Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Digby: As Obama's Popularity Dwindles Among His Supporters, Media Gets The Reason Exactly Wrong

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-21-09 07:39 PM
Original message
Digby: As Obama's Popularity Dwindles Among His Supporters, Media Gets The Reason Exactly Wrong
via AlterNet's PEEK:



As Obama's Popularity Dwindles Among His Supporters, Media Gets The Reason Exactly Wrong

Posted by Digby, Hullabaloo at 4:30 PM on August 21, 2009.

A common misconception in mainstream reporting is that if politicians dip in the polls it's because they're going "too far," whatever that means.




Don't say I didn't warn you:

The conventional wisdom, however, has been that the Democrats are suffering from some sort of political Icarus syndrome. They are flying too high and too soon, and the public disapproval will send them crashing back to earth.

The problem with that rationale, at least in our numbers this week, is that it doesn't match with the data.

Across the board, the drops among Obama and the Democratic Party have come not from the loyal opposition, nor have they come from dismayed Independents.

They have come from Democrats...

Anyone who thinks the protracted arguments over health care aren't frustrating the Democratic base need look no further. A ten-point dip in net favorability, in a single week, is a pretty solid statement.

A quick look at the generic Congressional ballot confirms that the Democrats have shed a great deal of soft supporters over the last few weeks. The margin between the Democrats and Republicans now rests at six points (35-29), the closest we have seen on that question since the item was inserted into the poll a couple of months back. Interestingly, the Republicans have gained virtually nothing over that time. The steady stream of voters no longer willing to commit to the Democrats on the ballot test have almost uniformly gone into the ranks of the undecided.


One of the most common errors in mainstream reporting is the default assumption that when a politician suffers in the polls it's because they are going "too far," whatever that means. They never consider whether it might be because he isn't going far enough.

There are other stupid assumptions as well, such as the silly contention that George W. Bush won the 2004 election on the basis of "moral values," -- meaning conservative moral values. (Had I been exit polled, I would have told the pollster that I voted on the basis of moral values too -- those values telling me that the immoral illegal war in Iraq meant that George W. Bush should be tried as a war criminal.) The biases of the village narrative drive the interpretation of polls in such a way that they actually end up changing public opinion. .........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/142136/as_obama%27s_popularity_dwindles_among_his_supporters%2C_media_gets_the_reason_exactly_wrong/




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-21-09 07:41 PM
Response to Original message
1. indeed. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timeforpeace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-21-09 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. Ten points in one week? No way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-21-09 07:44 PM
Response to Original message
2. Hear, hear. That's exactly the problem.
The Democrats are not going far enough. Those of us on the left are not interested in a weak bill that will do nothing more than subsidize the health insurance cabal. We want change that benefits ordinary Americans not oligarchs and stockholders.

:dem:

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-21-09 07:45 PM
Response to Original message
3. Jimmy Carter lost my support way back when because he
was too cautious about making promised changes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gabi Hayes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-21-09 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. he was too cautious because he couldn't believe he was getting screwed by the
congressional leaders of his own party. he was too much of a neophyte to realize what was happening to him from the getgo, and that his real enemies consisted of entrenched interests, which controlled both parties, just the way they do today. Obama faces many of the same problems, and it sickens me that he has failed to learn Carter's lesson

ever read "Liberty Under Siege?"
Walter Karp

that's the thesis of the first half of his book.

So the President-elect, a suspect tribune, now knows well enough what the great bulk of the American people expects of him: They want the democratic movement to go forward. What else is an outsider President for? The real question facing Carter, the terrible nightmarish question, is, 'What will the Democratic Congress allow him to do? Suppose party leaders in Congress give him no support at all? What then? "It was bad enough," says Hamilton Jordan, the President-elect's chief political aide, "that they didn't know him and had no stake in his candidacy, but to make matters worse, Carter had defeated their various darlings in the battles around the country" 'When Carter meets, post-election, with Democratic congressional leaders in Georgia, fear and hostility, fear masked as hostility, seem to roll off Carter in waves. "You'd sit at a meeting with Carter," Representative Morris Udall recalls some six months later, "and he felt the compulsion to remind you that he also had your constituents as his constituents and that he wouldn't hesitate to take Congress on .... It was almost like he felt a compulsion to do this, as though he felt it was inevitable, or looked forward to the conflict, or thought it was unavoidable."

"I can get to your constituents faster than you can by going on television," Carter reportedly warns the visiting party leaders. A dire threat indeed, an empty bluff, never to be carried out, but already necessary, or the first hostile shots have already been fired. Nine days after the election <1976>-Veterans' Day-the Committee on the Present Danger makes its first public appearance with a declaration of war against Carter's hopes for arms control and improved relations with the Soviet Union. "The principal threat to our nation, to world peace and to the cause of human freedom," goes the martial declaration, "is the Soviet drive for dominance based on an unprecedented military buildup"-in fact, a 3 percent average increase yearly since 1970, 2 percent since 1974, but America's "will"-and America's oligarchy can be strengthened only by "massive understandable challenge."

The committee members, it is said, form a "who's who of the Democratic Party establishment." Chairman and founder is Eugene Rostow, Lyndon Johnson's Under Secretary of State, head of the foreign-policy task force of the Coalition for a Democratic Majority, some twenty of whose members have become Present Dangerists. "We started over, but with the same people and the same ideas," explains Rostow. To discredit the democratic reforms in 1972; to discredit détente in 1976. The same "ideas" indeed: rule by the few, oligarchy restored, one way or another. Cochairman of the Present Danger is Lane Kirkland, secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO and "heir apparent" to its president, eighty-three-year-old George Meany; heir to the votes of 14.5 million powerless union members; heir to trade unionism's unswerving devotion to the Democratic machine and the endless Cold War; oligarchy revived, one way or another. Chief counsel of the Present Danger is Max Kampelman, once one of the chief political advisers to Hubert Humphrey, now gravely concerned, among other worries, over the excessive "power of the press." The nine-man executive committee includes Dean Rusk, Secretary of State under Kennedy and Johnson, one of the first American officials to argue that a President's authority as Commander-in-Chief of U.S. forces allows him to make war at will. What loathing of liberty burns in these hearts! 'What scant love of truth! Chairman of the committee's "policy studies" is Paul Nitze, former Deputy Secretary of Defense under Kennedy and Johnson, arms control negotiator for Nixon, who quit in "disgust" in June 1974, now a member of Team B, the tumorous appendix to the CIA. Nitze has lived for twenty-five years in an atmosphere of ever-present danger: principal author in 1950 of a momentous State Department warning to President Truman that unless the U.S. embarked at once on the largest military buildup in its peacetime history, the Soviet Union would launch its drive for world conquest around 1 956-Nitze's "year of maximum danger"; principal concocter of the fictitious "missile gap" in 1957; principal author in 1972 of the newest present-danger: Allied "perception" of Soviet nuclear superiority will bind them in terror to the Soviet will unless the U.S. demonstrates its "will and resolve" with a renewed race for nuclear supremacy.

The board of directors of the Present Danger includes a large and varied collocation of trade union leaders, bankers, financial speculators and retired officials of both parties: John Connally; William Casey; Sol Chaikin, president of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union; and Richard Mellon Scaife, generous supporter of right-wing causes. Also several future "neoconservatives" from the Democratic Majority: Norman Podhoretz; his wife, Midge Decter; Seymour Martin Lipset, the Stanford University political scientist who demonstrated in a 1970 work that the greatest menace to political liberty in America is its exercise by ordinary people. And Jeane Kirkpatrick, that busy tongue of Hydra-headed oligarchy, now convinced that the millions of Democratic primary voters who form a pernicious "elite" have gone one step further into evil and now generate a spirit of appeasement, and even, says colleague Podhoretz some months hence, a "culture of appeasement." Appeasement, in fact, is the leading "idea" of the Present Dangerists. "We are living in a prewar and not a post-war world," says Rostow. "Our posture today is comparable to that of Britain, France and the United States during the Thirties. Whether we are the Rhineland or the Munich watershed remains to be seen." The Soviet Union is Hitler's Germany on the verge of launching a war; the United States, like pre-war Britain, is stewing in fear; détente is cowardly appeasement, Senator Jackson is a second Churchill crying in the wilderness (or so readers of Commentary are told). It remains only to demonstrate-such is the Present Danger's grand object-that Prime Minister Chamberlain, weak, self-deluded appeaser of Hitler, who returned from Munich in 1938 announcing "peace in our time," has been reborn as-Jimmy Carter. The e opening salvo has been fired.


http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Walter_Karp/Reaction_Launched_LUS.html

lots more at the link

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-21-09 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. It was very hard for the average person to get information back then,
but I knew about how we supported regimes that tortured people. I can't swear I knew about the School of the Americas.
If Jimmy had just stuck to his guns, he might have been one of the great ones.

It was very easy to plant stories that made the President and his staff look like hicks. One describing Hamilton Jorden spitting a brandy alexander down a woman's decolletage at a bar got wide print.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-21-09 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Yes..and it was hard to get "push back" against the lies...then Nightline was founded and hounded
Carter every night with a Timeline/Countdown of how many days we had "hostages" in Iran.

They did to Carter what they did to Clinton with lies about Hillary and Vince Foster. Yet, the Repugs could send us into war and nick off innocent Americans in the dark of night and Iran Contra which went back to what they were during starting with Carter...yet there was no pushback even by our Democrats.

We've given our Dems a pass for too long. They are partly responsible for why the Dem Presidents we "try to elect" end up in failure or scandal or assassinated. NO MORE...yet even the Obama Administration fails to live up to it's MANDATE.

What is it? A One Party System...with only Dems always being the "fall guy?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-21-09 07:46 PM
Response to Original message
4. K & R. Go Digby!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
intheflow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-21-09 08:19 PM
Response to Original message
6. That is a fine piece.
Thanks, and K&R.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinnie From Indy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-21-09 08:41 PM
Response to Original message
7. It isn't a "mistake" or "lazy reporting" - It is done on purpose
One of the greatest lies ever told by the right wing is that the media is liberal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-21-09 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. Their lies are repeated and repeated and still believed because of that....
Yet they have a whole network devoted to their lies..FAUX NEWS...and only those who have cable can get even a sliver of anything different and that's only recently when MSNBC decided to do their big "Dem Experiment" with Olbermann, Rachel, Shuster and "Big Ed." But, I remember when MSNBC had Geraldo Rivera saving Bill Clinton from impeachment...before Geraldo went over to shill for the Dark Side. MSNBC has always turned in the wind when it suited them. And Obama did save GE's ASS in the BAIL OUT! MSNBC/GE/NBC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-21-09 09:13 PM
Response to Original message
9. K&R!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kickin_Donkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-21-09 10:52 PM
Response to Original message
13. I heard the talking heads talk about falling poll numbers ...
on the evening news tonight (not that I watch such drivel; my parents had it on while I was Net surfing).

What they didn't say were that Obama's numbers are falling because he's too conservative, not too liberal. His numbers are falling because he's seemingly caving in to the corporations and the Goppers on health care. Of course the talking heads don't talk about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC