Pew has some new Presidential job approval figures that give an additional insight into the way Barack Obama is peeling off support from the Republican coalition.
The basic partisan breakdown looks like this:
Presidential Job Approval
Democrats – 88%
Independents – 63%
Republicans – 34%
But what is particularly noteworthy is the split within the Republicans:
Conservative Republicans : 28% approve, 47% disapprove
Moderate and Liberal Republicans: 46% approve, 30% disapprove
Wow. More moderate and liberal Republicans approve of the job Obama is doing than disapprove – almost 50% favorable, in fact.
For a number of years now political independents have been polling closer to Democrats than Republicans on a wide range of issues. But now moderate and liberal Republican voters are also starting to drift distinctly away from the conservative Republican “base.”
Looks like the Democrats are going to have to buy a bigger “Big Tent” – It appears there are some new elephants coming inside.

David Waldman aka Kagro X has a must read at Daily Kos for those who may be wondering about the GOP’s track record in criticizing Democratic economic policy. Waldman has assembled an amusing collection of quotations from Republican politicians making ‘Chicken Little’ predictions about the Clinton Administration’s economic policies, which later resulted in the most impressive period of economic prosperity the U.S. has yet experienced. A sample:

On Clinton’s deficit reduction package –
Rep. Robert Michel (R-IL), Los Angeles Times, 5/28/93: They will remember who let loose this deadly virus into our economic bloodstream.
Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA), GOP Press Conference, House TV Gallery, 8/5/93: I believe this will lead to a recession next year. This is the Democrat machine’s recession, and each one of them will be held personally accountable.
…Rep. John Kasich (R-OH), CNN, 7/28/93: This plan will not work. If it was to work, then I’d have to become a Democrat…
…Rep. Christopher Cox (R-CA), 5/27/93: This is really the Dr. Kevorkian plan for our economy.
On jobs –
Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX), CNN, 8/2/93: The impact on job creation is going to be devastating, and the American young people in particular will suffer a fairly substantial deferment of their lives because there simply won’t be jobs for the next two to three years to go around to our young graduates across the country.
…Rep. Jim Bunning (R-KY), 8/5/93: It will not cut the deficit. It will not create jobs. And it will not cut spending.

Read the whole thing for more chuckles, as well as guidance for how seriously Americans should take the GOP’s current rash of Chicken Little doomsayings.

Sheri Berman, associate professor of political science at Barnard College, Columbia University and author of “The Primacy of Politics: Social Democracy and the Making of Europe’s Twentieth Century,” has an interesting big picture essay at Dissent‘s web pages. There’s a lot in Berman’s essay that merits thoughtful consideration, but we’ll just share this teaser and encourage everyone to give her entire piece a read:

Helping people adjust to capitalism, rather than engaging in a hopeless and ultimately counterproductive effort to hold it back, has been the historic accomplishment of the social democratic left, and it remains its primary goal today in those countries where the social democratic mindset is most deeply ensconced. Many analysts have remarked, for example, on the impressive success of countries like Denmark and Sweden in managing globalization—promoting economic growth and increased competitiveness even as they ensure high employment and social security. The Scandinavian cases demonstrate that social welfare and economic dynamism are not enemies but natural allies. Not surprisingly, it is precisely in these countries that optimism about globalization is highest. In the United States and other parts of Europe, on the other hand, fear of the future is pervasive and opinions of globalization astoundingly negative. American leftists must try to do what the Scandinavians have done: develop a program that promotes growth and social solidarity together, rather than forcing a choice between them. Concretely this means agitating for policies—like reliable, affordable, and portable health care; tax credits or other government support for labor-market retraining; investment in education; and unemployment programs that are both more generous and better incentivized—that will help workers adjust to change rather than make them fear it.

Berman has much more to say about the challenge of globalization faced by social democrats and democratic socialists in a 21st century context, as well as their respective accomplishments in the 20th century. Her article should be of considerable interest to all Democrats and progressives concerned with long-haul strategy.

Democracy Corps has just released an important new study, “President Obama’s Political Project,” the first in-depth analysis of how the public perceives “the president’s mission and larger mandate for the country.” The study is based on data from two surveys of LV’s, conducted for Democracy Corps by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner from 1/26-29 and 2/9-10. Among the findings (from the overview):

Not surprising, when forced to choose voters say that returning the economy to sound footing and creating quality jobs is Obama’s top goal. But more surprising, given the dominance of the stimulus story, is that voters see through this to other goals – which are seen as somewhat more important to the Obama project – and thus give the presidency definition beyond the recovery. For the public, at the heart of the Obama project is a turn away from greed and the super-rich and toward the middle class and its values, with greater opportunity, security and rising prosperity.

The PDF Analysis of the survey data indicates that 60 percent of voters support the Presdient’s economic recovery plan, while “a cautious 40 percent” agree that “he is keeping his promise to create or save 3 milllion jobs.” A remarkable 82 percent of survey respondents agreed that “making sure this country works not just for the super-rich. but that everyone has a chance to succeed and prosper” is Obama’s “most important goal.”
Interestingly, the public fervently supports Obama’s efforts on behalf of “restoring respect for America in the world as a moral leader, restoring our key alliances and putting more emphasis on diplomacy,” with 60 percent agreeing that “Obama is keeping his promise” in that regard. As the overview explains:

Equally surprising, given the focus on the economy, is the importance that voters say Obama places on restoring respect for America around the world. The view that he wants to change how America relates to the world is nearly as strong as the perception that he is committed to greater equity and restoring the middle class and ranks above short-term job creation. This response underscores the scope of what voters think Obama is trying to achieve.

Further, DCorps reports that,

…the public is very attentive to the larger character of his project and how it can change the American society and America’s position in the world. Over 60 percent of voters say Obama and the Democrats are making progress addressing the country’s problems, twice the number who say they are faltering, but that judgment and the character of the Obama political project will emerge in the struggles ahead.

Despite all of the fuss about cabinet appointments and other issues and distractions, the public sees a clear mandate for for President Obama with a high degree of confidence that he is doing his best to address America’s critical priorities.

The Republican echo chamber has been working overtime, trying to stampede a backlash against the Obama stimulus package. But the publlic is apparently not buying it. A Greenberg Quinlan Rosner poll of 1200 LV’s in 40 competitive House districts conducted last week, for example, found that 64 percent of respondents supported President Obama’s stimulus package, with 27 percent opposed. In addition, 57 percent agreed that the recovery package is needed now. Even better, as Andy Barr notes in his Politico report on stimulus polls,

Asked if they would be more or less likely to support an incumbent if they voted for the stimulus, 27 percent of respondents to Greenberg’s poll said more likely, 15 percent said less likely and 53 percent said it would make no difference.

As the GOP and their minions in the media (see our Saturday staff post) press for an early end to the Obama Administration ‘honeymoon,’ it is proving to be a very tough sell. As GQR head and TDS co-editor Stan Greenberg put it, “Voters overwhelmingly believe they are living with an economy that is the product of Bush and the Republicans.”

Those who hoped that the proliferation of cable news programs would lead to more balanced news coverage for progressives found no comfort in a report issued last week by ThinkProgress.org:

…In the debate over the House economic recovery bill on the five cable news networks, Republican members of Congress outnumbered their Democratic counterparts by a ratio of 2 to 1.The analysis tallied interview segments about the stimulus on CNBC, Fox Business, Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC during a three-day period, finding that the networks had hosted Republican lawmakers 51 times and Democratic lawmakers only 26 times.

And in a more recent analysis, not much improvement:

ThinkProgress has found that Republican lawmakers outnumbered Democratic lawmakers 75 to 41 on cable news interviews by members of Congress (from 6am on Monday 2/2 through 11pm on Thursday 2/5)

ThinkProgress notes also that,

Last week, Fox News came the closest to balance with 8 Republicans and 6 Democrats. But the so-called “fair and balanced” network was not able to maintain such a ratio this week, hosting 24 Republicans and only 11 Democrats.
The business news networks were particularly egregious this week. CNBC had more than twice as many conservatives, with 14 Republicans and 6 Democrats. Fox Business was even worse, hosting 20 Republicans for just 4 Democrats.

