Obama behind the poll numbers
A nuanced verdict from independent voters
Obama behind the poll numbers
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
Peter Hart, the respected Democratic pollster, is now circulating the results of his latest focus group, this time featuring a dozen independent voters who live in suburban Maryland. His goal, as always, was to ask nuanced questions and elicit nuanced replies, in order to dig beneath the polling numbers and give us an idea of what people are really thinking. As Hart put it last fall, during a late October session in Ohio, "the purpose is not to count noses, but to hear what is going on in their heads."
That Ohio session was memorable, as I recall; even though Barack Obama was clearly headed for victory, in Ohio and nationwide, Hart sought to question that conventional wisdom by sounding a note of skepticism. After meeting a dozen undecided voters from a bellwether working-class county, he wrote a report contending that a lot of people were not necessarily sold on Obama, that at the eleventh hour Obama was still viewed by some swing voters as either too new or too slick. In other words, Hart is no reflexive partisan; he goes with the information flow.
And by going with the flow in his new report on suburban Maryland independents, he is again defying conventional wisdom. He says that these independents, who have "few ties to either party," still view Obama favorably even though they are somewhat restive about his work.
The latest conventional wisdom, sparked by all the latest polls, is that the electorate's romance with Obama is over, that he has plunged to earth thanks to public disenchantment with his health care reform initiative and his general handling of the recessionary economy. Hart doesn't dispute the poll numbers, because he can't.
Hart conducts the NBC-Wall Street Journal survey, in partnership with Republican pollster Bill McInturff, and the latest findings, released last week, clearly show presidential erosion. Back in April, Hart and McInturff reported that 61 percent of Americans approved of Obama's job performance, with only 30 percent saying otherwise; in the latest report, 53 percent approve and 40 percent do not. Back in February, 54 percent said they were "extremely confident" or "quite confident" that Obama had "the right set of goals or policies." Today, 46 percent feel that way. And today, on a separate question, only 35 percent see his policies as taking the country in the right direction. All told, as Hart acknowledged in his new report, "today's political environment is tougher for the president."
And yet...
Not all thumbs-down verdicts are alike. A presidential poll drop can occur because the electorate doesn't like the guy anymore, or because it has decided that it can't trust him anymore, or because it hates his policies forevermore. But the Obama poll drop is none of those things. As evidenced by Hart's conversations with those Maryland independents, Obama's plight is something far more benign.
In essence, while they are concerned about some key aspects of Obama's early performance - most notably, by the speed in which he is attempting to enact sweeping reforms - they nevertheless like him personally, laud his frequent communication efforts, and, unlike the Republicans in Washington, they're basically rooting for him to succeed. As Hart put it in his new report, "(Their) attitudes...reveal how closely connected Barack Obama is to voters, and the level of psychological investment they have in his success."
For instance, he was struck by "the intimacy and connection voters feel to President Obama. Simply asking this group to 'tell me who you voted for in 2008,' elicited not the standard 'Obama' reply, but, rather 'Barack.' This is so highly unusual. People always always say 'Bush' or 'McCain' or 'Clinton' or 'Reagan.' That these voters refer to the president of the United States using just his first name reveals a highly unusual sense of connection and approachability between them and him."
Hart's observation might strike you as superficial. But it's important to remember that, back in the early '80s, Ronald Reagan's personality was lauded far more than his policies. His personal bond with the electorate helped him weather the tough times - especially during his first couple years, when there were few indications that his conservative agenda would pull the nation out of a crippling recession. (Obama-haters may not want to hear this: Reagan's job approval rating stood at 42 percent in 1982, when the jobless rate hit a 40-year high.)
Hart's Maryland independents made it clear that, while they are restive about how things are going, they are nonetheless invested in seeing Obama succeed. One of the participants, a 63-year-old graphic designer said that he expects that America will be worse off in two years - yet when asked what he would say to Obama if given the opportunity, he replied: "Keep up the good work - we're still behind you." A movie theater owner, who voted last year for McCain, said that he would tell Obama, "Stay strong." Another guy, a network administrator who is now jobless, wants to tell Obama, "Don't give up. We haven't."
A president is often in big trouble when the electorate decides to simply tune him out. Obama may be suffering some poll erosion, but Hart's independents are actually eager to tune him in. According to the current Washington conventional wisdom, Obama is overexposed, but that's not how these independents feel. One woman, a dental hygienist, says of his frequent TV and town hall appearances, "I like it. He is showing himself...more upfront." Another woman, who sells real estate, says that Obama "explains to people so they can understand it."
By contrast, they still don't seem particularly eager to listen to any of the Republicans. Sarah Palin, for instance, was generally dismissed as "comical" and "an idiot," with the jobless network administrator offering a somewhat sexist observation: "If I wanted a stripper for president, she'd be my pick." The fact is that, in the latest Hart-McInturff poll, only 28 percent of Americans have "very positive" or "somewhat positive" perceptions of the Republican party, a stat that has barely budged all year. (Forty-two percent view the Democrats positively, seven points lower than in February.)
But even though Obama clearly has the floor, he may not have an easy time satisfying these swing voters. In part, this is because they have conflicting impulses. As evidenced by their conversations with Hart, they are (in his words) "eager to see progress in the areas of the economy, employment, and health care." Which would suggest that Obama needs to rack up some big achievements, pronto.
Yet, at the same time, they told Hart that they don't want to see too much too quickly. As Hart writes, "they are wary of rapid change and want to understand and digest any major policies...(Their) biggest worries are about the amount of money the government is spending and the speed at which it is making significant changes to how the country operates." In the words of one participant, a young teacher, "The speed that he's doing things - it's a little bit of a gamble."
Hence, Obama's somewhat paradoxical challenge: These independents want him to be bold, to demonstrate "progress" in curing the nation's serious ills. Yet, at the same time, they want him to do it slowly (unmindful of the fact that a new president needs to be bold in his first year, before the congressional elections make it nearly impossible for him to get anything done). And here's the thing: if Obama was to considerably slow his pace, he later would be criticized, perhaps by some of these same independents, for dragging his feet.
Can Obama thread the needle, achieve at some appropriate speed, and retain the affection of these swing voters who still personally root for him? That might be a tough task for any mere mortal, and, as one of Hart's independents said of Obama, "he's just human."
tjm333126: "As an independent, I share many of the sentiments of the folks polled in Maryland. My biggest fear isn't "speed" so much as speed wihtout digestion. If the president could spend his many press conferences discussing the details of the HC, or stimulous bills with the nation, we could move comfortably towards these goals. As it stands now, the white house simply continues to parrot high-level talking points framing the HC debate as the far left wing version of reform versus the "status quo." this is disingenous. There is a better way to to this than PelosiCare, and a better way than the so called "status quo." If our politicians would have real, detailed conversations about healthcare with the American people we could move forward, but sadly, both sides of the political isle have resorted to partisan talking points that don;t answetr any questions. The behavior of the white house in this regard is my biggest disappointment with the president. I hope he can recognize this and begin to truly engage and educate the country, instead of asking us to swallow a giant pill that no one seems to know the ingrediants of." Great analysis, tjm333126! I agree; not much real info given and a lot of shouting. But to share information & analysis, participants require the ability to reason, loyalty to the integrity of truth, willingness to understand others'perspectives, and some concern for the common good balanced by legitimate concerns for their own individual wellbeing. Most of all, we need statesmen who are NOT driven by ideological opportunism, are NOT sold to the highest bidders, are NOT concerned only with the powerful; do NOT deliberately misinform! We need statesmen who honor the highest standards of conduct that mitigates the ugliness of power & greed that is infesting our democratic to its death. That is why Obama continues to have strong underlying support from reasoning independents. But this isn't about Obama; this is about who we are & will become.— Simone- bill_from_media...Wow! I was on the road yesterday and your post was almost word for word from a Big Talker show yesterday. What a scary coincidence.— JimR
- tjm333126: "As an independent, I share many of the sentiments of the folks polled in Maryland. My biggest fear isn't "speed" so much as speed wihtout digestion. If the president could spend his many press conferences discussing the details of the HC, or stimulous bills with the nation, we could move comfortably towards these goals. As it stands now, the white house simply continues to parrot high-level talking points framing the HC debate as the far left wing version of reform versus the "status quo." this is disingenous. There is a better way to to this than PelosiCare, and a better way than the so called "status quo." If our politicians would have real, detailed conversations about healthcare with the American people we could move forward, but sadly, both sides of the political isle have resorted to partisan talking points that don;t answetr any questions. The behavior of the white house in this regard is my biggest