Despite polling on public blaming Bush for economy, Politico predicts public will soon blame Obama
SUMMARY: Despite polling showing that the public overwhelmingly blames the Bush administration for the poor economy, Politico baselessly asserted that "after the spate of media attention to come when [President Obama] hits the 100-day mark, Obama will own the economy in a very real political sense."
Despite polling showing that the public blames the Bush administration for the poor economy by a large margin, Politico's Eamon Javers asserted in an April 15 article that "after the spate of media attention to come when [President Obama] hits the 100-day mark, Obama will own the economy in a very real political sense" and that "[a]fter that, voters are likely to hold Obama more responsible for their economic suffering, and patience for blaming the Bush Administration will wear thin." Javers provided no evidence for his assertion that the public will no longer see the Bush administration as responsible for the state of the economy after Obama's "100-day mark."
In fact, an NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey conducted February 26-March 1 found that 84 percent of adults believe that Obama "inherited" the current economic conditions and that only 2 percent of those who feel that way think that Obama will become "responsible for the country's economic conditions" in less than six months.
Instead of supporting his assertion that "Obama will own the economy in a very real political sense" after 100 days in office with polling on public perception of Obama's responsibility for the economy, Javers pointed to a poll that asked respondents about Obama's ability to solve the nation's problems in general. Javers wrote, "A recent Public Strategies Inc./POLITICO poll suggests Obama does have some leeway. The survey of 1,000 registered voters found that two thirds of the respondents trust the president 'to identify the right solutions to the problems we face as a nation.' "
In addition to the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, a Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted March 26-29 found that while 70 percent of respondents believe that the Bush administration deserves a "great deal" or "good amount" of the "blame" for "the country's economic situation," 26 percent of respondents fault Obama. The same poll found that 60 percent of respondents are "angry about the role" the Bush administration "played in the economic situation," while 21 percent are angry with the Obama administration.
As Media Matters for America has documented, over the past several months, the press has repeatedly disappeared the Bush administration from its economic reporting.
From the Washington Post/ABC News poll:
From the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll:
From the April 15 Politico article:
President Barack Obama and his economic team are changing their tone on the economy. Gone are Obama's bleak descriptions of crisis and catastrophe. In their place are "glimmers of hope" of a turnaround.
The question is: why now?
It's a tricky balance. The White House doesn't want to hang a premature "Mission Accomplished" banner on the economy ala President Bush's speech about Iraq. Obama's recovery talk Tuesday was couched with warnings of "more job loss, more foreclosures, and more pain before it ends."
But through all that, Obama is highlighting an economy on the mend. Here are five reasons for Obama to make that rhetorical pivot now:
[...]
2. The 100-Day Clock is Ticking
There are political realities at work, too. Obama's speech came on Day 85 of his presidency, and after the spate of media attention to come when he hits the 100-day mark, Obama will own the economy in a very real political sense.
After that, voters are likely to hold Obama more responsible for their economic suffering, and patience for blaming the Bush Administration will wear thin.
The president touched on this theme Tuesday, sounding almost as if he wished the clamor for results wasn't so intense, with a "24-hour news cycle that insists on instant gratification in the form of immediate results, or higher poll numbers."
Still, White House officials believe Obama's window of patience from voters could last as long as two years, if the public continues to see him as someone who is being straight with them about the problems and working to solve them.
A recent Public Strategies Inc./POLITICO poll suggests Obama does have some leeway. The survey of 1,000 registered voters found that two thirds of the respondents trust the president "to identify the right solutions to the problems we face as a nation."
But if job losses continue, at some point, voters will expect results. Says one Senate GOP aide, "If the White House is right and the job numbers continue to go south through the end of the year, people are going to start asking where the hell the jobs are that they were promised."
This is an interesting debate between White House Officials and Random Letters On Some Website.
Random Letters On Some Website say "after the spate of media attention to come when he hits the 100-day mark, Obama will own the economy in a very real political sense"
White House Officials say "Obama's window of patience from voters could last as long as two years"
Politico needs to try to sort this out. Maybe they can score an interview with Random Letters On Some Website.
