trade position, the public does not necessarily share that position. In fact, as the Obama administration seeks to preserve or expand current trade relationships, the public is slightly more likely to take a negative than a positive view of foreign trade.
As always, those who want to reform trade are billed as "anti-trade" - not, for instance, "pro-trade-reform." Anyone who thinks our current trade policies are bad must be portrayed as Luddite isolationists by the Establishment - it's standard operating propaganda.
But what's really interesting is Gallup highlighting the rootsgap - ie. the gap between the American public and elite opinion. Yes, Gallup couches it with mealy-mouthed terms like "not necessarily," but it's right there, and the more that rootsgap gets exposed, the better able we will be to narrow it.
The New York Daily News reports on yet another poll showing New York is disgusted by Gov. David Paterson's (D) proposed budget cuts, and want him to support the legislature's progressives who are pushing for a tax increase on the rich:
Poll: New Yorkers want income tax hike for rich
ALBANY - Tax the rich!
Most New Yorkers support raising taxes on those making at least $250,000, a new poll finds.
A bill supported by the Working Families Party to hike the income tax rate on those making at leat $250,000 has been introduced in both houses.
By a 56-38% margin, New Yorkers support the idea.
New York is one of the biggest economies in the world and home to a large number of extremely wealthy people. So the fight in its newly-Democratic legislature over this issue is absolutely huge, just in terms of the sheer dollars we're talking about.
As predictably pathetic as Paterson's opposition to this commonsense tax proposal is, the willingness by progressives in the legislature to wage this tax fight is very encouraging. For more than a generation, Democrats have refused to fight the tax battle head on, preferring to mimic Republican extremism rather than redefine the tax debate on populist terms. Because of budget gaps in states that are statutorily prevented from going into deficit, Democrats are being forced to take a stand, and progressives in New York are taking that opportunity to make them specifically take a stand for tax fairness.
STATE BLOGS
Last week, 