Flipside Of Those Polls: GOP Taking It On The Chin On Health Care, Too
I noted below that the new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll suggests that Obama’s “brand” has taken a real hit, as voters start to take a dour view of his handling of health care reform.
But the flipside of the story, which isn’t getting any real attention today, is that today’s polls also paint a dire picture for Republicans, and suggest they’re really taking it on the chin for blocking health care reform. The internals of today’s New York Times poll say this:
* Only 28% view the GOP favorably, the lowest since at least 2005.
* A huge majority wants major changes to the health care system, and a plurality says Obama is reforming health care at “the right pace.” The public wants change now, meaning voters will probably extract a major price if it doesn’t get done.
* Voters blame Republicans, and not Obama, for obstructionism: Fifty nine percent say Obama is working with the GOP on health care reform, versus only 33% who say Republicans are working with the president.
* Fifty five percent says Obama has the right ideas for health care reform, versus only 26% — barely more than one-fourth — who say the GOP does.
I don’t want to minimize the fact that today’s polls show a real slide for Obama. But there’s another side to the story. Over the next month, both sides will be working hard to lay the groundwork to blame the other side for failure and delay. And despite Obama’s drop, voters seem prepared to blame the GOP for the current impasse, setting them up for another hard hit if Obama racks up victories.
Just sayin’.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
“Both sides will be working hard to lay the groundwork to blame the other side for failure.”
What a pity. Why not just pass bipartisan healthcare reform?
“bipartisan healthcare reform ?”
What would that be ? cut taxes ?
Not to worry, Greg. You are asking our MSM friends to deal with two sets of polling data at the same time. They are programmed to deal with one issue at a time with a Republican and Democratic talking head. And suggesting that Republicans are having a hard time, too, spoils their narrative, which currently is that the Dems are in trouble.
i think the nation is waking up to the fact that both parties just stink to high heaven.
bipartisan… sure – how about stopping employer bought health-care – give me the money my employer spends on healthcare and require me to purchase a policy, if you then work for a small business that does not provide it, you get a tax credit to purchase it – yadda yadda… down the line. if you are not working, then make a program available for the unemployed etc.
i bet if we had these health insurance companies truly competing out there… some prices would go down. i get a choice of aetna, aetna or aetna – at various tiers.
it’s not rocket science – but our government would like you to think so.
the problem is – as soon as one side comes up with something, the other side hates it – and on and on.
what dopes.
lol at sbj…what is bipartisan health reform? the moderate republicans think that all that is needed is a tax credit to help families afford healthcare, and the moderate democrats think that a public government insurance plan is needed, while the far right thinks we have the best healthcare system in the world and the far left thinks that we need a national health service like Britain’s. There is no common ground here. I hate the fact that the Republican party has shaken out to be all far-right (plus a couple of RINO’s) all the time, but thems the cards we’ve been dealt. If you want bipartisan health reform, convince some blue dogs that support a weak public option to switch parties, then you’ll get your wish. Until then, stop your b*tchin!
@williamC: Wow – you sure do oversimplify! I thought all the cynics were in the Repub party?
“What is bipartisan health reform?”
I’m not sure but I’ll know it when I see it.
I think bipartisan reform is not only possible but is required when you’re talking about such a large chunk of the economy and such powerful interests and an area where most people are currently happy with what they are getting. I think bipartisan reform is possible and Dole and Daschle do, too:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/17/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5094031.shtml
Nothing is impossible.
sbj, what kind of response is that…you oversimplify?!? That is not an answer, that’s a cop-out; it might be simple, but it’s the truth.
Thank God Dole and Daschle are still in teh Senate and can shepard through their ‘bipartisan’ healthcare reform…oh wait…
This is always my problem engaging with you; obvious answers are dismissed in favor of weak-tea “theories”, and then a link to a news story. There doesn’t need to be bipartisan anything anymore. There are enough D votes to do what they want to do, and anything else is just posturing.
@william: what the … ?
You asked what is bipartisan healthcare reform and I provided a link to bipartisan healthcare reform plan! What more do you want?
