The fed-up-and-won't-take-it-anymore mood locally, as we vote in city and county elections, is not a Seattle-area phenomenon. In fact, our reactions here are generally milder than in the country at large. Several surveys have been released over the past few days confirming an angry national mood. The rage expressed at recent congressional healthcare forums is only one expression of it.
Opponents of President Obama's and congressional Democrats' evolving healthcare plans (now presented by Obama as "health-insurance reform" rather than general health reform) have jammed meetings being held by Senators and Members of Congress to discuss the issue. Many of the protesters, as characterized by the White House, Democratic National Committee, and media, have indeed been partisans. But a large number have not. Rather, they have been people of all political persuasions looking for a forum where they could vent not only about the pending health proposals but about the financial and auto-industry bailouts, expensive stimulus package, and rapidly mounting federal debt. The health forums have provided a convenient outlet for general frustrations.
The largest and most significant national survey was the one completed last week by CNN. More than 300,000 citizens logged in to express opinions on President Obama's second 100 days in office. The respondents did not constitute a scientific sampling of voters. CNN viewers and online readers tend to be better educated, slightly to the left or right of center, and generally independent. Participants were limited to computer users. But other surveys during the same time frame brought in comparable results. And the 300,000-plus respondents to CNN were a huge sample.
The bottom line of the CNN survey: Voters are displeased all around. The only national leader to get better than a C grade in the survey was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who got a C-plus for her performance in the administration's second 100 days. Other grades given by voters:
- Economy: Obama was given a C-minus for his handling of economic issues, with a significant 36 percent of voters giving him an F. In none of the 50 states, did he receive a better grade than C-plus.
- Health care reform: His administration's efforts toward this goal got a D. Some 49 percent of respondents gave an F grade.
- Foreign affairs: C.
- Vice President Biden: C-minus' with 35 percent giving an F.
- Our Senators: The overall national grade was C-minus. That was the same grade given Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell by Washington state respondents.
- The Congress: D with 52 percent giving an F.
- GOP leadership: D with 40 percent giving an F.
- Media: D with 49 percent giving an F.
- President Obama: C-minus with 39 percent giving an F. Only the District of Columbia, with a black population majority, gave Obama a grade as high as B-minus. Washington state respondents gave him a C.
These results do not necessarily translate to eventual success or failure of the Obama healthcare proposals or to electoral outcomes in 2010 elections. After all, the Republican leadership and Congress in general fared even worse in the ratings than did the incumbent administration. The results clearly were a warning signal to media, where public confidence has been deteriorating steadily over the past decade.
Such surveys, remember, are only snapshots in time. If, a year from now, the economy is in recovery and employment rising, other results can be expected. But right now, do not be mistaken, Americans in general are displeased. To see how much things have changed since last January, consider that Hillary Clinton, once thought the most polarizing of political figures, received the highest marks in the survey and also a much smaller percentage of F votes than many others.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!

Print
Email






Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Tue, Aug 11, 7:46 a.m. Inappropriate
Look, this is the Goldman Sachs presidency, who gave the largest amount - appr. 1 million bucks to the Obambi campaign, just as the previous presidency was the Enron one. People are so desperate that they foist hope on a presidential candidate who has a better tan and speaks in real English sentences... that the "wrong wingbeat" as hope has been called makes them lose what minds they have. the better of two ugly choices is not the right choice. The financial meltdown [for which Obambi also blamed an undefined "us" as you may recall, presented a unique opportunity to take some charge of the dictatorship of capitalism, the gun under which we all live: instead the crooks got bailed out to the tune of trillios of dollars, they must be dying of laughter. Here's a great story which just goes to show why this is the Goldman Sachs presidency:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29127316/the_great_american_bubble_machine
Posted Tue, Aug 11, 8:55 a.m. Inappropriate
and here is chris hedges on obambi
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/08/10-2
also look at an enumeration of where he's switched from his campaign promises
and stayed precisely the same as bush/ cheney
http://summapolitico.blogspot.com/
Posted Tue, Aug 11, 11:36 a.m. Inappropriate
There must be at least a submerged disquiet about one thousand page legislation being passed a few hours after it has been compiled ("Cap 'n Trade" was about 1300 pages and passed the House less than 24 hrs after it was finalized). There are several "Health Reform" bills agitating in committees and I believe all are over one thousand pages. The shouters at Town Hall meetings have not been quoted as being especially upset about this but they should be. What we are seeing is a very corrupt form of anarchy and there should be no surprise that voters are uneasy. We didn't elect representatives to pass legislation they have not even read.
Posted Wed, Aug 12, 12:12 a.m. Inappropriate
Crosscut continues its dive to the bottom of the barrel. Flacking for a CNN watcher poll -- the people who watch the network of Lou Dobbs and assorted other idiots. So, which show was the poll done on? Um, column doesn't say, but apparently the author thinks that CNN viewers are more educated than most Americans. Well, all you can say is, it wasn't a Fox poll, at least.
A friend of mine went to one of the forums in Idaho (a Democratic congress member from Idaho -- now there's something remarkable). There were like 8 people there. But not covered on CNN (or other media I know of), not exciting, doesn't get their viewership up for Lou Dobbs and assorted other idiots. But so much for the staged outpouring of irate craziness over health car etc.
No way we're going to get even close to perfection with our current system of political finance. Politics is the art of the possible. The current media barrage, which this piece is part of, shows just how irresponsible and shallow our media has become. But I guess it's what we deserve, since we read/watch this silly stuff.
Posted Wed, Aug 12, 5:45 a.m. Inappropriate
You call this the most significant survey in one breath and in the next you admit "The respondents did not constitute a scientific sampling of voters.". So who exactly is this significant to--the functionally illiterate?
Do yourself a favor and go look up that old story from the 1936 presidential election, when the Literary Digest was scooped by Gallup despite having a larger sample size, because their polling method was built much like CNN's here, on convenience for the pollsters instead of using a representative sample.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/259298/Why-the-1936-Literary-Digest-Poll-Failed
Posted Wed, Aug 12, 8:45 a.m. Inappropriate
Thanks for your comments. I mentioned in my piece that other recent surveys had produced similar outcomes. This was not a survey done by Lou
Dobbs or for any particular program on CNN. It proceeded over a several-day period and was promoted both on the air and via the CNN website.
Obviously, if you watch CNN, you must have cable-TV service. If you use its website, you must be a computer user. That omits people---especially the poor and many senior citizens---who don't have cable or use computers.
Since the survey was promoted on the air, you can be sure that both supporters and opponents of the administration were mobilized to weigh in and thus skew the results. But, remarkably, the results were similar to those in other surveys of the period. And the 300,000 participating were a significant number.
The 1936 Literary Digest survey was discredited immediately because it omitted, among other things, those without telephones----a huge percentage of the population in that Depression year. Major newspapers, almost overwhelmingly Republican in that period, also misled by endorsing GOP candidate Alf Landon and predicting his election.
I pay little personal attention to polls---especially those whose questions appear slanted or whose samples appear tilted (for instance, the Harris Poll oversamples typically Democratic voters whereas the Gallup Poll, more carefully balanced, has more reliable results). But this poll was significant for the reasons stated above.