Poll: Only One In Four Think Obama's Team Did Something Wrong In Connection With Blago
As I noted here yesterday, the way to poll the Blago mess is not to ask respondents the meaningless question of whether people think Obama's team was "involved" in the scandal, as Rasmussen did -- a formulation that could mean literally anything.
Rather, the better, more fine-grained question is whether people think anyone on Obama's team did anything wrong in connection with it.
Now Gallup has done just that. The result?
* Only 26% think someone on Obama's staff has "done something illegal" in connection with the mess.
* Only 29% think someone on Obama's staff has "done something unethical."
What's more, the partisan breakdowns show that those totals are heavily fueled by Republicans saying Obama's team did something wrong, while large numbers of Dems and independents don't agree. And even the number of Republicans who've reached those conclusions isn't especially high: Less than half think someone did something illegal, while 54% think someone did something unethical.
Gallup's conclusion: "There has been no diminution in the public's high level of confidence in Obama." And when the question is asked properly, that becomes even clearer.















I have to ask, other than conversing, what wrong could anyone on Obama's staff have possibly done? What crime could have been done?
It seems kind of far-fetched that this could lead to any wrongdoing in Obama's camp to me.
The most damage, probably, was that whoever has talked to Blago now has that terrible skunk-like smell, and it's going to take more than tomato juice to wash it away (i.e. Jessie Jackson jr.).
December 16, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stop being rational.
Just stop it.
Obama and Emanuel live in the same city as the Wild Hair, and thus, are guilty of something. Their people probably spoke to Hair's people. That is probably illegal. And if it's not, it's certainly suspicious, don't you think? And the fact that Obama remains focused on filling out his cabinet is only more indication of just how he's trying to cover up the relationship with Hair.
December 16, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hair needs to see Obama's barber. That should solve it!
December 16, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry for the rationality. I'm at a science conference where someone just turned something cool like Venus into the most boring 15 minutes imaginable. I'm just escaping into the wonderfully more off-the-cuff world of politics, and it seems that I brought the blandness (meant to bring the beer!
December 16, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Academics have a unique talent for turning interesting things into mind-numbingly boring episodes.
I know. I'm one.
Seriously. Some are terrific communicators. A lot of us aren't. We really aren't.
December 16, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
My wife got a degree in Communication and now trains a non-profit's fund raisers and office workers. She snuck into a geology conference with me once and I got a constant whispered critique (ok, ridicule) of each speaker. Nope, we aren't good with conveying as a rule (Carl Sagan and Steven Jay Gould aside)..
December 16, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn, it took me better than 1300 words to say exactly the same thing you just did.
December 16, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hadn't seen it, but I like it. Favorite quote:
December 16, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only slightly higher than the number who thinks he's a Muslim born in Kenya, renounced his citizenship to attend a madrassa in Indonesia where he became the Manchurian candidate to destory the US from within.
Looking good!
December 16, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg:
Even the Gallup formulation is inane and unprofessional:
'Something unethical' What does THAT mean? What you or I would consider 'unethical' can vary over a vast area - and include things that 99% of others would NOT consider unethical.
Same goes for 'illegal'. Unless people are asked a follow-up question and told to SPECIFICALLY NAME the 'illegal' act, it also suffers from a lack of objective definition.
BEST would have been to ask: "Has YOUR PERSONAL OPINION of Barack Obama's overall integrity or trustworthiness been affected by the Blago scandal?" - with a follow-up: "Is your opinion of Obama BETTER, THE SAME, or WORSE than it was before the Blago controversy arose?"
Now THOSE would be both objective AND indicative of any shift in fundamental appraisals of Obama.
December 16, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno, I don't mind the "something unethical," because even though its vague it makes the crucial distinction between perfectly ordinary involvement that the Obama team may have had versus actual wrongdoing.
December 16, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg:
I can go along with 'crucial distinction' - but it still remains foggy.
I may consider voicing an opinion on my replacement as 'unethical' - while most might not consider it an ethical breach. Yet here, 'unethical' really doesn't indicate any fundamental change inmy opinion of Obama. After all, cynic that I am, I consider it MANDATORy to at least put my .02 cents into the ring when discussing political appointments in my home state.
But I see your point as well. :)
December 16, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You obviously didn't see Norah O'Donnell this morning on MSNBC. She focused entirely on the 26%, ignoring the 60% who think he hasn't done anything wrong.
It was stunning to watch.
December 16, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
To quote Tena from an earlier thread, sounds like SOP to me.
December 16, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, any honeymoon period at MSNBC was shortlived, particuarly in their "news" updates.
I imagine there was a severe post-election dip in their numbers anyway, and they are scrambling for some way to increase viewship, but I think they've made a mistake. They drew viewers leading up to the election by pretty much supporting the Obama side, now that same viewership still likes Obama and they have to be turning away in even larger numbers than they might naturally. I know I turn the channel whenever they do a Blago/Obama push segment.
December 16, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I remember once taking my niece and nephew to watch this marching band practice at a highschool just down the street. The bandmembers were in their very colorful uniforms, the people in the color guard were throwing flags around, music was blaring...stuff was happening, you know?
What did my niece and nephew focus on? (They were four and six, respectively) A dandelion that was growing between the fence and the sidewalk. All that cool stuff on the other side of the fence? Yawn.
The press are very much like my niece and nephew at ages 4 and 6.
God help us.
December 16, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL! that's all I can say
December 16, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The number of voters who believe that the Obama transition team did something illegal and/or unethical is now the the double digits."
OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG!
We've elected an unethical, lying SOB! What were we thinking?????
December 16, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, let's put the figures together. About 70+% approve of Obama and his policies. About a quarter assert (on the basis of no evidence... but ok, that's their belief) that Obama did something wrong in connection with the Ill gov.
Here's what I think. The majority of the country, maybe three quarters, approve of Obama. And a small minority disapprove and are ready to believe outrageous stuff.
Naturally, the press sides with the minority!
December 16, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. The press sides with Republicans.
In any event, we were told endlessly during the election about the crucial importance of those independent voters.
Why are their opinions being ignored now?
December 16, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the minority = repubs.
December 16, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
But the Right's labeled the media as Left!
December 16, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the press sides with the hype, the sensational, and the controversy. Even when there isn't any of the last, they try to manufacture it.
December 16, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's my own poll analysis:
The one-in-four who condemn Obama,
are the one-in-four who approve of Bush.
No surprise here.
December 16, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's pretty much what I said above... but you've condensed it!
December 16, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
That many approve of Bush??
December 16, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. Gallup says 29% still support Bush and 29% think Obama or his staff did something unethical.
December 16, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word.
I only take slight issue with the number because I think it would be lower if not for the media. There has been almost a week of breathless pearl-twisting from the media, so it speaks well of Americans that only the Loony Repug Base believes there is any reason for all the hysteria.
December 16, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but they think that it's just their job to make molehills into a mountains. What is annoying is that they don't have to exaggerate the news--there's a lot of mountains out there that they aren't covering.
For example, CBC's reporting that if the Big 3 automakers collapse, they will lose half-a-million jobs--uh oh, we may end up bailing out the Canadians!!!
December 16, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's pretty much what I was just going to post myself. Same group of dead-enders.
December 16, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
All this little warshak test tells me is, if I am in a room with 3 other people, one of them is a freakin idiot!
December 16, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would it be impossible to ask someone who "thinks" the Obama staff did something "illegal or unethical" to then ask what that "thought" is based on?
Would that be too much? Well, I guess if we can watch Joe S and his merry band of dopes say that "there must be something there" without anyone challenging anything, why should we expect questioning of the average Joe?
December 16, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
All of which means that if the Repubs (and their media cohorts) continue to try and make something of nothing regarding Obama and Blago, then they will only further damage their image in the eyes of the Democrats and more importantly the Independents. So I say to the Repubs, keep talking about insignificant and false issues, and let Obama and the Dems continue to talk solutions.
December 16, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it possible that this case would end up being challenged as entrapment? I can't help but think that the Feds were working with some people to "help" make the case. This is where I suspect they and a bunch of pols want to keep a lot of the information sealed.
December 16, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
[rolls eyes]
You don't know anything at all about criminal cases, do you? Fitzgerald is involved in an investigation and an active case. Every lawyer wants all the information he or she can get, and he or she want that information first, and they don't anyone else to see it until they do because they want to make sure there isn't something in the information that they don't necessarily want the other side to know quite yet. Or any number of reasons.
sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeit - please get a clue.
December 16, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
All well and good.
But that is not my point. If there is a possibility that the case will be dismissed as entrapment, the plant(s) will not want to be exposed. They will be seen as untrustworthy in the political netherworld.
I suspect that ,as the saying goes, to seasoned pols Blago's crime was not the corruption, it was that he was caught.
December 16, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is precisely one of the reason, I watch less and less MSNBC and the news in general.
The American media is full of inuendos.
Fareed Zakaria is the only one I am currently watching.
Rachel is getting boring by the minute, and the others are a bunch of clowns with no respect for the news.
December 16, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I keep seeing American journalists say, "It's our job to ask questions."
I want to answer back, "No, your job is to find facts and keep your mouth shut until you do."
December 16, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heard on MSNBC: The anchorwoman asked a reporter about Obama cutting off the reporter with the Blago question, and the reporter goes on to say that Obama will continue to be asked about Blago because of his promise of transparency (roll eyes, gag). Never mind that Obama said, AGAIN, that he cannot release any details until Monday. Never mind that the anchorwoman just stated that the US Attorney asked Obama NOT to release their findings. Never mind that Obama stated that his people did nothing wrong. And let's just gloss over the fact that Fitzgerald said Obama is not implicated. The reporter and the anchorwoman just continued to ramble on as if Obama has something to hide.
December 16, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
the problem is it was very wrong for obama to try to buy his old senate seat. his arrogance and foolishness is evident already and he is not even president yet.
December 16, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
obama must say he is sorry again for being bad...again.
December 16, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given that certain members of the TPM staff have been talking with other unnamed persons who have talked with the persons who are peripherally involved with persons who reside in Chicago and know persons who are involved with persons involved with Chicago politics, I think it is high time for the TPM people to come clean on their involvment with the Blagojevich scandal, because it is perfectly clear that they are hiding something either unethical or illegal and continuing to cover it up must mean it is criminal and they are the target of the investigation even though Patrick Fitzgerald never mentioned them directly or indirectly while he was at the press conference discussing his criminal complaint. That is critical.
It is clear that everyone at TPM is part of this scandal and are mentioned as the "unnamed Press or Media Persons A through Z" who are not mentioned at all in the complaint. You have to read between the lines and assume there is a connection. Because TPM has spent so much time reporting on the Obama campaign, we know for a fact they are guilty of something. TPM must provide a timeline to prove they had no involvment with anything they did not have involvment with and did not talk to anyone they did not talk to.
The new poll suggests that more people who read this comment believe TPM must have some involvment in the scandal than the people who are not reading it. The number of people who believe this fact are approaching double digits. How do I know it's double digits? Because I just told you so. It is zero zero point zero zero percent. And that is a lot.
No one at TPM should be allowed to go on vacation to Hawaii or anywhere else until they answer all questions to my satisfaction. And since I'm never satisfied, no vacations for anyone.
TPM is guilty of colluding with the Obama campaign to do something that has to do with this scandal and Rob Blagojevich's hairbrush, code-named "Football." And judging from the picture of Greg Sargent (who just looks guilty) we can conclude beyond a shadow of a doubt that Sargent tried to bribe Rahm Emanuel into convincing Jesse Jackson, Jr. to send an emissary to Blago's deputy in an attempt to buy a new hairbrush in exchange for sending the original to the Smithsonian to be on permanent display.
But Sargent was never going to provide a new hairbrush, just his old one -- you know, the one he gave to Tony Rezko in exchange for a comb -- at least that is the story according to the numerous unnamed sources that I have on this exclusive story that is really unsourced because I am pulling a Jayson Blair and just making it up. But believe me, yessiree, it is as true as can be, considering the source.
December 16, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
So the latest reports have Rahm Emanuel taped in 21 separate conversations with Blagojevich regarding the Senate seat. Is that smoke I smell?
And it appears Fitzgerald is worried that impeachment hearings will screw his case.
And it appears that there really have been nothing illegal that actually happened, just a lot of talk.
This is gonna get ugly and sounds like several prominent Obama people will be called to publicly testify under oath if the impeachment proceeds. Is that smoke I smell?
December 17, 2008 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, no, not unless your farts smell like smoke to you. (Trust me, they don't to everyone else.)
December 17, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink