Politico's New Battleground Poll

[Pangloss]

New "battleground" poll out today from Politico. These are special polls aimed at identifying key tipping points in the upcoming election. Some interesting take-away's here:

 

- More people get election news from 24-hour cable stations than the networks, and Fox News is much more popular than CNN or MSNBC for that kind of news

 

- Some analysts are concerned that viewers are turning to more ideological sources for news

 

- Newspapers and the networks remain important sources, and in general the networks continue to have far more viewers than cable (the slides seem to be shallow, not steep, but gradual and continuing)

 

- Glenn Beck has more positive than negative impact (38% vs 32)

 

- Bill O'Reilly's positives far outweigh his negatives (49 vs 32)

 

- Rush Limbaugh's negatives far outweigh his positives (52 vs 36)

 

- Jon Stewart's positives far outweight his negatives (34 vs 22)

 

- Fox talent generally known to the public; MSNBC talent generally unknown; Jon Stewart generally known (only 34% unfamiliar)

 

The poll focused mainly on older viewers, which could be a factor affecting Jon Stewart's numbers, but I think it's interesting that he did as well as he did given that age grouping. His appeal is clearly to a far younger audience than the rest of this crowd.

 

This result might, to some extent, be explained by the age of those polled. The largest segment of respondents, 21 percent, were between 55 years old and 64 years old, with 20 percent between 45 and 54. Only 5 percent were between 18 and 24, and 7 percent were between 25 and 29.

 

I generally agree with the analysts, or at least can't think of any reason not to. It seems like we're sliding into a more ideological perspective, which I think is generally a bad thing. It's probably no surprise that conservatives are leading the way here, since we've heard this before, but the data seems to suggest that liberals are at least not shifting to ideological sources as dramatically as conservatives are. I'd like to see more study in this area. I've read commentary that liberals are less engaged right now, so perhaps that's a factor, and it's often said that there are less of them in the country, but is it also possible that they're less inclined to reach out to partisans for steering?

 

Whatever the case with liberals, the danger to conservatives seems clear. But I think there's a silver lining here in that Bill O'Reilly is a pretty moderate guy compared with Rush Limbaugh, and their numbers suggest that the public thinks so too.

 

What do you all think?

 

-------

 

(Edit: Wups, forgot the links!)

Analysis of poll data wrt commentators:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42738_Page2.html

Main article on the poll:

http://www.politico.com/polls/politico-george-washington-university-battleground-poll.html

[iNow]

I think there's a silver lining here in that Bill O'Reilly is a pretty moderate guy compared with Rush Limbaugh

Yeah... It's kinda like being the tallest guy at a midget convention or the skiniest guy at fat camp... and it's not healthy.

[A Tripolation]

Aren't these shifts in ideology pretty normal during midterm elections? The public doesn't like the way the majority is running things. They then turn to the minority who is promising a brighter future. And back and forth and back and forth.

[Pangloss]

Aren't these shifts in ideology pretty normal during midterm elections? The public doesn't like the way the majority is running things. They then turn to the minority who is promising a brighter future. And back and forth and back and forth.

 

Yes, though in my opinion it's not just a back-and-forth change in preference between Dems and Repubs, but also a steady push in the same direction -- a direction that just isn't represented by candidates and parties. Even if Republicans make huge gains in November, it seems that they're BARELY more preferable to voters than Democrats, and still have more disapproval than approval.

 

I think that push is healthy, because I believe it's the system that's ailing, not the people or their intelligence, wisdom, education or wisdom. I think they're right, they just don't have a great way to express it. My two bits, anyway.

[A Tripolation]

I think that push is healthy, because I believe it's the system that's ailing, not the people or their intelligence, wisdom, education or wisdom. I think they're right, they just don't have a great way to express it. My two bits, anyway.

 

Is there any alternative system to what we have that might be better?

[Pangloss]

Is there any alternative system to what we have that might be better?

 

An interesting question, but a system change is probably not in the cards for the US.

 

What I think is coming is that politicians will gradually wake up to a better understanding of what people want, and slowly begin to align themselves with the people. These party shifts back and forth are (it seems to me) coming more rapidly, with less time for people to forget their reasons. People seem to generally know that Republicans blew the budget out of the water. People seem to generally remember those surplusses of the Clinton administration. So the GOP is in for a very bumpy ride if they win in November, and it's going to continue until politicians get the message.

 

In 1994 people were just beginning to wake up. I believe it's going to be different from now on. I cannot remember a time when the public's preferences seemed so fully defined and yet so completely non-aligned with the goals of either political party. I cannot remember a time when candidates ran from both parties at the same time. The people turned on Bush in spite of 9/11 and two wars. There's a reason for that, and it's the same for Obama and Congress. They're just not doing what the people want them to do.

 

Always in the past it's seemed like 40% of the people just automatically voted Democrat, and 40% automatically voted Republican, and none of that 80% really paid much attention. It does not seem that way to me anymore. In casual discussion nobody used to want to talk about politics, and when they did I'd find that they were just auto-voters for one party or the other. Now everyone seems to want to talk about politics, and nobody seems to want to be identified as an auto-voter. (Has anyone else observed this?)

 

So I think we're in for big changes. What will the country look like when the dust settles? Here's what I think:

 

- Much more secured border, and a path to citizenship for those already here

- Fully defined laws on human rights versus security, no more warrantless wiretaps, no more fear mongering and power-grabbing

- A better definition of which safety nets we're going to have, and why

- Legal abortion

- Gun rights

- Medicinal marijuana, or full legalization

- Gay marriage and gays in the military

 

IMO it will mean progress on global warming, but only in so far as measures address more immediate concerns such as pollution and transportation expense. It will not mean redistribution of wealth. It will not mean the full restoration of rights for former criminals (e.g. pedophiles). It will not mean you don't have to take off your shoes at the airport anymore.

 

IMO it's not a completely populist America we're heading for. It will be more engaged, more aware, more understanding, and more compassionate. It will learn faster and adapt better when it makes mistakes. It's not Ancient Greece 2.0. It's going to be something new -- a hyper-connected, hyper-informed national polity. It's going to be democracy on steroids.

 

On the whole, I believe, a good thing.