More On Obama And Polarization
As you probably know, the new popular meme from the right is that President Obama is a polarizing figure, dividing the country against itself. The latest example is Karl Rove's latest column in the Wall Street Journal, "The President Has Become a Divisive Figure," and Nancy Pfotenhauer pushed it this morning on MSNBC.
The number depends on recent polls -- Rove mentions the Pew Poll specifically -- showing an enormous gap between the very high number of Democrats who approve of President Obama and the very low number of Republicans who approve.
As Greg Sargent points out, Pew's own polling director doesn't think this is the right interpretation of the numbers. And another theory has made the rounds, too, that this is because the ranks of Republicans are shrinking, leaving a much more conservative base.
I spoke to Jeffrey M. Jones, Gallup's managing editor for the poll, for some perspective on this in light of their own survey with a similar result. Jones' bottom line take on it is that Obama's policies -- which are very Democratic, in a Dem-dominated Congress -- is contributing to the polarization, but at the same time there are long-run trends in partisanship at work here, which are playing a significant role.
"I think what you're saying is probably true to a degree," Jones said of the Republicans-are-shrinking theory, "but it can't explain everything, with that party gap."
For example, we are still left with the matter that Pew's polling director explained to me -- that the Dem approval rating for Obama is so amazingly high, creating much of the gap by itself. And Jones thinks that while the GOP shrinking would make some difference, it doesn't by itself explain numbers as low as this. The Gallup organization informed me that GOP self-identification in this poll was only 26%, compared to 34% in 2004, with Democrats holding steady at last year's figure of 36%. But the higher base of Democrats should just as easily create a more heterogenous party, with more dissenters.
"Both parties are more homogeneous, just the way they look at everything and the way the people go to Washington and vote, is pretty much following a straight party line," said Jones. "I suspect there's probably more animosity between people of different political views than in the past."
So is Obama creating the polarization, or was it already there from the long-run trends? "Basically, I think it's both," said Jones. "I think the trend is there, and I don't know how different it would be if he was doing things more palatable to Republicans." But again, Obama's policies obviously aren't too endearing to the pool of GOP respondents.
Interestingly, Rove acknowledged the trends early in his column, but then quickly moved on and continued with his main thesis.
Oh, and one other thing: The Gallup poll's memo says there's one other president who inspired an even greater approval gap between his own party and the opposition, of 83 points: George W. Bush, during 2004, compared to Obama's 63-point gap right now. Jones told me the gap was later decreased when Republican approval went down, too.
Late Update: This post originally referred to Jones as Gallup's poll director. His title has been corrected.


















I do remember a letter from the alphabet that was elected as President whom one could argue was no were near being called polarizing - he was four sheets to the right with the rudder turn hard to starboard. And no one was allowed to question. If one did they were cast in the brig for insubordination and bluntly told to either shape up or ship out. Now with a new Captain at the wheel the scalawags are talking mutiny. Anyone know who has the keys to the brig?
April 9, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. That's huge. Eight percentage points, yes, but that's one-fourth of self-identified GOOPers deciding that label is too embarrassing to wear anymore.
What's left? Assorted nutcases, whackjobs and dittoheads. Lemmings following Mad Rush into the wilderness.
April 9, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. People might not think 8 points is much. 25% is huge.
What's left is a combo of the wackjobs and those who are so intrenched in thinking of themselves as GOP that they can't give it up.
I think a large share of those are older people. My father is 76 in a couple of days. The modern GOP doesn't remotely conform to his beliefs other than Tax and Immigration, which are the standard California GOP Hot Button Issues like social stuff is to the GOP in the Bible Belt. He's probably closer to a Howard Baker republican than anything that exists today. There aren't any of those left in Congress, as even people like Dick Luger are marching lockstep with the GOP against Obama.
