"Why Voters Tune Out Democrats" (results from Dem Pollster)

[KoKo]

by STANLEY B. GREENBERG
Published: July 30, 2011

Our research shows that the growth of self-identified conservatives began in the fall of 2008 with the Wall Street bailout, well before Mr. Obama embarked on his recovery and spending program. The public watched the elite and leaders of both parties rush to the rescue. The government saved irresponsible executives who bankrupted their own companies, hurt many people and threatened the welfare of the country. When Mr. Obama championed the bailout of the auto companies and allowed senior executives at bailed-out companies to take bonuses, voters concluded that he was part of the operating elite consensus. If you owned a small business that was in trouble or a home or pension that lost much of its value, you were on your own. As people across the country told me, the average citizen doesn’t “get money for free.” Their conclusion: Government works for the irresponsible, not the responsible.

Everything they witness affirms the public’s developing view of how government really works. They see a nexus of money and power, greased by special interest lobbyists and large campaign donations, that makes these outcomes irresistible. They do not believe the fundamentals have really changed in Mr. Obama’s Washington.

What should Democrats do?

The Democrats have to start detoxifying politics by proposing to severely limit or bar individual and corporate campaign contributions, which would mean a fight with the Supreme Court. They must make the case for public financing of campaigns and force the broadcast and cable networks to provide free time for candidate ads. And they must become the strongest advocates for transparency in campaign donations and in the lobbying of elected officials.

IF they want to win the trust of the public, Democrats should propose taxing lobbyist expenses and excessive chief executive bonuses and put a small fee on the sale of stocks, bonds and other financial instruments. By radically simplifying the tax code to allow only a few deductions, the Democrats would generate new revenue and remove the loopholes that allow special interests to win favorable treatment. The ordinary citizen, according to our surveys and focus groups, feels there is no way to play that game and views simplifying the tax code as an important reform.

--------------

More (and you'd have to read the whole thing for the polling results without getting too crazy over who wrote the article) at........
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/opinion/sunday/tuning-out-the-democrats.html?src=recg

[xchrom]

1. interesting. nt

[ProSense]

2. This is key

<...>

In analyzing these polls in the United States, I see clearly that voters feel ever more estranged from government — and that they associate Democrats with government. If Democrats are going to be encumbered by that link, they need to change voters’ feelings about government. They can recite their good plans as a mantra and raise their voices as if they had not been heard, but voters will not listen to them if government is disreputable.

Oddly, many voters prefer the policies of Democrats to the policies of Republicans. They just don’t trust the Democrats to carry out those promises.

When we conducted our election-night national survey after last year’s Republican sweep, voters strongly chose new investment over a new national austerity. They thought Democrats were more likely to champion the middle class. And as has become clear in the months since, the public does not share conservatives’ views on rejecting tax cuts and cutting retirement programs. Numerous recent polls have shown that the public sides with the president and Democrats on raising taxes to get to a balanced budget.

<...>

This distrust of government and politicians is unfolding as a full-blown crisis of legitimacy sidelines Democrats and liberalism. Just a quarter of the country is optimistic about our system of government — the lowest since polls by ABC and others began asking this question in 1974. But a crisis of government legitimacy is a crisis of liberalism. It doesn’t hurt Republicans. If government is seen as useless, what is the point of electing Democrats who aim to use government to advance some public end?

<...>

Republicans, with the help of many, have spend the entire time creating the perception that government is "disreputable." They're doing that now, and people simply join the chorus instead of calling out Republicans.

[TheKentuckian]

10. The present government is disreputable. No doubt the Republicans did their damnedest to get it their

but Democrats have failed to try to restore it and have embraced some of the same shit the pukes have used to put it into such a state.

