"Bipartisanship" and Obama's Approval Ratings

[Pryderi]

http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2009/02/bipartisanship_and_obamas_appr.php

A very interesting discussion has broken out between two titans of the polling-analysis business, Mark Blumenthal of pollster.com and Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com. Nate has been exploring the theory (beloved of some Obama critics in the blogosphere) that the President's rhetoric of bipartisanship on the economic stimulus legislation has blurred his message even as rank-and-file Republicans move decisively against him, producing net losses in his approval ratings without producing any offsetting benefits. Mark responded with alternative explanations of the slight drop in Obama's approval ratings as entirely predictable, and suggested that a more partisan approach might have worsened them significantly.

Here's the nut graph of Mark's argument:

evidence of the limits of bipartisanship? Let's remember that Obama holds an overall approval rating that most polls now peg in the mid-sixty percent range, after winning with 52.9% of the votes cast. Doesn't the aggregate approval rating, including approval from roughly a third of Republicans, say something about the benefits of the "bipartisan" messaging? And how will those Republican and Republican leaning independents respond to harsher partisan rhetoric from the President?

(It's worth noting that the most recent Democracy Corps poll also found a third of Republican voters supporting Obama's "policies and goals").
==============================================================

I hope this makes the "Greatest Page"

[Larkspur]

1. People did not vote for bipartisanship. They voted for change

Sucking up to Repukes who are insane is foolish, especially when you allow them to water down a bill you already watered down. That's what Obama did.

[4lbs]

2. Bipartisanship = change.

How many times during the past 8 years of the SuperChimp did they give a damn about what the Democrats in Congress thought?

President Obama doesn't want to be the leftie equivalent of the Bush Administration, ignoring the GOP at every possible juncture. He's already said that if any Republicans have good, sound ideas, he'll listen to them and even implement them if they really are good.

When has the Bush Administration ever seriously considered anything proffered by the Democrats?

[Larkspur]

3. No, bipartisanship = weak and ineffective policies

The Right wing ideology has been a disaster to this nation and they, including the so called "centrists" refuse to aknowledge this.

Obama should not have pre-compromised the stimulus bill. He should have asked for everything and they bargained down from there.

[Two Americas]

4. Obama said it himself

"Don't bring the same tired old ideas to the table that got us into the mess in the first place."

Those "tired old ideas" can only mean Reaganomics, and Reaganomics is the sum total of the what the Republicans have to offer, and the public has overwhelmingly rejected that.

Ergo, there will be no "bipartisanship" in the sense that many here are interpreting and promoting it - moving to the right - and I cannot for the life of me understand why so many Democrats are pushing this idea. Some sort of shallow and simple-minded notion about "loyalty" and "support" - as though politicians were entertainment celebrities or sports heroes - is the only explanation I can come up with.

"The leftie equivalent of the Bush Administration?" We have that right here, with the "my way or the highway" zealous "supporters." They are not very much to the Left, though. "The Democratic party love it or leave it" has replaced "America love it or leave it" as a slogan for the suppression of dissent and criticism.

The Republicans are not ever going to have any "good, sound ideas" that will be of any value for us. They work for the interests and desires of the wealthy and powerful few, that is who they answer to - always, relentlessly. The "better" their "ideas" are, the worse it will be for the people.

[Two Americas]

5. ironic

What we need to leave behind us is the us-versus-them rah rah team partisanship, which has nothing to do with principles and ideals and which sees "our team" as the only important thing, and winning elections as the ultimate goal, to be achieved by whatever compromising cynical and manipulative means necessary. Along with that goes all of the triangulating, pandering, centrism and all of the rest of the Republican-lite crap we have been getting from Democrats.

Ironically, it is those posing now as the biggest "supporters" of the President, those who are trying to define what "support" means for all of us and aggressively enforce that, who are engaging in exactly the sort of partisanship that Obama is talking about moving away from, and that we must move away from if the new administration is to succeed. It could now be that those claiming to be his biggest supporters - and beating up on any and all who will not fall into line - are actually the greatest threat to the success of the new administration. I suspect that behind the "I love Obama more than you do" facade, many of them are actually trying to move the party to the right and that is their true intention. That will make it very difficult for the new administration to do what it needs to do, for the country, for the future of the party, and for its own success. (Notice the order there.)