Scarborough claimed Pew poll "said [Obama] split the country," but Pew official reportedly disputed that conclusion
SUMMARY: Joe Scarborough claimed that a recent Pew poll "said [President Obama] split the country." However, a Pew official has reportedly stated it is a misreading of the poll to conclude that Obama has "caused this divisiveness."
During a discussion of President Obama's approval ratings on the April 7 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, co-host Joe Scarborough claimed a March 9-12 Pew Research Center poll "said [Obama] split the country more than any president in modern history." Scarborough later added, "It's more divisive than ever. I think there is a great separation between the personal affection and trust people have for Barack Obama and these policies. You have Joe Biden trying to push these policies -- they would put him in a penitentiary somewhere." However, Michael Dimock, an associate director at the Pew Research Center, has reportedly stated it is a misreading of the poll to conclude that Obama has "caused this divisiveness."
On April 6, Washington Post Co. blogger Greg Sargent, who conducted an interview with Dimock about the Pew poll, quoted Dimock as saying: "It's unfair to say that Obama has caused this divisiveness or to say that he is a polarizing president." Sargent further reported:
Dimock says the divide is driven by long term trends and by the uncommonly enthusiastic reaction to Obama by members of his own party -- by what he calls "the way Democrats are reacting to Obama." [emphasis in original]
Interestingly, Dimock also said this phenomenon is partly caused by the recent tendency of Republicans to be less charitable towards new Presidents than Dems have been.
The Pew Research Center also stated in its April 2 report about the poll result that "[t]he growing partisan divide in presidential approval ratings is part of a long-term trend. Going back in time, partisanship was far less evident in the early job approval ratings for both Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon."
From the April 7 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
MIKA BRZEZINSKI (co-host): And I think there's a lot of questions being raised about this, at least, on this platform that we have here, and others as well. And yet, his approval --
SCAROBORUGH: Which ones?
BRZEZINSKI: The president's approval rating is --
ANDREW ROSS SORKIN (New York Times columnist): Approval rating on the economy is unbelievable.
BRZEZINSKI: -- the latest one -- it's unbelievable.
SORKIN: Right.
BRZEZINSKI: And then if you look at this number, 70 percent of people are concerned they will be out of work within a year, so you've got this high approval rating for this president, and yet an underlying fear that doom and gloom is coming.
SORKIN: Part of that, though, has to be -- and I would just love to go back and look at what these numbers were, these poll numbers were a month or two ago -- what I -- what people are now calling the Obama index --
BRZEZINSKI: Right.
SORKIN: -- where people look and they look at the stock market, they say, "We're up 25 percent since this man got into office." And so, I think people are encouraged by that. You know, when the market was, you know, at 6,800, there might have been a different view, and I just don't know.
SCARBOROUGH: We'll see.
BRZEZINSKI: Stay with us, will you?
SORKIN: I'll try.
SCARBOROUGH: A Pew poll that was out yesterday had his approval rating at 59 --
BRZEZINSKI: Right.
SCARBOROUGH: -- percent and said he split the country more than any president in modern history. I don't know that we brought that up yesterday or not. So, I just felt that we would point it out today.
BRZEZINSKI: Ah, yeah, we brought it up several times because I think it's interesting.
SCARBOROUGH: Did we, Willie?
WILLIE GEIST (co-host): I can't --
BRZEZINSKI: No, it's interesting to mention --
GEIST: Do we have that, Pete?
BRZEZINSKI: -- because that's a political -- it's Republicans and Democrats and how they feel about this president and its historic lows in terms of divisiveness --
SCARBOROUGH: You know --
BRZEZINSKI: -- right? Or highs.
SCARBOROUGH: High.
BRZEZINSKI: Highs. Sorry.
SCARBOROUGH: It's more divisive than ever. I think there is a great separation between the personal affection and trust people have for Barack Obama and these policies. You have Joe Biden trying to push these policies -- they would put him in a penitentiary somewhere. Seriously --
BRZEZINSKI: That's an interesting point.
SCARBOROUGH: -- because this is a radical departure from American economics. Barack Obama can sell it in a way that no other Democratic politician could.
BRZEZINSKI: I totally agree with that.
What policies is Joe referring to? What does he not like about them? Are they illegal? He seems to imply so by saying we'd "lock Joe Biden up" if he was the one pushing them. I wish these buffoons would get specific with what they don't like and (more importantly) why. Calling it Marxism/Socialism/Communism/European-stylie doesn't count unless they can back up that allegation and give a reasonable argument why any of those things are inherantly bad. I won't hold my breath.
Apparently, any kind of moderately Keynesian solution is considered to be just beyond the pale. That shows how spoiled-- and how extreme-- this country has become.
