These are highly partisan times in America. "Bipartisanship" (or, in the Obama nomenclature, "post-partisanship") makes for a catchy campaign slogan, but is difficult to execute upon in practice. The White House's aspirations (or pretense) of running a bipartisan administration died a quick and ugly death with two events: firstly, the House Republicans' decision to whip votes against Obama's stimulus package so as to produce a unanimous nay vote, and secondly, the Administration's decision to try and kneecap Rush Limbaugh.
Nonetheless, measurements of the partisan split in support for the President, as Pew Research has done here (they found a record partisan split in Obama's approval ratings, with 88 percent of Democrats but just 27 percent of Republicans approving of Obama's performance) are not quite as straightforward as they might seem. This is because partisan identification is at least somewhat fluid. The Republicans, in particular, have lost quite a bit of support over the past several years; those persons who continue to identify as Republicans are a hardened -- and very conservative -- lot. Just 24 percent of voters identified as Republican when Pew conducted this survey in March, which is roughly as low as that total has ever gotten.
We see some evidence of these effects in the comparison of Obama's numbers to those of George W. Bush's at a comparable point in his presidency. Obama and Bush had roughly the same level of support among members of their own party (88 percent for Obama, 87 percent for Bush) and roughly the same level of support among unaffiliated voters (57 percent for Obama, 56 for Bush). Bush, however, had more support from the opposition party (36 percent of Democrats versus 27 percent of Republicans). And yet Obama, not Bush, had the higher overall approval rating, because Democrats are a significantly larger constituency than Republicans.
A more telling measure might be to see a breakdown in support by voters who identify themselves as conservative, moderate or liberal. These categories are somewhat fluid too -- but less so than partisan ID.
4.06.2009
Whigs, Federalists Strongly Differ on Support for Obama
@ 12:34 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
79 comments
It would be interesting to see how Democrats approved of Eisenhower and Republicans approved of Johnson during his 1964-1965 popularity peak
Whigs or Federalists? What about us Democrat-Republicans who supported Jefferson?
It sounds like what you're describing in the third paragraph is Simpson's Paradox, right?
Nate - have you looked at the overall trend? On one hand it's true that Obama has the largest partisan divide, but the general divide appears to be trending wider over time?
Question - how many Democrats and Republicans were surveyed?
Given the low percentage of self identified Republicans, were they included in the sample in numbers commensurate?
The GOP favors Federalism only when the states agree with their platform; when individual states like California, Massachusetts, Connecticut, or Iowa decide (in any of the three branches of government) to recognize Equal Marriage, the GOP loses their minds and demands the national government override state governments.
This fact is not lost on federalists, who probably also resent the use of federal highway funds as a stick to bludgeon the states with when they step out of line on other issues.
Myself, I'm a federalist on some issues and an anti-federalist on others-at least I'm not claiming to be something I'm not here; this does not prevent me from seeing the holes in the argument from the right, which claims the GOP supports federalism. It does-when the majority of states are likely to decide in their favor on an issue. It's a whole other matter when the states disagree with them.
You realize that "Whig" is just a fancy-pants way of saying "Federalist" in 1840? :)
That said, my anectdotal observation is that the Republicans are moving (not a revelation, I know) farther and farther right. This shaves off the moderate middle, leaving only true believers. I'm not sure if its a byproduct of the info-age, series of tubes, etc... but I'm always shocked at how batshit crazy some of the things are that my Republican friends believe, or rather that they focus on.
I know there's no chance this will happen, but it would be nice to see the rump of the Republican center/left, independents-nee-Repubs, and Blue Dog Democrats form a new party that finally puts to bed a lot of the growingly archaic (and dangerous) social agenda of the far right.
The administration didn't try to kneecap Rush Limbaugh. They tried to hold him up on a pedestal as a spokesman for the Republican party. Admittedly, it wasn't exactly done in the interest of bipartisan good feelings...
Yup. If you plot all results as 'per the chior' or 'per the opposition' I think you can definately make a case that the dynamics of how people respond to 'do you approve of officeholder 'x'?' is chaning over time.
Perhaps it's we and not washington that's getting more partisan.
Might it be correct to say that partisan identification isn't a predictor of support for obama, rather, support for obama (or what obama abstractly represents) is at this point a predictor of partisan identification?
By the way, Nate, your electoral history charts have been down for months, and now the comment thread there is going bonkers. I would love to see those back up, and updated with numbers for 2008.
Democratic and Republican registration as a percentage of total vote has been declining steadily while the "independent" vote has been growing. The major parties are experiencing a hardening of support irrespective of who is in the White House. Would be nice to see percentages for Dem/Rep/Ind for each of the surveys as well.
I find mcc's comment interesting. Is he saying that identifying oneself as an Obama supporter is some kind of "third way" that is separate from how one identifies oneself as belonging to a particular party? Where have the Republicans gone who have left their party; have they signed up as Dems, or are they now Independents by default, waiting in political limbo for a new party? Or, do they support the Democrat, Obama, but not the Democrats, in general, so they don't join the Dems?
> The administration didn't try to kneecap Rush Limbaugh.
Sure they did. My guess is because he's exactly the sort to poison any attempt at working together. Idealogues are like that. So separate him from the Republicans that, while not agreeing with everything the Whitehouse has to say, won't resort claiming up is down and general divisivness that is Rush's trade.
I echo Chachy, the point of calling out Rush was to hold this clown up as the symbol of Republicanism; and do exactly what this chart shows: Drive everybody out of the Republican party that has any ounce of moderation or rationality, leaving the hard iron core of Dittoheads. It worked beautifully!
The few Republicans I knew before the Sarah Palin debacle now identify themselves as "fiscal conservatives", "independents", "libertarians" or "moderates." And I am in red Texas! (alright, I do work in a university...)
Anyway, no surprises in these results, and no knee-capping of Rush. I think the Obama administration purposely elevated Rush Limbaugh, and the sociopathic windbag loved it, in order to kneecap Senate Republicans, and the plan worked admirably.
A classic checkmate: A Congressman or Senator or GOP official tries to marginalize Rush, and their Dittohead constituents are urged to outrage by Rush, and the poor bastard must grovel for Rush's reluctant forgiveness, boosting Rush's fortunes, cementing Rush's iconic standing as idiot Republican, and demeaning the Republican that dared deny it. It was hilarious.
@MCC:
I for one was a Democrat when I voted for Carter and in every election since. I have one toe off the Democratic reservation in local elections; I almost always vote for any libertarian judges that are running (if they haven't scandalized themselves); they run frequently in Texas. Otherwise, I vote a straight Democratic ticket in both state and national elections.
I found the correlation between independent support and overall support far more interesting.
The only repubs left are psychos or southerners, this accounts for the low approval as they have to be ture believers to still be on the sinking ship that is the republican party.
On this whole Rush thing.... I'm not going to argue the semantics of it, but it seems (to me) to be a win-win for Obama.
In that, you force the hand of moderate GOP-folk while challenging the Republican Party to find their "have you no sense of decency" moment. Meanwhile, the counter-charge by Repubs that Obama is throwing Rush up as some kind of strawman ring hollow because:
A. Everytime they grovel they make Obama's argument.
B. The fear of upsetting Rush is leaving a massive vaccuum in the middle of the party, so, who else SHOULD Obama go after? Since the current Repub agenda seems to be not-upsetting-Rush rather than offering anything coherent or forward thinking.
/shrug
You know, it would be alot harder to kneecap Limbaugh if it weren't for the fact that the knees of the morbidly obese are so weak and the brains of the pill addicted are so addled.
Let's not bullshit ourselves. Politics is a bloodsport. If you're whining because you got a boo-boo, don't wander onto the playing field without a helmet next time.
Anyway, no surprises in these results, and no knee-capping of Rush. I think the Obama administration purposely elevated Rush Limbaugh, and the sociopathic windbag loved it, in order to kneecap Senate Republicans, and the plan worked admirably.
A classic checkmate: A Congressman or Senator or GOP official tries to marginalize Rush, and their Dittohead constituents are urged to outrage by Rush, and the poor bastard must grovel for Rush's reluctant forgiveness, boosting Rush's fortunes, cementing Rush's iconic standing as idiot Republican, and demeaning the Republican that dared deny it. It was hilarious.
That's the other way to win. Some Senator or House Rep throws themselves in the way and takes it in the knees instead.
Checkmate indeed.
Nate,
According to the data that I have seen (Pew,1992), Party ID is quite stable. This study showed that 70% of respondents maintained the same party ID as their parents did.
...or leaned in the same direction as their parents (pardon the syntactical error earlier).
