A New Poll Suggests That Play-It-Safe 'Centrists' Are Weakening the Democratic Party

[marmar]

from HuffPost:


by RJ Eskow

A New Poll Suggests That Play-It-Safe 'Centrists' Are Weakening the Democratic Party


If Sunday night's debate improved Hillary Clinton's chances of capturing the nomination, poll results released Tuesday suggest that she and other "centrists" are losing the very independents they need to win the general election. Congressional reluctance to take decisive action on Iraq is driving these critical voters away from the Democrats - and they're taking the party's base with them.

Most observers, including me, believe that Sen. Clinton won Sunday night's debate (although Edwards was giving her a good run until Wolf Blitzer stopped giving him air time in the second half). And Sen. Clinton moved effectively to neutralize Iraq as a divisive issue for Democrats when she said "the differences among us are minor. The differences between us and the Republicans are major."

Unfortunately, the poll numbers don't offer much to support the play-it-safe strategy advocated by Sen. Clinton and other Congressional Democrats. In increasing numbers, the American public is beginning to agree with the assessments made by a number of liberal commentators: that the Democrats were given a majority in 2006 to take charge and end the Iraq war, and that their failure to do so leaves voters doubtful about their ability to lead.

A Washington Post/ABC News poll concluded the following, according to a report in the Post:

Disapproval of Bush's performance in office remains high, but the poll highlighted growing disapproval of the new Democratic majority in Congress. Just 39 percent said they approve of the job Congress is doing, down from 44 percent in April, when the new Congress was about 100 days into its term. More significantly, approval of congressional Democrats dropped 10 percentage points over that same period, from 54 percent to 44 percent. Much of that drop was fueled by lower approval ratings of the Democrats in Congress among strong opponents of the war, independents, and liberal Democrats.

The report goes on to say that "while independents were evenly split on the Democrats in Congress in April (49 percent approved, 48 percent disapproved), now 37 percent said they approved and 54 percent disapproved." That's a precipitous drop among the voters that are most in play. It augurs badly for the Democrats' prospects in 2008 under a triangulating 'safety first' war strategy. ........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/a-new-poll-suggests-that-_b_50888.html

[rodeodance]

1. i do not think this current strategy is winning for 08!

[jgraz]

2. Further polling reveals water is wet

Why is it so hard for the leadership to see this obvious result of their (lack of) actions?

[blueworld]

3. Centrists are too often fence-sitters

I always thought that in politics, as in many other endeavors, the "center" was a destination you reached after opposing points of view were discussed, weighed & compromised upon. With the GOP trotting out terrorists, boogeymen & Mexicans as an attempt to terrify voters into submission, the Dems need something a little stronger than "centrism", I think.

If the differentiation between the parties were clearer, the healthy centrist compromises would be clearer as well.

[Deep13]

4. Better to risk being wrong than to be weak. nt

[wyldwolf]

5. That is quite some spinning of that poll

First, the writer unfairly concentrates on Clinton (no surprise!) while Obama had an identical voting record in terms of Iraq.

Secondly, I'm always told on DU that liberals in congress outnumber centrists. How many times since November has someone bragged that the Progressive Caucus is the largest caucus in Congress?

Finally, there is always a honeymoon period when someone new is elected or the power structure changes hands. In 1994, the new GOP dominated congress got higher marks than the deposed Democratic majority, for example. But Congressional approval has been on a steady decline since the 1960s. In 1964, over 70 percent of the public said that they could trust Washington to do what was right most or all of the time; by early 1993, only 19 percent expressed similar confidence. (Phillips 1994: 7). In 1964, when asked, “Would you say the government is run by a few big interests looking out for themselves or that it is run for the benefit of all people,” nearly 40 percent more people agreed with the latter than with the former. In 1992 that sentiment had reversed itself, with 60 percent more people believing that the government was run for the benefit of special interests than those who believed it was run for the benefit of all. (Stanley and Niemi: 169).

Perhaps the centrists are having their way. Perhaps they're not. But the much ballyhooed "progressive" majority in the congress don't seem to be standing in their way.

[marmar]

6. The Progressive Caucus might be the largest caucus....

but that doesn't make it a "majority" in Congress, in which the Blue Dogs, unfortunately, still seem to exert a great deal of influence.

[wyldwolf]

7. so, overlooking the fact you zeroed in on just that part of my post, your implication is...

... that aside from the progressive caucus, everyone else is a centrist.

[marmar]

8. Now who's spinning?

Interpret it any way you wish.

[wyldwolf]

9. can you address any of my points?

[Zodiak]

16. the DLC is nearly half of the Dems in the Senate

Congress has two houses.

to the poster below: can't hear you. I suggest you do the same.

[wyldwolf]

20. ok, first time I've seen a "progressive" argue FOR DLC dominance...usually you downplay it.

[Yukari Yakumo]

30. I agree, this is one shitty opinion piece

It's got so much spin, I feel like I'm in a dryer while it's going full tilt.

The writer, as expected for a anti-Hillary hit piece, utterly fails to look at things in an objective manner.

A large number of Democratic Senators come from states that voted for Bush twice.
And there's the "Blue Dogs" in the House whose number is greater than the Dems' margin of majority.

Loose translation: If Democrats are to accomplish anything, you have got to include the centrist/conservative elements in the party.

This is an anti-Hillary hit-piece. There's no substance here at all.

[On the Road]

10. I'm Glad They Specified "Play-it'Safe" Centrists

the two terms are not synonymous. Howard Dean is a centrist, but he is not a "play-it-safe" politician. It seems that none of the candidates have learned the distinction.

[Zodiak]

17. very true

Hell, Al Gore is a centrist, but he gets a fire in the belly.

Murtha is a damned right-winger, but he fights!!

Its the cowards and risk averse that turn Americans off. This is the U.S. of fuckin-A, not mamby-pamby land.

[paulk]

11. so.... if the independents that are turning away from the Dems

because the Dems aren't taking "decisive action on Iraq", does that mean they're going to vote for Republicans in 2008?

That seems to be what this article is trying to say... which makes no sense...

[Zodiak]

19. false dilemna

not mentioned in the article, but nice try. The article actually talks about how American are unaligned because they think neither party represents them. It also discusses the mistaken idea that "independent" means "centrist" in thought.

If anything, the article implies that American are ripe for a third party that is more aligned wth independent voters ideas, which are not the result of triangulation between Republican and Democratic stances.

...but yes, the way you frame it makes no sense, which is why the frame is fallacious

[paulk]

28. ok, third party, then

That 10% is going to sit home or vote for a third (progressive) party.

"Disapproval of Bush's performance in office remains high, but the poll highlighted growing disapproval of the new Democratic majority in Congress. Just 39 percent said they approve of the job Congress is doing, down from 44 percent in April, when the new Congress was about 100 days into its term. More significantly, approval of congressional Democrats dropped 10 percentage points over that same period, from 54 percent to 44 percent. Much of that drop was fueled by lower approval ratings of the Democrats in Congress among strong opponents of the war, independents, and liberal Democrats.

-------------

Despite the best attempts by many here on this board (and I'm not necessarily including you) this is not going to happen. It's a constant amongst certain segments of the left, this attempt to split the Democratic Party - it worked in 2000, it's not going to work in 2008.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

12. Because centrists take similar positions on economics as the GOP

Neoliberalism-lite.

So that leaves the only issues left to be the wedge issues.

I'm looking at Obama and Richardson (and probably Clinton), the non-leftist wing of the party. But it's ok because...they're rock stars. :banghead:

[klook]

13. Many traditionally Democratic voters will stay home on election day

if their only alternatives are Conservative and Extremely Conservative.

The DLC types never seem to understand that they can't just tell the base to piss off and still get their votes.

[Tellurian]

14. Look at the sources...Huffpost, The Nation...

people do not seem to realize after you're elected you can pretty much make your own agenda. It's much simpler to move further Left after the election where you avoid the cat calls labeling you unbalanced, veering towards special interests.

It's absolutely counterproductive to do things any other way.

[intheflow]

15. Now if they would actually move to the left once elected...

But very few of them seem to do that.

[Tellurian]

23. So,

there is no factual proof they won't. I'm thinking they will.

[jonnyblitz]

18. yeah, imagine using LIBERAL sources here at DU...

UNBELIEVABLE! :wow: :sarcasm:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

21. If we nominate a triangulating centrist we are toast in 08'. Let's figure this out now, not in 11/08

[Zodiak]

22. Hillary is the archetypical triangulator

Not always, but that sure is the perception.

I sincerely believe that if we nominate her, we will have Republicans in the WH again. The negatives are way up there.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

27. I agree. Her unfavorables are actually higher then her favorables now! nt

[blm]

24. The same group stayed closer to Bush on his military strategy from 2001-2006

and undermined every Dem who dared to challenge Bush on the issues of terrorism and Iraq military strategy.

[sampsonblk]

25. The cumulative effect of always thinking strategically

is that people get the well-founded impression that you believe in anything that's convenient at the moment. When the war was popular, you were a co-sponsor. Now that its unpopular, you are the strongest anti-war leader since Jesus Christ. At some point, no matter how cleaver your strategy on paper, people just won't support you. There has to be some kind of core belief that doesn't change from week to week, or poll to poll. Is it just me, or is that not common sense?

[grasswire]

26. did you see the credentials of the author?

"RJ Eskow is a writer, business person, and songwriter/musician. He has worked as a consultant in public policy, technology, and finance, domestically and in over 20 foreign countries. He also held senior-level positions at several major insurance carriers and has served as CEO of two companies. He is experienced in finance, strategic planning, marketing, data analysis, and IT. He specializes in health and medical issues, and has also worked in film and music....
As a performer, he has been signed to RCEG Records and his new album will be released in 2007. He's grateful he has rock music to fall back on if this business thing doesn't work out."

I wish Huff Post could find someone actually qualified to tell us what's going to happen to the Democratic Party now that it is so weak and failed.

[calimary]

29. Kick!

I wish I could kick this all the way onto the insides of Nancy Pelosi's sunglasses.

[JTFrog]

31. Call it a hit piece if you want,

but in my case it is spot on. The centrists and sit on the fencers are the ones that have me pulling my hair out and keeping my money in my wallet.

[a kennedy]

32. Clinton, my not voting for him for this exact reason........dragging

the party way to far to the right of center and it's hard to get the party back to the left where it belongs!!! D*mn. Good man, not the best for my idea of the Democratic party.

[bvar22]

33. The only thing in the "Middle of the Road"...

..are yellow stripes and dead armadillos!---Jim Hightower





"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone