Has Obama’s “Brand” Taken A Hit?
It’s often said that despite slippage in the popularity of President Obama’s policies, his “brand” is still running strong. But the internals of the new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll suggest that the health care wars may have delivered a bit of a hit to the “brand.”
The internals show slippage in qualities often associated with Obama’s political persona:
* Forty-nine percent rate Obama positively on whether he’s “willing to work with people whose viewpoints are different from his own,” down from 62% in April — a drop of 13 points.
* Forty-eight percent rate Obama positively on whether he “can be trusted to keep his word,” down from 58% in April — a drop of 10 points.
* Fifty-eight percent rate Obama positively on whether he’s “compassionate enough to understand average people,” down from 67% in April — a drop of nine pints, though the current number is still quite good.
* Fifty-seven percent rate Obama positively on whether he’s “being firm and decisive in his decisionmaking, down from 65% in April — a drop of eight points, though the current number is still pretty friggin’ good.
There are a bunch of caveats. Though the first two are pretty surprising, some of these numbers are still pretty damn high. Obama started off with stratospheric numbers that had to deflate. The slippage could be a referendum on Obama’s inability to break the current impasse in Congress, and could swing back once he gains a victory. And this is one poll. Polling guru types will perhaps marshall tons of evidence that I’m way off.
But it would be remiss not to take note of these numbers and ask whether they suggest that, yes, the brand has taken a bit of a hit.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Reports of demise of Obama’s brand are exaggerated (and contrived).
The brand has taken a hit amongst those who embraced Obama based purely on statements and intents that Obama never truly said or embraced. I suspect that it’s mainly the people who were all caught up in the “feeling” of having a President Obama or a “not-Hilary/not-Palin/not-McCain/not-Bush” presidency, and who did not really listen an pay attention to what the candidate Obama actually said. It just seems to me that some of Obama’s voters were merely playing at projecting what they thought Obama meant rather than what he said. Now in some cases some of these groups are right, somethings Obama said have not yet come to fruition (in some cases they probably won’t, in others they will take more time than people want).
Also, now that the heavy work is being done, many people who are new to the political process are more impatient than those who are political vets. I also wouldn’t be surprised if many of the disillioned are just right-leaning indies and moderates who are just returning to form, and extreme lefties who are gonna always be disatisfied with an Dem Prez who isn’t.
Now amongst my group (African American, Latinos, liberal leaning young people) Obama’s still riding high. So all’s Obama’s needs to do to hold his coalition together is to not disillusion all the whites who supported him before, and I think he can do that at least with the left-leaning ones, and maybe some of the left-leaning moderates.
I think of it a bit differently than lamh21. First, there seems no question that people like Krugman, Sullivan, Greenwald or Rachel Maddow are less happy now on particular issues than they had been previously (exec power, transparency, gay issues, etc). From a progressive viewpoint, each of these principled complaints have merit even if they ought to be balanced by an honest appraisal of the present tasks this president faces and by the obvious truth that one cannot please everyone.
Plus, there is the simple reality that we all knew his popularity numbers would decline after a period in office. Does anything else ever occur?
More significant however, it seems to me, is the reprise of many of the rightwing strategies used previously to damage Clinton and his administration. It’s really the same playbook (minus the sexual component) pursued by many of the very same people, institutions and interests. There is a lot of wealth and expertise within this camp and, for those involved, the perception of significant threat if Obama and a progressive realignment are successful. It seems to me not at all clear that even given this man’s obvious gifts and the unique levels of electoral power gained that such an agenda as we’ve hoped to arise from this administration can actually be achieved.
I’m curious about the prospect of a ‘rubber band’ effect when health care reform passes. Obviously a lot of political newcomers are frustrated at the seeing how the sausage is made – and I think that is mainly what is driving the numbers down.
But once it’s passed…the accomplishment should provide a boost. All the hard work may give Obama a surge in popularity for getting something done that’s been stalled for decades.
It’s Waterloo alright…but it might be for the Republicans, not Pres. Obama.
Also, how much is it a sign of our short attention society?
He’s been in office 6 months and we’re still down. Why hasn’t he made things better by now!?!?!??!
BBQ – Working against that ‘rubber band’ tendency (if healthcare passes in anything like the form most of us here hope for) will be a sustained PR/propaganda effort from the right to suggest there is/was no success at all. “He was beaten back”, “He didn’t get what he wanted” etc will be the thrust (never let the other guy look like a winner because people tend to follow a winner).
I think the gains (among swing voters) will be measureable mainly or only in the long term (years). But that’s not nothing. It is precisely what Kristol, for example, fears will be the consequence.
TonyB – Surely that’s part of the story. And that dynamic is made more pronounced by the nature of modern news coverage and commentary.
I thin a signing of the health bill would counter any spin that Obama was beaten back. He is also not playing for the monthly polls. He has an agenda which he has to push now, and the political capital has to be expended. better to use on this, actual policy, than stay popular and not achieve nothing.
I will worry about Obama tanking when there is an uptick of repubs’ favorability numbers, which right now, are in the dumps. Thsi despite the fact the right wing noise machine is turned up pretty high right now. It’s unfortunate that Rahmbo, for all the tough talking image, hasn’t been much effective with the blue dog sell-outs. Reid, as his wont, is ineffective in his role.