Also, Not Pew, but NES.
What I find interesting is that approximately 30% of the population still thinks Bush did a good job as president, about the same number as those that think Obama is the Anti-Christ.
Is it possible at this point that someone could approve simultaneously of both Bush and Obama?
Honestly, I couldn't care less what Bush supporters think of our current president.
If Obama's unfavorable numbers start to outpace Bush's favorables, that would be saying something.
The White House's aspirations (or pretense) of running a bipartisan administration died a quick and ugly death with two events...
Well, yes and no. The type of "post-partisanship" Obama actually promised during the campaign wasn't what the Beltway press calls "bipartisanship," though they aggressively tried to manufacture the myth that it was. If you listen to what Obama actually said (and I did, because I was worried at first that he was actually promising standard mushy-middle "bipartisanship"), it was that he was open to good ideas from anywhere on the political spectrum, and that people of all political stripes were welcome to join in doing the right things for the country.
These messages were mainly aimed at rank-and-file Republicans, not the GOP leadership, and the shifts in partisan identification suggest that they may have worked (though there are any number of other possible causes.) To hold onto their remaining base as it becomes more rigidly conservative, Republican politicians cling ever tighter to ideas that have proven disastrously bad over the past eight years (or more.) Obama wisely did not promise to compromise with those ideas, but to change the partisan tone, and regardless of the talk about Rush Limbaugh, polls indicate most people believe he has done it, at least from the Democratic side.
And whenever (or if) the GOP leadership wises up (or new leadership arises) and understands that they have to risk disappointing some of their base to expand beyond it, they'll be welcome to join in contributing good ideas and taking the country in the right direction.
Broberts hit the nail on the head
"I found the correlation between independent support and overall support far more interesting."
The only outlier is Bush I weird
Total 56
Indep 48
All the others are within two points of each other most likely within margin of error
"You know, it would be alot harder to kneecap Limbaugh if it weren't for the fact that the knees of the morbidly obese are so weak and the brains of the pill addicted are so addled."
Oh, Statler... be still my heart.
It's getting humorous how this site keeps posting topics like this. How about something dealing with, oh I don't know...
-North Korea testing long range missiles
-The G-20 Summit
-Iran's increasing nuclear threat to Isreal
-The U.S. facing runaway hyperinflation
-Unemployment hitting 30 year highs
-The irresponsbile tripling of the defecit
-Out of control spending
Instead we're discussing legalizing gay marriage/pot,NY 20, Dodd and Feinstein, the electoral college, and the death tax. Just because Obama's the president doesn't mean we don't face some real problems in this country.
Limbaugh continues to be the #1 talked about topic on this website. Interesting.
Is this a reflection of the left in general or just this site?
Well if it's runaway hyperinflation, I suppose we'd better worry about it. I could probably deal with regular run-of-the-mill hyperinflation. I just hope we don't run into super-duper extreme runaway hyperinflation. That would be bad.
Thanks for your analysis Zack.
GROG, I think your are confusing with The Economist. ;) It's purpose and goal is different.
Not that isn't to say that it wouldn't be great to have more world politics rolled in. Ultimately though the posts here are largely going to come back to "what is going to get passed", "who is going to get elected", and "how is 'trying to get reelected' going to affect these politicians stances in regards to the first".
Nates posts especially are going to deal with polling data or other statistical data he can bring in.
That's just the bent of the site.
Now as soon as we see some polling numbers about what people thought of the G-20 we are good to go. Or maybe some world polling numbers for Obama. That'd be pretty cool. To analyze the substance of this theme of claims about Obama being popular. Compare to past numbers. Things like that. That'd be great to see.
P.S. When those topics come up, as they actually have in the past, it is unlikely to be framed using the loaded and somewhat misleading language you used in your post. ;)
> Limbaugh continues to be the #1 talked about topic on this website.
*shrug* What can you say, he make a great arguement for not voting for the Republican that embraces him. Plus he won't keep his trap shut. ;)
> Thanks for your analysis Zack.
It was what your post was worthy. :) I say that as someone that is truly concerned about the amount of inflation that will result from this whole situation.
@Dwight:
I understand your point about the purpose and goals of this site.
But I do think the things I listed have a place in topics regarding polling.
For example: "What impact could double digit inflation have on Obama's re-election?"
So you think "out of control" and "irresponsible" are misleading and loaded? :)
I just find it amusing that hyperinflation is no longer fear-mongering enough. Now it's got to be runaway hyperinflation.
It's especially silly, given that deflation seems to be the bigger concern right now. (WSJ - http://tinyurl.com/ctehw9) In fact, February's CPI indicated that inflation was at a very low 0.4% (http://tinyurl.com/c63gwc)
And even if we were worried about inflation (which is not something to take lightly), anybody who is seriously talking about the U.S. dollar hyperinflating isn't interested in serious analysis. The US hasn't experience hyperinflation since the Confederate dollar inflated by 9,000% during the Civil War.
2008 Debates - Democrats and Independents agreed with Obama and Biden, that's why McCrypt Keeper and Mooseburger got their asses handed to them. Approaching 100 days in office, preusumably still in the honeymoon period, and Democrats and Independents are solidly behind the President. This isn't rocket science, folks. Throw red meat to the base and implement common sense policies, and the 2010 midterms will be a blowout.
@Zack,
It will be well into Obama's term before super duper, hyperinflation will begin to take root. It has to. When you add the amount of money to the money supply that we will and have by simply printing it, there has to be inflation.
And just because Feb inflation was only at .4%, doesn't mean it's not coming. (It's amusing how we haven't given Obama enough time to turn the economy around, yet you're quoting inflation numbers for February. His spending hasn't even started yet.)
It's getting humorous how this site keeps posting topics like this. How about something dealing with, oh I don't know...
You are aware that there's more than one blog in the world, right, GROG? And that they focus on different areas, and all of them don't have to cover every topic?
Maybe you're new to this whole blogging thing, but whining about "why aren't you talking about the things I think are important?" was considered obnoxious at least as far back as 2006. If you don't like it, Get Your Own Blog. It's free.
Grog,
Here's an easy answer: in the case that the US is experiencing "runaway hyper-inflation" the economy would be "tanking" and that would more likely than not mean that that voters would find Obama's attempts to solve the economic crisis inadequate.
Let us instead pose a question that might be just as much fun to look at: what sort of coat tails with Obama have if his plans for the economy successfully (or inadvertently some might say) right it? Would we see more of what happened in Georgia and North Carolina where the large turn out numbers boosted local races? How will that affect Republicans in threatened districts? Will they be forced to side with Obama in 3 years time as election seasons starts off?
Okay, grog, how about a deal? Can we wait until there's the slightest shred of evidence that "hyperinflation" is happening before we begin to discuss how it might affect electoral prospects three or four years from now? Because, no offense, your absolute certainty that it's going to happen isn't by itself really enough meat for a blog post.
Especially if FOX, Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, Bachmann and the rest of the right-wing crazies keep the hatred and fearmongering up. The spike in gun violence across America this past week is a result of their unhinged behaviour. Conservatives have blood on their hands.
@Redshift:
Thanks for proving my point.
I hope from a political standpoint that liberals keep their heads in the sand about the potential consequences of Obama's policies.
@PorridgeGun,
Thanks for not disappointing.
Blame Fox News for the recent gun violence. Great analysis.
The shooter in Binghamton shot the place up because he couldn't speak English. Unless Fox is broadcast in Vietnamese in Binghamton, I don't think he was watching.
@GROG
Proving what point? That you think a lack of evidence is of no consequence when discussing future events?
I hope from a political standpoint that conservatives put as much energy into raising the alarm about hyperinflation as they have about the Fairness Doctrine, Obama's secret plan to take away your guns, and his birth certificate. It sure is easier to accomplish our political goals when you guys are busy opposing things that no one is doing.
The shooter in Binghamton shot the place up because he couldn't speak English.
And the shooter in Pittsburgh? I read that he flipped out because he was afraid that Obama was about to take his guns away. Where could he have possibly gotten affirmation for that idea?
I hope from a political standpoint that conservatives put as much energy into raising the alarm about hyperinflation as they have about the Fairness Doctrine, Obama's secret plan to take away your guns, and his birth certificate. It sure is easier to accomplish our political goals when you guys are busy opposing things that no one is doing.
Spoken like a true imbecile, completely devoid of the most basic understanding of economic principles.
And while we're at it, birth certificate dispute aside (which seems to be nothing more than a few crazies crying "Wolf!"), measures such as the Fairness Doctrine and subtle but uber-strict controls on gun rights are real and provide the perfect bridge to a slippery slope that can easily turn into totalitarianism.
