According to a new poll commissioned by The Hill, more likely voters would blame Democrats for a government shutdown than would blame Republicans:
Twenty-nine percent of likely voters would blame Democrats for a government shutdown, compared to 23 percent who would hold Republicans responsible, according to a new poll conducted for The Hill.The results are surprising because most people blamed the GOP for the last government shutdown, which occurred during President Clinton’s first term. A week before the 1995 shuttering, polls showed the public blamed Republicans by a two-to-one-margin.
The Hill’s survey, conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, comes as lawmakers are heading into high-stakes spending negotiations that will seek to avert a shutdown.Republicans have a substantial edge among independents: Thirty-four percent would blame Democrats, while only 19 percent would blame the GOP.
Republicans have a substantial edge among independents: Thirty-four percent would blame Democrats, while only 19 percent would blame the GOP.
There is, of course, the matter of the other 43 percent, who would blame both parties.
I think the lesson from 1995 is that clear, consistent, aggressive, and sensible messaging is the key to winning the battle of public opinion attrition that would result from a shutdown (others might say the lesson is: don’t shut down the government). Both sides took lumps in that fight, but Bill Clinton was the last man standing.
Could things work out differently this time? Well, Obama enjoys the same messaging advantages the presidency afforded Clinton, but is half the communicator. And one thing the raw numbers in the poll fail to capture is that the energizing effects on the parties’ respective bases would likely be asymmetric: Republicans holding fast on a shutdown would rouse the Tea Party, it’s hard to think of an agglomeration of Democratic constituencies that would be as charged by it.
Of course, President Obama doesn’t need to be Bill Clinton; he only needs to be better than John Boehner. And a heartened Tea Party might not be enough if a prolonged shutdown bleeds the GOP of the independents that carried them to victory in 2010.
Clinton had the fact that the GOP refused to vote ... its the Dems this time who will be refusing to vote ...
Presentdent Obama never caught the car in his community organizer days ... he caught the car in the Presidential election and now doesn't know what to do with it ...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"President Obama doesn’t need to be Bill Clinton; he only needs to be better than John Boehner. And a heartened Tea Party might not be enough if a prolonged shutdown bleeds the GOP of the independents that carried them to victory in 2010."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Foster, the rest of your article does not support the rest of your argument. Basically, you're saying it's first-and-goal on their one yard line, we have a 7 point lead with 1 minute to go, we have a better player, a better game plan, we're at home, and the other team's coach has never coached before. Therefore we'll probably lose. Boo-hoo...
People liked Bill Clinton, the lovable scoundrel (okay, not those of you whose skin he made crawl). But, most people liked him, and had a certain level of bemused appreciation for the whole tears on command and old school southern horndog philandering routine. They appreciated his shameful and really pretty transparent practice of the politician's manipulative skill. To a certain extent, it was performance art.
People don't like Obama. They're told they do. They're expected to. Heck, the media says they're racist if they don't. But, they don't. So, when times are tough, they haven't, don't and won't take his side.
Plus, say what you will, Clinton really did want to balance the budget - - through tax increases, but balance it nonetheless. Obama doesn't care about the deficit, and has no interest in balancing the budget, not through tax increases and not by spending cuts. So, Obama has no credible defense in a fight over how to balance the budget.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse1776, everything in Daniel's last paragraph is correct. The right needs to understand that:
-The 2012 electorate will in all probability be more Dem-friendly, so we'll need more than just the Tea Party conservatives to win. Independents must be convinced to go against Obama this time.
-GOP leadership is still unproven, and since Obama is the incumbent and still gets the benefit of the doubt, Boehner et al. will need to BEAT him.
The onus is on the right and the GOP. We are not in the sure-win position you describe, and we can't afford to get cocky. We've got to be smart, avoid unforced errors, and most of all we need to win the debate in the eyes of swing voters.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRight now those polls may show an edge towards the GOP. But if a shutdown happens and the MSM goes 24/7 injecting sob stories of old ladies not being able to feed themselves because the GOP turned off the food stamp machines, well, you'll see the sheeple turn baaaaack to the trough awfully fast.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDon't you think it makes a difference that in 1995 it was Clinton vs. an entirely Republican-controlled congress, and in 2011 it will be Democrats vs. Republicans in the House with the president voting "present" from the sidelines? Can Obama blame Republicans if it's his own party that won't vote for a CR (and they didn't vote for a budget last year either)?
The parallels with the fight in Madison also color things -- and what happens there (and Indiana, Ohio, etc.) may greatly effect the national debate. Obama can't go to Madison and join the protestors without 1) undermining his (already tenuous) argument that he is a budget-balancer, and 2) looking like he's completely in Big Labor's pocket (at a time when union popularity is falling.) But he can't-not side with the Unions against Evil Republicans, and when that story finally reaches a conclusion he will have to comment on it (and maybe "do something federal" to throw the unions a bone if/when they lose.)
Or else he stays quiet and takes no action, in which case he doesn't dig himself into a deeper hole or gain anything from it (votes "present" and stays where he is) BUT this would greatly disapoint one of the most loyal pillars in his base. How aggressively will the unions rally for his budget in DC if they feel Obama is not sticking up for them in Madison?
(And what will the Tea Party do? They are a non-factor in Madison in the winter, but DC in springtime will be another ballgame.)
Seems to me Obama is caught between a rock and a hard place -- the impending brutal impact of his policies with unbending reality is based on the fact that THERE IS NO MORE MONEY, but he doesn't want to admit it yet . . .
If the public realizes & agrees that THERE IS NO MORE MONEY, then Obama loses as long as he defends big govt. Or rather, he can only win by convincing enough people that there IS still enough money left to fund big govt. But this is one of those cases where it's not about ideological disagreement, it's really just a cold hard fact that we are broke. Numbers don't lie.
Obama's tactic will be to try to stall & punt until it becomes someone else's problem to solve. He will play the shutdown purely for short-term political PR gains. If Republicans focus on longer-term issues I think they win -- because they are right, and also because Obama will look clueless and petty in comparison to a "sober adult view of finances (based on real math)" as well as his own all-but-forgotten sky-high campaign rhetoric. ("How's that change working out for ya?")
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe more I read the comments at NRO the more I realize why they push squishes for President, you people are an amazing bunch. Not a single comment here says anything about principle and standing on it, it's all about spin. How about this, run on something and then govern on what you ran on.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Foster,
Before implying that besting Speaker Boehner will be an easy task, perhaps you should consider his behavior since this session of congress has convened, and compare it to the antics of his narcissistic predecessor of 16 years ago. I refer, of course, to Mr. Gingrich. The contrast has been stunning. John Boehner (and the rest of the GOP leadership team) has conducted himself with impressive restraint, looking and sounding like a serious, professional adult at all times. No pouting, no foot-stomping tantrums about some perceived disrespect. He talks about what the problems are, and what needs to be done to address them. No muss, no fuss, and the public notices and appreciates it. This guy could play Joe Friday in the next version of 'Dragnet', for crying out loud.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse