Since when is a 63 percent approval rating a bad thing?
It's generally accepted that the news media obsess over horse-race political coverage at the expense of serious examinations of important issues. Media critics on the left, right, and in the middle tend to agree that there is too much focus on polling and not enough on policy, while many reporters seem proud of their focus on the game rather than the stakes. (Politico is, after all, called "Politico," not "Policy-o," and features blogs "on Politics," "on Hill intrigue," "on Gossip," and "on Campaigns" -- but not "on Policy." ABC News' senior White House correspondent calls his blog "Political Punch." And so on.)
The media's obsessive focus on politics does not, however, mean their political assessments are of a high quality. Remember David Broder's prediction that Hurricane Katrina would spark a recovery in George W. Bush's political standing? Or Matt Lauer's suggestion that Bush's poor approval ratings were a political blessing for the GOP? Chuck Todd's statement that if Democrats won control of Congress in November of 2006, Bush's approval rating would be above 50 by the following July? Katie Couric's suggestion that the Bush White House was "breathing a sigh of relief" in response to a poll in which Bush had an all-time low approval rating? Howard Fineman's late-2005 argument that Democrats, not Republicans, had reason to be gloomy about their electoral prospects? Calling the media's coverage of politics and policy "horse-race journalism" is an insult to horse-race journalism -- the Daily Racing Form isn't in the habit of advising readers to bet on the filly with the broken leg.
Not only does the media's keen interest in politics frequently fail to result in politically astute observations, there is also considerable evidence that they tend to overrate the Republicans' political skills -- and the public's predisposition to prefer the GOP.
And that explains the media's reaction to this week's polling data.
Multiple polls out this week found that somewhere in the neighborhood of 80 percent of the American people favor the inclusion of a public plan in health care reform. And polls showed that the Republican Party is less popular than ever. And the Republicans in Washington generally oppose a public plan. And the GOP got its butt kicked in last year's election, in which health care reform was a major issue. And polls show the public trusts Republicans in Congress less than anyone else -- even insurance companies -- when it comes to health care.
Put all of that together and you would think the media would have been full of reports and analysis about how the Republicans were in danger of fading into oblivion if they continue to stand in the way of a public health care option, right?
Just imagine how the media would treat the Democrats if they were opposing a GOP proposal -- say, invading a country that didn't attack us -- at a time when that proposal had the support of 80 percent of the public and had been a key issue in the most recent campaign, in which the Republicans had won control of the White House and sizable majorities in Congress.
But the GOP's historic unpopularity largely escaped the media's attention. The public's support for a public plan didn't get as much attention as you would think, either, given that health care is currently the public policy debate in Washington. And the idea that the already-unpopular Republican Party is in danger of consigning itself to minority status for the next generation if it continues to block a health care policy proposal that enjoys overwhelming public support? Nowhere to be found.
Instead, we kept hearing what an awful week it was for President Obama.
Take, for example, Howard Kurtz's column today, headlined "Obama's Rough Patch":
His numbers are dropping. Public doubts are rising. He's mired in Washington gridlock. Lots of people are mad at him.
[...]
With the president's poll numbers dropping to either 63 percent (NYT/CBS) or 56 (NBC/WSJ), the pundits are racing to proclaim his honeymoon over.
Yes, you read that right: Obama's approval rating is at 63 percent, and "the pundits" say this constitutes a "rough patch." When the last president skipped town, tail between his legs, he was lucky if he could get to 63 percent by adding two consecutive approval ratings together. And we're supposed to believe that Obama's 63 is some sort of danger sign? Right.
A common theme this week -- and one that has been bubbling up for months -- is that Obama is more popular than his policy positions. This is almost always portrayed as a negative by the media, though they rarely bother to explain why it is a threat to Obama's agenda rather than an opportunity. In any case, given that the Republican Party and its policy positions are both extremely unpopular, it seems the media's assessment of political peril is a bit off target. But as these headlines compiled by Think Progress show, reporters rushed to hype Obama's poll peril:
"Sticker Shock -- Obama still popular; his policies, not so much" [ABC's The Note]
"Polls find rising concern with Obama on key issues" [Reuters]
"Obama's popularity: Problems testing it" [Chicago Tribune's The Swamp]
"Polls Show Declining Support For Obama Decisions" [U.S. News & World Report's Political Bulletin]
"Is 'Smooth Sailing' Over for Obama?" [Washington Post]
The Los Angeles Times' Andrew Malcolm epitomized the media's rush to portray the week's polls as bad news for the Democrats. Here's Malcolm:
According to the new Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, 56% of Americans still approve of the president, though that's down from 61%.
