Two defining polls

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

As we start staring down 2012, after all the stuff that happened in 2011, it's interesting to see where popular opinion falls, especially with the first year of a Republican Congress opposing Obama, the Occupy protests getting so much coverage, with talks of deficits and inequality.

I think these two poll results, both polling adults rather than registered or likely voters, from Gallup tell us quite a bit:



For all the talk of how big business is exploiting us, how the government isn't the problem? Gallup finds the opposite, as it has charted near-record belief that Big Government, rather than Big Labor or Big Business, is the biggest threat to the country. Even a plurality of Democrats - 48% - believe this to be the case, and it is difficult not to see this in the context of the Presidency of Barack Obama, especially with the failure of the stimulus and the unpopularity of his health care reform act (support dipped to 29% among adults in an AP poll released today).

Ezra Klein called this result "Liberalism's problem in one graph." It's difficult to disagree, especially given the very vocal arguments being presented in favor of the left's position in the months prior to the poll.



After seeing a merge in 2009, Americans are back to seeing the nation largely not divided by "haves" and "have nots." Nearly 60% of Americans do not see the nation split that way, a 9 point improvement for that point of view since the last poll. As Gallup also notes:

The shift, documented by a Gallup poll conducted Nov. 28-Dec. 1, is noteworthy in that it came after 3½ years of economic turmoil in which more Americans have become unemployed and more have become negative about their personal finances. The current poll was also conducted as the Occupy Wall Street movement continues to focus on the disparities between the wealthiest 1% of Americans and everyone else.

What is telling about this graph is not so much the perspective of where people see the country split, but where they see themselves:

If they had to choose, 58% of Americans would say they are in the "haves," rather than the "have nots" group. This breakdown has held remarkably steady over the past two decades of economic boom and bust...

About the same number of Americans believe themselves to be in the "haves" now as they did in 2009, as is the case with the "have nots." Not only do Americans believe they're in good shape, they're coming around to the understanding that most people are in good shape as well.

So what does this information tell us about the arguments that are being made currently, and the attitude of the population on a whole? Knowing that this is a poll of adults, which typically skews differently than polls of registered or likely voters, what do you think this might tell us about the upcoming election year? Does this impact your point of view at all about how good or bad Americans have it?

Comments

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

It shouldn't be too surprising. It just means that a significant number of people who are defined by some arbitrary measure to be "poor or low-income" still feel that they are part of the "haves". Which just means that the dividing line of "poor or low-income" might be too high.

[musicpsych.livejournal.com]

I wonder if the flip in 2009 was psychological, that perhaps a percentage of the respondents felt that with Obama coming into office, they would have a better chance at being the haves, even if the economic reality showed otherwise for them.

[ghoststrider.livejournal.com]

Agree completely on point one. The collusion between the two parts is incredible.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

But, but, but... Big government has such good intentions!

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

So, is government, or is big government the scapegoat? We need clarity.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

We know how private industry handles its own affairs...and we were perfectly glad to leave the medieval period behind, thank you very much.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

I am glad that we have decided to make policy decisions based on who can promote how much fear.

And i would be interested to see the methodology behind the poll. I mean, if "big government" is simply a trope for "excessive sovereign debt," that's something quite other than "big government" in the sense of "intrusive regulation and forfeiture of civil rights."

Also, it's stil a pretty sad state of affairs when 41% of the populace sees the country as divided. I mean, the fact that 49% prefer not to see the issue in those terms is indicative of the fact that they are on the other side of a divide.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

The NBC / WSJ poll featured a few days ago certainly shows a less rosy picture, and people are furious with Congress, rating it the worst. The comments in the segment were suggesting the situation would be ripe for a 3rd party candidate since everyone is fed up with the Democratic and Republicans. If Ron Paul decides to run, it would guarantee Obama's re-election ;)

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

On the bright side, it doesn't look like anyone actually blames unions for anything.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's the surprising stat right there.

[ofbg.livejournal.com]

'Big unions' are less of a factor because the union movement has lost so much in terms of membership and respect. Unions are mainly government unions now.

Teamsters, UAW, UMW and others have lost so much membership due to criminal corruption and bankrupting their industries. SEUI is the only one I know of that is still growing but they are following in the footsteps of their predecessors and I expect their days are numbered too.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

For me, the polls show bias in reporting. The government doesn't buy a lot of commercial spots; therefore, for most of the commercial media they are fair game, and the more sensationalistic the better.

By contrast, no commercial reporter who wants to work tomorrow would run a deep investigation into the shenanigans of a major sponsor.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

For me, the polls show bias in reporting. The government doesn't buy a lot of commercial spots; therefore, for most of the commercial media they are fair game, and the more sensationalistic the better.

This would only make sense, however, if the media was somehow advancing those majority viewpoints, which there is scant evidence to support.

By contrast, no commercial reporter who wants to work tomorrow would run a deep investigation into the shenanigans of a major sponsor.

Not that it's stopped, say, NBC from covering GE or NPR the government.

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

I don't know about you, but it would take a lot more than one poll to make me change my opinion about the state of this country. Besides, who's to say this poll accurately portrays the opinions of Americans. Regardless, my convictions would have to be pretty weak to be swayed by one poll.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

You make a valid point. It's not as if this is the only piece out there, though.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Yes, I think that's what's meant by a mind so open everything falls out.....

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The only polls that matter are those of election day, and this doesn't matter whether I agree or disagree with those polls. Sorry, any OP that relies on polls alone to make points is and will always be inherently flawed.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

I would only conditionally agree. This particular poll was too general to be of use to anyone but diehard libertarians, true.

But political critters are addicted to polls. Polling drives action in a quite silly way, when it should be the other way around. Polling has become the cart harnessed ahead of the horse, and as a result the unwieldy construct can barely stay on the road.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Dear Jeff,

You know how foolish argument from popularity is.
After all, you're an atheist.
Nuff said.

Try again?

Sincerely, BJW

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

They're not right because the position is popular, it just so happens in this case that the popular position is right.

Shhh

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

(Don't tell telemann all his charts and graphs don't prove anything)

(or do you only pooh-pooh stuff when you don't agree with it?)

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Here's a real-world example of corporate media manipulation of news (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/york-toyota-dealers-pull-ads-abc-stations/story?id=10751192).

I believe Toyota dealers had every right to pull those ads. I also believe ABC had every right to run the original stories.

This basic conflict of interest is why I don't watch corporate news. Simply, I don't believe them.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

As they ran the stories, how is it manipulation?

Also, recall that the issues were not Toyota's fault (http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/08/autos/nhtsa_nasa_toyota_final_report/index.htm). The problem is not corporate news, as there is no conflict of interest - it's of agenda-driven news designed to be anti-corporate and push a specific idea, whether it's being done consciously or not.

[bikinisquad3000.livejournal.com]

For all the talk of how big business is exploiting us, how the government isn't the problem? Gallup finds the opposite...

No, they find that more people believe the opposite than don't. It's a poll on opinions, not a determination of actual facts.

It is difficult not to see this in the context of the Presidency of Barack Obama...

Actually it's not difficult at all. One problem is that when you, Jeff, see the phrase "big government" you apparently think only of Democratic-party government, but ignore the hoopla over, say, the Patriot Act. Few people criticized it for being too small.

You mention we're currently at a near-record amount of people (64%) who believe big government is going to be the greatest threat to our country in the future. The record amount (65%) believed that during GWB's first term, before 9/11. After the post-9/11 sharp dip in people believing that, it climbed back up to 61% in four years. It did not begin to dip again until the start of 2007, when Democratic politicians gained a majority in Congress for the first time in more than a decade.

Down to 55% when Obama took office, this opinion immediately began to rise in popularity, steadily climbing to its current 64% three years later. In that time, the role of Republican politicians in Congress was often in the news, as they vigorously opposed economic measures proposed by the White House, as well as health care reform. (Obviously that didn't change, either, when the GOP gained members in both the House and Senate after 2010.) The Affordable Care Act took an entire year to be signed into law, after many contentious debates and arguments, and in a drastically different form than when it was proposed. The 2009 stimulus did not get a single Republican vote. None of this was exactly a secret at the time, as you know.

Honestly, the argument could also be made that voters trust government less the more heavily Republican politicians are involved in it, or the more heavily their involvement is publicized. I'm not really making this argument. I'm just saying it's irresponsible analyzation to assume everyone who thinks big government is a threat associates that with Obama, or that everyone who thinks so has the same description of "big government" you do.

-------

What else. The unpopularity of the Affordable Care Act cannot be attributed to one reason, and so cannot be read as unpopularity of any type of health care reform, or of the version of the Act originally proposed by the Obama administration, or of the Obama administration itself. Some dislike it because they believe it does too much, some because they believe it does not do enough. Some believe health coverage is an entirely private, individual matter, and others believe we should have NHS-type government-funded health care; when asked whether the government should compel citizens to purchase health care, both are probably going to answer "no" for very different reasons.

-----

The second graph is interesting. As the writeup you quoted says, fewer people think there is an economic divide between "haves" and "have-nots" than they did in 2008. As it also says, the number of people who think they are "haves" remains remarkably steady over the past twenty years. What I find interesting is that the first graph goes back twenty years as well, and shows that the number of people who believe there isn't a divide eroding pretty steadily over that time. The only times that opinion hasn't been losing popularity are during the 2004 Presidential campaigns, and since Obama's coming into office in 2009.

Me, I'd think it's worth noting that these are two periods during which GOP politicians spent much money and were extremely vocal in describing to the American public that we do not, in fact, have such an economic divide and therefore need no healthcare reform, or no stimulus, or four more years of a President more concerned with terrorism than the economy, or what have you. What this graph tells me, in short, is that advertising works. Your use of the phrase "failed stimulus" in the OP is evidence of just how long some of these memes have lingered in the minds of people as actual facts.


Edit: Fixed a typo, added last sentence.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Missed this earlier somehow.

Actually it's not difficult at all. One problem is that when you, Jeff, see the phrase "big government" you apparently think only of Democratic-party government, but ignore the hoopla over, say, the Patriot Act. Few people criticized it for being too small.

I don't think of a specific party, no.

I'm just saying it's irresponsible analyzation to assume everyone who thinks big government is a threat associates that with Obama, or that everyone who thinks so has the same description of "big government" you do.

The problem is that such a claim can only be made if you think that the people fear a big government based on a group being elected who expressly noted a desire to make it smaller.

The unpopularity of the Affordable Care Act cannot be attributed to one reason

Given that the bill has never really been popular, I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

[ghoststrider.livejournal.com]

Neither of these graphs surprise me, though both of them bring a sort of joy to my heart.

Re: Graph Two, I will be one of those contrarian libertarians who does say there is a divide, but not in the typical sense most people think of. Frankly, I find that Marxist class analysis to be utter bullshit; we're all workers, some are just better off than others. The divide comes when we look at those who use government force to improve themselves, by lobbying and even writing regulation. These are not businesspeople--they are rent-seekers, or "political entrepreneurs," and should be detested. There are haves and have-nots, just not within the general population.