Poll: Voters Want Obama To Act On Economy, Energy, Health Care
The new Hotline/Diageo poll, the first survey gauging voters' opinions, priorities, and expectations for their new president, shows that voters are optimistic about Barack Obama as he enters the White House -- but they do have demands for compromise with the GOP.
Obama has a favorable rating of 65%, and 66% of voters are somewhat confident or very confident that he can bring change to Washington. On the other hand, large majorities want him to compromise with Republicans (58%) and appoint an even mix of Dems and GOPers to his cabinet (61%).
Even counting out GOP base voters who would reflexively say this stuff in the hopes of taking anything they can get, this still suggests that independent voters are clamoring for compromises, as opposed to the hard-line stances of the Bush years.
As for the individual issues themselves, voters as a whole want movement on energy independence (24%), financial regulation (22%), a middle-class tax cut (21%), and national health care (15%). Obama's base of Democratic voters rank their priorities a bit differently: Middle-class tax cut 29%, financial regulation 22%, national health care 19%, and energy independence 13%.
We just want things done. The american people are sick of the bickering, so getting the job done, with consensus is the way to go. Good thing this is Obama's mantra as well.
November 11, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
OT: What basis is there for the talking heads' new favorite line about America still being a "center-right" country?
I mean, didn't we just elect "the most liberal senator ever"?
November 11, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not sure really but who cares, that talking didn't change the landslide that the GOP just suffered.
November 11, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heck, if conservatives weren't dishonest enough to reverse their opinions on a dime, they'd have to admit that we have a mandate for socialism!
November 11, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think questions about compromise are pretty meaningless in the abstract. Compromise always sounds good, until you get to exactly what is being compromised away.
I take it to mean that voters don't want partisanship just for the sake of scoring points (which we're all too familiar with by now) and that some of the GOP scaremongering about "unrestrained" Democrats has taken root, but they also strongly support Obama's agenda, which he laid out in considerable detail in time for them to vote on it.
So they understandably support the usual sorts of compromise that are necessary to get things done, but I suspect if you asked whether they support a compromise agenda between the one they voted for and the one they strongly rejected, the results would be much different.
November 11, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems like you are trying to reason yourself into a complete shift to the left. I believe that is the wrong way to go. Governing with consensus is the way that we need to go. With ultimate progressive goals being the resting place, consensus should be the journey.
November 11, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Consensus for consensus sake is what got us into Iraq.
November 11, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a difference between Obama consensus:"Let's see where our ideas are, try to craft something that works best and put it out there", and Bush consensus:"How about all you guys vote for my Republican idea, he he he."
November 11, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if this same question was polled in late 2000 or early '01, after GWB was ... installed as president. I don't know but would wager that large majorities wanted our Georgie to make good on his pledge to be a uniter and not a divider and to appoint lots of Dems to his cabinet. He appointed 1 (Norm Mineta) to Transport and was a bitter partisan. Essentially no one held him accountable for this breach of promise, and he was reelected.
But of course, Obama should appoint several GOPers to his cabinet, and at least one to the big 4 (State, Defense, AG, and Treasury). Because, I guess, the GOP is the Daddy Party, and oh, so serious. About what I have no idea.
November 11, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
We are just smarter than the GOP. We appoint people from bothe parties strictly because we aren't bitter partisans and we aren't so focused on the left and right as to not acknowledge some republicans have good ideas. Just the left much more than the right.
November 11, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
An agenda with a goal of compromise will become a center-right agenda, with limited effectiveness. An agenda with progressive goals, as outlined in the nearly-two-year-long campaign, with some compromises on some details, is the only way to go.
We're already getting full-compromise, half-useful policies with a Democratic Congress and a Republican President. Let's wait till we've spent our political capital on real progressive policies before we start negotiating with the right.
November 11, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I concur. Compromise should be avoided until absolutely necessary. It's sorta like letting air out of your tires to get out of a mudhole. You'll probably get out by doing it, but now you have four half-flat tires.
November 11, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds to me like the people are being eminently reasonable.
November 11, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The menu of policy options in this poll is strange. Surely there should have been such options as "economic stimulus package" and "addressing global financial crisis", no?
It sounds like Obama is going to make a big push for the infrastructure spending, which in itself only gets modest support in the poll. But that spending is going to be part of a larger stimulus package, and if the pollsters had thought to ask about that package, I suspect they would have found overwhelming support for a stimulus package as the top priority.
Similarly, improved "financial regulation" should be seen as only one component of a broader policy suite aimed at the global financial crisis.
Fortunately, Obama is not as clueless as the pollsters, and is going to make these large macroeconomic initiatives "Job One".
November 11, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the deal, as I see it: The GOP, in defeat, is facing a civil war, each side trying to blame the other. There's a good chance the religious right will take even firmer control over the party. After all, most of the few remaining Republican moderates in Congress were defeated.
At the same time, Barack Obama did quite well in attracting Republicans, including conservative pundits and columnists (helped by the Palin selection, admittedly). So what better than to stock his cabinet with moderate Republicans who are already unhappy with the direction of their party?
At the very least, this will give some stature to the moderate wing of the GOP, which will be good for the country (let's face it, the Republicans WILL be back in the saddle at some point - though I hope it's a long time off - and we'll all be happier if the moderates are in control by then). And at best, this will encourage moderates to abandon the increasingly loony fringe who control the GOP. It's win/win, as far as I can see.
Admittedly, ALL cabinet picks must be firmly behind Barack Obama's vision for the country, and they must be capable. But let's face it, Obama made a big point out of putting this intense Washington-based partisanship behind us. Is it so bad if he follows through on that promise?
November 11, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, the premise implicit in this poll is, "The left wants a landslide for the left to be a landslide for the left, and the right wants compromise in any form it can get."
That means that the demographic to pay attention to is the "independent" or swing vote. I disagree:
1) That demographic went solidly for Obama this time around.
2) The swingiest swing vote are the late undecided voters. Let's use them as representative of this demographic and expand from that.
3) There are no Americans at all who are dumber than late undecided voters. Most swing voters are asking to be lied to and then are lied to, and one can gauge their dumb indecision by how long it takes them to decide which lies they prefer.
4) The dumb people might be too stupid to understand the poll and its implications.
5) As long as whatever approach is taken yields results, dumbasses regardless of affiliation will be fine with it and think it was their idea in the first place.
Ignore the morons. Govern as you wish, with some compromise but not relentless cowing. And these people will only next think about politics in October 2010, when they vote according to PR and gas prices.
November 12, 2008 7:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that the results in California give a key to the complexity of the political climate. Obama won by 61% to 37%, yet proposition eight, to prohibit gay marriages, passed with the vote of African-Americans and Hispanics. What is the synthesis here?
November 12, 2008 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
replying to David Seaton--
why is it that gays think that african americans and hispanics should automatically be ok with their sexual orientation simply b/c those groups have been victims of racism? lest we forget that african americans and hispanics go to church also and they are reading from the same bible that the sarah palin's of the world is reading.....can't think of one truly God fearing person who will be ok with gay marriage b/c that is in direct contrast to their "bible's" definition of a marriage. Is it wrong and discriminatory? Hell yeah....
No disrespect to Jews and Italians, but Jews experienced the Holocaust, so that should make them more accepting of differences right? Some would argue "NO". They stick together and prefer it that way. Italians used to be called derogatory names when they landed on Ellis Island, so that should make them much more compassionate towards other groups right? Ask many "minority" New Yorkers and folks from New Jersey and CT about that and they will tell you something different. The point is politics should never be mixed with religion b/c it spells trouble. In the big scheme of things, I would wager that Hispanics and Blacks would never ever think to punish gays, but since it was on the ballot and such behavior is deeply frowned upon in their respective communities, the bible thumping side of them took over.....
Again, is it right? No! That setback for gays has no bearing on Obama and if you regret your vote b/c African Americans and Hispanics came out in mass for Obama and therefore, unwittingly negated your rights. Fight harder. I will be there with you, but do not blame Obama....get religion out of politics....it is a cancer and this is only the beginning..
November 12, 2008 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Democratic base is made up of racial minorities, labor unions, and university educated "intellectuals", the gay issue is one that is basically for up market members of the last group.
Like the abortion issue the gay issue is a dividing line between all these groups. What the California vote means is that there is still ample ground to grow "Reagan Democrats". Personally, for my sins, I am an aging, straight, white male, whose last name ends in a consonant. I am interested in cutting defense spending and using the money for socialized medicine.
November 12, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink