The paradox polls

by: Mike Lux

Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 15:00


Current polling from NYTimes, Democracy Corps, and several other public and private sources show a really strange paradox in this year's election cycle. On the one hand as the media is broadcasting endlessly, it is clear that people are unhappy with Congress, wanting to throw incumbents out on their ear, wanting to change course- all of which leads the punditry to declare that the Democrats are dead meat. And of course, it is impossible to forget the scary poll numbers in a lot of individual races.

On the other hand, there is a lot of other data seeming quite favorable to Democrats, and the internals in the polling make it clear there are real opportunities for gains on where we are today. Our approval numbers are better than the Republicans, although neither party is exactly thrilling people. We lead on the tax cut fight, which is the big pre-election issue; people think Democrats are more likely than Republicans to create jobs, which is the most important issue in the election; by a big margin, people think Democrats will do more to help the middle class; people even say Democrats are more likely to help small business. Apparently, even the Democratic message tying George W. Bush to current Republicans also seems to be sinking in, frankly better than I thought it would.

If it weren't for the polls showing Democrats in deep trouble, these other polls would make you think we're going to have to have a great year. What is going on?

I have two theories on this confusing mixture of polling data, neither of which is new to my writing, so please forgive the repetition if you recognize the themes from earlier posts:

1. Much of the confusion and seeming contradiction in these various data points is explained by the simple idea that I have been suggesting for about 18 months now: neither party is liked or trusted right now. You can also throw in all the tea party Republican primary victories into this explanation: voters, whether left, right, or uncertain middle don't feel like the establishment of either party is doing well by them. Voters keep sending the same message over and over again, and the Village establishment keeps missing, or ignoring, the point:

  • Voters didn't like the Republican establishment in 2006, so they voted in a new Congress

  • Democratic primary voters didn't like the establishment, so they rejected the Clintons for someone brand new

  • Voters didn't like the Bush team, so in 2008, they voted for someone as different from George W. Bush as you could imagine

  • Voters didn't feel the new guy was that much different from the old guy, and sent a message in the big New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts races so far this cycle

  • Republican primary voters don't like what the Republican establishment has been serving up, so they started to vote for whoever was the most anti-establishment.

This is not ideological. This is not party identity driven. This is all about the middle class seeing the American dream slip away from them, being as squeezed economically as they have been in three generations, and desperately trying to tell all politicians from every party and ideology that they want change: big change, right now.

2. The populist/reformist message that progressives have been pushing now for several months is starting to get some traction. The reason some of these poll numbers are showing signs of life and potential opportunities for Democrats in this tough as nails political environment is because Democrats are starting to finally focus in on a message that sells the idea that Democrats are on the same side as the beleaguered middle class. MoveOn's The Other 98% campaign, ads and speeches by candidates and the White House, Elizabeth Warren's appointment: the Democrats are finally starting to seem like they get it. Check out Obama's radio address and a clip of a recent speech. Check out these ads from Barbara Boxer and Robin Carnahan. Check out Elizabeth Warren's interview with Rachel Maddow. Check out this clip from Kendrick Meek. Democrats are finally- finally, finally, finally- starting to sound like the kind of progressive populists who might actually be capable of appealing to voters outside the DC Village.

Maybe it's not in time, and maybe it's not enough. Maybe voters just won't believe it at the end of the day: the skepticism is deep and wide. The President has spent far too much time sounding like Tim Geithner and not nearly enough sounding like Elizabeth Warren. But at least it is finally starting to feel like we are putting up a fight.

Mike Lux :: The paradox polls

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The paradox polls | 17 comments
All politics is local, Mike! To hell with the national polls. (0.00 / 0)
Fight to win the effing races, NOT the discussion about Obama or the Dems in general. Gladly, it's not Obama who is up for reelection now. Sure, it would help if he would come out with a decisive change of course at these very last minutes, but it's still the Dem candidates who have to win their elections. Don't shortchange them by wasting money on issues that are not up for a vote. Strong efforts have to go into gotv instead, by giving local supporters good reasons to fight for their candidate. This battle won't be won or lost in Washington, but in countless skirmishes all over the nation!

"All politics is local" (0.00 / 0)
...says the German.

<smiley>


[ Parent ]
Hey, I vote in all the local races here in the elections! (0.00 / 0)
Ok, we don't have that many, we don't elect judges or DA's, but still...