Worse, ThinkProgress adds:

Though the imbalance is already stark, the tilt of the coverage would have been even more lopsided if the analysis had been broken down into whether a lawmaker who appeared on TV was a supporter or a critic of the economic recovery plan. Some of the most frequent Democratic guests this week were outspoken critics of the proposed stimulus plans, such as Sens. Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Kent Conrad (D-ND).

Hard to see it any other way than Big Media wanting to undermine the President, whether for ratings or naked political bias. Leftside Annie, one of the more than 500 respondents to the ThinkProgress post said it well: “Liberal Media? Bullshite.”

Carl Hulse has a New York Times report on the emergence of a bipartisan “Gang of 20,” Senate moderates led by Republican Susan Collins and Democrat Ben Nelson, while David Brooks casts a hopeful eye in his column on the Gang of 20 as a possible harbinger of a new way of doing political business on the Hill. Democratic Leadership Council President Bruce Reed sees the Gang of 20 as a “promising post-partisan caucus” in his Slate article today and sees Obama gathering strength as a result of the struggles of the last week.
The Southern Political Report‘s Tom Baxter takes a look at the schitzy way the stimulus debate is being addressed by the region’s Republican governors.
At The Blog for Our Future (CAF), Charles McMillion nukes “The ‘FDR Failed’ Myth” being bandied about by Republican spinmeisters to discredit arguments for government spending.
David Corn’s MoJo Blog makes the case that President “Obama needs to Get Outside the Beltway.”
Alan Abramowitz joins the fray over the political ramification of the economic meltdown for the November election at Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball, with a strong data-based argument that the meltdown was not the pivotal factor.
At Daily Kos Meteor Blades takes a sobering look at the new unemployment figures, while Angry Bear‘s Spencer has a post arguing that we are experiencing “the worst employment drop in the post WW II era.”
With FiveThirtyEight.com‘s Nate Silver on the case, we’ll have no more whining about Democratic party unity, at least with respect to the stimulus package.
And for your Friday amusement, Firedoglake‘s Christy Hardin Smith has collected a “boo yah sampling of smackdowns” from “across the internets.”

TDS co-editor Ruy Teixeira has a new post up at the Center for American Progress website, “Public Opinion Snapshot: Public Strongly Supports Economic Recovery Plan.” Teixeira’s analysis of data from a Diageo/Hotline poll conducted 1/21-24 debunks the GOP myth that voters prefer tax cuts to government spending as a strategy for addressing the current economic crisis:

Conservatives showed remarkable unanimity this week in opposing President Obama’s stimulus plan. Their reasons? Too much spending, too few tax cuts, too big an effect on the deficit. In taking this position, they’re trying to pose as the true friends of U.S. taxpayers.
There’s only one problem: The taxpayers themselves actually support the plan and seem unfazed by the very things the conservatives are complaining so loudly about.
A recent Diageo/Hotline poll asked half of the sample whether they supported an $825 billion plan “even if it means increasing the federal budget deficit in order to do so.” That query elicited a 20-point margin (54-34) in favor
This shows that the public favors the recovery and reinvestment plan even with the price tag and even when it is stipulated that the plan will increase the deficit…

Even better, Teixeira adds:

But what about the thing that really gets conservatives upset—the fact that there’s twice as much new spending as tax cuts? Well, the Diageo/Hotline poll asked the other half of the sample the same question as above, but specified how the money was divided between spending and tax cuts. The result? Support for the stimulus ballooned to a roughly 40-point margin (66-27).
The conservatives aren’t just reading from a different page of the book than the public—they appear to be reading from a completely different book. Some things evidently haven’t changed since George W. Bush left town.

Clearly, conservative members of congress, and even some moderates who want more tax cuts and less spending, should no longer entertain the delusion that they are guided by public support.

