It struck me while reading that GOP leaders are assailed from BOTH sides of our spectrum – those who want them to oppose Obama MORE, and those who don’t think they try to compromise ENOUGH. I think that explains the distaste for the leaders which is a mismatch for the opinion of the party overall.
I have to ask if Pew was equally worried that Dem leaders wren’t trying hard enough to get along with George Bush as they are the GOP leaders aren’t trying hard enough to get along with Obama.
It was also interesting the BHO has about the same assessment of effectiveness as GWB had at the same point in his second term.
But what’s up with this – “By nearly two-to-one, those who see a lack of cooperation are more likely to blame Republican leaders in Congress (42%) than Obama (22%) for the gridlock. The percentage blaming Republicans is up 11 points since February 2011, while the percentage blaming Obama is little changed over that time period.
According to the graph, in Feb. of 2009, 27% blamed GOP leaders for lack of cooperation, and in May 2012 that percentage is 42%. But in May of 2009, the percentage blaming Obama is 7% and it’s now 22%. I wouldn’t call tripling ‘little change’.
paulsimmonssays
..the ratio of blame accruing to Obama evens out. Nevertheless the semantics of the statement are awkward.
Furthermore the Bush comparison (circa 2005) is distorted by the fact that the recession was two-plus years in the future.
In my opinion what the poll shows (but does not address) is an environment of unfocused populism that benefits Obama, but has little (at present) in the way of coattails. Thus Republicans are disliked even by those who agree with them on the issues.
There are also matters of paradox and nuance that aren’t measured by Pew.
For example, but I would suggest that even those who are otherwise Second Amendment absolutists would tend to support background checks.
mike_cotesays
Bush was still president in 2007. Bush was president until around noon on January 20, 2009, so the comparison is totally appropriate.
petrsays
The percentage blaming Republicans is up 11 points since February 2011, while the percentage blaming Obama is little changed OVER THAT TIME PERIOD.
According to the graph, in Feb. of 2009, 27% blamed GOP leaders for lack of cooperation, and in May 2012 that percentage is 42%. But in May of 2009, the percentage blaming Obama is 7% and it’s now 22%. I wouldn’t call tripling ‘little change’.
THEY are measuring between FEB TWO_THOUSAND_AND_ELEVEN and NOW. They SAY that between FEB 2011 and NOW there is little change and, indeed, that is a true statement.
YOU are measuring between FEB TWO_THOUSAND_AND_NINE and NOW. YOU SAY that, over a longer period, much more has changed and that may be true… but that is not what THEY are saying.
So you can’t criticize them for making a statement that occurred only in your head.
Christophersays
We’re all aware of the polls showing overwhelming support for some basic factors of gun control: background checks and bans on assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Yet somehow the slight edge is given to Republicans regarding which party could do a better job on gun control! How the heck does that work? Certainly it’s no secret that Democrats generally support these gun control measures while Republicans oppose them.
paulsimmonssays
It depends upon one’s definition of gun control (see my response to Porcupine, above). Furthermore your generic statement about Democrats isn’t a truism, State-by-State.
There are sizable qualified gun rights Democratic constituencies in other States; in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine to cite examples in New England. Background checks are considered common sense, not gun control in this context by the majority of these folks, but they’d go ballistic at the prospect of banning firearms.
danielmoraffsays
“Guns” doesn’t boil down to a checklist of issues (background checks, magazines). It’s about who’s with you and who isn’t.
kbuschsays
1. I saw some polling that showed a lot of Americans think that we have stricter regulations than we do. This fits in with how plain unbelievable some of the NRA victories have been. Most recent example: the “orphan gun” law in Arizona.
2. By the time the gun control discussions get to most people, it turns into a “guns pro or con” issue. It is shorn of all nuance. Framed that way, the “con” side looks quite radical. Universal disarmament?
Christophersays
I have no problem saying con to products which when used as directed kill or seriously injure people. If anything that simple frame doesn’t put guns in a very favorable light in my mind. Anybody who thinks “control” equals disarmament must by that logic believe that auto registration and traffic laws equal bans on driving. You can probably tell I have no sympathy or patience for this line of “reasoning” but on the flip side I also think most Americans are smarter than that at least with the slightest bit of explanation and discussion.
kbuschsays
The NRA-poisoned right does think that gun confiscation is the ultimate goal of progressives. A recent poll showed a sizable portion of Republicans believing insurrection might prove necessary at some point soon.
One should also keep in mind that lots of people lack the leisure time, motivation, or both that is necessary to achieve an understanding that won’t provoke your impatience.
paulsimmonssays
First and foremost there are sizable contingents within the Democratic Party that oppose confiscating firearms. I cited northern New England, but it holds true in States like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Colorado, Nevada, and others.
In addition there is an intensity gap where gun rights elicits more emotional support than gun control. (Background checks are an exception, because they appeal to common sense, and don’t threaten the perceived Constitutional right to possess individually-owned firearms.)
Gun rights supporters are more and better organized.
Arguments such as Christopher’s work to the advantage of the NRA, et al, because they play into the image – and fact – of progressive sanctimony that the NRA uses to frame issues. (Which is why the Parties are running even: There is an equilibrium of hostility that adversely affects both.) For what it’s worth, I know plenty of “smart” voters who have a literal interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Finally, mass shootings do not translate into permanent organized support for gun control (again excepting background checks). The average voter does not feel personally affected after the shock wears off.
Fortunately for gun control supporters, the Republicans overplayed their hand in the matter of those background checks, to their tactical disadvantage. It does not translate, however into support for more stringent measures; and it’s not a given that even opposition to background checks will accrue to Democratic advantages in 2014.
Christophersays
“Confiscation” and “disarmament” – both of which strike even me as running afoul of the 2nd amendment. I can’t in good conscience apologize if wanting to get rid of weapons of war strikes some as sanctimonious. Besides I’m pretty sure those bans poll very well also, even among gun owners.
jconwaysays
Hence why we keep losing on this issue. I’m telling you folks run really hard hitting ads “Ayotte opposed background checks for felons and terrorists”-its true! For the life of me are giving up a solid national security and tough on crime framing for a public policy lecture. Its a cultural issue voters decide on the basis of emotions, and their fear of crime and terror will outweigh their fear of government and love of guns every time.
Christophersays
Mayor Bloomberg’s group HAS accused Ayotte of “giving criminals a free pass” in tv ads I’ve seen in recent days.
It struck me while reading that GOP leaders are assailed from BOTH sides of our spectrum – those who want them to oppose Obama MORE, and those who don’t think they try to compromise ENOUGH. I think that explains the distaste for the leaders which is a mismatch for the opinion of the party overall.
I have to ask if Pew was equally worried that Dem leaders wren’t trying hard enough to get along with George Bush as they are the GOP leaders aren’t trying hard enough to get along with Obama.
It was also interesting the BHO has about the same assessment of effectiveness as GWB had at the same point in his second term.
But what’s up with this – “By nearly two-to-one, those who see a lack of cooperation are more likely to blame Republican leaders in Congress (42%) than Obama (22%) for the gridlock. The percentage blaming Republicans is up 11 points since February 2011, while the percentage blaming Obama is little changed over that time period.
According to the graph, in Feb. of 2009, 27% blamed GOP leaders for lack of cooperation, and in May 2012 that percentage is 42%. But in May of 2009, the percentage blaming Obama is 7% and it’s now 22%. I wouldn’t call tripling ‘little change’.
..the ratio of blame accruing to Obama evens out. Nevertheless the semantics of the statement are awkward.
Furthermore the Bush comparison (circa 2005) is distorted by the fact that the recession was two-plus years in the future.
In my opinion what the poll shows (but does not address) is an environment of unfocused populism that benefits Obama, but has little (at present) in the way of coattails. Thus Republicans are disliked even by those who agree with them on the issues.
There are also matters of paradox and nuance that aren’t measured by Pew.
For example, but I would suggest that even those who are otherwise Second Amendment absolutists would tend to support background checks.
Bush was still president in 2007. Bush was president until around noon on January 20, 2009, so the comparison is totally appropriate.
THEY are measuring between FEB TWO_THOUSAND_AND_ELEVEN and NOW. They SAY that between FEB 2011 and NOW there is little change and, indeed, that is a true statement.
YOU are measuring between FEB TWO_THOUSAND_AND_NINE and NOW. YOU SAY that, over a longer period, much more has changed and that may be true… but that is not what THEY are saying.
So you can’t criticize them for making a statement that occurred only in your head.
We’re all aware of the polls showing overwhelming support for some basic factors of gun control: background checks and bans on assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Yet somehow the slight edge is given to Republicans regarding which party could do a better job on gun control! How the heck does that work? Certainly it’s no secret that Democrats generally support these gun control measures while Republicans oppose them.
It depends upon one’s definition of gun control (see my response to Porcupine, above). Furthermore your generic statement about Democrats isn’t a truism, State-by-State.
There are sizable qualified gun rights Democratic constituencies in other States; in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine to cite examples in New England. Background checks are considered common sense, not gun control in this context by the majority of these folks, but they’d go ballistic at the prospect of banning firearms.
“Guns” doesn’t boil down to a checklist of issues (background checks, magazines). It’s about who’s with you and who isn’t.
1. I saw some polling that showed a lot of Americans think that we have stricter regulations than we do. This fits in with how plain unbelievable some of the NRA victories have been. Most recent example: the “orphan gun” law in Arizona.
2. By the time the gun control discussions get to most people, it turns into a “guns pro or con” issue. It is shorn of all nuance. Framed that way, the “con” side looks quite radical. Universal disarmament?
I have no problem saying con to products which when used as directed kill or seriously injure people. If anything that simple frame doesn’t put guns in a very favorable light in my mind. Anybody who thinks “control” equals disarmament must by that logic believe that auto registration and traffic laws equal bans on driving. You can probably tell I have no sympathy or patience for this line of “reasoning” but on the flip side I also think most Americans are smarter than that at least with the slightest bit of explanation and discussion.
The NRA-poisoned right does think that gun confiscation is the ultimate goal of progressives. A recent poll showed a sizable portion of Republicans believing insurrection might prove necessary at some point soon.
One should also keep in mind that lots of people lack the leisure time, motivation, or both that is necessary to achieve an understanding that won’t provoke your impatience.
First and foremost there are sizable contingents within the Democratic Party that oppose confiscating firearms. I cited northern New England, but it holds true in States like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Colorado, Nevada, and others.
In addition there is an intensity gap where gun rights elicits more emotional support than gun control. (Background checks are an exception, because they appeal to common sense, and don’t threaten the perceived Constitutional right to possess individually-owned firearms.)
Gun rights supporters are more and better organized.
Arguments such as Christopher’s work to the advantage of the NRA, et al, because they play into the image – and fact – of progressive sanctimony that the NRA uses to frame issues. (Which is why the Parties are running even: There is an equilibrium of hostility that adversely affects both.) For what it’s worth, I know plenty of “smart” voters who have a literal interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Finally, mass shootings do not translate into permanent organized support for gun control (again excepting background checks). The average voter does not feel personally affected after the shock wears off.
Fortunately for gun control supporters, the Republicans overplayed their hand in the matter of those background checks, to their tactical disadvantage. It does not translate, however into support for more stringent measures; and it’s not a given that even opposition to background checks will accrue to Democratic advantages in 2014.
“Confiscation” and “disarmament” – both of which strike even me as running afoul of the 2nd amendment. I can’t in good conscience apologize if wanting to get rid of weapons of war strikes some as sanctimonious. Besides I’m pretty sure those bans poll very well also, even among gun owners.
Hence why we keep losing on this issue. I’m telling you folks run really hard hitting ads “Ayotte opposed background checks for felons and terrorists”-its true! For the life of me are giving up a solid national security and tough on crime framing for a public policy lecture. Its a cultural issue voters decide on the basis of emotions, and their fear of crime and terror will outweigh their fear of government and love of guns every time.
Mayor Bloomberg’s group HAS accused Ayotte of “giving criminals a free pass” in tv ads I’ve seen in recent days.