Not worried. When people start saying Obama is most qualified to be a homemaker, I’ll get worried. The new Palin poll done by Fox of all places has got to be depressing to the freeper crowd.
Obama is in this for the long game. His poll numbers I think are being dragged down by the economy as well as the feeling that nothing is being done in Congress. If Obama can pass something that has all of the new principles he has outlined plus some kind of a public option I will be in heaven. As someone who is considered “uninsurable” by private health care companies, health care is my number one issue.
Where is Obama losing approval the most? It seems to me it is on the progressive side of the political spectrum: no prosecution of the Bush-Admin; Single payer Health Insurance / even the Public Option seems to be negotiable; no firm stance on gay issues (DOMA, DADT). He’s positioning himself more and more as a moderate. I guess he’s losing some support from conservative moderates as well – given the onslaught of the rightwing hatefest – but I believe he’s losing it mainly from the Left
@Bernie: I think the idea of massive healthcare reform (even the watered down plans have sweeping changes – just not enough) will win the day in terms of the inevidable “beaten back” arguement.
And of course they will claim it didn’t work, just like they are doing with the Stimulus. But guess what? Come this time next year, we’ll be officially out of the recession and the economy will be seeing some growth – and all that Republican “stimulus is a failure” hype is going to bite them in the a**.
Their arguement will be “it would have gotten better on it’s own”, which could be true…but there’s no way to prove it. When the economy recovers, Dems will reap the benifits. Same for this. When health care costs don’t jump like they used to, when more people are getting better (more efficent) care, Dems will reap the benifits.
If only they realized that being good at their jobs would be a smart political move. They spend so much time hedging and compromising, trying to gain “cover” – that’s what costs them come election time.
Republicans ruined everything they touched. Their philosphy has been a massive failure in every single way. But…they at least delivered on what they wanted while they were in charge (give more money to the rich).
If Dems had any kind of b***s, we’d have a single-payer bill approved already – 60 Dem votes and politics be d***ed. In a couple years when every American had good, quality coverage…everyone would be happier. But they are too short sided to push.
Yes, his brand is taking a hit from all sides. Gay rights advocates feel betrayed. Immigration activists feel betrayed. Transparency advocates feel betrayed. And, I hate to say it, but a lot of white people are not too happy about the Gates affair. When you tell the average American that we can insure 46 million more people and it won’t cost anything – well, folks start to question your honesty.
He’ll pass healthcare reform – he HAS to pass something – but I think any positive impact will be mitigated by the lack of a public option. He has pretty good numbers right now and I would expect them to remain about where they are now, perhaps ticking back up a bit but never returning to their highest levels. Not really a hit, more like a fender-bender.
Plus, Greg – what’s with the tone? “Still pretty friggin’ good… still pretty damn high.”
@BBQ: I’m just curious, you write, “Their arguement will be “it would have gotten better on it’s own”, which could be true.”
If you really think that could be true, are you not in the least upset about all those potentially wasted billions and billions?
The media needs to move away from its terrible, and irresponsible, habit of taking ONE poll as a definitive assessment. This NBC/WSJ poll that you’ve quoted so liberally may be accepted among pundits, but its methodology is questionable. Have you read the actual polling questions? Some of them border on, or could be unequivocally deemed, push polling [see: Q12 & Q17]. Furthermore, the demographics are quite off. The poll was 30% Democrats, 22% Republican, and 41% Independents — an oversampling of Independents and an undersampling of Democrats. [According to Pollster, the numbers should be about 34% Democrats and 36% Independents.] The problem is that when there is oversampling/undersampling, pollsters should use statistical methods to “adjust” their sampling so that it more closely reflects norms. But, when they do this, it introduces error. That error is incorporated into the topline numbers (e.g., notations of +/- 3.1% margin of error), but that error is most compelling in subsets of the poll. Subsets are often presented without MOE calculations; the MOE typically applies to the topline only (i.e., approval rating). Subset calculations usually use smaller samples and are less reliable, because they have more error (5-8% or more is not uncommon if polling is not extremely meticulous). As such, one should be careful to not draw any definitive conclusions such as “Obama’s brand has taken a hit” based on nothing more than subset poll numbers from ONE poll.
@sbj:
To your first point, the President was never going to please every person that got him elected. And every sub-group within the party will continue to press him on their issue of choice. None of this is a surprise. The feeling of “betrayal” is merely a dramatizing of those hoping for more. Everyone wants it NOW – it’s in our culture. Pres. Obama is only 1/8 through his first term…by the end of it, I expect most of these groups concerns will have made great progress.
I don’t know what white people you hang out with, but the people I interact with (my workplace is fairly Republican) either don’t know or don’t care all that much about it. The first question most have is “How can you get arrested for breaking into your own house?”
As for the stimulus…I’m not quite arrogant enough to believe that I can know whether that argument would be accurate.
But…the stimulus was never about being the ONLY thing that would fix the economy – it was about getting it back to normal faster, while investing for the future for the long haul. In fact, some economists believed that our economy wouldn’t totally collapse, and would recover on it’s own…but they all agreed that it would likely take a LONG time and be a SLOW recovery.
Every state budget crisis we’re seeing would go on longer, and be worse. More jobs would be lost, and take longer to refill. Infrastructure would continue to crumble. Our country’s future would continue to be bleaker, and our society would fall further behind.
The stimulus was to combat those issues, which we KNOW will only get worse if the economy doesn’t get better. Keeping the above situation from materializing is the exact opposite of money being “wasted”, in my mind. I call that an investment in our country, and investment in me and my children, and an investment in a belief that this country can always strive to be more than it is.
You want to talk about billions and billions wasted – take a look at Medicare D, the Bush Tax Cuts, Cheney’s Energy Task Force, and the mother of all ****-ups…the war in Iraq. Those together cost us much more than the Stimulus & Health Care, but with nothing but devasting effects.
From what I know about what the Stimulus is investing in (and I’ve studied it quite a bit)…it was certainly not a waste.
@BBQ:
“Americans are more likely to disapprove than approve of how President Barack Obama dealt with the racially tinged dispute between a white police officer and a well-known black Harvard University scholar — with disapproval especially strong among white voters, according to a poll released Thursday.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/30/poll-americans-disapprove-obamas-comments-race/
@BBQ: “I’m not quite arrogant enough to believe that I can know whether” your argument is accurate, either! In other words, we will never know if the stimulus helped to get the economy back to normal faster, will we?
BBQ – two great posts there. Really nothing I might take issue with.
sbj – you aren’t really going to imagine many of us would find a Fox poll compelling, are you? They have neither an investigative nor reportage mission.
Bernie Bernie Bernie – it’s a Pew poll.
@sbj:
1. Linking FOX News only loses you credibility.
2. Of course there’s no way to be 100% sure. We can’t be 100% sure the stimulus helped the economy recover, or 100% sure the economy would have been fine on it’s own. But the investments made in the stimulus were needed anyways, in my opinion, so to me it’s still a net positive. Knowing what I know abotu the economy and about the stimulus package…I think it helped (and is still helping). But I wouldn’t make the presumption to say “without the stimulus the entire US economy would have collapsed”…but the flip side is, it’s entirely possible it could have. We don’t know for sure, and we never will.
I once heard a quote that I absolutely loved, from an agnostic: “I’m not an atheist, because the only thing I believe in less than God is certainty.”
@Bernie: Thanks! I try.
@BBQ: “Linking FOX News only loses you credibility.”
Now I can see why discussing things with some of you is difficult – you don’t read!
It’s a Pew poll. P. E. W. If you actually clicked to the link you would have seen that in the headline.
sbj – my apologies. But you really ought not to arrive at a party dressed in checkered pants with a striped jacket and expect to get laid.
Disapproval, as you quote, was with the manner in which Obama handled the matter (meaning, his comment at the press briefing). That’s a criticism I agree with, actually, but only as a consequence of how the sentiment could be (and has been) spun. Colin Powell, on CNN two nights ago, spoke about his own experiences as a black man in being ‘profiled’ as different or dangerous or incompetent. He expressed the opinion (an educated opinion) on the universality of this for black males. That the polling shows white folks less happy with Obama’s response on this matter doesn’t surprise me at all and it shouldn’t surprise you. This doesn’t make Obama’s (or Powell’s or other black males’) sentiments wrong, of course. They have to live this situation where we white folks do not.
I suppose I ought to add that Powell also took the professor to task for his imprudent and angry response to the police officer. And that’s a weighting I agree with even while understanding why and how the professor’s response was what it was. Counting up the times I have over-reacted emotionally would be no small task.
@Bernie: Love the checkered pants thing.
There’s no denying that black people are the victims of racial profiling. The issue Gates had with the officer was not a matter of racial profiling. That’s the problem. As has been repeated endlessly, you can’t have a “teaching moment” that is based on a lie. I think that might be why some white folks disapprove. They know that racial profiling happens and they don’t think it happened in this case. Gates has made the charge and Obama also brought it into the conversation when he shouldn’t have.
@sbj: There’s no link directly to the poll, so I can’t see the crosstabs. No idea how the questions were worded, no idea about the partisan make-up of the respondents, no clue about the racial and gender make up of the overall poll.
Nothing but a write-up by FOX News.
Once I found fivethirtyeight.com, I’ve learned not to blindly follow polls I can’t dig into a bit. And that’s on top of knowing that you can never trust a SINGLE poll on anything. Plus…it’s on FOX News.
Right now their lead political headline is this: “Beer Enthusiasts Disappointed in Obama’s Choice of Beverage for Summit With Professor, Cop”
I don’t care if what kind of poll/news you want to use as evidence. Just find somewhere other than a wingnut site to link from if you want me to take it seriously.
@BBQ: Your reply is so weak I believe I’ll just let it sit there so that everyone can see your absolute refusal to admit anything at all that doesn’t agree with your preconceived notions.
@sbj: Lol, if that makes you feel better – I’m fine with it.
@BBQ: I’ll wait here for your apology …
http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1560
@BBQ: Still waiting …