But 58% say they think the Democratic president and Democrat-controlled Congress should really focus on holding the deficit down, even if that means economic recovery will take a little longer. Alarmed at the scale of spending was one description.
It isn't at all clear what that last line even means. "One description" by whom? What is clear is that Malcolm made it up; the poll to which he is referring doesn't say anything about anyone being "alarmed."
Malcolm, continuing directly:
That ain't gonna happen on Capitol Hill after Democrats endured two Republican presidential terms in the political wilderness. So watch the trend in this key question in future polls.
The last time Democrats won the White House after two (actually, three) Republican presidential terms, they turned record deficits into surpluses -- which the Republicans promptly turned right back into deficits upon regaining the presidency. This would probably be a good time to mention that Malcolm worked for those Republicans, serving as press secretary to Laura Bush. As a general rule, journalists who worked for the Bushes probably shouldn't snark about Democrats' purported inability to hold the deficit down.
More Malcolm:
And as the months roll by, the results, added together, indicate the clock is running out on Obama's ability to blame the last administration for all ills; the sense of his ownership of the nation's problems appears to be growing in the American mind.
Now, Malcolm presented a hodge-podge of polling results, which he cherry-picked across multiple polls to find data that looked bad for Democrats. But he didn't include anything in that grab bag of poll numbers that even remotely addressed whether or not "the clock is running out on Obama's ability to blame the last administration."
Maybe that's because this week's polling data shows quite the opposite; the very polls Malcolm cited disprove his assertion. The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that 72 percent of Americans think Obama inherited the "current economic conditions," while only 14 percent think conditions are a result of his policies. Malcolm cited the poll -- but kept quiet about that result.
And what of the Republicans? The only specific poll number Malcolm mentioned for the GOP is former Vice President Dick Cheney's 26 percent approval rating, which, by the way, Malcolm spun as a positive.
The Republican Party is more unpopular than it has ever been. And it is a sustained unpopularity. According to the New York Times/CBS poll, the last time even 40 percent of America viewed the GOP favorably was in 2006; the last time 45 percent did so was in January of 2005. And the health care reform the GOP opposes has the support of 80 percent of Americans.
That's the polling information the media should be focusing on. Instead, they struggle and strain to find bad news for Obama. He's down to 63 percent approval! He's more popular than his policies! (Except, of course, the public plan.)
Any day now, Matt Lauer will come along to tell us that it is a politically savvy move for the wildly unpopular Republican Party to stand in the way of the wildly popular public plan.
















Mr. News
Great question Jamison Foser. Great Frikkin' question!
No, the media wants Democrats on the defensive. The corporations insist on it. Public opinion be damned.
'Nuff said.
Polls should contain an auxiliary question on each such item: "if you disapprove, do you think there's any chance in hell a republican can do better?"
In other words, if Obama drops 5 points, that means people must automatically now prefer the other side instead, when in fact, much of the decline is coming from disaffected Democrats.
(I was only listening to his show because my boss had him on.)
You are trying to copy those here who actually know and recognize logical fallacies. You are failing miserably.
He personally is still very popular. It's not a bad thing that not everyone is in love with him now.
http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm
He has cut over 1 million dollars of wasteful Government spending, and is adhering to the "Bush time table" in Iraq. He is also continuing to pave the way for the "road map to peace" started by Bush.
Anyone that thinks Pres. Obama isn't a cool guy is an idiot. He has maintained the Bush tax cuts and has greatly expanded Bush's spending policy.
About health care compromise: he is now willing to except proposals made by then candidate "McCain", (taxing HC), and will use the forced health care coverage to bolster support within the insurance industry, moreover, the mandatory HC data base will store your DNA, blood, and organ-donor info., along with you SSN, home address ect. You will need a card chip or mark to access HC. This is a brilliant two edge sword that will deny illegal immigrants a place to hide !
We have not seen a world leader like this since WW2.
We urge you to forget about "common sense", just go with it, no time to think, "yes we can".
If you listened to Hannity, it's a bad thing that Israeli's and Palestinians aren't out dancing in the streets.
If you listened to Limbaugh, you'd think it was a bad thing that Obama ONLY had a 62% rating.
Lucky for me, and many others, we aren't confused or misled by that nonsense.
Sure, it was a negative approval rating, but it was higher than President Obama's approval rating.
Right before Obama came on the scene, they started measuring the difference only between the highly positive ratings and the highly negative ratings, so they could distort and hide the high approval that Obama had.
They don't even show the similar polls so a far comparison could be made between Bush'a approval and Obama's.