I have to laugh too at this idea that now that Obama is prez, polls "split the country." All polls split the country. But when a repub is in power, at worst, opinion is split. When a Dem is in power, it's the whole country that is at stake.
GOLD MEDAL POST! I like your thinking!
(To bad these people, and the brainless idiots who watch them, never even TRY thinking AT ALL.)
-- It's unfair to say that Obama has caused this divisiveness or to say that he is a polarizing president. -- Michael Dimock - Pew
What a laugher. PEW runs a poll on the favorability rating of Pres.Obama and they don't like the outcome. What's their response? Ignore the data because it's unfair.
Dimock...sharp as a marble.
What a laugher. MMFA runs an article about conservative misinformation and Wesley doesn't like the outcome. What's his response? Meaningless commentary and pointless bloviating.
Wesley... sharp as a dull rock.
i thought the same thing. what is this damage control. Obama's name is right there, love him or not. It's alll about trends this dimwit Dimock says, what the hell nonsense is that. Obama is polarizing, fueled yes by many on the right, but it is what it is.
Except Democrats were more willing to give Bush a chance than Republicans with Obama (or as they were with Clinton). That's the point. If Republicans are going to mobilize against a Democrat right off the bat, then the Democrat isn't the problem. That means that Obama's not the one who's "polarizing".
I love the anti-intellectualism. Trends? What do trends have to do with anything? Why would someone involved with polling care about them? Unbelievable.
"Except Democrats were more willing to give Bush a chance"
Most delusional post of the day.
It's in the poll.
The times are totally different. Bush was not advancing major overhaul of the government and we were not knee deep in economic turmoil. There was no 9/11 yet, and Clinton left a pretty good situation. So the contentment level in early 2001 was far more favorable to Bush than it is now to Obama. Your simplistic comparison leaves all that out. So, in that vein it is the most delusional post of the day. Enjoy.....
You're forgetting the electoral result in Florida, which was a big deal. And is your point that Republicans are so stupid that they're blaming the economic conditions that started a year and a half ago on Obama? Or that they expect he would have fixed it within a couple of months of taking office?
Was Clinton advancing major overhaul of the government? Was the economy as bad? Why are the Republican's numbers for him so similar to those of Obama?
You are comparing the election results from the previous year in 2000 with the mood of the country today? Mother of Mary you can't be serious with that comparison? No, I didn't forget about that at all, but I wouldn't have embarassed myself in bringing it up as a valid comparison, that's all.
Your entire post was comparing the two situations. Are you seriously suggesting that even the perception of a stolen election has no bearing on how Bush was viewed?
Give me a break.
Actually we were in the beginning of a recession and Bush was too busy taking vacation to clear brush on his phony ranch to mind the store. Maybe if the national intelligence report on Bin Laden determined to attack using planes were a pop up book we could have avoided 9-11.
The point is there were very few, if any, stories bubbling up in April 2001 about Bush v. Gore; the public, except from some loony conspiracy ridden Democrats to which Brabantio obviously fits in with, had moved well beyond that. And that was probably reflected in the approval ratings from Democrats at that time. Economy was not biggie, terrorism wasn't on the minds of the American people, a far different world and mindset from today.
Which baffles the mind how they can be compared outside of a delusional mind, which relates back to my original post.
If you mean the partisan divisive mindset generated by republicans after 9-11, sure, it's a different mindset. No argument there. Personally, I'm not surprised at the poll. You just don't want to admit that democrats could have run jesus christ and won and the poll would still be the same. It's fear of anything democratic that is driving republican opinion, so in that regard brabs is right - this continued divisiveness is here regardless of the man.
yep, but this runs a close second "If Republicans are going to mobilize against a Democrat right off the bat, then the Democrat isn't the problem"
"The opposition loyalists always oppose outright."
Then how is that the responsibility of the person being opposed? You explicitly say that such people will always act this way, but also say that Obama is polarizing.
These things are not consistent.
So, you are saying that the person being opposed bears no responsibility for any polarization coming his way when that person is advocating the kind of sea change that Obama is pursuing? Hail to the heavens, most responsibility shirking post of the day by Brabantio, and there is at least one a day, but this is a killer. Congratulations!
Take it up with James. If the reaction is always going to be the same, then the president can't very well be blamed for that reaction. It exists independent of circumstances.
Well, I don't agree with James on that. Circumstances dictate the level of opposition, which is why your Bush comparison is so invalid, as I have already layed out for your consumption. So, if you agree with James, and disagree with me, why did you take issue with him in the first place? Oh boy,
You're confused. My point is that James is being inconsistent. I think the circumstances should dictate the level of opposition. A good example of that would be the erosion of the high ratings that Bush got as he went from 9/11 to invading a country that had nothing to do with it.
Have you explained exactly why Clinton had lower numbers among Republicans than Obama does? What are the circumstances at play there?
What kind of sea change are you talking about? Give examples please!
You are a fool. The Dem's rolled over for Bush COUNTLESS times, much to the chagrin of their own supporters! They NEVER went after him with the bloodlust that the Pub's showed Clinton or the Obstinanecne that they've shown Obama. WHAT WORLD HAVE YOU BEEN LIVING IN?! Moron.
And how about this whopper Wes "and by the uncommonly enthusiastic reaction to Obama by members of his own party". So, if his party would just quiet down a little and temper their excitement, he wouldn't be so divisive. hysterical
I thought the very same...and here's more humor.
The PEW poll says the disparity by party definition was caused by Obama's high in-party rating at 88%...well guess what...Bush had an in-party rating of 87%.
Too funny.
only liberals could parse a poll directly zeroed on in Obama and then try to say the results are not a reflection of him directly. humorous indeed.
JamesB- Make that Dems, Libs and Indepedents:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3646/3418137369_3c446261af.jpg
All groups resoundingly approve of Obama. The only one that does not? Repubs on the right that listen to & watch FNC & AM hate radio.
That means that the problem lies with the outliers: The Repubs.
that is hardly earth shattering or unexpected news. The opposition loyalists always oppose outright. Why this is news to PEW or some of the liberals here is amazing, not unbelievable though. People forget how the left hated Bush and Reagan, and some even maintain they were given a chance, which is so ludicrous it defies history. Of course independents will give Obama a chance, but hardcore rightwingers will not, this is evidenced by the poll. but this Dimock guy spins it away from OBama, and some liberals here who have made it an art to dodge responsibility jump right on that, also by blaming "trends". Not surprising, they will find a way to complain about liberal mistreatment in every single post they put up here. always easier to blame and deflect than look at your pitiful behavior.
More willing to give Bush a chance. It's a comparative measure.
Is it really "not responding" to me if you respond to what I say in posts to other people?
Flailing when cornered. Another of your artful responses.
I don't consider misrepresentation of what I say to be "cornering", troll.
Oh, and I forgot name calling when cornered.
If you don't want to be called a troll, don't act like one. I was clearly being misrepresented, and I corrected it in a perfectly civil manner. You don't have an argument as to how that's "flailing", so you were being a troll.
Tell me why that's unfair, please. I'd love to hear it.
You also forgot to provide evidence to support any of your claims.
No, the problem is the way the results are being framed. All of a sudden the country is 'split'-- that's loaded language, apocryphal, doom-laden. What about just that people have different views?
When polls favor dems, it's a divided country. But when they favor republicans, it's framed as a difference of opinion.
when Bush was in office the country was split, when Clinton was in office the country was split. The country will always be split, sometimes more noticeable than others but split is a fine term, it is not partisan nor is it skewered against Democrats, despite what you offer up.
Not true. Bush enjoyed unusually high marks after 9-11 and was able to advance a severely right tilted agenda in the months following. When dems started pushing back they were called everything from traitors to nazi's. I'm of the opinion that that period of time marked a pronounced escalation in devisiveness that has not let up to this day. You can claim this poll says Obama is dividing the country, but we saw during the primaries that it didn't matter what democrat was a front runner. I'm willing to bet if someone took a running graph of opinions during the entire democratic primary that regardless if Hillary, or Barack, or any other democrat being out front that you would find little to no change in republican opinion. Republicans aren't sour on Obama, they are sour on a)losing and b)anything democrat.
the poll was taken in April 2001, well before 9/11.
That's true James, I'm quite sure the florida recount coming on the heels of the failed Clinton impeachment drove that. I can concede that at the start of every term the losing side drives down overall approval of the President. But losing side doesn't necessarily mean republican or democrat, until recently presidents win with a mix of party base, moderates from the other side, and independants. Bush's mix was not typical in that regard, hence why I believe that is a different beast. Obama has enjoyed a significant increase in independant support.
The way Joe S. uses the term, it's as if Obama is dividing the country, that he's destructive and polarizing. That imagery is false.
When Dems are strident, they are considered to be divisive. When Repubs are strident, the press says they are committed. The connotations for the Dems are always worse.
So, the poll does prove that "he split the country more than any president in modern history?"
im wondering if joe is contemplating a return to congress......to me that would be the only reason that he would be engaging in this farce of his
Joe reads too much Drudge. His little empty head gets filled with overly simplistic one-sided answers to complex questions.
Pew poll is here: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3646/3418137369_3c446261af.jpg
In this poll, the #s clearly show that it is the REPUBLICANS that are out of step with the rest of the country.
The avg of the Pew research is 58% favorability. Independents are at 57%. The ONLY group that does NOT support him are those that get their news from Fox, Hannity and Limbaugh: The Republicans.
I don't know why people are surprised by the poll. A chasm like divide between Bush supporters and everyone else emerged during the previous administration and the election of a new president wasn't going to change that.
Conservatives are lost and they really don't know what to do. That's why a lot of them have become paranoid, delusional or insane. The polarization will only grow as the slip further and further from reality. The only problem with that is they have guns.
I think this is more a measure of the partisanship of the opposition party than the divisiveness of the President. But Joe has his own show so I guess he can spin it any way he wants.
There is a good piece by Nate Silver on this subject here:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/whigs-federalists-strongly-differ-on.html
The fact is, those who identify themselves as Republican are shrinking. Many are now seeing themselves as Independent. Clearly those who are now (I) are more willing to give Obama a chance (57%) over those that are still calling themselves (R) (only 27%). This is how you have this huge defferential but strangly Obama still has a very high approval rating overall. Sorry Republicans, your party is shrinking and most of the ones left are the far right Republicans.
And don't forget, many 'independents' are left wing-- people who fell away from the Dem party.
But that will never occur to Matthews et al, who talk about independents as if it is still 1992, as a synonym for libertarian.
admittedly im a republican myself......but i sure as hell do not count myself among those 1 in 4 who are so numbed that they wouldn never give president obama a chance.
the reason i stayed in my party and not switched.......im hoping for a TR like figure to come in and shake the tree a bit
And TR had to leave the Republican Party to get his message out.. His Bull Moose Party was about as effective as Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, and Lyndon LaRouche's third parties have been.
More Lies from Joe :
This morning on MSNBC, Joe Scarborough ranted about President Obama’s economic plans (even though 56 percent of Americans approve). His latest talking point: that Obama “has never received a paycheck” in his entire life:
"The larger point, of course, is that the question of private sector experience is irrelevant when it comes to judging public servants."
I couldn't agree more. The last thing we need is some yahoo coming in shouting "We need to run government like a business." Government is not a business. The goals are entirely different.
The Pew guy makes little sense. He cites Democratic enthusiasm as being the main factor in this divide, but 88% of Dems. support Obama as compared to 87% of Republicans who supported Bush in 2001. So what's so extraordinary about this enthusiasm?
Actually the difference is simply fewer self identified republicans. This is why despite the larger gap than Bush, Obama has a higher approval rating. If you look at the Nate Silver article I linked to you will see the numbers for the president's party is close for both Bush and Obama as are the Independant numbers. The difference is strictly the opposing party. The only way this makes any sense is if the number of Republicans is shrinking.
So you were ok with the last 8 yrs., duly noted.
Actually, Joe's right . . . Obama is "splitting the country" - between the intelligent and the "dittoheads".
Fortunately, there are more of the former than the latter . . .
Joe Scarborough -- How many times does the recession and spending need to be explained to you? What part aren't you getting? Why do you refuse the facts? When Howard Dean was on the show, he explained, THOROUGHLY, why this stimulus and this much money in the stimulus and budget needed to be spent. Are you dense? Another thing. It's was GEORGE BUSH and greedy so-called rich folks that created this crisis and NOW you sit back and say, what, do nothing? We have no money? Please, spare me the violins.
You know EXACTLY why this needs to be done because you are part of it. It wasn't middle America that rendered any goodies whether it be financially or politically for the past 30 years. And stop comparing what President Obama is spending to what the last 43 presidents spent, combined. Just how much was the dollar worth in 1776? How lame is that statement. And stop using words you don't know the meaning of. Like "socialism". You want less government? Okay, the next time you need emergency services, don't call 911, because that's a "socialist" government run agency. Don't take advantage of our free education system either. Guess what? That's "socialism". See, it too, is run by the government. How dense do you think normal people are? The Republican'ts have created an utter mess and you have the nerve to say what? Is the Republican'ts budget better? Does it make sense to freeze all government spending, while giving tax breaks to the top 10% of wealthy and cut corporate taxes? That makes better sense to you, doesn't it.
Since President Obama has taken office, there has been four television news journalist and/or commentators that has ever given this guy any kudos or benefit of the doubt or credit of any kind or even spoken positively about ANYTHING he has accomplished. Tell me, what did Reagan do? How about Nixon, Bush, or even Clinton?
Joe Scarborough, your ignorance behooves me! You are devoid of any facts of any kind. The way I see it? We were never attacked BEFORE Bush came to office. Joe, GET A SHOVEL!
Joe, you know why you are so tired? Lying gets tiring.