[ Parent ]
This must be an election year. (4.00 / 3)
And sure enough, it is. Just enough progressive-sounding noise to get the Dems over the top, but not one ounce more. Chances are, it will work, if only just.

Of course, it would work better if POTUS wasn't guffawing about "those silly liberals" in front of his real base, The Have-Mores, a bunch of hedge-fund types in Greenwich. It would also work better if Kendrick Meeks didn't make CREW's 12 Most Corrupt Pols (half of which are in Florida!). It would also work better if people could believe there was any substance behind the New And Improved Rhetoric, Now With Even LESS Promise!.

As for Carnahan, she seems to be running against her own party, which is just friggin' weird. Good luck with that, Robin!

One thing Dems do seem to have going is a real lack of interest in anti-incumbent fervor. All that seems to be on the Right, where they're busy putting insane people like O'Donnell on the ballot for the general. Thanks, TeaBirchers! The DNC owes you a big favor for this one!

The real question I have is how many people are willing to swallow the lies this time. It's sad that all we've got is this bland hope people are willing to suck it up one more time, before this schtick reaches the end of it's shelf-life.

Two years ago, it was Change We Can Believe In. Now it's "we're not insane!" or "We're marginally better than those other people," or even "If you think you're screwed now, just wait until those Huns get in!?"

Gray is right, though, all politics are local and that's going to save a lot of Dem's hides this year. If only just............

"Nobody is actually starving. The hobos, for example, are better fed than they have ever been. Hobos are eating well, in fact one had ten meals in a single day." -- Pres. Herbert Hoover, 1932


Well, there's something to "we're not insane"! (0.00 / 0)
It's catchy. And sums the issues up nicely. Not bad.
:D

[ Parent ]
I don't know. I think the ads will be kind of tricky: (4.00 / 1)
"In these crazy times, we need people in office who aren't total Wack-A-Loons and Wilford G Luxury-Yacht III is one such person. You may not like him, but he's better than compulsory Electro-Convulsive Therapy."

"Democrats: We don't have an Anti-Witch Agenda. That's just so fifteenth century."

"If you think 20% Unemployment is crazy, wait until you see THEIR PLAN."

But perhaps I'm missing something. Heh. ;^P

"Nobody is actually starving. The hobos, for example, are better fed than they have ever been. Hobos are eating well, in fact one had ten meals in a single day." -- Pres. Herbert Hoover, 1932


[ Parent ]
I don't think you are missing something. (0.00 / 0)
I think you're onto something.

I've been saying that for months.

(And actually, it strikes me that that's exactly what the Republicans are saying, too: "In these crazy times, we need people in office who are not anti-American Luo witchdoctors with socialist bones through their noses, and Sharon Angle is one such person! You may not like her, but she's better than a Department of Death Panels enforced by the Ground Zero Mosque czar."


[ Parent ]
I so very much want to see that ad on my telly! (0.00 / 0)
Classic.

"Nobody is actually starving. The hobos, for example, are better fed than they have ever been. Hobos are eating well, in fact one had ten meals in a single day." -- Pres. Herbert Hoover, 1932

[ Parent ]
Ok, Wilford G Luxury-Yacht III may not be the ideal Dem candidate... (0.00 / 0)
...but if the investigators for his campaign found hard evidence that his opponent G.Suskia Saves seriously plans to build centers for Electro-Convulsive Therapy to cure people from their misguided belief in evolution, he still may have a strong campaign issue!
:D

[ Parent ]
There's a sketch in this one, methinks. (0.00 / 0)


"Nobody is actually starving. The hobos, for example, are better fed than they have ever been. Hobos are eating well, in fact one had ten meals in a single day." -- Pres. Herbert Hoover, 1932

[ Parent ]
As John Stewart said (0.00 / 0)
"The other guys suck worse than us."

Educate, Agitate, Organize, Mobilize, Act!


[ Parent ]
It's weird… (4.00 / 1)
...I feel the disconnect, too. It may be similar to 2008, though, when it felt like the GOP was gaining traction shortly after their convention merely because they were screaming so loud. The current Democratic electorate is almost like Nixon's "Silent Majority" in reverse; many left-leaning folks aren't enthusiastic enough to be vocal (much of which is Obama's fault), but no way would they ever get close to voting Republican. Whatever the mainstream media is saying (and they seem to get a perverse kick out of smacking the left around), it feels like the numbers are on our side. Of course, as someone based in NYC, I'm willing to accept that my take on the bigger picture could be ttally skewed.  

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams

why would independents vote for Democrats (0.00 / 0)
if the best Democrats can offer is "we're not Republicans"?

ahhh....maybe because they (0.00 / 0)
aren't Republicans?

Educate, Agitate, Organize, Mobilize, Act!


[ Parent ]
It's not ideological, but at the same time, it IS (0.00 / 0)
It's true that non-political American voters are not coherently ideological, but they are incoherently ideologically conservative, in the sense that they'll yell hoarsely about how government sucks and how government needs to be reduced... until you try to take away their unemployment or their Social Security, at which point they scream and cling to their government subsides like a baby to their prized toy.

This sort of ideological/programmatic mismatch, where they're ideologically conservative but programmatically liberal, gives Republican challengers an advantage because they love to rail on and on about how government sucks and how they'll "cut spending", without having to give any details on exactly what spending they'll cut.  Those who have, like Sharron Angle with Social Security, may be vulnerable to backlash, but those details seem to be lost in the lusty noises of conservative anti-government rhetoric.

You can see this in this quote from Ray Barrow (h/t to bystander from David Sirota's enthusiasm gap thread for this link):

One such voter, Ray Barrow of Reston, Va., a 69-year-old independent who voted for Mr. Obama, said: "I'm enthusiastic about candidates that want to talk about fiscal conservatism. I am dissatisfied with the performance of both the president and the Democrat-controlled Congress. I'm going to vote for candidates who believe in fiscal conservatism and the right way to spend to create jobs." [emphasis added]

He's a fiscal conservative, but at the same time he wants to "spend to create jobs"?  Maybe I'm picking the wrong target here, as he doesn't really flesh out what he means by that (and I somehow doubt that he could).  But the point is, most of these type of swing voters are people who don't follow politics and don't have well-informed opinions.  Their politics instead are a cluttered grab-bag, a mix of conservative anti-government talking points they pick up from TV or their neighbors and their experiences of helpful government services like the police, military, public schools, libraries, unemployment, Social Security, Medicare, etc.  Thus, they're walking contradictions with two political identities - a sort of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, if you will - and right now because Republicans are out of power and can make ideological appeals, it's easier to bring out their conservative Mr. Hydes.  That's why Republicans are winning and are enjoying an advantage in enthusiasm.  Once Republicans get back into power and try to cut Social Security, the liberal Dr. Jekylls will come roaring back.

Recent American political history is a series of back-and-forths between the conservative ideology and the liberal programs.  Conservative ideology won in 1980, liberal programs won in 1982, conservative ideology in 1984, liberal programs in 1986, conservative in 1988, liberal in 1992, conservative in 1994, liberal in 1996, conservative in 2000 and 2004, liberal in 2006 and 2008.  Now it's conservatives' turn in this stupid political dance.

The only way we're ever going to stop this political cycle is when we've taken back control of the ideological debate and restored Americans' trust in the government's potential ability to make our lives better.  When we've gained the upper hand in politics and programs - as we had from 1932 to 1966 - we'll be politically unstoppable.


Mike, this is crazy. (4.00 / 2)
Why doesn't anyone in the progressive blogosphere acknowledge Obama's shameful public school policies? These policies had important influence on recent elections as I blogged about here at OL this weekend. Of course "issues" with public schools don't show up on national surveys because the think tank and DC centric operatives don't think it's important to ask about it. And because the percentage of population with kids in public schools is both in decline and more apt to be poor and underserved. Please make a point about the need for Democrats to stand up for equal access to great schools. I know you believe in that.

Obama's education policies are not an issue this year (4.00 / 1)
because few want to make it one.

Yes, they suck, but the Republicans are no better and it's all about the elections now.

Still - your continued focus on this issue is great, and I think you're right that something is building behind the scenes.  It will break through, it IS beginning to break through, but it won't be this election cycle.

Don't stop and don't get discouraged.


sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.


[ Parent ]
The paradox polls | 17 comments




USER MENU


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you

Donate to Open Left

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

STATE BLOGS