The Washington Post/ABC News poll typically goes into the field once every month or two, so it’s pretty good for examining trendlines. The president’s current approval rating (51%-43%) is the strongest it’s been since just before his second inauguration. You also have to go back to 2013 to find numbers higher than the 31% who strongly approve (in this poll, and in the last one) of the job the president is doing.
My best explanation for this is that Obama looks like Abraham Lincoln compared to the dick-measurers on the other side who are competing to replace him.
Now, in this same poll, respondents were asked if the Senate should conduct hearings to consider the president’s nominee to serve on the Supreme Court. The numbers were not close. A full 44% of the people strongly believed that hearings should be held, compared to 25% who strongly believed they should not. Overall, the split was 63% in favor of hearings and 32% opposed. Sixty-two percent of independents favored hearings, as did 46% of Republicans.
To be clear, this isn’t the same as expressing support for the confirmation of the president’s nominee. That question wasn’t asked. So, this is a judgment on process or norms. People do not agree that it’s kosher to simply stonewall a SCOTUS applicant.
But Senate Majority Whip, John Cornyn of Texas, doesn’t want his caucus to understand this sentiment. He’s passing around a different poll. Actually, he’s passing around a four-page memo based on a poll. It’s a survey conducted by Republican pollster Greg Strimple that hopes to express the sentiments of the entire country by asking 600 people what they think. You probably won’t be surprised to discover that Strimple’s findings are at odds with other recent polling.
For example, Strimple says that “54 percent of those surveyed were more concerned about a liberal justice being chosen to replace Scalia, compare[d] to the nearly 41 percent of respondents who were more worried about the seat being open for a year or more.” But the just-released NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey has different numbers.
In their poll, a 48%-37% plurality would prefer a vote (not mere hearings) on the president’s nominee. On the question of whether to even show the courtesy of conducting hearings, the public favored hearings 55%-28%.
The good news for the Republicans is that the people agreed 62%-29% that if the situation was reversed the Democrats would be employing the exact same obstructive tactics.
See, this how the “both sides do it” reporting we get so often from the mainstream media winds up providing a cushion for the Republicans when the violate every civil norm in our country. After all, if the Democrats would do the same thing, they basically deserve this treatment, right?
So, here we can see two main drivers of our country’s dysfunction in close proximity to each other. On the one hand, we have a public that has been convinced that there’s no meaningful difference between the two parties in terms of which is responsible for our gridlocked politics. And, on the other hand, we have the Senate Majority Whip using bad data to provide “objective” support for an obstructive strategy that the public actually hates.
Per usual, the GOP will fix the intelligence and facts around the policy, whether it’s climate science, Saddam’s WMD and culpability for 9/11, or what the public thinks about blocking a Supreme Court nominee.
And the media will not draw distinctions sharp enough for the public to internalize that, no, the Democrats would never act this way toward a Republican nominee.
The thing that worries me most about the future is that the institutions required for democracy to function are just too broken.
That’s how I feel. It’s so discouraging because time and again, Congress is clearly in fealty to the corporations who buy them off. They rarely act in any way that reflects what We, the People, want, and that includes GOP voters.
Time and again, there are polls indicating what the citizens want – no matter how they vote – and Congress just ignores it and does whatever.
That’s why they set up all these specious committees to “investigate” whatever… it’s time wasting diddly poop meant to signify that they’re “doing their job.”
Well I could go on, but I agree that the majority of the citizens want SCOTUS nominations with hearings, but that’s probably not what we’re going to get. It’s simply disgusting. But what is the D Party doing to highlight this dereliction of duty by the R Party? I ask this in seriousness.
That’s just it. The Dems have been highlighting the dereliction of duty by the GOP. But our news media is so broken that they present this as just more he-said-she-said partisan bickering (both sides to blame, dontcha know). One party is literally destroying the norms and traditions and that makes democracy possible and to our Guardians of Democracy, pointing this out would be ‘taking sides’.
This.
If you’re Comcast, or NBC, or even just an individual member of the Media, you have essentially two options.
The first option is to report on what is going on, objectively. This option, if chosen, will get you labeled “liberal” if you happen to point out that the Republican party is batshit insane.
The second option is to report that one side says X, and the other side is saying X-1 or X+1. This allows you to play stenographer instead of reporting events and factual information, so you aren’t labeled as a liberal. But, most importantly, it provides you with money and status so that you can get access again, for the next interview to play stenographer. And the next, and the next, etc, ad nauseam.
We the people don’t pay the media to play commercials between their aired interviews. Big business does.
Big media is entirely indistinguishable from big business, often owned, in fact, by big business.
Big business profits just fine from the current status quo, as they are in charge of the information or lack thereof being given to we the people. The less information we have, the more asynchronous the information and knowledge, and the more money they can make.
The media is what is broken. They make the most money by promoting gridlock and saying that BothSidesDoItTM, as they can continue getting access to the one side of the political spectrum that is causing the gridlock, while also having access to the other side that would attempt to solve some of the problems if they had loyal opposition rather than obstruction-focused seditionists.
I hope the obstructionism hurts republicans, but it seems to me the issue lends itself very well to obfuscation
Boo:
I’m curious to hear what you have to say about last night’s debate. Plus the reaction to it on Twitter.
I didn’t watch it. Didn’t even know it was on.
It was one of my stepson’s 21st birthday, so I was eating cake.
That’s good. It’s also bad because you missed a classic. You missed a high profile feminist come out in support of the Contras, because Bernie dared to criticize our shitty foreign policy in Central America. Yup, there are apparently “Liberals for United Fruit Company” now.
Wow. Geez louise.
I thought I read snippets after the debate that alluded to that. Since my blood pressure started to rise, I stopped reading in order to have a good night’s sleep (not joking).
Sh*t. Well isn’t that special???
Says a lot.
I thought there was also some “concern” expressed (not concern trolling though, just genuine concern) that Sanders didn’t diss Castro enough (I’m saying this inelegantly and probably doesn’t accurately reflect what happened). I just had to shake my head.
Any insights from anyone who listened would be appreciated. Thanks.
That’s what we’re highlighting at WaMo today.
You mean María Elena Salinas? She’s the only person who mentioned anything about Nicaragua at all other than Sanders responding to her question. Clinton certainly made a regrettable cheap red-baiting shot in attacking Sanders’s 1985 admiration of aspects of the Cuban revolution, but to say she “came out in support of the Contras” or United Fruit for that matter is really making things up.
You mean María Elena Salinas?
No!! I mean Amanda Marcotte, on Twitter. Animal House, how appropriate, was on TV last night. So I watched that instead. I check Twitter after the debate was over and Marcotte was going nuts because Sanders dare say our FP is a disaster, and often making things worse, especially in Central America.
Oh, sorry. Thanks for the quick reply.
“To be clear, this isn’t the same as expressing support for the confirmation of the president’s nominee.”
I would hope not. The president has not yet put forward a nominee, as far as I know.
Well, as Spink wisely observes above, the mechanics of our ramshackle 18th century constitution have been wrecked and our national institutions ruined (my words, not his). In my view, this paralysis was intentional and done in hopes of ushering in a reactionary revolution and second plutocratic Gilded Age. It is critical that the public not able to put 2+2 together and assign blame to a major party, and for that the corrupt corporate media is indispensable.
There is a curious American myth that the US Constitution wrought by our Heroic Founders places the country on a rock-solid unshakable foundation. The reality is it has been a pretty sketchy operating document (see 1860), and it “works” in a two party system only if the various participants bend over backwards to keep it wheezing along.
The Repubs have now opted out of that norm (boasting the best of intentions of course), but the public is too credulous (and propagandized) to recognize it. Instead, everyone “knows” that the resulting paralysis and gridlock at every turn is the fault of Both Sides. Permanent paralysis is the path of Weimar. Once Humpty has had his great fall…well, you know the rest.
You can’t really blame the Founders for writing a beta version of the Modern Republic game when no more developed version was available. It’s just a shame the price of upgrade is too high.
main drivers and the role of the despicable* corporate media’s rampant and unhinged both-siderism in creating/enabling them.
*which is why I despise them! Routinely, instead of informing, they make “us” (i.e., collectively) stupider, betraying the duty in a (still nominally) democracy that earned them (i.e., “the Press”), unique among secular institutions, their very own protective clause in the 1st Amendment. You’d think the loftiness of that charge would imbue some semblance of responsibility. You’d be wrong.
reference — Fox News viewers are less informed than those that consume no news from any source.
good to be reminded of it occasionally.
Brownback’s Kansas has a solution–just dispense with that judicial review thingie.
Time to update “What’s the Matter With Kansas” — a primer on how to go from really bad to totally dreadful.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-supreme-court-obstruction_us_56e08863e4b0860f99
d7a19d
Nice to see. Good on Warren. Keep it up.
Probably won’t make any difference to the GOP, of course.
How soon before DWS tells Warren not to make so much noise? It’s not as if DWS hasn’t started her war against Warren’s efforts to reign in the banksters.
A ray of sunshine that most liberals/DEMs really like and trust Warren and most (including some HRC supporters) dislike DWS.
Yes, well we’ll have to see how that plays out. DWS is a blight. And then people diss D voters for being disenchanted.
I can only hope that Warren keeps up the full court press. It would be nice if some other D Senators joined her, but of course, I won’t hold my breath.
Doubt that “my” Senator, the egregious DiFi, gives a rat’s patoot what happens, and she probably hopes that Obama doesn’t get to make the appt. DiFi probably wants a more rightwing corporatist on the SCOTUS.
Ugh.
DiFi has always been awful. And SF voters actually once knew that. Then a horrible tragedy lifted her political career.
Can’t say that I’m at all pleased by Boxer of late either. She seems to have lost the narrative of her political career. But she’s hardly alone on this as she has company with the once upon a time “better Democrats” selling out in this election.
Neglected to comment on Warren. She’s her own person and isn’t going to stop being herself at the behest of DEM party honchos. She knows those honchos didn’t back her Senate run; so, they don’t have as much power as usual to threaten to destroy her political career. She’s happy to serve the people as a Senator, but will not compromise who she is and what she stands for.