Obama’s Popularity
Barack Obama continues to be popular, as confirmed by a new CBS poll. The story of the year is really the unusual amount of courage that the Senate Republicans are showing in the face of a popular president. Ordinarily, when you’ve got a president with approval ratings in the 60s, you would imagine that legislators representing states the President won—that’s Senators Burr, Martinez, Grassley, Voinovich, Lugar, Specter, Gregg, Collins, and Snowe—would be pretty eager to sign on for a few of his key priorities. And that’s not at all what we’ve seen.
It’ll be interesting to see how this winds up playing out. Obviously, I’m not inclined to share the kind of conservative values that these Senators have generally been pitting against the Obama agenda. But on another level, I admire what they’re doing. It seems to me that most legislators have an irrational overestimation of their own electoral vulnerability and, especially, of the extent to which individual congressional votes are likely to impact that vulnerability. But even as a maintain that view, I understand why members are reluctant to put it to the test. But now many Republicans are. We’ll see.
As for the headline “Poll: Obama Approval Hits New High – 66%” this seems to reflect a lot of the usual pathologies of reporting on public opinion. Broader metrics like the Gallup tracking poll and the Pollster.com average show Obama basically fluctuating around in the 60s since February. That CBS happens to have registered a higher result than past CBS samples have found is very possibly just a coincidence.
32 Responses to “Obama’s Popularity”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
April 7th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Argh! Did you make the piechart yourself? The most elementary thing that’s taught in a stats course about piecharts is that they show “fractions of a whole.” It’s terrible practice not to show the “no opinion” slice.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:31 am
But on another level, I admire what they’re doing. It seems to me that most legislators have an irrational overestimation of their own electoral vulnerability and, especially, of the extent to which individual congressional votes are likely to impact that vulnerability. But even as a maintain that view, I understand why members are reluctant to put it to the test.
You admire what they’re doing….why? Because you think it demonstrates some kind of commitment to principle, rather than simple knee-jerk obstructionism? Please advise.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Matt, they’re even more courageous than you imply, because their strategy of tying up all progressive legislation is basically the same strategy they have had for the past two congressional sessions. They are resolutely marching toward the cliff knowing that several of their GOP comrades have already taken the fall. Very admirable. I would like to salute their memories when the Dems pull in 65-70 members in the next session.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:44 am
Look, if you’re so popular that a pie chart of your popularity looks like Pac Man, you’re doing fine. It’s just that simple.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Well, it’s a very interesting strategy. I’m not sure exactly what the motivation is. Are they more afraid of primary challengers or democratic challengers? Are they true believers or does Rush just have them scared shitless? I think you could make the argument that the ruthless Republican political machine has trained these guys that this is the only way to do politics. And I’m not sure it’s a bad approach. Yeah, they’ve seen losses in the past couple cycles, but that’s the inevitable result of a disastrous and unpopular policy platform. The truth is they’re pushing that platform about as effectively as you could possibly imagine. And one way of looking at this obstructionism is a double down bet. If they can sink the Obama presidency by preventing him from taking the necessary steps to rebuild the economy and our society, there could eventually be a backlash against the party in power and make the Republicans more popular in the future. But you could also argue that it’s not really a political strategy and more just complete capture by their core interests groups. After all, they’ve got some Dems on board with their tremendously horrible policy agenda.
At the end of the day, though, the Senate is much more idiosyncratic than the House with so many fewer members. It seems like some of the centrists on both sides of the aisle are just enormous idiots, so how can you really count on their behavior to have any rational justification?
April 7th, 2009 at 9:45 am
I understand the point you’re making, but the examples you have chosen don’t really work. Grassley, Lugar, Snowe, and Collins are in no danger of not being reelected if an election were held today, as far as I can tell. Martinez, Voinovich, and Gregg aren’t running for reelection, so they can vote as they like or as the way they feel will maximize their chances of getting a job outside of congress once they are done. The only one on this list who might–might–feel vulnerable with good reason is Burr, and since he’s been on the same level as every other Republican in opposing the Democratic agenda, he’s a good example. But the others? Not so much, I think.
Sadly, I think the opposite force is in effect. We see more than a few Democrats in all types of states–the ones Obama one, the ones where he improved tremendously, and the ones where he actually fell behind–go against his agenda and/or sign onto some Republican goals because they feel that it’s a way to protect themselves should their party face a difficult time in 2010 and 2012. At least that’s the best explanation, other than being delusional or in the pocket of big money, I can think of for some someone like Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas supporting the Republican estate tax proposal.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:47 am
Oh yeah, Specter works as an example as well, but only him and Burr.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Matt’s admirations are entirely misplaced. The GOP guys are not courageous. Increasingly Republican voters are strident partisans (the 25-30% Dubya uber alles crowd). Moderates have no place in the new GOP. You know you have a problem when even Newt Gingrich is considered a moderate. Specter is not tacking right because he is courageous. He is doing so because he is a coward.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:57 am
I generally enjoy reading about Republican convictions,
but this disappoints.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Unfortunately, Barrack Obama’s popularity is not going to survive the passage of the ‘Freedom’ of ‘Choice’ Act.