Print Version
Editor’s Note by Ed Kilgore: This analysis, written by Andrew Levison, is one of a series of TDS Strategy Memos and TDS Strategy White Papers that The Democratic Strategist will be publishing on a regular basis in the future. As our Editors have said: “ For some time we have felt that the Democratic community has needed an additional format for the discussion of political strategy, one that is longer than standard newspaper and magazine political commentary, is based on empirical data and is directly focused on the analysis of political strategy. We see TDS Strategy memos and Strategy White Papers as filling that role.”
Since Obama took office, two basic notions about his political philosophy have become instant clichés – that he is a “pragmatist” and also an advocate of “bipartisanship.” An extraordinary number of articles and debates have appeared applying these two characterizations to his actions.
Within this broad discussion, Ed Kilgore has made a convincing argument that in Obama’s specific formulation, neither of these two concepts necessarily implies an abandonment of the liberal-progressive goals Obama expressed during the campaign. Kilgore notes that, while Franklin Roosevelt ultimately achieved very profound progressive reforms, he was actually much more accurately described as a “pragmatist” than an “ideologue.” Equally, Kilgore argues that Obama’s bipartisanship is more accurately understood as a “grassroots” bipartisanship he seeks to generate among ordinary Americans rather than the traditional and elite “behind closed doors” deal-making bipartisanship of the senate cloakroom and corridors of power.
But, at this very broad level, political strategy becomes difficult to distinguish from political philosophy. There is also a more concrete and specific level of political strategy that also has to be considered – the level where a president’s specific politico-legislative strategy is designed. On this middle level it can be argued that Obama actually has a more coherent and well thought out approach than either his critics or other interpreters recognize.
To see this, it is necessary to identify a particular blind spot in the perspective of most American political commentators. Modern political science (exemplified in the leading American academic journals) and modern political campaign management (exemplified in “professional” political publications like National Journal, Congressional Quarterly and Campaigns and Elections magazine) actually present a very simplified model of the world, one in which politics is discussed as if it were a separate and isolated realm of life with its own unique rules. In this simplified world, most discussions of politics are based on two seemingly self-evident statements:

1. American elections are won with 50.1 percent of the vote.
2. All votes, regardless of their origin, are, in political terms, equal.

On the surface, these two ideas appear to be not only true but almost tautological. In a great deal of American political commentary, however, they are subtly inflated into two much broader premises that are most emphatically not tautological — and that are, in fact, arguably wrong.

1. That winning support above 50.1 percent is of relatively small or even negligible marginal benefit or importance. Put differently, it is essentially icing on a cake.
2. That any particular political coalition that can be assembled to provide an electoral majority of 50.1% is of exactly equal value and utility to any alternative political coalition that can also produce an electoral majority of 50.1%. No particular majority coalition is inherently any “better” than any other.

These assumptions are rarely stated explicitly, but they are implicit in much of the progressive concern about Obama’s political strategy – the widely expressed fear that he is essentially “leaving achievable progressive victories on the table” because of his commitment to pragmatism and bipartisanship. Having won 53% of the vote and with 59 Democratic senators, it is often argued that he is clearly in a position to seek more progressive, radical or dramatic changes than those which he is actually seeking. To many liberal and progressive commentators, it seems almost self-evident that Obama could demand and get “more” of a progressive agenda enacted if he behaved in a more aggressively hyper-partisan fashion as George Bush did after the 2004 election. Thomas Frank clearly expressed this liberal-progressive view — and frustration — by saying that “Obama should act as if he won.”
But there is good evidence (which we shall see below) that Obama’s political strategy is actually based on an essentially sociological rather than political science perspective. It rests specifically on one key sociological insight — that the political strategy required to enact significant progressive social reforms is substantially more complex and difficult than is the strategy required to simply resist social change.
When significant social reforms threaten to directly affect major social institutions, enacting such reforms requires two things beyond simply wining an electoral victory:

1. The opposition of the key social institution or institutions affected –which in most cases include either the armed forces, big business or the church – must be neutralized or at least very significantly muted.
2. A certain baseline level of sociological support (or at least relative neutrality) must be obtained among a series of pivotal social groups. Sociologically and demographically speaking these groups – religious voters, military voters or business voters — are often predominantly working class, red state voters.

As a result, the coalition necessary to achieve major social reforms will require more than a knife-edge 50.1% majority. Translated into national levels of public support or approval, a commanding majority of as much as 60% may actually be necessary.

Read more…