The idea that the President has “alienated” or “lost” his base by the deal he struck with Congressional Republicans would be disturbing, because no politician or political party likes to “shatter a base,” or blithely ignore it. So why would President Obama do that, then? For a very simple reason, one that escapes many in the media – and most definitely escapes the professional Left: They are not the base.
…
In other words, looking at membership in various organizations or the number of people belonging to one of the “true progressive” blogs amount to a very small fraction of the Democratic Party. Well, that’s just me doing some seat of the pants math, right? Obviously, these people are speaking for a much larger group, right? Well, not according to a recent poll:
- Blacks: 90% approve/6% disapprove
- Democrats: 82/12
- Liberals: 79/16
- Latinos: 56/33
- Post grads: 56/41
- UPDATE: 18-29: 53/38
- UPDATE 2: NBC’s Ana Maria Arumi notes that in the 2010 midterm exit polls, voters 18-29 said they approved of the president’s job by a 62/38 margin, which is close to how they voted in 2008 — 66/32
- Women: 52/43
- 18-34: 49/43Or a new poll which shows solid support for the compromise:
[66% of Americans say they support extending the tax cuts for all Americans for two years, including 52% of Democrats and 67% of Independents.]
For a “shattered base” this is remarkably strong and solid support for the President.
There’s more…
I think the point here is not to suggest that Obama should cater to centrists or moderates, but that the progressive movement needs to do more to make the base of the Democratic Party into progressives.
Perhaps an argument to make, however, first, show me the crosstabs on the poll, always.
Second, what “base” of Obama’s contributed, volunteered and worked their asses off to elect him? Don’t get me wrong, I warned Democrats during 2008 that Obama was not the liberal they thought he was, and that there were better options (Hillary, personally). Obama was the last presidential candidate to sign on to key party agreements, including continuing the VoteBuilder voterfile nationwide and sharing data (which he did not do and actually the DNC lost Catalist during the 2010 cycle because of the White House costing our candidates valuable data updates leading up to the election).
Don’t forget: Obama is building the Democratic Party of Obama and always has been – see Obama for America, then Organizing for America and then look at the possible disaster of Gibbs leading the DNC in 2012.
THIS IS NOT THE PARTY PROGRESSIVES NEED TO FIGHT FOR. If we are not his base, let him assemble his base and let progressives focus on moving OUR causes forward.
The crosstabs question can also be aimed at the polls showing opposition for the tax extensions for the wealthy. The point is that Obama may be correct in saying the people don’t want taxes to go up.
To me, progressive is all about policy stances and values, not about process. I think Obama is exactly as progressive as I thought he was, he’s just not as good at process or as competent at politics as I thought he was.
I agree with you, but Obama is not a progressive champion at all. He is not mounting a campaign or fight to protect progressive ideals, values and policies and he’s signaling that even more key progressive policies are at risk (Social Security, Medicare, etc.).
My point on the crosstabs was that any poll can show anything you want. Just like anyone can find a researcher, or group of doctors, or polling info to prove their point. Progressives must remain strong and proud that it’s not polls that guide our policy, it’s our beliefs. And just because a poll is either good or bad, doesn’t make an issue or policy good or bad, we all know that by now…
My appoint is that Obama is a progressive, he’s just not a champion. But he’s not a champion of anything, not just progressivism.
Any poll can NOT show anything you want. As a political scientist who has studied polling extensively, this commonly-held view of polling is not even remotely true. It’s true that a nonscientific poll can be created to show anything, but a scientific poll can only show the truth.
I agree that we should definitely NOT be basing our opinions and principles on polls, but that’s exactly what a lot of the people opposing the tax extension framework are doing, defending their position by pointing to polls showing the public opposing it, when those polls are questionable evidence at best and that it would be easy for Obama to believe that the public sides with his framework by looking at the overall polling.
Yes, definitely, I agree with scientific polls, but still you can find a sample size that fits the objective you are aiming for, without public crosstabs consumers never know. For example, I ran the top targeted state senate race in Georgia in 2006 (Jane Kidd) and we had a scientific (& very expensive) poll by Mellman Group through the state party that showed us up by 15% with about 2 weeks left. We lost by about 8 points in the end (gerrymandered district the GOP drew specifically to take out Jane). The party’s polling in races across the state were not reality. Why, because they overpolled demographics that led to better results, i.e. an ideal situation not the real situation (think overpolling African-American precincts, underpolling white older men, etc.)
The truth with polls also all comes down to how a question is framed and what other information goes into the polling…
All I’m saying is that Democrats’ positions and our party’s history of fighting for working Americans and families is the platform that can win. And we don’t need polls to tell us what we believe or what we should fight for.
For a poll to be scientific, it has to be a representative sample of the real population you are trying to speak about. If certain populations are overpolled or underpolled, then it isn’t scientific, it’s just scientific-looking.
And I completely agree with you on the rest of what you are saying. I brought up the poll because a lot of people are inaccurately citing polls as a reason Obama should’ve fought harder against the tax bonuses for the rich. The poll supports their position, so they treat it like it’s gospel. But we have to treat polls as they are, not as we’d like them to be, or we’ll continue to lose elections.
Since I’m the author of the post mentioned, I thought I’d take the opportunity to address some of the points. Yes, it would be a mistake if I thought a single poll justified my thesis. The poll in question was used to counter a very real assertion being made by various members of the professional Left, and on several of the more extreme left blogs.
I’ve seen two major assertions being made over the past two years: First, that President Obama ran on a progressive platform. He didn’t. He ran on somewhat left-of-center platform, very clearly a moderate. Second, the assertion that they (the progressives) were a base of the party. In every way I’ve looked at it – whether you’re talking raw numbers, campaign funding, voting block turn-out, or ability to field primary challengers – most of the people who are claiming that the President “lost his base” (meaning them) turn out not to be one in the first place. They can’t even legitimately claim that he “lost them,” since a quick review of their work since he took office shows that they were never with him.