It's not a surprise that a lot of die-hard Republicans hate Obama - they get lied to so often about what a bad man Obama is, and how bad his actions are, they end up believing it.
I swear, if one pundit says something like Obama is more popular then his positions, it is sure to be the cw and repeated by everyone everywhere by afternoon.
Do they send out talking points every morning like the RNC does?
Excellent point. See the Daily Howler, daily.
I agreed with the column up till this paragraph, and I concur with much after. I agree that the media is biased in favor of the GOP (taking into consideration their extraordinarily bad record governing). And that they are too much politics and elections oriented with a lack of focus on policy -- and that this is bad for the country as a whole.
Though a problem, the corporate media is not the biggest problem IMO. The electorate still yearns to be a part of the near permanent in-group, the currently lowly rated GOP. Yes their minds have been somewhat focused by impending economic doom and so they are more and more seeing that they were fed a pack of lies about the GOP. But over time they'll forget about the incredible GOP reign of error and replace their distrust of the GOP with their more comfortable hatred of the Democratic Party. Their emotional desire to get away from the party of the out-groups (Dems) will overcome any instinct for objective analysis of which party governs better. The GOP will eventually become cool again.
Exactly when this will occur will depend on the economy. Perhaps counter intuitively, I predict the worse that the economy becomes the longer it will take. But when the economy starts to look good again, and enough time has passed to forget the GOP's past record, they will feel free again to indulge their desires over their primal survival fears.
Also the Republicans are ruthless in their manipulation of the countries innate bigotry or nativism to their political advantage. I believe they are in fact superior to the Democrats politically. I also believe that as good as Obama was in the election, he only won due to the economy beginning to tank, when by all rights the GOP candidate shouldn't have even been anywhere near striking distance at the end. Basic platform positions are part of the problem but I don't see this changing -- the Democratic Party unfortunately still wants to be correct or normal more than they want to win.
This is the smartest analysis I've seen on this topic.
And that was MSNBC, the alleged "liberal" cable network.
That's my biggest fear, and if it happens I will seriously leave the country, because each successive republican admin is further to the right and the country cannot survive anything worse than Bush.
But I don't think it'll happen again because while the electorate as a whole is permanently stupid, the young stupid ones aren't conservatively disposed. Republicans just don't have any place to go to get votes.
In my utopia there will be 12 years of one-party rule followed by a new party to the democrats' left. The republicans will be the size of today's Constitutional Law party, but they'll still be regularly consulted on cable news shows that draw about a thousand viewers.
Incompetence and corruption is a big part of the problem. What first really grabbed my attention were the outrageous sums spent on the Iraq occupation. True conservatives should be really steamed at the modern day GOP.
"But I don't think it'll happen again because while the electorate as a whole is permanently stupid, the young stupid ones aren't conservatively disposed."
Interesting point; that the increase in vote among the very young will continue and that attrition of the old will redound to the favor of the Democrats. I hope that works out.
"In my utopia there will be 12 years of one-party rule followed by a new party to the democrats' left."
I share your interest in a viable third party but it would seem to be a very tricky thing -- could work out badly.
From the very report that he gleans his 80% figure...he fails to report that 81% are satisfied with their current health care coverage.
When polling the public you find that Americans will state support for a lot of issues...until the details and cost consequences are announced. Foser is way out of bounds when he hangs his hat on the 80% nail. You can go to any of the multitude of polling organizations and find results all over the map on health care reform.
The folks providing the EBRI report know that the info is not conclusive...and Foser knows it as well:
-- Even before details have been released...Americans have formed strong opinions...These opinions may change as details surface, especially as they concern financing options. -- EBRI
No sale on this partisan, fact-bending adventure by Foser.
I happen to have a nice job with good health care. Ironically, it is my employer who should be dissatisfied with my plan because he's the one paying out the nose for it.
As we've learned through long experience, the purpose of government is to coddle the rich and tuck them in gently at night. Major health care reform will do just that.
Also, I feel that being satisfied with my health care and not wanting to change anything is kind of like being satisfied with being a free laborer and not wanting to do anything about slavery. I happen to care that 50 million people are without health insurance. It's not All About Me, All The Time.
Exactly right...and evidence why Foser's reliance on one particular poll question is political subterfuge.
Ask me if I'd like free health care...sure I would.
Ask me if I'd like better health care...sure I would.
Ask me if I'd like the government to pay my health care premiums...sure I would.
Ask me if I'd like a new puppy, new shoes, or a large stack of pancakes...sure I would.
In the absence of any cost analysis on any variety of questions I could say "yes, I'd like that".