It’s true, however, that there doesn’t need to be bipartisan anything anymore. Perhaps the Dems will stop blaming their own failures on the Repubs now?
greg – yeah, that’s a necessary reminder on how poorly Republicans poll presently and on how their obstructionist strategy is being perceived. I think in the short run they (and supporters) might be able to hold back progressive advances in medical delivery and card check etc using their deep pockets and expertise. Over the longer run, things look to become more difficult for them, if present trends continue. The most likely consequence, I think, is that corporate money and influence will simply shift over towards the Dem party (evident even before the election) and do what they find necessary to get desired policies that way. In this sense, Republican standing in elections becomes somewhat moot (aside from “cultural” issues, of course).
I should add that it is this tendency for wealth and power to game the system which makes the principled stand of people like Krugman, Maddow, Greenwald and many others so important.
@Greg:
You should know better than to post this. It goes against the established Traditional Media meme about how hooooorrrrriiiibbbbblllleeeeeeee Obama’s numbers are looking. Don’t rock the boat man!
@sbj:
This IS a bipartisan healthcare reform bill. Over 100 Republican amendments have been accepted/attached, and polling shows that nearly half of Republicans (not in Washington) want a public option as well.
A bipartisian BILL doesn’t automatically mean a bipartisian VOTE. Republicans in Washington have no political incentive to work in good faith, so they aren’t – certainly not the ones doing the negotiating.
We can agree on one thing though…if this fails, it’s on the Dems – more specifically the Blue Dogs. And they sure as heck will feel the backlash come election day if that’s what happens.
But things would be so much easier if Dems didn’t have to spend so much time and money on fixing all the stuff that Republicans have screwed up…as in, everything.
@BBQ:
“Rep. Barron Hill (D-Ind.) admitted that healthcare efforts so far have focused entirely on rounding up the Democratic caucus. “We’ve not had any discussions or negotiations with Republicans,” Hill said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “We invite Republicans to be a part of the solution to our healthcare problems that we have, but we’ve not had any negotiations with them.”
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/07/30/rep-hill-dems-arent-working-with-republicans/
You have to understand that unless Pelosi makes some guarantees every single one of those amendments is in danger when it comes to reconciliation. That’s the point that Both Enzi and Hatch have been stressing.
The numbers you cite show the flaw of asking about Obama’s “handling” of healthcare. 55% approve of his ideas on healthcare. Handling, by contrast, can capture a lot of things – like frustrations with the pace of things or the horse-trading in Congress. “Ideas” is a better measure of trust in the proposal itself.
@ sbj, just give it up. You have no credibility.
“the far left thinks that we need a national health service like Britain’s”
Actually, I don’t think I’ve heard anyone, no matter how far left, advocate a British-style national health system in which the government runs the hospitals and doctors are civil servants. What a lot of people on the left are advocating is single-payer which is very different. Under this the health providers remain private; it is only the insurance companies that are nationalized.
The distinction is imporatant to make. Britain can fairly be said to have “socialized medicine.” Single payer systems like Canada have private medicine with socialized medical insurance. an example of the former in the US is the VA system, an example of the latter is Medicare.
Thanks for this post Greg. I am so sick of the M$M picking a spin point and running with it.
@sbj: Just like every Progressive program within the bill is at risk in committee. That’s not a valid argument. Because of the difficulty with inserting new language into the bill during committee, having it in there now is still a good enough reason to consider this a bipartisan bill.
And no one, NO ONE, is suggesting a Britain style health care system. Even those of us who want Single Payer don’t want a Britain style system. To generalize like that makes me think you either are purposely trying to muddy the waters, or you’re uniformed.
Neither option makes your arguments more convincing.
@BBQ: I think you are confusing me with Virginia. I know nothing about the British system.
Pelosi can protect certain amendments so that they are “safe” in reconciliation. The Repubs are smart enough to realize that the Dem plan right now is to pass anything at all out of committee. Get anything at all approved in the House and Senate. Completely rewrite it in reconciliation, and then bribe the hell out of any who waver with billions of giveaways. Ezra already laid it out … The Repubs have no power and anyone who thinks these are bipartisan bills is just fooling him/herself. C’mon now!