Donald Douglas writes at American Power that the latest New York Times/CBS News poll shows “disastrous” numbers for Democrats. To make his case, he cites two results which indicate a preference for smaller government, and a third showing more concern over the economy and jobs than health care. Douglas then points out that a bare plurality has more faith in Republicans to “ensure a strong economy” and a bare majority who don’t think the President has offered reasonable solutions to the economic problems faced by their families.
Not so fast. These cherry-picked results don’t tell the whole story, and “it doesn’t take a statistician” to see that this grossly exaggerates the bad news in the poll for the President and Democrats. That’s a good thing, because for a political science professor, Douglas isn’t much of one if that’s what he gets from this poll.
Now on the face of it, this looks like a solid argument: Americans care about the economy, they think the GOP could fix it, and they think Obama doesn’t have his eye on the ball. If all of this is so, perhaps The Nutty Professor™ is right.
Not so fast. Douglas’ analysis ignores other results from the poll, not to mention the behavior or real life politicians. For starters, the same poll shows a 47-34 plurality approving Obama’s handling of terrorism, and a 55-34 majority approval of his foreign policy, suggesting that not all has gone south for the Administration. Moreover, only seven percent each say they blame the President for the current state of the economy or federal budget deficits, which suggests that even those who don’t think he’s found the right solution yet may not be prepared to turn to someone else in a search for it. And the respondents were evenly split on whether or not the stimulus package will make the economy better–suggesting that the American popular jury is still out on whether they think it was a mistake by an overactive government. Finally, though somewhat more respondents said that they think the GOP would be more likely to ensure a strong economy, the same group had more faith in Democrats when it comes to creating jobs or fixing health care. It is not clear from these contradictory results that the President or his Party are in trouble.
Douglas’ claim that this poll shows an American preference for smaller government also stands on less solid ground than he thinks. Respondents said they thing government should spend to create jobs, 47-45%, and 62% think Congress should let the Bush tax cuts expire, even though this would raise taxes on high earners. Fifty-six percent would like to see more regulation of banks and financial institutions, and 52% think the President should do more to fix the economy. Half say they would change Senate rules to make legislation easier to pass, and 58% think that Obama has expanded government “the right amount” or “not enough.” It looks like Americans worry less about the size of government than they do its effectiveness–they want more policy that works and less that doesn’t.
It’s no secret that politicians–even conservative, small government politicians–don’t behave as if their constituents want smaller government. Indeed, according to the Washington Times, over a dozen Republicans wrote letters to one agency alone seeking money from the stimulus package, even though they had voted against it and claimed it had no effect (except in letters like Kit Bond’s request from the USDA for stimulus money for a project in his state on the grounds that it would “create jobs and ultimately spur economic opportunities.” Even Republicans know that Americans want more government action to solve problems on the ground.
Donald Douglas is not a very good political scientist and an even worse poll analyst, based on this example of his work. He pulled a few results that support his preconceived notion of the state of American public opinion from a long survey while ignoring data points which might refute his claim. This poll contains nothing particularly disastrous for Democrats or President Obama. If Douglas cared about good analysis, he would have pointed this out.