No question the TeaPubliKlan mission is to destroy the effectiveness of government while using it as an extraction mechanism to transfer the wealth of the nation to the rich few, the trouble is Democrat's first allegiance is to those same wealthy few which creates a situation where anything remotely resembling an honest broker cannot just call out the TeaPubliKlans because our guys allow and even prosecute the same bullshit wars, the same violations of our Constitution, the same phony drug war, the same job and lifestyle killing trade policies, the same fearmongering, tell lies, granted different lies to explain the same horrible policies, they forge deals with the same class of crooks with the lion's share of the nation's wealth, and hell our guys cover up for their criminals that everyone knows are crooks.

The government is not going to be reputable by blaming the Republicans and even if by some magic could our idiots can't bring themselves to go after the fuckers no matter how heinous the crimes nor can they see clear to fully reverse the damage done because they are too chicken shit to deal with the theoretical possibility of blow back because they'd rather be popular than do what is right and best for the nation.

Most of all you don't build a sterling reputation by committing to being the lesser of two evils rather than trying to actually do what is beneficial to the people and our lands, water, air, and wildlife.

You can't get caught up in being better than the worst and expect to be seen as reputable. How the holy fuck do you expect us to be seen a paragons of virtue and defenders of the people after the debacle in the Gulf? Especially when the primary defense is "McCain would have apologized" or whatever.

Reputable doesn't mean less bad. Less bad is the nearly sure fire way to lose credibility in this whole conversation. Our party could never afford to make the dialog about who's least bad because it undercuts our fundamental argument and reinforces the opposition's.

We have done about nothing to increase trust in government and have often played into the Republican premise that government is the problem.

Blaming the TeaPubliKlans doesn't address much less fix the problems and builds faith in the system.

Political games like taking impeachment off the table, looking forward, watching the economy melt down and then take a year and half before taking action that wouldn't stop the meltdown that happened nor a future one, and allowing BP to destroy and then run amok do not engender faith in the system or our institutions.

Most of all simply "blaming the Republicans" is dishonest when we are at least equally behind the shitty trade deals, the lack of accountability for the powerful, welfare deform, education deform, the drug war, and are junior partners in the resource wars and destruction of the recognition of fundamental and natural rights along with cronyism and cover ups.

If we are going to be the party of reputable government, it cannot be achieved by finger pointing alone. And to what extent finger pointing will help we have to have the courage to say "this is what is wrong and this is what we will do to make good" and "these are the criminals, we will hold them accountable".

How the fuck are we going to have an open, accessible, effective, and trusted government going on as we have?
Yes, we know what the TeaPubliKlans are doing but the question is what are we doing to stop them and hold them accountable so it is harder to do it again and what are we doing right along with them?

You think stupid shit like the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase increase faith in the government? Do you think looking forward builds faith in our justice system?

You think cutting benefits makes people believe in our government keeping it's commitments?

Where are you building trust when you don't take the public with you and pass shit they do not understand?

Why do you think "chess" translates to an informed and trusting public, when you know they have no idea what is going on. Why do you think they are so easily set up to believe lies? Could it be they haven't heard the truth.

The whole "chess" meme goes against trust in government by trying to substitute blind faith in a super daddy who knows what they need more than they can even guess. This especially flops like a motherfucker when the public sees what it knows it needs still unattended to.

[rfranklin]

3. It's simple...average folks do not see the Dems on their side...

The Democrats have been sucking the corporate teats for years now, convinced that the only way they can compete is to compete with the Republics for corporate cash. The average voter sees what's going on and knows that the Dems are not looking out for them. Will they wise up and become the party of the people? Probably not, because they are focused on the next election and out kissing the behinds of corporate donors, unable to see the light as their noses penetrate the ass cracks of the wealthy and powerful.

[DrToast]

4. It's intentional by Republicans

Their goal is to gum up the works of government because it reinforces their ideology that government doesn't work.

They've even cited examples of their own past incompetence as examples of government failure because they know people simply attribute it to "government" and no them.

[Doctor_J]

5. Lots of VERY aggressive tactics at hate radio and cabal "news" outlets

and I'm not talking about picket signs.

[boston bean]

6. A populist message wins every time. When that message is sold out, you get what we have right now.

People don't know what the fuck to believe and for good reason.

So it's just easier to say they're all a bunch of lying hypocrites and we never get a long lasting commitment from these voters, because there are no RESULTS with all the nice talk. The voters go back and forth, back and forth, punishing the party in control.

So instead of winning for the long term we end up losing short term fist fights, where the people you voted for are using a pillow against those using bare knuckles. And voters see right through it!

[Creideiki]

7. The sad thing is the auto bailouts could have been marketed to let people know that the design was

to help ordinary Americans. It would have been fairly easy and would have made the conservative opponents look like douche-bags.

Instead, the assumption was that someone else would explain that 25% of the remaining American manufacturing sector is tied to the auto industry. I got that from Thom Hartmann, but there's only so much that Thom Hartmann can do. Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, and LBJ were effective at moving the progressive ball forward by utilizing the Bully Pulpit; Teddy Roosevelt is the one who created the term "Bully Pulpit".

It's not that Obama has "so much to work on", it's that he's been negligent with the communication. Webchats aren't the same thing.

Somehow the best messaging campaign of my lifetime has become one of the worst messaging Administrations (including crapping regularly and vocally on the progressive Base of the Party.)

[gateley]

9. We have no marketing nor messaging. They are masters of the soundbite. nt

[gateley]

8. Thanks. I hope the Dems to whom this applies read this! nt

[Wait Wut]

15. It will be read.

But, either not understood, ignored or attacked.

It's hard work to work hard for change. It's easier to give reasons why you shouldn't have to. Even I get discouraged and want to give up at times. Not because of government corruption or bad government deals, but because I spend more time arguing with MY side than fixing shit and working with MY side. Frustrating and demoralizing.

TPM has a few right-wing trolls that have been there as long or longer than I have. Why are they allowed to stay? Because Josh Marshall understands that it's good for us to have a few catalysts to keep us working together. One, in particular, has been there for so long that a few of us have learned to appreciate him and have even come to his defense. And, he's occasionally humble enough to admit when he's wrong. Hell, we've even shared a laugh or two with him. DKos used to allow one or two, but not anymore.

Maybe that's what's needed here. Talking to each other is obviously not helping. The only problem is, disagreements at TPM are normally much more civil. It would turn into a :rofl: fest here.

[boxman15]

11. I especially agree with the idea of Democrats and Obama fighting Citizens United, but

I think the main problem Democrats have is that the party does not know how to message. I like President Obama, and I wholeheartedly support him, but one of my biggest disappointments in him has been his messaging, or lack thereof. He ran the best campaign I have ever seen in 2008 and I know history will look back on it as one of the greatest of all-time, too. He was able to be inspiring in his speeches, win over moderates and independents, unite the liberal base (which hasn't happened, I'd argue, since 1964), and shifted the debates during 2008 to the center-left.

I thought he'd be able to shift the public debate to the center-left, but he has failed to do so, for whatever reason. Is it completely his fault? No. The GOP has been doing all they can to demonize him and any progress that has been made. They are the masters of the soundbite, after all. But, I thought Obama would be able to keep the country talking from the center-left, but we are still talking from the center-right, as we have been since at least Reagan. He hasn't been as out there as I'd hoped, especially considering he is the best speaker of this generation. And Democrats on Capitol Hill are still their regular selves, being as uninspiring and as ineffective in the public as they normally are.

I don't think he would've accomplished any more than he has had he been more effective in getting the country to the center-left. The GOP would not have gone along with anything he wanted, and Blue Dogs would've still been as in the way as they were, but it's still somewhat disappointing. He's done a LOT of good for this country, despite what the fringe left might say, and I'm happy he's the president, but that's one area in which I'm disappointed.

[OHdem10]

12. The public sees the Democrats as what they are::People with

no convictions. No courage to say what they believe
in. Just people who say "Me too" to Republican Policies.

[JoeyT]

14. +1

"Oddly, many voters prefer the policies of Democrats to the policies of Republicans. They just don’t trust the Democrats to carry out those promises."

Can't imagine why they'd think that.

[Wilms]

13. ^