The Pew Research Center for The People & The Press national survey released Wednesday joined a lengthening line of polls showing President Obama's approval rating sinking from its heights earlier this year back to levels closer to his actual vote in November 2008. In the election, Obama won 52.9 percent of the vote; Pew, echoing other recent findings, put his latest approval rating at 51 percent.
Like other surveys this summer (including the Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor poll), Pew found Obama's numbers are weakest among groups that were skeptical of him last year, but appeared to be kicking the tires on him during the honeymoon stage of his presidency. Now those groups--particularly white men without a college education--are retreating rapidly amid the ideologically polarizing debates over health care, the stimulus and his administration's overall trajectory.
But Pew's new survey also records perceptible, if still generally
modest, erosion among groups that were central to Obama's coalition
last year--including young people, college-educated white women and
even partisan Democrats. That is more worrisome for Obama, especially
amid signs that the bruising combat over his health care plan is
inflaming the conservative base. If conservatives are energized at the
same time that Obama's core supporters are wavering, Democrats could
face a withering differential in turnout during next year's election,
many party strategists fear.
The chart below compares Obama's
approval rating in the July and August Pew surveys with his vote last
November, according to exit polls, among groups that supported him then
and others that resisted him.
Supportive Groups 2008 share 7/09 App. 8/09App. Change
College-educated 08-8/09
White women 52 58 53 +1
Hispanics 67 76* 62 -5
African-Americans 95 85 91 -4
Democrats 89 85 82 -7
Independents 52 48 45 -7
75-100k families 51 53 43 -8
18-29 66 63 59 -4
Resistant groups
Non-college
White men 39 46 35 -4
College-educated
White men 42 48 46 +4
Non-college
White women 41 45 44 +3
Age 65+ 45 48 47 +2
100k+families 49 56 45 -4
*Hispanic rating unavailable for July 2009 Pew survey; figure from Pew's June 2009 survey.
Sources:
Edison/Mitofsky National Election Pool Exit Poll 2008; Pew Research
Center for the People & The Press surveys July 22-26, 2009 and
August 11-17, 2009.
As the health care debate has exploded this
summer, Obama's ratings have declined the most among the group that was
always the most skeptical of him--white men without a college
education. At 35 percent, his approval rating among those men has now
sunk below his performance with them last November, and converged with
their meager support for the last two losing Democratic presidential
nominees--Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004.
Obama's
numbers with the "waitress moms"--white women without a college
education--are also slipping back toward his 2008 vote level, which was
itself lower than the Democratic showing among them in three of the
previous five presidential elections. Figures provided by Pew's Jocelyn
Kiley show that from Obama's Pew highpoint in April, when his overall
approval rating hit 63 percent, the president has dropped a daunting 12
percentage points among the waitress moms and 11 points among the
non-college men.
This erosion among non-college whites could
threaten Democrats in 2010, particularly across the Rustbelt states of
the Midwest, if turnout among these voters remains strong. But over the
long run, those voters are not central to Obama's coalition, in part
because they have been reliably Republican in presidential elections
since the 1980s, and partly because they are steadily declining as a
share of the electorate.
More important to Obama are
college-educated white voters, the key to his dramatic and decisive
gains last year in suburban counties from Fairfax, Virginia to
Arapahoe, Colorado. On this front, the picture is somewhat brighter for
him: he maintains majority support among college-educated white women
(who gave him 52 percent of their vote last year, matching the
Democratic high in recent decades) and his approval rating among
college-educated white men still exceeds his (admittedly lackluster)
vote with them last year. But with both groups, he is moving in the
wrong direction: Obama's approval rating among the upscale men dropped
two points in the Pew survey from July to August, and his standing with
the college-plus white women dropped a more ominous five percentage
points. (Compared to his April Pew highpoint, Obama is down seven
percentage points with college men, and eight with college women, so
his decline hasn't been as steep as among the working-class whites.)
Socially liberal and generally open to government activism,
college-educated women are the Democrats' strongest remaining allies
among whites; they are a group Obama really cannot afford to alienate.
The
slippage among college-educated whites also helps explain Obama's
troubles with independent voters, another more troublesome trend for
him. All of the most recent national surveys have placed his approval
rating among independents below 50 percent, although his positive
ratings with them still generally exceed his negative marks.
The
NBC/Wall Street Journal national survey also released this week offers
some insight into that decline. It found that just 31 percent of
independents now approve of Obama's handling of health care, while 54
percent disapprove, according to crosstabs from the poll provided by
Public Opinion Strategies, one of the pollsters. Asked their view of
Obama's health care plan, just 28 percent of independents said they
consider it a good idea, while 43 percent described it as a bad idea,
and the rest said they didn't know.
Yet when the pollsters read
a description of the Obama proposal to respondents, the attitude among
independents sharply shifted. Opposition among them remained roughly
the same at 44 percent. But support jumped to a 52 percent majority.
The gap between potential and actual support for Obama's plan among
independents suggests two things: that the White House is losing the
struggle to define the plan so far, and that they may have room to
increase their support if they can regain the initiative.
Obama
faces a formidable gap between potential and actual support even among
Democrats in the NBC/WSJ poll. Just 62 percent of Democrats described
his plan as a good idea; but after hearing the explanation, 78 percent
of them said they would support it. (Even among Republicans, support
jumped from just 9 percent to 23 percent when they were provided a
description of the plan.)
As the prospects for bipartisan
agreement in the Senate fade, the need for Obama to unify Democrats
will increase. Right now, though, he is losing Democrats from both
wings of the party, even as independents soften and conservatives
mobilize. Obama's ratings in the Pew survey declined slightly from July
to August among moderate Democrats (down two percentage points) and
sharply among liberal Democrats (down nine percentage points).
These
poll numbers suggest that health care is becoming the classic issue
that wounds a president: one that unites his opponents and divides his
own side. Obama probably has little hope of changing the first half of
that equation; when Congress returns he'll probably need to focus more
on improving the second.







Isn't this just the age-old distaste for sausage making? I mean, who actually enjoys watching politicians rankle over this - other than paid political analysts?
The worst mistake would be for Democrats to misread these polls and lose their nerve. If a major health reform bill is passed, there will be a significant rallying effect around Obama. Failure to pass significant reform will NOT "relieve" Independents with all sorts of worries and doubts. It will only confirm for them that Obama had no idea what he was pushing for.
Nothing succeeds like success and nothing fails like failure.
Right. And since no reform bill will get any Republican support, we might as well get a progressive bill, not some watered down "compromise", ineffective and thus a political weapon for his opponents when the "reform" fails.
The Blue Dogs may pride themselves on their independence and friends in business. But if they don't support real healthcare reform, they can have fun running in 2010 without organized labor on their side. And then watch their friends in the business community support the GOP candidate.
What liberal Democrats consider "real health care reform" is different than what I would.
Almost the entire country - conservatives included (maybe except for the insurance companies) favors health care reform. They just disagree on what reform should be. I am an independent and voted for Obama. However, I regularly participate in a conservative political forum. Everyone on there wants health care reform. They just don't want more government involvement in it. They want market reforms.
Personally, I would rather have Obama steal the Patients' Choice Act from the Republicans, tinker with it a little (see New America Foundation critique), and pass it off as his own. In my opinion, this would shoot his ratings back up into the 60% area.
Conservative politicians like Paul Ryan and Tom Coburn and writers like Reihan Salam have the best ideas on health care reform.
Health care reform should not have to cost a lot of money. It's supposed to SAVE money!!
I would rather see taxes raised to deal with global warming than for health care. Let's have a carbon tax with offsetting cuts in payroll taxes.
writers like Reihan Salam have the best ideas on health care reform.
I would love to see the conservative response to an automatic 10 to 15% withholding on your paycheck. That is the essense of the Reihan Salam/Singapore plan.
Do you understand that?
The problem is that the "market reforms" that Republicans promote are nothing more than increased cost shifting to the sick, who already pay too much. They want insurers to discriminate more and reduce access to care for the chronically ill... It's the whole reason WHY the current health system is so broken, and why the vast majority of people declaring bankruptcy are due to medical bills from people who are already insured!
Free market doesn't work in health care. When you are sick, you are a captive consumer. You have to pay whatever they want or you will die. The system is ripe for gouging, which is what it does...
The chronically ill are already second class citizens through no fault of their own... Conservatives need to stop "blaming the patient" and making their lives worse for them...
Amen, Tyche. It's part and parcel of the liberal trope that they're smart and caring people and that conservatives are stupid and vicious whose opinion counts for nothing.
We want reform. We just don't want the government doing a complete take over of 1/6th of the national economy.
Your "reforms" are shouldered by the sickest of society,... giving them less access and making them pay even more than they already do (which is way too much)... hardly a compassionate viewpoint....
Elmer, I hope you can help me with this. I've heard that the reform plans would result in a "government takeover" of health care, but I honestly don't understand it.
From where I sit, all the bills bend over backward to keep the insurance companies in the game. The basic design is: keep Medicare essentially as it is, modestly expand Medicaid eligibility for people without much money, and otherwise everybody goes into the insurance market.
Don't be ridiculous. If there's one thing eight years of Bush taught us beyond the tiniest shadow of a doubt -- and one thing which the teabaggers, the birthers, and the deathers are teaching us now -- it's that conservatives are far more stupid and vicious than anyone ever thinks possible, but that their opinion always counts for more than liberals'.
Wasn't that the point of Ambinder's recent mea culpas? That he was wrong for the right reasons? Instead of hating Bush, he hated liberals, which means that he's an okay dude, and please keep signing his paycheck.
Democrats need to stop being apologetic about raising taxes on the rich. Provide people with some historical context. My god, Eisenhower taxed the rich at 91%. Nixon taxed them at 70%. Reagan at 50%. Obama wants to tax them at 39% to secure health care for all Americans (instead of building ICBMs) and he's obfuscating, apologizing.
Unless we can win the taxation argument--and for most Americans it will make perfect sense, especially when we have oil CEOs taking home $700 million dollars as one year's earnings--we cannot win the health care argument.
The rich benefit more than anyone from a functioning society. Let them contribute to it accordingly.
Eric's comments are disingenuous and downright foolish. The "tax-devil" is in the details ... he is conveniently (or purposely?) leaving out the fact that there were 15 tax brackets in the IRS code between 1971 - 1982 and there were 12 tax brackets between 1982 - 1986 vs. the current 6 brackets -- and very few people fell into the top bracket -- quite an important distinction.
Thus your statement that the "rich" paid 70% under Nixon and 50% under Reagan vs. the Obama plan is an apples-to-oranges comparison. You are unjustly lumping working couples making $250k per yr in with "oil CEOs taking home $700 million dollars as one year's earnings" -- simplistic rhetoric such as Eric's is the real problem.
Eric -- If you wish to espouse the need for "historical context" the least you can do is provide readers with comprehensive and relevant historical data. Get a clue.
It's an historical fact that the rate of the top tax bracket--the rate that would have applied to our oil CEOs--was 91% under Eisenhower, 70% under Nixon, and 50% under Reagan until the end of his second term. There's nothing disingenuous or foolish about a factual claim.
I never mentioned the "apple" of $250,000. I don't think of them as "rich" and neither should Obama. However loosely you want to define the term, we should raise taxes on the "rich,"--the only fruit in my basket--and not 4-5% but to where they were prior to 1988.
I would be happy to see Obama re-instate a broader range of tax brackets; and I'd be happy to see him raise the threshold for a tax increase from $250,000 to--what--$1 million? But let's really raise their taxes--not to his current proposal, which is ~40% as a cap, a minor increase, still well below traditional historical levels--but to where it would have been, for instance, under Eisenhower: 62%. And on upwards. At the end of 2007, less than 15,000 families controlled 6% of our nation's wealth. That is bad for our economy.
Unless we can win the taxation argument--and for most Americans it will make perfect sense, especially when we have oil CEOs taking home $700 million dollars as one year's earnings--we cannot win the health care argument.
For me at least, you have this exactly backwards. I'm comfortable with increasing tax levels, but not if it's poured down the drain of our current medical/insurance system. There is no effective incentives for health care to get better/faster/cheaper in the current proposals.
If we were talking about the market reforms as TycheSD mentioned, I'd be happy to make the system more redistributive. [Though I'll echo the point that you won't find enough money in just the "rich" to get that done - you'll have to tax me more too.]
Nowhere in my comment do I argue for the current system. I merely note that in my view our tax rates on the rich are too low and should be raised. History provides the argument for raising them and Obama needs to place this debate within that historical context, unapologetically.
I would love to see how the pollsters described the "Obama Plan". My understanding is that there is a house plan, a description by the President of what health care reform would do in broad terms, but no detailed plan from the White House. So did the pollsters describe the plan as one that would increase benefits, expand coverage and reduce costs? That might be possible in Utopia, but here in the real world more care means more costs. The fundamental flaw in the President's sales pitch is that his goals conflict. If the number of people covered expands, then either the amount of care offered to those with insurance today must decrease, or the amount spent must increase, or the amount paid to health care workers must decrease.
This Eric comment is also rather foolish:
"The rich benefit more than anyone from a functioning society. Let them contribute to it accordingly."
The truth is the opposite. The poor benefit more than anyone from a functioning society. Have you ever been outside the country? In many places what you find is a much more divided have/have not society. The rich at the top are living pretty good. They go on foreign trips when they need better medical care or nicer vacations or luxury goods or whatever. They can build fancy houses with fancy walls and hire people to patrol them. They have a pretty good life if they really are rich. Those who suffer the most are the poor. They frequently lack basic sanitation, transportation infrastructure, and many times even reliable electricity. They lack health care, good schools, and most of the other modern or desirable conveniences in life we take for granted. And there are a lot more of them, by percentage of population, than there are in our society. The middle class is frequently small or non-existent and so the stepping stone out of poverty is even higher. You really don't have much experience with the world if you don't know that it's the poor who suffer first and most when a society becomes non-functional.
One quick example. Zimbabwe. Robert Mugabe confiscated the farms and farm equipment of "rich" white farmers to, purportedly, help the rest of the country, especially the poor blacks. In the process, he destroyed Zimbabwe's economy, either purposefully or inadvertantly. Guess who is suffering the most now? It's not the rich folks. It's the poor folks he claimed he was trying to help. Food is very scarce. There is actual starvation going on. Medical care is hard to come by. Money is worthless (they recently converted to a new currency that trades in the old currency at a value of 1,000,000,000,000 old notes to 1 new one.) It's a fantasy to think that the rich suffer the most in a non-functional society. Note: Before Mugabe's stupidity, Zimbabwe was a net exporter of food, had a thriving commercial sector, and had the money to feed and properly educate a much higher percentage of its citizens. Here are some current stats: Unemployment 94%, inflation 80 sextillion percent, lowest GDP growth of any country, between 2000 and 2007 agriculture production fell 51%, poverty of 80%, a nurse's salary in September, 2006 was Z$12,542 (12 US cents), less than the cost of a soft drink.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Zimbabwe
So, no, it's not the rich who benefit most from a functioning society, it's the poor, who are trapped in a bad economy and a bad a society in a way a rich person never is.
You reversed my claim. I didn't speak of who suffers most when a society breaks; I spoke of who benefits most from a functioning society.
It seems rather sadistic to look at the poor in a functional society and say, "Look how much you benefit from living here!" In fact they are FAILING to benefit from the abundance that surrounds them.
Over time, capitalism consolidates wealth. This consolidation has nothing to do with merit; if it did, we would encourage, not forbid, monopolies. Through taxation we mitigate that structural flaw in capitalism and allow all members of a functional society to benefit from its increasing wealth.
Shine - I don't know that Salam has settled exclusively on the Singapore model, but at least that country actually IS PAYING for the system they have. They're not kicking the can down the road for future generations to worry about.
I would like the U.S. to have this problem:
"The low proportion of government spending on health in Singapore helps the country maintain regular budget surpluses while reducing taxes."
http://www.american.com/archive/2008/may-june-magazine-contents/the-singapore-model