Appeaser in Chief
State Voters Still Favor Obama, But Dems Say He’s Giving Away Store to GOP
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Californians still approve of Barack Obama’s performance as president and favor him over potential Republican rivals — but his own party’s voters say he should stop acting like a wimp.
These are some key conclusions to be drawn from a major new survey of political attitudes in the state, reported this week by the respected USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll. It was a rare bit of good news for Obama, at a time when his overall approval ratings have plummeted across the country.
Capitol Letters
According to the poll:
• Voters overall approve of his performance as president, 50 versus 43 percent, and he is viewed more favorably by three crucial blocs of Californians — women and nonpartisan, independent voters — who each give him a 55-percent positive rating — and Latinos, 59 percent of whom say they are satisfied with his performance.
• Republican voters now split their support between Texas Governor Rick Perry and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, with 22 percent each. In a week when the field of GOP hopefuls came to California for a televised debate at the Reagan Library, state Republicans were unenthused about Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, a Tea Party favorite whose campaign has largely collapsed since Perry entered the race. Only 10 percent of GOP voters favor her, placing her fourth, behind Representative Ron Paul.
• Statewide voters now back Obama against any Republican seeking the nomination to challenge him: In projected head-to-head matchups, the Democratic president leads Romney 54 vs. 35 percent, Perry 56 vs. 32 percent, and Bachmann 57 vs. 31 percent — numbers showing that, for now at least, he is winning key support from independent, decline-to-state voters.
Not surprisingly, given the state of the economy and California’s 12-percent unemployment rate, there was also plenty of bad news for Obama.
Most importantly, nearly three of four voters say both the country (73 percent) and the state (71 percent) are on the wrong track, terrible numbers for an incumbent in any election defined as a referendum on his record. As a political matter, this means Obama instead will frame the election as a stark choice between him and a foe he will portray as too extreme to be president.
That strategy, however, depends on the president being able to generate enthusiasm among Democrats, many of whom are disaffected with what they see as Obama’s weakness and appeasement in dealing with congressional Republicans on issues like the deficit, taxes, and labor: Six in 10 Democratic voters said the president should “stand up to Republicans more and fight for my priorities,” compared to just one-third who said he should “compromise more with Republicans to solve problems.”
Perhaps the most striking feature of the poll is the conflict between Obama’s public standing in California and the views of voters as reported in nationwide polls.
For example, a just-released survey from the Washington Post and ABC News found that a majority of voters nationwide — 53 percent — disapprove of his performance as president, and only 43 percent approve, the reverse of attitudes expressed by Californians; his 50-vs.-43-percent approval rating here represents a 17-point swing in Obama’s favor.
The contrast is an important reminder that a presidential race is not truly a national election, but rather 50 separate state elections, measured by the calculus of the Electoral College. Obama’s sustained backing in California, despite his long string of stinging political defeats that began with last year’s congressional elections, suggests that the state’s 55 electoral votes represent a strong base of support in his quest for the 270 he needs for reelection.
More than a year before the 2012 election, the president’s political challenge is to consolidate his base in California, plus 15 other traditionally Democratic states and the District of Columbia, which represent a total of 215 electoral votes; then he must win at least 55 in about a dozen battleground states that will determine the outcome, including Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
As one Democratic voter told the Times, however, Obama first needs to stop “ceding ground before you even fight the battle.”
A complete summary of the new poll is here, and the raw data is here.
Related Links
Comments
If the President stands up and loses whatever battle against the radical right, at least he can say to the people who voted for him in 2008 that he is fighting for us. At this point, what does he have to say to Democrats and independents who voted for him? Instead of being able to cite his record of fighting the good fight, all he can point to now is how he bent over backwards to be reasonable with the Repubs - but time and again they have taken what they want, laughing all the way to the bank, only to leave him twisting in the wind regardless of what he does. So he might as well stand and fight for once - that would be the CHANGE progressives are looking for. At the beginning of his presidency, the one thing I thought President Obama would do is inspire people to back his agenda - he certainly inspired folks on the campaign trail. But he has backed down so many times from promises he made on the campaign trail in the face of the rabid anti-middle class/anti-environment/anti-worker/anti-civil liberties radicalism of the tea party Republicans and their billionaire and corporate backers, that all he can argue is that his opponent is too extreme - a weak argument that is in essence lesser-of-evils politics. The President gets what he deserves by appointing so many corporate shills as White House advisers - what do you expect - that these guys are going to change their stripes and advocate for regular working people just because a Democratic president appointed them? What a squandered opportunity.
JohnDouglas (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2011 at 12:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In 2012, The National Popular Vote bill could guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. There would no longer be 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of other states.
When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes-- enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA ,RI, VT, and WA. The bill has been enacted by DC, HI, IL,California, NJ, MD, MA, VT, and WA. These 9 jurisdictions possess 132 electoral votes-- 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
oldgulph (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2011 at 7:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)