.
.
.
Early in the 2010 election cycle, polling turned up the survey question that would really matter: what later came to be known as the “intensity gap.” To gauge what was coming in 2010, that was the question to watch.
A Suffolk University polls may have just found the critical question for 2012. As Steve Benen reported yesterday in a post entitled “Polling the Sabotage Question”, at http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_11/polling_the_sabotage_question033252.php, Suffolk finally had the bright idea of asking Florida voters the question that is on everyone’s minds — generally admitted to by Republicans (a while ago) and now belatedly picked up to use as a club by Democrats.
The result is tucked away somewhat inobtrusively in a larger report on the poll available here: http://saintpetersblog.com/2011/11/florida-poll-the-economy-sucks-rubio-lied-and-scott-vs-sink-would-be-close/.
With 51 percent of voters saying that jobs and the economy are the most pressing issues in the nation today, 49 percent said they believe that the Republicans are intentionally hindering efforts to boost the economy so that President Barack Obama will not be reelected. Thirty-nine percent disagreed. As expected, most registered Democrats (70 percent) agreed that Republicans are intentionally hindering the economy and hurting Obama, but independents (52 percent) and even some Republicans (24 percent) also agreed.
- This is a very slow and very weak recovery. Republicans have worked very hard to ensure that it would be!
This question needs to be asked more often and everywhere. Watch those numbers. If it gets worse for Republicans, the election is over. The issue of the economy no longer cuts against Obama. Even people talking about whether it is true hurts the Republicans. We informed voters talk about it, but if this perception is now spreading the the population at large, without and huge PR push or major media attention, then the Republicans are doomed — and for more than the Presidency.
(The graphic above is adapted from the famous “Calculated Risk” blog comparison of the incidence of and recoveries from recessions since 1948. It’s updated monthly. If you’ve never seen it before: shocking, isn’t it?)
Here’s how Benen starts out:
To one degree or another, the “sabotage” question has been generating some debate for about a year now. It is, admittedly, a provocative subject: are Republicans trying to hurt the nation’s economy on purpose, simply to undermine the Obama presidency?Over the last few months, the charge has become more common and more mainstream, with the question being raised by leading officials in President Obama’s re-election team, Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill, and a growing number of pundits and political observers.
What we’ve lacked, however, is polling data. Are Americans actually prepared to believe that Republican officials care more about politics than the nation’s well being? Have we really reached the point at which voters see GOP leaders as willing to sabotage the country?
(Go to Benen’s post for the original supporting links.)
His payoff quote:
in Florida, nearly half of voters — and a majority of Dems and independents — believe Republicans are so craven, so devoid of a sense of duty to their country, that they’re holding back the economy on purpose because they hate Obama more than the care about the rest of us. Nearly one-in-four Republicans believe this to be true.I guess this isn’t a fringe idea after all.
Benen graciously also links to Greg Sargent, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/will-voters-buy-the-idea-that-gop-is-sabotaging-economy/2011/03/03/gIQAJHziiM_blog.html, who built upon the idea in Benen’s article by, among other things, getting the original wording:
Do you think the Republicans are intentionally stalling efforts to jumpstart the economy to insure that Barack Obama is not reelected?Yes 49
No 39
Undecided 12
Sargent sounds a few loud notes of caution:
Of course, the natural follow up question is important: Will this matter? The Suffolk poll contains no signs that it does. Obama’s approval is at 41 percent in this key swing state, versus 50 percent who disapprove. He’s tied with likely GOP nominee Mitt Romney, 42-42. An equal number — 29 percent — say they will vote either Democratic or Republican “no matter what,” with another 13 percent saying they will only vote Democratic if the economy gets better, meaning Dems will be held accountable.As I’ve been saying, it’s very possible that the GOP will benefit politically from blocking Obama’s jobs policies, even though they have majority support. This new Florida poll raises another possibility: That Republicans may benefit from blocking Obama’s policies even though voters accept the idea that they’re sabotaging the economy for political reasons.
The question is this: Even if voters are persuaded that this is the case, will they chalk it up to mere politics and still hold Obama accountable for failing to get his policies through in spite of politically-motivated GOP obstructionism? Will voters who don’t grasp the realities of filibuster abuse conclude that whatever the motives of Republicans, Obama’s failure to get around them proves he’s weak or ineffective?
I think that Sargent misreads the situation, though. Yes, there’s no move in the top numbers yet. But top numbers move later once a meme takes hold. Yesterday was the first day that the issue had even been talked about in polling results. Now that the cat is out of the bag (and into the Post), this will pick up steam. Pundits will start discussing it more. Republicans will panic — maybe even falter, which will hurt them with their fizzy-flecked-mouthed base. And more and more, voters will ask themselves the question: “if Republicans are doing this, is it right to blame Obama?” And beyond that: “why are Republicans doing this? What do they want instead?”
Combine that with the new Occupy sensibility in the country and Republican gamesmanship becomes an albatross around their neck. We need good metaphors and analogies to reach the public on this: the one that keeps coming to my mind has Obama as a physical therapist and Republicans as cutting the patient’s Achilles tendon, but that may be a little abstruse.
Even by broaching the possibility that the public will, amazingly, catch onto what the Republicans are doing helps to strengthen Obama to fight hard and move in a progressive direction — after all, the argument depends on their blocking him, which means that he has to show that he’s trying to make progress.
Pollsters should start asking this question every week so that we can see how the trends change. As Republicans see these numbers build, their willingness to see the economy collapse rather than having their way may wane. That would be good news for Democrats, for sane and patriotic Republicans, and for the public at large.
(An earlier version of this post appeared at Daily Kos.)
Yeah, let’s ignore those brilliant Obama policies that led us to this point with rampant debt creation rather than job creation. Let’s ignore the fact that Obama policies admittedly “had fewer shovel ready jobs than we thought.” Ignore the fact that Obama still wants to pursue these already failed policies by making government even bigger and shoveling even more cash into the furnace. You are right, it must be all the GOP.
All kidding aside, Geoff — I’m presuming that you’re kidding here, but never mind for now — do you know how I can get my beautiful Calculated Risk graphic into the picture rotation, given that it seems not to have been picked up? If I can’t do is, then I’m going to delete this and start over, though I will of course insert your comment into the new one. When it comes to loading graphics, the program seems to be persnickety. Vern seems to know how to fix it; maybe you do as well.
Go to your editors page and click on the story. In edit mode find the galleries link. Click on the link to that picture. Near the bottom of the screen click on use as featured image.
Thanks. Substantive reply coming up eventually; havoc reigns at home for the moment.
Substantive reply as promised:
TARP was a Bush/Paulson initiative. (And do you oppose it?)
The (inadequate, but better than nothing) stimulus package prevented a terrible recession from becoming a disastrous depression. Imagine the effects of another 2% unemployment. (Wait, you might enjoy that.) The reason that more wasn’t accomplished is that, as was loudly shouted at the time, the stimulus was too small.
The bailouts of the auto companies saved the domestic auto industry — not just GM and Chrysler, but the entire industry, which relies on the same set of suppliers that would have been wiped out in its absence.
All that said, it’s notable that you don’t even try to deny the thesis that is represented in this question: that you and your pals would rather see the economy fail than to see Obama succeed. This is partly because most of the consequent suffering doesn’t even touch the likes of you.
But it will.
“You are right, it must be all the GOP.”
Show us where Greg, or the statistics he sites, say that it’s “all” the fault of the GOP.
You just can’t help yourself with these strawman arguments, can you?
This is a good time for your own words; “deny, deflect, change the subject and personally attack – every time I see these behaviors I know I am absolutely right.”
Esq. Encino,
Please be advised that I do not need your primitive and immature graphical presentation including your cut and pasted drivel, from who knows what source of a drivel, to know that my living standard under Obama is gravely worse than it was under Bush because I am living it.
And I consider Bush to be absolute moron mongoloid?
Especially the Dodd-Frank Act signed by Obama made USA and its citizens gravely handicapped were only Warren Buffett (the 1%, liberal democrat) gains.
It will take minimum 20 years to recover from the Obama’s black magic.
Yeah — the economy collapsed at almost the very end of the Bush Administration. That may have had something to do with it.
Stop saying “Obama’s black magic,” you old-world racist crank. You’re neither fooling nor amusing anyone.
“Stop saying “Obama’s black magic”…….. Hmmmm
Stop limiting my constitutionally speech. (you Zionist)
If you do not like something send me a summons.
You have done more racist’s and hate statements than I did.
Stanislaw, you don’t have a constitutional right to be published in a privately owned blog. Vern allows you to exercise your ability to speak here.
Similarly, I have no right to sue you to make you stop — and I wouldn’t if I could. But if you come out with racist statements, I have a right to call you on it here as much as Vern allows.
You should attend law school. A little actual knowledge would rock your world.
It looks like from your graft that the recessions during republican administration are shallower and shorter than the ones during democratic administrations.
And you left off the grand daddy of all, the 1932 to 1950 FDR depression.
If you are going to make a T account and put demo downturns on one side and repub downturns on the other. You will see at a glance which political party are the true professionals when in come to making painful recessions and depressions.
…the grand daddy of all, the 1932 to 1950 FDR depression…
LOL, funniest thing I’ve seen all week, Cook! GREAT Republican satire!
Republicans destroy, Democrats rebuild.
The difference this time is that rather than lying low the Republicans are actively trying to prevent Democrats from rebuilding because they think it will work against Obama’s reelection. Unfortunately for you guys, the public seems to be catching on.
Seems to me that the only thing the democrats are rebuilding now is the bank accounts of their money chaning friends.
Get your Republican friends to get serious about reining in the excesses of Wall Street — let’s start with, oh, reinstating Glass-Steagall and with a transaction tax — and I predict that we will deliver the needed Democrats. Up to the challenge?
I like the sound of that. I can offer my vote and a few others, but that about the extent of my clout.
“Get your Republican friends to get serious about reining in the excesses of Wall Street”…….. Hmmmm
FYI, the Wall Street is 95% occupied by your Democratic dishonest people which everyone loves to hate even you apparently.
Just do not call them republicans.
“FYI, the Wall Street is 95% occupied by your Democratic dishonest people”
Stanislaw, you pulled that “fact” out of your lower intestines.
reps destroy gee i guess obamas rebuilding that great economy .. NOT . he had all 3 branches of goverment . AND DID NOTHING BUT SHOVE THAT STUPID OBAMA CARE DOWN THE PEOPLES MOUTH . now he is on there the other day flapping his blame the gop for not passing his jobs bill . EARTH TO SOCIALIST PRES . YOUR OWN PARTY IN THE SENATE REJECTED , HARRY SMELLY REID DINT EVEN BRING IT UP .. but then its all the republicans , and bush is at fault . please keep blaming him for the next 12 months . next november should go real smooth .
Yes, Republicans have used the veto more than ever before with a party discipline evincing either a desire to wreck the economy or extremely fear of its party’s extreme (or both.) Reid usually doesn’t bring things up that he knows won’t pass.
We’re apparently getting through to the public, thank heavens, so I’m really happy for you to take this tack in your debating. That’s working really well.
You mean except for Obama’s massive “jobs plan” – the one so popular it had no co-sponsors?
I see words there but not ideas. Tell me what you’re talking about. You do realize that, as President, Obama cannot sponsor legislation at all, right? So what’s with the “no co-sponsors”?
yes your stats are real good like you think the people now are supporting the hippie commi fest you are a part of we will see in the nov . but of course i did not expect any thing different form a ex DAILY KOOKS BLOGGER .
“Ex”? I’m still blogging on Daily Kos as well.
So the Republicans (regretfully) on the super committee finally relent on no tax increases, propose $300 billion in new taxes and the Democrats reject it out of hand. Yeah, the Republicans are the ones tanking the economy on purpose.
Haven’t read about it yet today. I’ll be interested in knowing the details of their plan. Wouldn’t you? Or do you just want the (probably misleading) headline?
From HuffPo;
The GOP plan would place sharp limits on popular tax breaks like the mortgage interest deduction in exchange for significantly lower income tax rates. At the same time, Republicans are willing to accept a net increase in individual income tax revenues of about $300 billion over the coming decade.
Democrats say the GOP proposal would cut the top rate so sharply – from 35 percent to 28 percent – that wealthier earners would get large tax cuts while middle class workers would have to lose out on deductions for mortgage interest and state and local taxes.
Aides in both parties requested anonymity to describe the GOP proposal, and they differed on some of the details.
Broadly speaking, however, the GOP plan would raise new revenues of at least $500 billion, both skimmed off the top as Congress completes an overhaul of the tax code and from proposals such as auctioning broadcast spectrum, raising Medicare premiums and increasing aviation security fees.
The plan also would cut spending by about $700 billion, mixing a less generous cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security beneficiaries with further cuts to agency operating budgets and curbs to the booming growth of Medicare and the Medicaid health care program for the poor and disabled. Lower interest payments on the national debt would provide the remaining savings.
Republicans also support gradually raising the Medicare eligibility age to 67 for future retirees, but GOP and Democratic aides offered different accounts of whether the idea was officially part of the proposal. Democrats said it was in the plan; Republicans say it was part of the discussion but not an official GOP position.
************************************************************
Surprise, surprise, it sounds like the poor and middle class will take it in the shorts, while the wealthy get even bigger, permanent tax cuts.
And I’m accused of using biased sources. Typical Anonster spin. First, I’ve seen conflicting reports about whether the mortgage interest and other deductions apply across the board or only to the wealthy. Unlike Anonster I actually like to get the facts first. Second, you ignore the fact that entitlement reform (particularly Medicare and Medicaid) is the only way this country can even hope to dig itself out of the mountain of debt, both now and in the future. Of course, you simply repeat the liberal meme that it hurts the poor and middle class, when the out-of-control costs will hurt everyone in the long run, and the poor and middle class in particular.
Newbie,
The Bush tax cuts are what put us in the hole in the first place, then there was the addition of two unfunded war, NEVER in the history of this country have we waged war and not raised taxes to pay for it. Now the Republicans with the support of idiots like yourself want to double down on stupid;
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/the-chart-that-should-accompany-all-discussions-of-the-debt-ceiling/242484/
I’LL EVEN PROVIDE YOU A REPUBLICAN SOURCE;
Are the Bush Tax Cuts the Root of Our Fiscal Problem?
By BRUCE BARTLETT
Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul.
It would have been one thing if the Bush tax cuts had at least bought the country a higher rate of economic growth, even temporarily. They did not. Real G.D.P. growth peaked at just 3.6 percent in 2004 before fading rapidly. Even before the crisis hit, real G.D.P. was growing less than 2 percent a year.
By contrast, after the 1982 and 1993 tax increases, growth was much more robust. Real G.D.P. rose 7.2 percent in 1984 and continued to rise at more than 3 percent a year for the balance of the 1980s.
Real G.D.P. growth was 4.1 percent in 1994 despite widespread predictions by opponents of the 1993 tax increase that it would bring on another recession. Real growth averaged 4 percent for the balance of the 1990s. By contrast, real G.D.P. growth in the non recession years of the 2000s averaged just 2.7 percent a year — barely above the postwar average.
Few people remember that a major justification for the 2001 tax cut was to intentionally slash the budget surplus. President Bush said this repeatedly during the 2000 campaign, and it was reiterated in his February 2001 budget document.
In this regard, at least, the Bush-era tax cuts were highly successful. According to a recent C.B.O. report, they reduced revenue by at least $2.9 trillion below what it otherwise would have been between 2001 and 2011. Slower-than-expected growth reduced revenue by another $3.5 trillion.
Spending was $5.6 trillion higher than the C.B.O. anticipated for a total fiscal turnaround of $12 trillion. That is how a $6 trillion projected surplus turned into a cumulative deficit of $6 trillion.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/are-the-bush-tax-cuts-the-root-of-our-fiscal-problem/
At least one Democrat is now getting in on the “tank the economy for my personal reasons” bandwagon:
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/09/report-democrats-walk-away-from-super-committee/
Hey, at least one thing in D.C. is bipartisan.
No, the story suggests that it isn’t personal reasons. He apparently thinks that the Republicans won’t make any substantial concessions (other than fake concessions like the one we saw yesterday, which make the rich get richer and the rest of us get poorer), and that under those circumstances he’ll be happy to see defense cuts. Of course, people say that “of course the defense cuts will just be reinstated — deficit be damned.” This, if true, is awfully interesting, especially given that (last I heard) we spend as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. This is just how Republicans get money to contributors so they can donate it back to Republicans — and people are sick of it.
ANOSTER SITES FROM THIS GROUP .. MEDIA MATTERS , DAILY KOOKS , HUFFINGTON POST , MSNBC , AND THEN CALLS PEOPLE IDIOTS