The debate, polling, and reporting on the health care issue has been woefully lacking in details and cost consequences...because few details have yet to be released. That's why Foser's partisan analysis is over-stated and all wet.
Our military, the finest in the world, is a good example of our government at work. On the battlefield we are unmatched by any military any where in the world. From a cost scenario, the pentagon is maybe the poorest manager of costs in the entire world.
In the examination or operating room, our health care is the finest in the world...yet from a cost scenario it's out of control...like the pentagon's financial train wreck.
Our government has a long and proven history with federal programs. They always cost more than we were told...they are not held accountable for the results they promised...red tape and regulations spiral out of control.
Those are just a few of the reasons why I am suspect about sweeping health care reform administered by the federal government.
I don't see the alternative. The current system is inherently flawed because you can't maximize health care and profit simultaneously. Unless you have some reason to believe that insurers are going to stop caring about profits and market share for some reason, there's no reason to believe our care is going to improve. It's only the finest in the world if you can afford good coverage. Obviously that doesn't apply to everyone, which is why we're nowhere near the top spot on the world list.
That's not what I call "insurance."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/opinion/polls/main2528357.shtml
Most Americans believe government can play a role in fixing the health care system. Two-thirds say the federal government should guarantee that all Americans have health insurance — and a similar number says providing health insurance for all is a more serious problem than keeping health care costs down.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/washington/01cnd-poll.html
The poll found Americans across party lines willing to make some sacrifice to insure that every American has access to health insurance. Sixty percent, including 62 percent of independents and 46 percent of Republicans, said they would be willing to pay more in taxes. Half said they would be willing to pay as much as $500 a year more.
That's not the media critic's fault. And we have plenty of data on the cost of our current private system. It's astronomical, and we get nothing for it. It's really not possible to do any worse.
I can't empathize with your concerns because I look around the world and I see how colossally easy single payer is. That and the fact that our government's already done single payer for geezers, and they're the toughest group to cover.
You are so black and white in your thinking that it's probably inconceivable to you though.
This is the true danger and its at the heart of why change will be so difficult to achieve. Corporate American DOES NOT WANT CHANGE. Change means a shift in power away from central control and into the hands of individuals. The most important political effect we can have is to reduce the influence of corporations and their political arm, the lobbyists. We're wasting time wringing our hands about the problems we see on the surface. Dig deeper and work toward public financing of elections. Everything else flows from a truly democratic political structure. What we have now is a Corporatic political structure. This must change.
If a ball player was hitting 62% of everything thrown to him, he'd be regarded as a great player.
If a football player ran across the goal line 62 percent of the time, he'd be considered a fine football player. On that note, a quarterback COMPLETING 62 percent of his passes for TOUCHDOWNS(not downs) would be considered great. 62 percent completion downs and touchdowns? A football god.
Obama? Not good enough. Sorry, according to these pundits even 80 percent means a negative.
Maybe suicide is a more reasonable alternative? Sure would spare me this alternative universe conservatives want to inflict on us.
War. Pestilence. Starvation. AIDS. Profit based "health care".
I could go on, but my drink calls.
A terrorist attack during the Bush administration: "would be good news for Republicans since it would show that the US is still in danger and the public wants Repubs to protect them"
NO terrorist attack during the Bush administration: "would be good news for Republicans since it would show that their policies to protect America are working"
A terrorist attack during the Obama administration: "would be good news for Republicans since it would show that the US is still in danger and Obama is not up to the task to protect us"
NO terrorist attack during the Obama administration: "would be good news for Republicans since it would vindicate the Bush policies in the war on terror"
It's the same no matter what the issue is - the "pundits" ALWAYS claim everything is good news for Republicans, either because it shows that Republican policies are working, or because it shows that Democratic policies aren't working good enough. The "liberal media" is so deathly afraid of being perceived as liberal that the Republicans can in their opinion not do anything wrong - even when ALL DATA says the exact opposite.
Who do we blame for that?
While it may be that the whole of the media is not in the tank (drowning along) with the GOP in every issue, it is a fore-gone conclusion that the very idea that our media is not actually our media is something we should be rising up in protest against!
How in the world can a policy be so ignored yet has the support of nearly 80% of us?
Oh yeah, 99.9% of the powers-that-be bastards among us don't give a damn about the rest of us!!
If I was not so busy trying to make ends meet with my crappy little minimum wage job (I have a college degree, had a good paying job, had it sent overseas, and now deliver pizza's, while going back to school full-time in hopes that things will get better... eventually?) I'd have more time to make my voice heard than just in here!