Redshift, however, chooses to live a life of blissful ignorance and willful stupidity, so turning a blind eye to what could easily serve as the initial steps of an economic tragedy such as runaway hyperinflation, the unfathomable affront to our first amendment rights with thought control through media regulation in the Fairness Doctrine, and the blasphemous attack on our most basic right to defend ourselves or stand up to a corrupt government by clamping down on gun access should come as no surprise.
Redshift, you sir are nothing short of treasonous.
Hey, Redshift. Don't forget the crusade by Rep. Michelle Bachmann and her Republican colleagues to pass a Constitutional amendment banning the President from dropping the dollar in favor of a world currency. The fact that nobody in a position of power has ever advocated anything like that hasn't slowed them down one bit. (It was driven by Bachman's inability to understand a basic statement made by the Chinese.)
Tilting at windmills. The right is now run by a bunch of Don Quixotes.
"you sir are nothing short of treasonous."
why you keep saying that word? I do not think it means what you think it means.
@Redshift:
"Proving what point?"
The point that liberals refuse to talk about any consequences of Obama's spending spree, big government bailouts, tripling of the money supply, huge defecits...the list goes on.
Continue talking about legalizing pot and Rush. That's fine.
Interesting. Now it is treasonous to not contemplate an armed insurrection?
Sometimes I think the crazies in this country are a bit more disturbing than the despicable terrorists from beyond. Both are crazy, both are absolute zealots, and both seem to relish death and destruction. But unlike the foreign extremists, the right-wing, gun toting, conspiracy theorists live among us.
GROG may have a point here. Notwithstanding 538's nominal purpose and subject matter, my impression is that the futher the discussion on a 538 thread drifts from the more technical polling matters, and the more it edges toward visceral hyperpartisan blog warfare, the more the number of comments go up, and the more entertaining the site gets.
Not that idle entertainment is necessarily a more worthwhile utilization of 538 than esoteric technical analysis, just more fun, especially in the midst of a depression masquerading as a recession.
Grog,
You and your conservative brethren sure do love to talk about the hypothetical and to predict the end of the world.
Are any of you going to fess up to the fact that our current massive deficit is due almost entirely to republican tax cut policies (all of which were supposed to magically pay for themselves). Are you going to acknowledge that the current economic crisis is the product of lax regulation and oversight during the last republican administration?
Do you actually believe the nonsensical proposition that we should let the banks fail (and don't think it would just be the sick ones), and cut back on government spending during the most major recession in the last 80 years?
As for hyper-inflation? It is not going to happen. Regardless of your hyper-inflated fear mongering.
Smoking Aces,
Sounds like you think the second amendment guarantees the right to take up arms against the government of the United States.
Bizarre indeed.
What about the all-important Know-Nothing vote?
Smaoking Aces-
If the second amendment is read broadly and allows any shithead not part of the national guard to take up arms, then most certainly the equal protection clause allows gay marriage, and the privacy clause allows abortion.
Yes, that is a good way to read the Constitution. Since you read the 2nd amendment broadly you will clearly do so for the rest of the document, right?
Smoking Aces-
Here is the second amendment - where does it say any fucked up asshole who is insane can own guns? Are you part of a militia?
"Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "
New York Times/CBS News poll: New Optimism on Economy Since Inauguration, Republican Party drops to lowest favorability in 25 years
Americans have grown more optimistic about the economy and the direction of the country in the 11 weeks since President Obama was inaugurated, suggesting that Mr. Obama is enjoying some success in his critical task of rebuilding the nation’s confidence, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
These sometimes turbulent weeks — marked by new initiatives by Mr. Obama, attacks by Republicans and more than a few missteps by the White House — do not appear to have hurt the president. Americans said they approve of Mr. Obama’s handling of the economy, foreign policy, Iraq and Afghanistan; fully two-thirds said they approve of his overall job performance.
By contrast, Republican fortunes have dropped in the first weeks of the Obama presidency; just 31 percent of respondents said they had a favorable view of the Republican Party, the lowest in the 25 years the question has been asked in New York Times/CBS News polls.
It is not unusual for new presidents to enjoy a period of public support. Still, the durability of Mr. Obama’s support contrasts with that of some other new presidents, and is striking at a time when anxiety has gripped households across the country and Mr. Obama has alternately sought to rally Americans’ spirits and warn against economic collapse as he seeks Congressional support for his programs.
The number of people who think the country is heading in the right direction has jumped from 15 percent in mid-January, just before Mr. Obama took office, to 39 percent today, while the number who think it is heading in the wrong direction has dropped from 79 to 53 percent. That is the highest percentage of Americans who said the country is heading in the right direction since February of 2005, the second month of the second term of former President George W. Bush.
The percentage of people who think the economy is getting worse has declined from 54 percent just before Mr. Obama took office to 34 percent today. At the same time, 20 percent now think the economy is getting better, compared with 7 percent in mid-January.
“It’s psychology more than anything else,” Arthur Gilman, a Republican from Ridgewood, N.J., said in a follow-up interview after participating in the Times/CBS News Poll. “President Obama has turned around the negative feeling in this country. He’s given everything an impetus because he’s very upbeat, like Roosevelt was. It’s too soon to tell if the spending stuff works but some things have improved.”
Frank Henwood, an independent from Amarillo, Texas, said: “Hopefully, the stock market has bottomed out and is on the rise. Once the stock market shapes up, I think the economy will come back and then jobs will come back and people will start buying automobiles made in America.”
With the poll finding that an overwhelming number think the recession will last a year or more, Mr. Obama may find he has an unusually deep well of patience to draw on. The poll found that Mr. Obama shoulders virtually none of the public blame for the economic crisis: 33 percent blame Mr. Bush, 21 percent blame financial institutions, and 11 percent blame Congress.
By a margin of 63 to 20, voters said they trusted Mr. Obama more than they trust Congressional Republicans to make the right decision about the nation’s economy. And by a margin 61 to 27, they said they trusted Mr. Obama to keep the nation safe, typically a Republican strong-suit, the poll found. Nearly one-quarter of Republicans said that they trusted Mr. Obama more than Congressional Republicans to make the right decisions about the economy.
“As far as acting like adults and getting things done, the Democratic Party has done better,” said Rachel Beeson, an independent voter from Hawaii. “The Republican Party seems to have decided that they are going to turn down anything that comes out of the White House and nothing will get done that way. “
The poll suggested evidence of continued political division: 57 percent of people who said they voted for John McCain last November said they disapproved of Mr. Obama’s performance. While Mr. Obama’s budget proposal enjoys the support of 56 percent of Americans overall, sentiments splinter along party lines: 79 percent of Democrats said Mr. Obama’s budget had the right priorities, compared with 27 percent of Republicans.
The survey was conducted Wednesday through Sunday, while Mr. Obama was traveling through Europe to attend the Group of 20 summit of the world’s largest economies. Two-thirds of respondents said that leaders of other countries around the world have respect for Mr. Obama; when a similar question was asked in July 2006, 30 percent of respondents said foreign leaders had respect for Mr. Bush.
At a time where there is evidence of a surge of populism among many Americans in response to abuses on Wall Street, respondents by more than a two-to-one margin said that Democrats care more about the needs of people like themselves than Republicans do. Seventy-one percent of Americans said Mr. Obama cared more about the interests of ordinary people than about large corporations.
Mr. Obama’s push to increase income taxes on people making over $250,000 a year is supported by 74 percent of respondents. When presented with the possibility that taxing those in the higher income bracket might hurt the economy, 39 percent of those polled still support the plan.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/us/politics/07poll.html?_r=1&hp
If we're so worried about hyperinflation, let's take a look at the aftermath of the most explosive growth in government spending in US history--the 200% GNP experienced in 1945 during WWII.
When the post-spending inflation hit, in the late '40s, it never got to 20% annually, and it was quickly brought under control. (My parents built a house in 1950 with a 3% mortgage).
So it's hard to see that the screaming about uncontrolled inflation (see GROG above) is any more than another whining point the GOP is using to try and undermine the president.
Saint Dude:
"Are any of you going to fess up to the fact that our current massive deficit is due almost entirely to republican tax cut policies (all of which were supposed to magically pay for themselves). Are you going to acknowledge that the current economic crisis is the product of lax regulation and oversight during the last republican administration?"
Are you going to acknowledge that the current economic crisis is the product of lax lending brought on by the crooks, Barney Franks and Chris Dodd, at Fannie and Freddie?
I'll fess up to this:
- Bush expanded the federal budget by $700 billion through 2008. President Obama will add another $1trillion.
-Bush began a string of expensive financial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
-President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. President Obama would double it.
-President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already increased this spending by 20 percent.
-Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Obama is responsbile for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.
Obama is just following in Bush's footsteps, only worse, but no one wants to talk about it.
Barney Frank...sorry.
Speaking of bullshit gun nuts,it turns out that Richard Poplawski,the killer of the three cops on Pittsburgh,is a racist/anti-semite who posted hate -filled diatribes on racist websites:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09096/960938-100.stm
I suspect it's largely driven by the increasing association between a president and his party. The more closely they're identified, the more a party affiliation poll becomes tantamount to an approval poll.
PorridgeGun:
Mr. Obama’s push to increase income taxes on people making over $250,000 a year is supported by 74 percent of respondents. When presented with the possibility that taxing those in the higher income bracket might hurt the economy, 39 percent of those polled still support the plan.
Of course. You don't need a poll for that. It's called class warfare. Nobody likes anyone who has more money than they do.
Except that if you read the actual poll instead of the summary, you will see that the actual number of respondents supporting higher taxes on the wealthy even if it could potentially damage the economy is 51% (a slim majority).
As for the poll being self evident, I am not so sure. After all republicans have had a lot of success over the years convincing people to bestow tax cuts on the wealthy. Now a majority is starting to rethink this proposition and turn it on its head.
Oh, and no, I don't put a lot of credence in the boon doggle that Fannie and Freddie are the ones responsible for "loose lending standards".
This is not a matter of "fessing up". I have no particular interest in the aforementioned institutions. But they are not the ones that lowered the lending standards, invented a whole host of new and exotic mortgages, allowed for >100% financing, made allowances for brokers to secure loans based on fraudulent information, or came up with schemes to securitize said loans to sell them off to unsuspecting third parties. Nor where they responsible for regulating this whole process.
I would totally get a statistics boner from comparing the ditribution of people on the political compass (fiscal vs. social stance) with their respective Obama approval ratings, but that would require an entirely different kind of poll.
@Grog - the statistical techniques used by Nate can be found in an undergrad statistics textbook, and all of the charts/analyses can be easily implemented in R, a free program. Do the research and start your own blog - if your analysis is rigorous and interesting, discussing inflation and the G20, I guarantee you I will read it, and so will a lot of readers here.
But you're not interested in stimulating a discussion, or to enhance communication between "your side" and "their side," or to further the understanding of statistical trends underlying socio-political dynamics. Your interest is solely antagonistic (this is true of a lot of the people you're talking with as well) which is implicit in the language you are using.
If you want a genuine discussion on these policies, start one. Armed with facts and sound logic instead of hyperbole and rhetoric. Don't throw out misleading and loaded terms like "out of control" and "irresponsible," unless they are preceded by, embedded within, or preface a serious discussion.
Saint Dude:
Where were all the Democrats standing up to the irresponsible lending practices? Aren't they supposed to stand up for the people?
Very few people understood the magnitude of the problem, least of all those in the Bush white house.
But of course, like everything else Bush, it must have been someone else's fault, preferably hated democratic politicians or institutions. Sad.
"Obama is just following in Bush's footsteps"
Well, he's not threatening to start any wars on flimsy pretenses, and he's not setting up secret prisons, and he's not trying to do an end-run around basic human rights by detaining people indefinitely and splitting hairs about the definition of torture, and all of that is change I can damn well believe in.
Regarding the 'knee-capping' of Lush Rimbaugh, I don't think it was White House intention to take Lush down, but to drive a wedge between him and his supporters from the rest of the RepubliCANT Party.
What I think the White House didn't expect was the falling on their swords of the (especially the Congressional) leadership of the RepubliCANT Party.
Lush has a very vocal, but (relatively) small backing. If the ratings are to be believed, there may be 5-7 million listeners per week, and presuming each of those listeners is counted only one time/week (doubtful), and presuming that only true Lush backers are the only listeners (also doubtful, as many listen for the 'entertainment value'), and presuming that for each listener there is also a Lush backer who is not a regular listener, we get a total of 10-15 million people who might be called his 'backers' (or 'his posse').
Impressive?
Yes, and no.
10 - 15 million IS a large number.
15 million is 5% of the total American population.
The White House did a very good job of holding Lush up to the spotlight, and allowing Lush himself to show how much of a bizarro world he occupies. Of course his 5 to 15 fellow bizarro world co-inhabitors like the spotlight. At the same time, the 285 to 295 million people who do NOT back Lush got a good glimpse of that bizarro world, and are not liking it to completely rejecting it.
I think what the White House didn't expect was the way the RepubliCANT leadership fell on their swords to back Lush. The RepubliCANT leadership didn't separate themselves from Lush's bizarro world. The general population is now beginning to perceive that the RepubliCANT leadership is part of Lush's bizarro world, they don't like it, and are now questioning whether they can support someone who is a supporter of Lush's bizarro world.
Although subtle, and now long term, I think the 'knee-capping' strategy is paying off far greater benefits than the White House originally foresaw. And maybe the above helps explain some of the low RepubliCANT identification numbers.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Mike in Maryland: Blah blah blah "Lush" blah blah blah "RepubliCANT" blah blah blah other stuff I didn't read because when you peg your level of discourse at grade-school namecalling the odds that the rest of your post will contain anything worthwhile are extremely small.
Raise your game, man.
It will be well into Obama's term before super duper, hyperinflation will begin to take root. It has to. When you add the amount of money to the money supply that we will and have by simply printing it, there has to be inflation.
No GROG, it doesn't have to be super duper, hyperinflation. At least at this point the decisions haven't been made yet to set that in stone. Though they have stated they are going to be printing a Trillion $, that's going to roll out over time. The really low interest rates as well would contribute. But it isn't there yet. Right now there is so much deflationary pressure that this is being countered.
So yes, there will be some inflation. That was always in the cards. Always. The decisions that are going to set how high it is haven't been made yet. The decision of when the government is going to yank back on the reigns.
P.S. As has been pointed out, if it really does go to "hyperinflation" (and what that term actually means is pretty subjective) then it's going to seriously hurt Obama's chances. Of course he needs a viable opponent. Four years is a pretty short time for the non-hardcore to forget Bush. So it'll have to be someone that really is different in a clear and demonstrable way. Right now the Republican message coming out is quite clearly as "what we were doing before". If the economy is still in the crapper and inflation hasn't turned and headed down already and the R candidate can't get the separation from Bush policies I'm going to guess that it is a toss-up. *shrug*
Excellent points, Mike in Maryland. Whether it's the primary threat, or simply the high visibility of Limbaugh, I think Republicans are overestimating how much their Base can do for them.
Then again, what else do they have? Without the Base, they are left to woo moderates who have already abandoned them.
@Dwight:
In the last xix months, according to the Federal Reserve Board, the money supply in the United States has increased by 271 percent. It has almost tripled.
Have car sales tripled? Home purchases? Consumer spending? Corporate investment?
Not only have they not tripled, they have all declined more sharply than they have since at least the recession of 1981-82, and perhaps since the Great Depression.
So where is the money? If it isn't being spent, where is it?
It is being parked away. Consumers are using it to pay down their credit card balances, pay off their mortgages, reduce their student loans, make the payments on the car sitting in their driveway — not the one in the dealer's lot. Businesspeople are buying T-bills, investing the money and saving it. They aren’t spending, either.
But one day this recession — despite President Obama's best efforts — will end and things will begin to look up again. Then we can expect all of this money to come out of its parking space and get back on the highway of commerce.
All at once. The inevitable result will be double-digit hyperinflation.
I hope I'm wrong, but it's coming.
But one day this recession — despite President Obama's best efforts — will end and things will begin to look up again. Then we can expect all of this money to come out of its parking space and get back on the highway of commerce.
All at once. The inevitable result will be double-digit hyperinflation.
I hope I'm wrong, but it's coming.
Certainly a good point but let us not forget the smoking crater that is the stock and housing market. :) Yeah, we are in for a rough ride for a while trying to reduce the oscillations.
Where is that parked money looking to go? It would be great if it went into goods and services, even if that drove prices up some. Because that means where it is not going, not that inflation is good but everything is fucked up right now and the kinks have to be worked out. My biggest worry is not consumer inflation. My biggest worry is "investment inflation", AKA another speculation bubble that'll continue the cycle we've been in.
I think it is fascinating that the two presidents who have the highest approval from the opposing party are Nixon and Carter. What does that say about the judgment of Americans a few weeks into a presidency?
Post a Comment