disappointment with the president. I hope he can recognize this and begin to truly engage and educate the country, instead of asking us to swallow a giant pill that no one seems to know the ingrediants of." Great analysis, tjm333126! I agree that not much real info is given but a lot of shouting. But to share information & analysis, participants need the ability to reason, loyalty to the integrity of truth, willingness to understand others' perspectives, and some concern for the common good balanced by legitimate concerns for one's individual wellbeing. Most of all, we need statesmen who are NOT driven by ideological opportunism, are NOT sold to the highest bidders, are NOT concerned only with the powerful; do NOT deliberately misinform! We need leaders who honor the highest standards of conduct that mitigates the ugliness of power & greed that is infesting our DEMOCRACY to its death. That is why Obama continues to have strong underlying support from reasoning independents. But this isn't about Obama; this is about who we are & will become.— Simone
- And Polman is hired to "teach" at Penn. What does that say about Penn?— Adam Smythe
- Obama is being exposed. The "Change" he spoke about is now clearly Euro-Style Socialism wich favors Government over Individuals. Moderate Americans will continue to awaken to the death grip He and Pelosi have on what made us great in the first place....us.— ruggedI
- As for Bill Clinton, I can't resist the bait:) Although it is nice for the family's to get their mothers back on a personal level, why should he have gotten them out? They were journalists who travelled to China and crossed the boarder illegally into North Korea! What did they think was going to happen when they were caught? Why give a country like N. Korea, that has nuclear weapons and long range ballistic missiles, any good press at all? What did Bill Clinton promise/giveaway to make it happen so quickly or was it just his power of persuasion? Now if Kim Jong-Il were a woman I could understand it more:) Just sayin' :)— NEPhilly
- NEPhilly - Don't give in to the dark side. Freeing hostages from rogue nations is a good thing. Admit it. Move on to something that won't lump you in with the naysaying at all costs crowd. Try the "finally the administration is seeking to address the excesses at Fannie and Freddie" tack. Here's a link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/05/report-considers-remaking-fannie-mae-freddie-mac/— Phrossty
- phrossty, I try to as you know:) They weren't really hostages though as they crossed the border illegally into N. Korea and were jailed, justifiably so! In other news, re-regulating Fannie/Freddie would be a good idea since taxpayers are on the hook for $1.5 Tri in guarantees, but they are a democratic bastion of patronage (see Frank Raines, Jamie Gorelick, Barnie Frank's husband, etc.:) and it will be hard for Pres. Obama to get his own party to go along, just like health care:)— NEPhilly
- Wow! The mental summersaults Dick has to delude himself with in this article are impressive.— Kaiser Sosa
Tom - it depends on what you spend it on - and to think the Democratic Party and Clinton who were the last and only ones to not only balance the budget but deliver a surplus are some how now not concerned about the budget deficits is just more - short term memory loss or the repeating of RNC talking points - Tom I got the impression you thought for yourself.- Tom - You weren't allowed to criticize Bush - it meant you were un-American - and the RNC owns Fox News - so no criticism there ever or your fired.
- Tom 5:42 - I totally agree - but the industry ran hard with it because they didn't self regulate - I got offered a million dollar mortgage and laughed at the guy in his face...how am I supposed to pay for that. In my case the system worked because I wasn't greedy and had real world experience and was educated (that makes me an elitist - LOL or not a sucker) - the overall point is that smart regulation is needed as well as educating the population - yes an uneducated population is easy to manipulate but its bad for productivity, and an unfettered totally free market system will feed on itself and throw wrench after wrench into the market system as unregulated drugs, food, products (that includes financial products) careen out of control across the full market sector daily - regulation is needed - it's called the rule of law and is what the country is founded on - RNC talking points that regulations are bad which they have been screaming about since the 1980's - is just another way of saying lawlessness is good. Get rich quick schemes - good for the slime ball individuals (like the idiot offering me a million dollar mortgage) bad for the Country - remember the RNC slogan "Country First" - I wish they meant it.
- Phrosty 8:51 and 8:53 - hit the nail on the head!
- Why would Obama complain about so-called staged protests---isn't that what ACORN is all about?— Mark Glaeser
- gphilly...what planet are you from? A...Bush, as I've stated many times, made many mistakes. B....As I've stated, Obama is a citizen and this is a non-issue...the "birthers" are just as nuts as those on the left who believe the government imploded the twin towers...you aren't one of those people, are you?— tom - wilmington, de
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