April 7th, 2009 at 10:01 am
It’s not courage that compels Republicans to act the way they act but a sense of entitlement. They believe that only their views are right and therefore there’s no need to compromise.
April 7th, 2009 at 10:13 am
The alternate explanation is greater fear of being primaried by extreme right wingers, unless they act like extreme right wingers.
And of course part of that process of putting primary fear in the hearts of Republican Senators is that some of them are the extreme right wingers that were put up to primary less insane right wingers.
And as noted, for the ones that are retiring, Voinovich, etc., the opinion polls don’t matter. They have to vote in the interests of those who are going in a position to feather someone’s nest.
April 7th, 2009 at 10:30 am
“Unfortunately, Barrack Obama’s popularity is not going to survive the passage of the ‘Freedom’ of ‘Choice’ Act.”
Hey, Hector? I hate to break it to you, but pretty much every last one of the rabid anti-abortion types like yourself are among the 24% that dislike Obama and have disliked him and every other Democrat their whole lives. Passage of that act isn’t going to affect any approval ratings whatsoever, even though I rather doubt we’ll see its passage anytime soon.
April 7th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Piechart FAIL.
And it’s fascinating how the Obama disapprovers right now are basically the Bush-in-late-08 approvers: the absolute dead-enders. That’s to say, a quarter of American adults are either stupid or evil. Or both.
That leaves Burr. I think he is in fact putting himself into a tough position for 2010.
It’s hard to predict. Burr has been keeping his head down, while Minty Jim south of the border has been sticking his neckout. But that Senate race is top of the ticket in 2010, and Burr’s going to have to decide whether he wants to run as a constructive critic or a fully-fledged wingnut, and create a record that matches. My guess is that he’s waiting to see who declares for the Dems; if Roy Cooper’s in, then Burr is going to be an underdog from the outset.
April 7th, 2009 at 10:36 am
I’ve always admired the way the Republicans aren’t afraid to fight. I think that they fight when they shouldn’t, and I think that the things they fight for are bad for our country, but I always envy the way many of them speak plainly about whatever horsecrap they believe.
The Dems, short of Kucinich, never do this. They won’t call torture, torture – hell, what’s his name apologized for that. They talk a good talk, but you almost never see them make a principled stance when the calculus says it will hurt them politically.
Standing up for what you believe in – when it costs you – is admirable. To bad the Reps are so batshit crazy.
April 7th, 2009 at 10:42 am
There’s no upside to voting for the spending. If it works (which I seriously doubt), Obama gets all the credit anyway. If it doesn’t work (which I expect), they can say they were right along.
This is politics 101
April 7th, 2009 at 11:23 am
they are NOT showing the courage of their convictions. THey are just doing what their campaign contributors are TELLING (not asking) them to do.
April 7th, 2009 at 11:32 am
The explanation is simple,really. The vast majority of Republican office holders and party members are ignorant and stupid. Almost everyone who isn’t has been driven from the party or marginalized.
April 7th, 2009 at 11:36 am
We have an easier time remembering “individual congressional votes” when every single Republican votes NO.
April 7th, 2009 at 11:58 am
I think opposing Obama’s popular agenda is less hazardous than losing party support. Even while McCain was being trounced by Obama in fundraising, the RNC was trouncing the DNC. If Specter weighs being tagged as anti-Obama against losing party support, he’ll take party support.
Even those more likely to face general election challenges rather than primaries might prefer keeping their party leaders happy. Senate races are expensive, and donations are probably harder to come by right now. Having the RNC willing to spend money in your race might more than offset Obama’s popularity.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Wow, I never knew how much 66% looked like 3/4 until I learned statistics from Matthew Yglesias!
April 7th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
dude, come on.
I mean, you are obviously very highly intelligent. but things like this graph should have consequences. like, getting fired-level consequences.
April 7th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
I’m not really seeing the huge problem with the graph. No, it doesn’t add up to 100%. But the reason 66% looks like 3/4 is because roughly 3/4 of the people *who have an opinion* approve of Obama. 40% approval to 50% disapproval is not good. 40% approval to 5% disapproval is very good. So this graph shows that. Not saying it’s the best one, but “fired-level consequences”? Christ.
April 7th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Anyway, the graph is from the CBS news article at the link.
April 7th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
<Look, if you’re so popular that a pie chart of your popularity looks like , you’re doing fine.
April 7th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
(Try again.)