About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

The press continues to have trouble reading Obama polls

June 18, 2009 4:39 pm ET by Eric Boehlert

This morning it was ABC's The Note. Now it's CQ.

Look at CQ's dispatch about the release of two major new public opinion surveys. Under the headline, "Honeymoon Over: It's on Obama's Watch Now," CQ reports: 

Early in his presidency, Barack Obama had a grace period when the public saw the nation’s problems as ones he inherited, but two new polls -- by New York Times/CBS News and Wall Street Journal/NBC News - make clear that there are rising concerns about his policies.

The biggest public concern is over the size of the deficit being run up by Obama’s economic recovery proposals and how much more it will rise if his plan to overhaul health care and increase coverage for uninsured Americans is enacted. But there is also discomfort about his intervention in the auto industry and taking a big government stake in ownership of General Motors.

CQ's pretty definitive: Early on in his administration, the public gave Obama a pass; voters didn't hold him responsible for troubles he may have inherited. But that's changed now, especially on big issues like the economy and the deficit. i.e. "It's on Obama's Watch Now."

Except, at least in the case of the NBC News/WSJ poll highlighted by CQ, the findings are pretty much the opposite. 

As Ed Kilgore notes at FiveThirtyEight:

Five months into the Obama administration, and after weeks of steady Republican hammering of the president as a big spender, only 6% of Americans primarily blame Obama for the budget situation, while 46% primarily blame George W. Bush.

CQ spin: Polls show voters are now blaming Obama for the economy.

Fact: Polls show that virtually nobody is blaming Obama for the economy.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by mk3872 (June 18, 2009 5:12 pm ET)
      1 1
      Remember the press jumped on this after, what was it, 4 weeks?

      When will Americans blame Obama for the economy? That was the theme.

      They've all collectively decided that a net 3-pt change from 63% to 60% approval is a collosal and now he's to blame for everything!

      What a joke. The media never really bothered to look at the numbers. They already had planned to start saying this.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by apples & oranges (June 19, 2009 8:56 am ET)
        2 1
        Hello moderator. I know you're not going to post this. It's too long and my email must have gone in wrong but could you at least pass it along to Eric to read so he doesn't keep embarrassing himself? ABC & CQ are both right. As is he. Thanks.

        ERIC:

        You are comparing two non-mutually exclusive statements. CQ is right and so are you. (As is ABC.) You quote what % of people blame him for the economic woes in general. How we got here. CQ is referring to how folks feel about what he's doing to get us out of it.

        NBC/WSJ

        70% think he inherited the problems.
        Only 6% blame him for them.

        His policy: stimulate the economy - deficit be damned.

        CBS POLL:
        41% AGREE with him - it's more important to stimulate the economy even if it increases the deficit.

        52% DO NOT AGREE - they find the increasing deficit more troublesome and think he should stop pumping money into the economy even if it means taking longer for it to recover.

        And as far as his plan to deal with the budget deficit (what more people think he should concentrate on) 60% don't think he has a clue as to how to fix it - including some of the ones who who agree with his choice to let it increase.

        Bottom line: He inherited the mess - but now more people think he's not doing the right thing to fix it. These numbers give a glimpse into the future -- the others how he started. They can be taken as proof the honeymoon is over.

        The ABC statement was correct also. It had two parts. "The news is not good for Republicans" (True. They have the lowest rating ever. Not a shocker.)

        "UNLESS you count worrisome news for the president as good news for his opponents." (True. His numbers trended downwards instead of staying the same or improving.)

        So, yes, it's bad news for the GOP in absolute terms - but they expected it and there are plenty of good reasons for it. The news Obama got was not expected and therefore worrisome. The GOP bottoming out should have bumped Obama's numbers or at the very least kept them even. Didn't happen, which means something he is doing/not doing caused his numbers to drop. It also indicates that he is longer getting passive points from Bush. The buffer is gone - the honeymoon indeed over. His argument/excuse that he inherited the mess from Bush has expired. Potentially good news for the GOP if they can find something to seize on, especially since they've got nothing to lose.

        Absolute: bad. Relative: no worse, potentially positive. True statement.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by jcowan1976 (June 19, 2009 1:07 pm ET)
             
          Hello delusional one! You also have a problem reading the polls or maybe you are trying your best spin. Nice try! Both polls still show by 'leaps and bounds' that Obama is trusted on fixing the economy than any republican even though there is skepticism about his policies at the moment. I say skepticism because the polls show that most people expect the economy to be better a year from now and most of their concern going forward seems to be the deficit not the economy. It makes sense that most people would worry about the deficit after the economy, as expected, starts to turn around. During a forest fire, no one cares about how much water we waste as long we extinguish it but as soon it seems like that the fire is under control people justifiably start to worry about preserving water. Stop listening to Glenn Beck and Sean Insanity!! Critical thinking is always key. Nice try though.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Chromium (June 19, 2009 5:47 pm ET)
             
          Great analysis!
          Report Abuse
    • Author by vwcat (June 18, 2009 8:47 pm ET)
      1  
      Since Nov. 2008, like clockwork, every 6 weeks the press finds something to promote their storyline 'Is the Honeymoon Over"
      Usually they turn to some kind of poll and pull all kinds of nonsense from them to prove the public is done with Obama and suffering from regret.
      Look for another one in about 6 weeks time
      Report Abuse
    • Author by fawltylogic (June 19, 2009 12:29 am ET)
      1  
      Most people can remember further back than 5 months, and remember that Bush was the one pushing for the largest reasons for the deficits, in cahoots with the, at the time, Republican controlled congress. Too bad the journalists in Washington seem to have a case of collective and selective amnesia.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by twseattle (June 19, 2009 2:34 am ET)
        1  
        That and only once have I heard a comparison of what the deficits would be if the Obama administration had just gone with the Bush budgets with no additional spending. With the war expentidures included, the difference isn't that much.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 19, 2009 8:06 am ET)
             
          I think I read the same thing. It was like a 20% increase or something that (not the 300% that was being reported) if you put the war into Bush's budget. I THINK MMFA had something on that. (Maybe it was HuffPo.)

          Here's a more objective view. At least it spreads the blame around. Kind of an interesting read: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31199889
          Report Abuse
          • Author by twseattle (June 19, 2009 8:20 am ET)
               
            Thanks, I knew somebody would have a link to better facts. You wouldn't think it would be so hard for the rest of the media to present it this way. (foxnews excluded)
            Report Abuse