Personally, I think the public's patience is irrelevant. Presumably we won't be stupid enough to vote for another republican for the next hundred thousand years. So we're stuck with Obama no matter what he does.
-- Presumably we won't be stupid enough to vote for another republican for the next hundred thousand years. -- steeve
This kind of thinking can get you in dutch with mmfa...after all you failed to support your assertion with polling data...the same thing that caused mmfa to skewer Javer's assertion...and that's a big "no no".
Maybe mmfa would be happier if Javers had cited the recent Clairvoyant/Savant/Ipsofacto poll.
Indeed the arrogance to give an opinion without sacred polling numbers...sweet fancy moses...an opinion without a poll...what's this world coming to.
Why do you have such an aversion to reality, Wesley? Politico's commentator, a member of the media, gave an opinion that is contrary to known facts, an opinion that would sow doubt about Obama's popularity. It's doing that which they call out.
On the other hand, Steeve is a commentator on a website, not a member of the media. Steeve didn't do the same thing that Javer did in a number of ways. His hyperbole that America won't elect a Republican for a hundred thousand years is based on polling data that shows Republican support at its lowest levels in years. He's not a media member, so MMfA isn't out to 'get him', and recent polling supports what he did say.
Why do you compare apples and oranges and think that it gives you credibility?
It was not a knock on steeve...
It was a knock on the pedantic use of polling.
But there wasn't any "pedantic" use of polling!!!
Politico made a prediction that's counter to every poll out there!
Recent polls support Steeve's assertions. They don't support Politico's. That's reality. Why do you have such an aversion to reality? Why are you comparing apples and oranges?
An opinion should be obvious, logical, or supported. Politico's was none of the three. I'm hoping mine's obvious. It's certainly logical.
What a horribly divisive and hypersensitive political environment that is in DC today, well reflected in this Politico article.
Bush's tax & spend policies with NO regulartions didn't ruin the eceonomy over night.
But Politico gives Obama 100 days to fix it.
Riiiiiight.
That is the reich wing's hope...
I have no idea how long the public will remember Bush was responsible for deregulation of the finantial institutions. I also don't know how long the major cable news are going to perpetuate the Bush myth of trickle down economics citing reagan as the champion of that myth. From past experience and evidence, Clinton's masterful insight of the economy led to a surplus at the end of his term is never mentioned by the same media.
Polls conducted after the 100-day mark will show Eamon Javers to either be right or wrong.
Geez. The public already forgot Bush was president and started blaming Obama for the economy the first week he was in office.
Well... We're starting to bottom out, and in some sectors, things are startign to turn around economically... So LET'S HOPE SO!
I am with you Eddie.
However, I fear there will be some horrible unseen factor(s) that could derail us. An example, Elizabeth Warren's spot on "The Daily Show" of all things. She stepped right in a blew the spot up -- seeing what happened to Jim Crammer you would not show up with more facts than she did, of course you would. So that leads us to 1 of 2 possible conclusions.
1) They don't know. Holy crap, the people in charge have no idea what is happening.
2) They know and don't want to tell us. Suddenly, I feel better with option 1.
Both want to make me crap myself.
What may be insightful is if the economy does not miraculously recover soon (and I seriously doubt that will happen) and additional jobs are lost (which will happen) and IF there is another "tea party", someone needs to ask: Are you employed?and if not, do you receive Unemployment Compensation and for how long? A little clarity on this issue may refocus the argument away from a number of fringe issues that were seen on April 15th and focus on more important issues.
As a political issue, we should be past "assigning blame" and attempt to determine if anything coming out of DC is actually working to improve the situation for the middle class Americans.
Any American with common sense realizes that the mess Bush left behind. See a few of the items listed below. Will take Obama one or two terms to correct.
1. Never finding Bin-Laden after 9/11.
2. Starting but not finishing the unnessecary war with Iraq.
3. Wasting the balance budget and surplus left by a Democratic President and going to war with two countries. It should only have been with the people responsible for 9/11. They lived in or were near Afghanastan.
4. Bush did nothing to regulate banks and home lending.
5. Isolated the United States from most of its allies thru insults and name calling.
6. Never addressed the Healthcare problem.
7. Soaring fuel cost.
8. The no child left bend fiasco.(education)
9.FEMA still needs better leadership. Katrina victims still misplaced.
10. The towers in New York still have not been replaced. I am sure that if Obama was PRESIDENT on 9/11 that Bin-Laden would have been captured and towers would have been erected by now.
HE JUST NEEDS MORE THAN 100 DAYS.
I remember a misterious gentleman on tv, face hidden by darkness on the set, saying they had Bin laden in their sights but the operation was suddenly cancelled by a higher up, fueling the theory that as long as Bin Laden was alive, the military operation would go on ( and contractors would receive more DoD contracts ).
I am sure that if Obama was PRESIDENT on 9/11 that Bin Laden would have been captured and towers would have been erected by now. You are conceding that Obama, as president, would have been unable to stop the events of 9/11. Those with common sense, thank you!
I am almost totally convinced if Gore was president, we wouldn't have 9-11 as another day of infamy. Pure speculation on my part, until you retroacively examine Dick Cheney's behaviour, not only in the months leading up to 9-11, but also his war like stance against Saddam Hussein in 1990. He wanted to go in and kill him then, except for Bush 41, in a few brillinat decisions of his life, put the brakes on that idea and enfuriating cheney.
Obama soon will own a lot more than the economy. Pencil in "Iraq" or rather "post-surge Iraq." (He already has accepted Afghanistan.) In the heat of last year's campaign, Obama said John McCain seems to think the Iraq War started in 2007. Implicit there was the Democrat's admission that George W. Bush's vaunted "surge" had worked. Obama could have mentioned that relative peace had descended largely because of (1) Shia-upon-Sunni ethnic cleansing in Baghdad and (2) our paying Sunnis not to kill Americans. He could have noted that even surge designer-manager Gen. Petraeus has been guarded in his appraisals of the effort's success. Obama also might have stressed that while military goals were mostly met, political objectives were not. And, in a sunburst of candor, he should have charged Americans to understand the devastation in Iraq and to see the estimates of those killed, widowed or orphaned. Almost incredibly, most Americans still appraise the invasion of Iraq solely in terms of what it has done to the United States.
But Obama apparently believed going into that much detail -- especially the invasion and occupation's impact on Iraqis -- would not help him in the election. Besides, he already was vividly on record has having opposed the invasion of Iraq months before it was launched.
Glossing over the details has left the new president vulnerable. Conditions in Iraq are deteriorating by the moment, and every passing day marks 24 more hours between the Bush presidency and the present. That clears the way for the Right to eventually claim that Bush won the war only to see Obama lose it.
Never should the Charles Krauthammers and Fred Barneses have been allowed to get away with their ridiculous imagery of a triumphant George W. Bush.
And never should the Right have been able to frame the dialogue: calling Iraq a war instead of an occupation and celebrating the idea of victory and winning, as if you could win a mistake.
Jerry Elsea
You know, people are still trying to blame Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter for this economic crisis.
The former has been out of office for more than 8 years, and he left Bush with a budget surplus and the strongest US economy that we have ever had. The latter, having been out of office for more than 28 years, may not have left office with a great economy, but Reagan pretty much destroyed any legacy, good AND bad, that Carter had in his administration (except for peace between Isreal and Egypt).
Obama inherited the largest deficit in US history and the greatest economic crisis since the 1980s. It takes awhile to get out of that. If the people still blame Bush after Obama's 100th day, I think it would be more than reasonable.
The economy began tanking in 2007 after the democrats took control of the nation's pursestrings.
Simple-think again. Just flip that light switch and economy goes from good to bad. Priceless.
I purposely inserted the word began to illustrate the fact that it started to tank after the democrats took control of congress. English 101.
The Democrats won a majority in Congress but Bush still controlled the White House, which submits a budget. That's the first thing. Secondly, when the Dem's got in power, they significantly reduced the explosion of pork that the Republicans had been stuffing the budget with.
Democratic policies didn't cause this recession.
Well, of course not, as long as you say so.