Poll: Obama Has Big Mandate -- And High Expectations
Some interesting new poll numbers find that Barack Obama's very high popularity in his honeymoon period carries with it something else: High expectations that he'll make things better -- even higher than the expectations for Bill Clinton during his transition back in 1992.
The Democracy Corps poll finds that 58% of likely voters believe Obama will lead the country in the right direction, with 22% saying he'll make things worse and a properly-jaded 15% saying it'll make no difference. In 1992, Bill's numbers 53% saying he would make things better, 21% expecting things to be worse, and 21% saying it would make no difference.
The poll also finds a very strong mandate for Obama's policies: 66% of respondents say they support his policies -- including 45% who strongly support him -- compared to only 28% who oppose him. Oddly enough, Bill Clinton's mandate was even higher at 72% support on policy.
But the difference for Bill was that only 17% were strong supporters on policy, with a huge number of 55% soft support that made it much easier for Bill's mandate to ultimately be squandered amid poorly chosen battles during his first two years. And that's a weakness Obama doesn't have this time around.
"properly-jaded 15%"
WTF?
December 3, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
An "proper" use of profanity!
December 3, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
And an improper use of grammar on my part.
Sorry...
December 3, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Try typing with a wrist brace on--I just got my cast off a couple days ago and each post takes a couple tries.
That said, I got a kick out of the 'properly jaded 15%' comment. Here, everyone is either crazily excited or extremely inflamed of the changes coming.
I'd like to talk to one of these who are in the 15%. My guess is that they are just not paying attention.
December 3, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Healing energies....
December 3, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thx, I'm not good with meditation or focusing energy on my own!
December 3, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
High expectations? No...Really? I would never have guessed!
December 3, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama not only has a mandate, he has a mission. The public overwhelming wants the policies he ran on during the campign.
The notion that he's going to ditch all of those things because he picked cabinet people from the Clinton administration simply doesn't make sense. That's why I don't have patience for the hand-wringing and kvetching on the left.
December 3, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
You put your finger on it! He has a mission. And he has a huge cadre accompanying him on the same mission. And, contrary to what some imagine, I think the strong supporters are going to not only support what he does and says, but will be assisting in his vision of what needs to happen. We may not get all we individually would like to see, but we know we'll be heard and our views valued.
This is a great man for very troubled times.
December 3, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
My expectations are high.
I'm a proponent of the "Big Bang" theory of governance: Obama goes for the tough stuff first and foremost--healthcare reform, immigration reform, green energy, infrastructure, etc., all under the rubric of "Jobs Creation".
Do it hard and fast, and don't let up for the first hundred days...
December 3, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
The crux of just how miraculous Obama is for me is right here. He knows he has a mission - that's why he ran. He told us so. He thinks he can fix the country. Yet, Obama, Mr. Charisma Personality Awesome, has the least visible sense of his own grandeur I've seen in any president in my life, perhaps. It's quite the paradox - and he walked into it with his eyes wide open. He may be the sanest president I've ever seen.
December 3, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
He reminds me of the sages eastern wisdom has described as leading.
December 3, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
He actually reminds me a lot of Lincoln, based on what we know about Lincoln and based on my sense of the man.
I don't think Obama has Lincoln's problem with depression, and that's a good thing. But his sense of himself and his job as president, and the reasons he wanted the job, all are very reminiscent of Lincoln to me.
December 3, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. I agree.
As an aside, I love the Lincoln Monument in DC. It's my favorite. I've been there so many times. Daytime. Nighttime. Nighttime is my favorite.
December 3, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Me too, and I always have to stand next to the plaque where Martin Luther King stood and look out over the Mall.
December 3, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Mall has a sadness for me. Because on the day Kennedy was killed, as a Freshman in college, I was with a couple of classmates who went downtown that afternoon (on a bus of silent people). We walked over to the Capitol - around to the back. And looked out over the Mall - till the sun went down. That has never left me. Lincoln sits at the other end.... a president who also was assassinated. Brooding over that sadness. Yet a symbol of hope. (MLK fits into that)
Boy... am I full of musing today... or what?
December 3, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing's wrong with occasional introspection, right? Memories make us who we are.
That and food. Such as good New Mexican green chilli. ;)
December 3, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course not. I was poking fun at myself.
I'm in the introspection business!
December 3, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, let's start a separate page for all of the Clinton comparisons, profiles, conference calls, etc. EC isn't "Everything Clinton."
December 3, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
And I realize that this might look like I'm replying to the wrong post (the Hillary Politico piece is just below seems more appropriate), but I don't need to relive 1992 every time we talk about 2008.
December 3, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's something you'll need to get used to since it was the last time a Democratic took over the WH. People love comparisons, be it politics, movies, or sports. We would be talking about 1992 even if wasn't the Clintons involved.
December 3, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, who else would you like to compare to--Bush? He squeaked by with one stolen election and another based on overplayed fear. Clinton's the one that's closest in memory.
I know it's been overplayed that Kennedy is the closest comparison, but it's a different world now. Kennedy's world was shadowed in the fear that the whole world could destroy itself at any given moment. Our fears today, the true ones, are much smaller. So we have a lot of hope.
So forgive the comparisons to Clinton. All comparisons suck anyway, but I guess it's what we have.
December 3, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Having lived through the Kennedy years, I would say that our fears today are a whole lot more reality based. Back in 1961, my fears about being blown to smithereens was mitigated by the knowledge that our President was ready to kick the bad guys' asses before they could kick ours. Kennedy made some blunders, but his willingness to act gave me a sense of reassurance and calm.
Nowadays when I see butterflys in December in New England, and worry that my kid will have to work twice as hard to realize her dreams while we're all living in a world that's living on borrowed time and diminishing resources, I don't sleep nearly as well as I did back in the '60's. The '60's were a nightmare waiting to happen. The past 8 years are a nightmare come true.
December 3, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't live through the Kennedy years (born in 1974), so my comparison's based on books and overheard conversations when I was a kid between my father an his friend about how many times over the world could be destroyed through senseless war. So, a limited basis for my comments I guess.
Still, I'd take the remote possibility of a terrorist attack or economic problems easily over a possible end to the world any day. If there had been even the tiniest nuclear exchange (what, 20 nukes?) then the whole world could have gone into a nuclear winter (I'm a scientist and just read a new climate model paper over this--scary stuff). I mean, we were actively aiming these things at each other then.
December 3, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are aware of how many loose nukes there are, aren't you? Back in the '60's, there were no loose nukes. And if we all stopped burning petrochemicals RIGHT NOW, it will still take decades (and maybe even a century), before climate trends head back to the safety zone.
Let's see: back in the day, we knew that the Russians loved their children too and that Mr. Kennedy played a good game of Chicken. On the other hand, mass starvation and the attendent endless wars it will engender, plus a return to the dark ages because we've run out of energy to fuel our technology and agriculture, and add the prospect of lunatics setting off dirty bombs and other nuclear delights. That's today's scarey world. Nighty night.
December 3, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry for you because we'll hear a lot more about Clintons the next four years. Personally, it doesn't bother me.
December 3, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
No need to feel sorry - I realize that we'll never stop hearing about the Clintons. I just wish we didn't have to hear about them, um, everywhere.
I didn't start reading TPM because it provided a snapshot of The Clinton Daily Universe (TM). While Greg's coverage is almost always (thankfully) missing the soap opera element that we're used to in the traditional media, I still don't think that it's essential to view the transition through a Clintonian lens at every opportunity.
December 3, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Case in point: since the daily roundup, we've got three Hillary posts and one Obama post that's essentially a Bill Clinton comparison.
But maybe Janet Napolitano or Bob Gates or some other transition figure will get on a hot streak later today and I'll be proven wrong.
December 3, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't this a somewhat premature (and optimistically slanted) conculsion? While Obama has received well deserved kudos for his team selections, he has yet to execute his agenda. In fact, his lack of an executive record proved to be his weakest point throughout the campaign. We have no idea what his strengths or weaknesses are -- we can only speculate based on what his judgment (his counter to the "no record" charge) has so far rendered.
Comparing Bill Clinton to Barack Obama at this point is like comparing the winner of Superbowl 52 to the winner of Superbowl 53: I fully expect that it will be the Giants, but that's just wishful thinking on my part.
December 3, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's policies are unclear to most people. Most people think his policy is "change", health care for all, and ending the war. He maintained lots of "wiggle room" during the campaign meaning that his actual policies are murky at best for most voters. I'm glad he has the support of a majority of people but I doubt it will hold for long when they begin to see what he does vs what they thought he said he was going to do during the campaign. To maintain the support he has, he will need a really huge, dramatic change to be put in place quickly so that people actually believe he will bring the change they desire. Without that, his support will dwindle quickly.
December 3, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even my elderly mother, a life-long Republican who didn't vote at all this year, thinks that Barack Obama will make things better.
But note that I asked her, a few months ago, why she disliked Hillary Clinton so much, and she said it was because of the failed health care attempt. She didn't blame the Republicans who were responsible for its defeat; she blamed Clinton for failing.
If the Democrats in the Senate let the remaining Republicans run rough-shod over them - as usual - and Barack Obama can't get much accomplished, his support is likely to evaporate quickly.
December 3, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink