Mr. Conason helpfully points readers to the Newsmax poll, but his summary leaves out the most telling results.
1. While it would certainly be a relief to the White House to know Obama is still preferred to the unpopular Bush II, to be cheered they would have to look a little further, to Obama's performance when pitted against all other living presidents: Obama tops both Bill Clinton (29 to 19) and Bush II. Given that Bill Clinton is the most popular (living) former president by a wide margin, Obama's victory over Bill Clinton would seem to very salient indeed.
2. Likewise for the results from another question asked in the poll: “If an election for president were held today between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, for whom would you vote?” Here, 38 percent chose Obama, to Hillary Clinton's 30 percent. Certainly counts as another victory for the White House, and counts against the notion that Obama was the wrong candidate for the job.
3. Most interesting of all - and more troubling for the White House - is the fact that Obama, despite winning comfortably over Hillary Clinton among Democrats (67-23), is far less attractive among Republicans: 33 percent would vote for Hillary, and only 6 percent for Obama. What does this mean?
Short Answer: Obama is uniquely polarizing. There would be no ‘Tea Parties’ if Hillary or Bill Clinton (or even Al Gore) had become president in 2009. The uniquely inspiring hope/change candidate is (ipso facto) uniquely able to inspire fears of radicalism/socialism among conservatives, especially if he happens to be African-American. (See psychologist Jonathan Haidt on ‘Ingroup/Loyalty’ among conservatives.)
Long Answer: The results of the poll reflect the widespread perception among conservatives that Obama is a far-left radical. Such a perception has no basis in fact. Conservatives don’t trust Obama, and actively distrust him, despite the many concessions he has made to conservative principles. (Krugman/Stiglitz wanted the Stimulus to be much bigger. Expanded war in Afghanistan. No single-payer. No public option.) From a policy perspective, there is no reason for conservatives to prefer Hillary Clinton over Obama, yet her personality makes her far more reassuring to them. By a wide margin.
What made Obama uniquely credible as a genuinely different candidate now makes him appear to conservatives – despite all the evidence to the contrary – a uniquely credible ‘threat’ of socialism and disaster. Conservative politicians and media figures have recognized this. They too ignore the evidence and sound the alarm, reinforcing the disproportionate, rather incongruous vehemence of ‘Tea Party’ opposition to the current administration. As Obama has said again and again, there can be legitimate disagreements, but the extreme characterizations of him as a radical and a socialist have no basis in fact.
As I wrote in response to his Salon.com article, Mr. Conason seems to leave out some of the most telling results from his summary:
1) Obama not only tops Bush II in a head-to-head match-up, he tops Bill Clinton (29 to 19) in a match-up with all living former presidents. Given that Bill Clinton is the most popular (living) former president by a wide margin, this result would seem to be very salient indeed.
2) Also left out from the Salon.com article (but highlighted in the post here) are the results from the head-to-head match-up with Hillary Clinton: 38 percent would still chose Obama over Hillary, while only 30 percent would now choose Hillary over Obama. This certainly counts as another victory for the White House, and counts against the notion that, given the overwhelming opposition to Health Care, Obama was the wrong candidate for the job.
3) Even more telling - and potentially more troubling for the White House - is the fact that Obama, despite winning comfortably over Hillary Clinton among Democrats (67-23. Relative Appeal: +44), is far less attractive among Republicans: 33 percent would vote for Hillary, and only 6 percent for Obama (Relative Appeal: -27). A disparity of 71 percentage points exists in Obama's Relative (to Hillary) Appeal, between Democrats and Republicans. What can account for such a huge disparity?
Short Answer: Obama is uniquely polarizing. There would be no ‘Tea Parties’ if Hillary or Bill Clinton (or even Al Gore) had become president in 2009. The uniquely inspiring hope/change candidate is (ipso facto) uniquely able to inspire fears of radicalism/socialism among conservatives, especially if he happens to be African-American. (On this note, see psychologist Jonathan Haidt on ‘Ingroup/Loyalty’ among conservatives. See also Shankar Vedantam's 10-13-2008 article in the Washington Post: "Even more remarkably, the psychologists found that the volunteers were quicker to associate former British prime minister Tony Blair with being American than Obama. Blair is white... On a conscious level, volunteers said that both Obama and McCain were American, but on a subconscious level, volunteers were quicker to associate McCain with being American than Obama -- and the strength of these subconscious associations predicted people's voting intentions... The provocative research also may help explain why Obama has proved vulnerable to negative messages that question his identity and his loyalty to America. From the false rumors that Obama is a Muslim and that he refuses to salute the American flag, to the repeated reminders at Republican rallies that Obama's middle name is Hussein and recent concerns that voters just don't know enough about him...")
Long Answer: The results of the Newsmax poll (in particular the results of the Obama-Hillary match-up) reflect the widespread perception among conservatives that Obama is a far-left radical. Such a perception has no basis in fact. Conservatives don’t trust Obama, and actively distrust him, despite the many concessions he has made to conservative principles. (Krugman/Stiglitz wanted the Stimulus to be much bigger, wanted more comprehensive financial regulation. War in Afghanistan was expanded. No single-payer. No public option.) From a policy perspective, there is no reason for conservatives to prefer Hillary Clinton over Obama, yet something about her personality makes her far more reassuring to conservatives. By a wide margin. And we would likely see the same phenomenon - conservative distrust of Obama - if other prominent Democrats (Bill Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Biden) were matched up with Obama in a poll.
Many of the things that made Obama uniquely credible and inspiring as a genuinely different candidate now make him appear to conservatives – despite all evidence of his policy centrism to the contrary – a uniquely credible ‘threat’ of socialism and disaster. Conservative politicians and media figures have recognized this. They too ignore the evidence and sound the alarm, reinforcing the disproportionate, rather incongruous vehemence of ‘Tea Party’ opposition to the current administration. As Obama has said again and again, there can be legitimate disagreements, but the extreme characterizations of him as a radical and a socialist have no basis in fact. And while there was some discussion of this issue in the press following Joe Wilson's outburst, people seem to have allowed this issue to drop, even as the distortions of the current administration policies have continued.
