TPMDC
Poll: Majority Disapprove of Obama's Performance On Health Care
President Barack Obama
Share
Send to a friend!
The new AP/GfK poll today, coming out just as President Obama is about to address Congress on health care, finds that he's coming into the debate in a weak position.
Obama's approval on his handling of health care right now is only 42%, with 52% disapproval on health care.
This other question should concern Democrats: "If President Obama and the Democrats in Congress are unable to win support from Republicans to pass a health care plan this year, what should they do?" The numbers: Go ahead and pass a bill without Republican support, 28%; Keep trying until they are able to make a deal with the Republicans, 66%.
Looking at this number, it's clear that the burden on Obama and the Democrats at this point is to demonstrate clearly through tonight's speech and the following events that Republicans won't make a deal. If that case isn't made, there really might not be enough political capital to withstand the potential fallout from a Dems-only bill.
Comments (27) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Indie Pro
September 9, 2009 1:05 PM
Didn't Obama state somewhere that he was willing to be a one term president to get Reform passed?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
September 9, 2009 1:07 PM in reply to Indie Pro
found it. It's from a source, not from him:
Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-IA) claims that President Obama told him "he's willing to be a one-term president if that's what it takes to get health care and energy reform," reports Radio Iowa.
Said Boswell: "The president (said), 'I'm not going to kick the can down the road.' And he said that and I said, 'Well, that's something I'm kind of used to from southern Iowa, you know. I know about kicking the can down the road.' And he said, 'No, if it makes me a one-term president, I'm going to, we're going to take it on because the country is in need of us taking this on.' I respected that very much."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
September 9, 2009 1:36 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I'd like to add that a trigger is 100% kicking the can down the road.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ogliberal
September 9, 2009 1:11 PM
The Villagers' obsession with bipartisanship for bipartisanship's sake has obviously infected the general population. You know, bipartisanship can be good. But it requires good faith on both sides. The Dems conceded single payer before the discussions even began. They're dropping coverage for end-of-life consultation because an ignorant lunatic from Alaska posted something on Facebook about non-existent "death panels". They're likely going to cave on the public option without ever putting up a fight for it. And yet the GOP will still reject any Dem plan put forward because they don't want anything to pass. Nothing. You can't find a bipartisan approach to healthcare reform when a) the other side doesn't want reform and b) the other side actually wants Americans to have less insurance and be more at the mercy of the insurance industry - ie, they want to kill Medicare and Medicaid, even though they won't say it.
This needs to be made perfectly, perfectly clear to the American public. Where's the GOP's plan? Where are their ideas? Where are their compromises? All we hear from them is "Tort reform!" If the Dems included tort reform in their proposals, does anybody really think the GOP - even with no public option - would sign on to the deal? Of course not. You'd get the ladies from Maine but that's about it - and you can get them without tort reform and probably even with a very strong public option trigger.
Bipartisanship makes people feel warm and fuzzy but it's a freaking pipe dream, especially when the other major party answers to talk radio celebs and tea bagging lunatics.
At the end of the day only one thing should matter - passing something that works and that helps Americans. We have 14-months until the mid-terms. You pass something that works and nobody outside of the 30 percenters who hate anything Obama and the Dems do will care how many GOP votes it got.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ogliberal
September 9, 2009 1:14 PM in reply to ogliberal
To add to my comments above...When was the last time the GOP worried about passing a bipartisan bill when they held the reins of power?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
September 9, 2009 1:18 PM in reply to ogliberal
The problem is, the Dems have done a really bad job of putting a spotlight on Republican obstructionism. True the MSM hasn't helped, but that can't be an excuse. They did a much better job passing the stimulus bill.
The other part of this is that while they don't need Republican votes to pass this, they do need the Blue Dogs and it makes it a lot easier to get their votes if they can sell it back home as a bipartisan effort.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ogliberal
September 9, 2009 1:37 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
The Dems, like it or not, are a big tent party. Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu (because of the politics of race in the state she represents - I don't think she's very conservative personally) are more conservative than Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. You could probably say the same thing about Kent Conrad, Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor. (again, the latter two suffer a similar problem that faces Landrieu - folks in the state they represent don't much like uppity colored boys telling them what to do) So getting these folks on board - even if it's only for a cloture vote - is challenging enough. But you won't see the media trumpet that bringing together of different ideologies, even if they reside in the same party, as bipartisanship. It has to attract Republican votes. But today's GOP is almost 99% far right. There are few moderates - Voinovich, Gregg - left in the Senate but they are retiring. That leaves you with Collins/Snowe. In the House, are there any moderate Republicans.
So in the eyes of the Villagers, even if the Democrats blow off their most liberal members/voters, even if they get the votes of Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln, even if they bring Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins on board, it won't be "bipartisan" because they also couldn't get Tom Coburn to support the bill. Are we really to expect the Democrats to pass a bill that leaves out 50-60% of what they really want all just to get a couple of GOP votes to give Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu cover back in their home states. The GOP will still call it a partisan bill and will still say the Dems ignored their ideas and concerns. Then the conservative movement will further villify Snowe and Collins and call them RINOs, even though it will do no good because they are popular in Maine because they are moderates and will probably do themselves more good than harm by voting "yea" on a watered down reform bill.
It's all so frustrating. And this is coming from somebody who is willing to support a trigger or co-ops if it will get us to 60 or more votes on cloture. But even that won't be good enough for the Villagers and, apparently, the American public. It will only be considered bi-partisan if it meets the Grassley "80 votes in the Senate" standard.
Ridiculous.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
September 9, 2009 1:21 PM
I'd love to own a unicorn, too. Obama has just about as much chance of getting a bi-partisan measure that is of any use.
Looking at those numbers we can assume that close to 100% of the people still willing to call themselves Republicans want Obama to keep trying for a bipartisan bill but would never in any event vote for Obama or any reasonable Democrat. So as a political problem you should largely write them off. Especially to the extent that their opinions are based on mis-information or are unreasonable or are based on principles in conflict with yours.
So the point of political interest is whether the 23% that you need to reach 51% are going to nonetheless vote with you if you don't get a bipartisan bill.
Given how dreadful the Republicans have become I think you can count on it unless the economy tanks further and in that case the Angel Gabriel couldn't get re-elected either.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
September 9, 2009 1:44 PM
Passing a Democratic-only bill might have some short-term political fallout, but in the long run the public will ONLY care whether it works, or not. By "works" I mean: makes insurance more available AND affordable for the majority of Americans.
For once, Democrats need to take their wet fingers out of the air, stop worrying about which way the breeze happens to be blowing, and do something "for the people".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
September 9, 2009 1:52 PM in reply to agio
Indeed. The best possible plan is what should be done, not murdering it with bipartisanship. By the time their done, no one is going to be happy - except the insurance companies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
artappraiser
September 9, 2009 2:26 PM in reply to agio
My first impulse was to say "great comment," but then I reminded myself that any real changes would not start appearing for quite a few years.
What is more likely the case is that after a vote is enacted, people won't see that much difference, and many will forget about it. What most reps in tenuous positions probably have to consider is how particulars in the bill address the noisiest squeaky wheels on health care issues in their own constituencies, so that when they hear the complaints again, they can say "I voted for that, and a fix is coming" or "I voted against that, so don't blame me." I think it possibly is a case of being able to appease only those people in their constituencies who could cause lots of bad P.R. noise in the near future about their vote, not about actualities, because, once again, no one will see the actualities for quite some time.
A theoretical example to make myself clear: if most seniors were up in arms right now about how Medicare Part D had finally worked out, they'd be taking their anger out on reps in the next elections. When the vote on that took place, only a few had an idea of whether it was really going to be good or bad for them, and those were squeaky wheels.
One thing I suspect may cause trouble along those lines is a mandate to buy insurance. I think the mandate deadline threatens to be a political game changer if there aren't enough good choices and/or subsidies in place when it happens.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PorkBelly
September 9, 2009 1:48 PM
Two weeks after the bill passes, no one will even be talking about how many Republican votes it did or didn't get.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
OhioGuy
September 9, 2009 1:56 PM
What happened to that super duper majority we were supposed to have in favor of a Democrat only reform bill? I guess one poll can be deceiving.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
blmack
September 9, 2009 1:58 PM
There has to be something to how the quest
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
blmack
September 9, 2009 1:59 PM in reply to blmack
ion was worded. I can't believe only 28%.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
September 9, 2009 2:05 PM in reply to blmack
You mean like, instead of wording the question as "If President Obama and the Democrats in Congress are unable to win support from Republicans to pass a health care plan this year, what should they do?" it was worded as:
"If Republicans refuse to join Democrats in passing a health care plan this year, what should Obama do?"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ricky
September 9, 2009 4:35 PM in reply to agio
Please read the question on passing a health care bill again. It is one of the worst phrased questions I have seen in a long time.
"If President Obama and the Democrats in Congress are unable to win support from Republicans to pass a health care plan this year, what should they do?"
The question presumess Republican support is required to pass the bill. Mr. Kleefeld?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
blmack
September 9, 2009 2:01 PM in reply to blmack
Maybe they thought this meant skirting the rules or something.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ann H
September 9, 2009 1:58 PM
I wouldn't take the poll numbers too seriously. I feel quite certain that a big chunk of people who disapprove are from the left -- saying he hasn't shown enough leadership, pushed enough. A much more relevant question would be, do you trust the Dems or the Reps more?
I think Obama needs to look strong, get something decent (not perfect) to sign, and things will start to improve politically.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
September 9, 2009 2:07 PM
I don't like those numbers, but I'm hardly surprised. He's not handling helath care at all, much less well, at this point. He left it to Congress for the month of August, and what's gotten all the attention? The fringe segment that disrupted town halls.
I know he's "handling health care" behind the scenes, but in the public eye, Obama has been missing, until tonight.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
September 9, 2009 2:29 PM in reply to CT Voter
And perception does matter in mass politics. Like it or not. He has been absent... or only present as a socialist, or a Hitler, or a Kenyan native. And there was no visible fighting back against such absurdity till now.
Let's see if he can roll it back tonight.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dswx
September 9, 2009 2:55 PM in reply to geofu54
A change of the perceived "He has been absent... or only present as a socialist, or a Hitler, or a Kenyan native" is due to the MSM. Because despite what they portrayed on TV, there were many town hall meetings without such rabid idiots foaming at the mouth and spewing hate. It's just that those that had those idiots attending received the lion's share of attention. The ones with actual civil discourse did not. In fact, as was pointed out here, CNBC specifically checked with the teabaggers about whether there was going to be a conflict for them to video before covering a specific town hall meeting. And of course never discount the MSM's fawning of Republicans from the day after the inauguration and as witnessed every Sunday on the talk show lineups.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
matyra
September 9, 2009 2:31 PM
How much of this negativity comes from Democrats because of the perception that he's sold them out?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kgb999
September 9, 2009 2:41 PM
Eric, I don't think you can ignore the fact that these numbers represent a dip at BOTH ends of the political spectrum. In other words, I don't think you can make the assumption that the same grouping making up the disapproval numbers is the same one that makes up the "cut a deal with republicans" numbers (and as others have noted, the wording on that question was kind of loaded).
Just looking at who's talking about what, it seems that disapproval is probably a combination of right-wingers and disgruntled progressives. While the "keep working for a compromise" folks seem to be strong republicans and leaners with a good measure of death-panel-scared old people.
IMO, if we're defining political capital as performance in polling, then all Obama needs to do to get more is move the approval numbers 10 points to the positive. The way to do that isn't to chase the republicans. It would be far easier to bring the progressives back into the fold - and somewhat critical for his prospects at not suffering many congressional losses in 2010 which would totally undermine any plans for the second half of his term.
I don't know what the bill will look like, but I sort of expect Obama to focus on wonkery and myth busting - not demonstrating anything about the ill-intent of republicans other than a few digs here and there. Seriously, any rational person who watched August unfold knows the role the republicans have taken in this - no need wasting much time harping on it. The real question is if he makes a serious play to recover the progressives who now view his administration as an opponent. I don't see how his administration is viable without them and there seems to be zero trust right now (which is the biggest indicator that Obama has mishandled this situation, you can't pander but you can't just kick your base in the teeth either).
It's put up or get shut down time for Obama. A lot is riding on this next few weeks. If they pass something that satisfies nobody, the democrats can hang it up. There is NO chance that any of this will kick in before 2010. Hell, they even made it start 2013 so it didn't give political advantage for the presidential year. Any benefit/cost to the party will be based on perception, not actual performance of the health reform legislation.
It'll be interesting to watch.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
artappraiser
September 9, 2009 3:15 PM in reply to kgb999
Any benefit/cost to the party will be based on perception, not actual performance of the health reform legislation
Most excellent sentence.
I'd like to repeat this one, too:
Hell, they even made it start 2013 so it didn't give political advantage for the presidential year.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnMcCSF
September 9, 2009 3:37 PM
That's what happens when you let a 20% approval Congress play with your political capital
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnMcCSF
September 9, 2009 3:44 PM
Have no idea why (Kleefeld has fallen under Michel Bachmmann's spell?), but Eric FAILED to report the real polling news from Gallup
Nobody cares....So it is not up to Obama, it is up to Congress. The public is so confused they don't know Medicare from socialized medicine at this point
Matt Yglesias explains - Members of Congress Can Do What They Want
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/09/members-of-congress-can-do-what-they-want-on-health-care.php
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?