public opinion

What created the environment of the health care slide? I'd like to go through, step by step, the media environment that drives poll numbers.

Of course everyone knows that all politics is perception. Somebody said, "It's not what a politician says; it's what the people hear."  What's so exciting about the Pew News Coverage Index I cited in my last note is we don't have to guess what people are hearing. Pew tells us. The News Coverage Index keeps a record of the national newshole every week across all media: newspapers, online, broadcast TV, cable TV and radio.

According to Pew: The president started talking about health care in mid-April. That week, April 13, the economic crisis was the top story, followed by the Somali pirates and the tea parties. This was the week that the senior management of Bank of America was ousted. Health care was not on the radar.

Here are the top stories, week by week, as time progresses: Gitmo, the swine flu, Gitmo, Gitmo (May was Cheney's month), the Sotomayor nomination, Obama's Cairo trip.

The following week, June 8, is dominated by the economic crisis. This was the week the media reported that the stimulus had failed, and there were rumors of a second stimulus. This is also the first week health care became a top story: story #4. However, the President and the Democratic Congress were optimistic that a bill would pass. Call it an Era of Good Feelings.

But the next week, the bottom drops out. The Iranian election dominates the news, yet on the 15th, the CBO reports that Obama's chief selling point for his plan -- cost cutting -- is false. The run-up to this point is the last week of positive coverage the plan receives. Health care stays on the radar for the following nine weeks up to today, all with negative coverage.

Let's continue, week by week: Iran, Iran, Michael Jackson, Michael Jackson, Sotomayor confirmation. The next week, July 20, health care becomes the dominant issue. The coverage is negative. This is the same week Obama walks into the Skip Gates affair. The following week is bad for health care.

The week after that is the beginning of the town hall meetings. It was also the first week that budget deficit numbers come out. Fiscal policy, rather than the banks, becomes the #2 issue. This continues for another week.

That brings us to last week, August 17, where health care is again #1 and fiscal policy is #2.

Let's go through it again: Economic crisis, Gitmo, swine flu, Gitmo, Gitmo, Sotomayor nomination, Cairo trip, failure of the stimulus, Iran, Iran, Michael Jackson, Michael Jackson, Sotomayor confirmation, health care (negative), health care (negative), health care/town halls (negative), health care (negative), health care (negative).

We've gone through 19 weeks of news coverage.  There has been no good news for health care or fiscal policy. Obama got all of ONE decent week for health care out of all of them, and health care was story #4 that week, behind Somali pirates. Health care has been #1 on the radar for the past nine weeks, and none of them have been good for the Administration. The tipping point was the CBO report, which knocked the legs out from under the plan. "Health care reform" never recovered.

When you spell it out this way, you can see that poll numbers aren't magic. They respond to concrete and real news that's happening, and the American people are no fools. When they smell smoke, they know there's fire.

The other mega point here is that Republicans can't be blamed for the Democrats' troubles. Nor can the town hall folks or the seniors be blamed, as many as trying to do. The facts show the President spent nearly none of the past 19 weeks getting positive news coverage for his health care plan. Consequently the media accurately reports what's wrong about the Administration plan. Can we blame the town hall folks or the seniors for believing what they read in the paper?

Picture the scene: a fairly popular President, having amassed a significant amount of political capital, decides its time to cash in and spend some on a tough reform effort for a failing, inadequate system. Many Americans agree that the status quo isn't acceptable long-term but hesitate to sign on to changes that they deem too risky. Members of Congress go out to their districts and are confronted at town hall meetings with frustrated, vocal constituents worried about the risks of the plan. The President's popularity outpaces his policies and in particular, this major reform package. Even with control of both houses of Congress, the package can't survive. The reform fails.

If you feel like you've seen this story before, you're not wrong. The trajectory of the 2009 health care debate seems eerily similar to that of the 2005 battle for Social Security reform. Taking a look at the polling from then and comparing it to the data of today shows the parallels in the situation and shows why the health care debate feels all too familiar.

Similarity #1: Presidential Popularity

First, take a look at a bit of a throwback post from 2006 at MysteryPollster.com where Bush's job approval from January 2005 forward is tracked. Bush began 2005 with job approval over 50% - slightly below where Obama started at the beginning of July (Gallup's 7/05-07/2009 poll had Obama at 56%). The trends are not dissimilar: Charles Franklin's plot of Bush job numbers from January 05 forward shows a similar shrinking of support that looks an awful lot like the Obama job approval chart on the front page. This isn't a particularly surprising finding, but provides context to the other more striking comparisons.

Similarity #2: The Agreement that the Status Quo is Unacceptable

In both the Social Security debate and the health care debate, Americans agree: the system needs major overhaul. While so many other issues fail to get Americans to agree with the crucial "we need to do something" sentiment, both Social Security and health care had that extra boost from a public that agreed: maintaining the current system is not workable long term. In February 2005, Gallup found 73% of Americans said Social Security was "in crisis" or "has major problems". (18% said Social Security was "in crisis").

Compare that to the health care debate of today. Gallup has found that 20% of Americans believe health care is "in crisis" and at least a majority believe it has major problems (unfortunately, Gallup doesn't tell us how large a majority). To flesh that out a bit, Gallup asked the question in November 2008 and found 73% of respondents said that health care was either "in crisis" or had "major problems". Does that number sound familiar?

Similarity #3: Issue Handling

By March 2005, Bush's numbers on issue handling of Social Security were brutal, with an ABC/WaPo poll showing only 35% approving and 56% disapproving. CNN/Gallup had even worse news with only 1 out of 3 approving. Compared to 49% approval shortly after Bush took office, once the issue became a hot topic, Bush's number tanked.

Similarly, Obama's numbers have plummeted on health care since before the debate. In April, during Obama's honeymoon, Pew showed Obama with a 51-26 advantage on health care job approval. By August, he had a 42-43 disadvantage - quite the fall from the earlier numbers. The idea that "the president is more popular than his policies" held true then as it does now. (Just take a look at Mara Liasson's February 2005 NPR story, titled: "Bush More Popular that His Social Security Plan").

In both cases, the President began his administration with the trust and support of the people to fix their given "crisis". In both cases, once the debate flared, their numbers dropped significantly. But it is worthwhile to point out that the comparison is not perfect - the Obama honeymoon numbers were immediately followed by the debate, while Bush had a full four years before tackling Social Security.

At any rate, this is just the basic side-by-side look at the reasons why this health care debate may seem like a bit of a "glitch in the Matrix", giving those who watch politics a sense of deja vu.

Because sometimes the more things change, the more they stay the same. (This item has been cross posted at Pollster.com)

Could it be that the truth about the porkulus bill is actually getting out?  Rasmussen reports that public support for the "economic stimulus bill" a.k.a. the Generational Theft Act of 2009 is slipping.  Of course support falls predictably along partisan lines, but the mushy middle is starting to oppose it as well. Here is the key quote:

However, support among unaffiliated voters has fallen. A week ago, unaffiliateds were evenly divided on the plan, with 37% in favor and 36% opposed. Now, 50% of unaffiliated voters oppose the plan while only 27% favor it.

It seems that people were initially supportive of the plan because they were gripped with fear, demanding that government "do something", and because they thought the plan would actually be, you know, fiscal stimulus.  Now that the truth is emerging that the plan is really nothing more than Democratic Party giveaways, people aren't liking it so much.

Furthermore, people are starting to warm up to the idea of tax-cuts-as-stimulus.  To wit:

While support for the plan has slipped, support for a recovery plan that includes only tax cuts - like the one proposed by House Republicans - has grown during the past week. Forty-three percent (43%) of voters support that approach while 39% are opposed. Though the topline numbers are virtually the same as support for the president’s plan, the partisan demographics are distinctly different. Republicans solidly support a tax-cutting recovery plan while Democrats are solidly opposed. Forty-eight percent (48%) of unaffiliated voters like the idea while 33% do not.

And:

Voters continue to soundly reject a recovery plan that includes only new government spending without any tax cuts. Just 15% support such a plan while 70% are opposed.

My faith in the people is slowly being renewed. 

And, this is coming on top of a poll from last week showing that people are nervous about the avalanche of spending that is sure to come.

Senate Republicans have to stand strong against this monstrosity.  There is nothing politically to be gained by compromising and going along with it.  Stick to your guns and force a vote on the Republican tax cut stimulus proposal.

Next Right diarist Warner Todd Huston challenges the Kos claim that the Leftosphere is "firmly on the mainstream on just about every major issue facing our country".  Huston is skeptical.

I'm not so sure that Kos is wrong, though.  There are two evaluation problems here:

• "Mainstream" does not necessarily mean "majority", so what is the popular support percentage required to make a position mainstream?   
• Polls suggest that 70% of Americans support Issue X.  Other polls suggest that 70% of Americans oppose Issue X.  Polls show state preference - but they are a poor proxy for revealed preference.

Bearing those problems in mind, is Kos actually wrong?   I don't see it.  Among the top national issues today, polls show that...

• Majorities prefer universal health care.
• Majorities think oppose the war in Iraq and want to get out very soon.
• Majorities believe anthropogenic global warming is occurring.

 I'm sure there are more granular and specific items on which positions are reversed and they are in the minority, as well.  But we're generally talking a sizable minority, not a small minority.   The public "trust" for Republicans has eroded even on core issues like taxes and foreign policy. 

All that to say, while their reputation as bitter partisans and bomb-throwers is well-deserved, I'm not sure that they are actually outside the mainstream of American politics.   And if that's true, then it is a reality we need to acknowledge and address. 

So, make the case.  Are Kos and the leaders of the Leftosphere outside the mainstream of Americans politics?   If so, on what general major issues are they outside the mainstream?

UPDATE

Sean Oxendine makes an interesting point in the comments:

[their reputation as bitter partisans and bomb-throwers is] why they are outside of the mainstream.  Sure you can point to support for many of their public policy platforms (though on things like FISA, impeachment, etc, I'm not sure that you can).  For that matter, I can point to support for many of the public policy platforms of the Communist Party or the Constitution Party.  That doesn't place those groups within the mainstream.  It's a stylistic difference and the degree to which they are willing to take otherwise-popular positions.

Style is also one of the major differences between the Progressive Netroots and the Democratic Party establishment.   The Progressives want what Matt Stoller once described as "someone who would be with you in a political bar fight."   They want a Fighting Progressive.   

I understand that desire, but I'm not sure how an assertive, aggressive liberal plays with a public that, while often operationally liberal, is still often philosophically conservative/libertarian.   When Democrats make the tangible costs of their policies so visible, the public is more likely to teach them the difference between stated preference and revealed preference.