But he's been GOP for so long that it's what he'll always identify himself as. He will vote non-GOP if he doesn't like the GOP candidate (Goldwater is always one he likes to mention as scaring the shit out of him). And he'll vote non-GOP on props that he doesn't care for (The "Yes On Prop 8" folks pissed him off to no end).
Those people are getting older and dying off. Probably some of that 8 point drop is due to how many of the old GOPers have dropped dead in the past 4 years, or simply doesn't vote anymore because they've reach the age where voting is viable. They haven't been replaced by hoards of the GOP Youth that a lot of us saw and gringed at back in college in the 80s. :) There just isn't quite as much of a youth movement there for the GOP relative to the 80s and 90s, while the Dems seem to be working it better than in my voting youth.
I wouldn't say the GOP is Dead. But it is shrinking fast.
John
April 9, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
8%age points is not comprehensible to most people. They need to see the numbers ... X amount of people from a total of Y that leaves only Z amount still active. That way the numbers become real, not imaginary as a percentage is. People never respond to percentages until the see the numbers, then the percentages makes sense.
April 9, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eric: Did Jones have anything to say about leaving Independents out of the polls? I suspect some of the gap might be made up there. In my own microcosm I know of several "former Republicans" who voted for Obama and now identify themselves as Independents. They just can't get to the D yet.
April 9, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
So wait - the implication is that if he were less popular, they'd consider him a less divisive figure - and this would be a good thing? I think the whole idea of measuring his divisivness by looking at these poll numbers is broken. A divisive figure is one who, by his rhetoric, encourages one side to fight against or demonize the other. Someone who is merely liked a lot by one side (and less so by the other) is not a divisive figure.
April 9, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
A divisive figure is one who, by his rhetoric, encourages one side to fight against or demonize the other.
That's funny. Suddenly I can't stop thinking about Rush Limbaugh and Michelle BatshitCrazy...
April 9, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"the Republican tendency to be more hostile to opposing presidents than Democrats"
That seems spot on, to me. Obama is tied with Clinton for the Republicans.
Demo enthusiasm doesn't show excessive polarization unless Repo dislike goes much lower. It shows net approval.
I estimate that the Repo approval rating means about 17% of the electorate are Repos who withhold approval of Obama. That's the Repo base.
17% = (100-Approving Repos)x(Repo fraction per poll)
April 9, 2009 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me see if I have this right: Obama is a polarizing influence because he has the nerve to implement the Democratic programs on which he won, thereby alienating approximately 20% of the population who are hard wired to despise whatever he does because of their extreme political beliefs.
Oh, and he's cutting the defense budget.
Please stop the stupid - it burns!
April 9, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm surprised no one has commented on the sloppy logic behind this meme. It is a logical non sequitur to claim that because the poll question asked about Obama's approval that it is Obama that is the cause of the polarization. They might just as well have asked about approval of Ted Kennedy (or Joe Biden or Bill Clinton or pretty much anyone the far right doesn't like, which takes in a lot of people) and would have undoubtedly gotten similar results. Would they then claim that Ted Kennedy is the cause of the polarization?
April 9, 2009 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find it disheartening that a TPM writer posts an article, a reader asks a question, and there is no response. Not only will the print media die, but if you guys don't get the "interactive thing" with this site, you will too. I asked Eric a question. Like talking to a wall. I guess I've had enough of TPM now. This doesn't happen at other sites. I agree with "mans best friend" that this was a sloppy meme--it deserves further discussion. I tried to give Eric a pass by asking a friendly question. CRICKETS. Sloppy web-based journalism. Can I suggest you just have a category of staff posts that don't allow reader comments? It would be more honest. If you can't afford to pay your staff writers to respond to readers, don't put that function in.
April 9, 2009 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Probably you'd find that the bitter ender Republicans were listening to entirely different media than the rest of us and are basing their views on fact-bereft distortions. They are not entitled to their own set of facts: global warming is a myth, a defense increase is a defense cut, enrolling voters is voter fraud, deregulation had nothing to do with the economic crash, etc.
April 10, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink