Misreading The Polling On FinReg

Kevin Drum misreads the findings of the WaPo poll on FinReg:

I'm a little unsure if this is good news or bad news. It's good that there's generally majority (or better) support for all this stuff, but the majorities aren't all that big. [. . . T]he public doesn't exactly seem ready to hit the streets with pitchforks and torches. Maybe public opinion would be stronger if we could somehow convince them that Goldman Sachs planned to convene death panels?

What Kevin misses is that the partisan divide is already reflected in these poll findings. ("44 percent of Republicans approve of stricter guidelines, joining 75 percent of Democrats and 57 percent of independents on the issue.")

This is THE best issue the Dems have by far. It is no coincidence that the Dems are having a vote on it today.

Speaking for me only

< Baucus: Taxes On Wall Street Coming | Monday Afternoon Open Thread: Boycott Arizona! >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I am going to be annoying (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by lilburro on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 12:05:53 PM EST
    and ask how you thought Obama helped the politics of the issue at Cooper Union :P

    It does seem like a political no-brainer for Dems and yet nobody particularly cares...as Drum says, where are the pitchforks?  My thought is there are no pitchforks because this is playing out as DC inside baseball again.

    I think the Dems tried to use the tea partiers' (none / 0) (#19)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 01:43:43 PM EST
    pitchforks. Too little, too late, but there was a fainthearted attempt last week.

    Enough of rewriting history (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 03:36:00 PM EST
    I'm sick of hearing about the great ideas Republicans have on how to run the country. I see what their great ideas have done. Just look at the financial carnage across the country.

    They had eight years to implement their great ideas and they chose to sit on their rears and let the house of cards crumble.

    Democrats need to pound them on this. Republicans shouldn't be allowed to walk away from the disaster that they created.

    Complicity (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Emma on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 03:42:11 PM EST
    Democrats need to pound them on this. Republicans shouldn't be allowed to walk away from the disaster that they created.

    Except Dems are complicit (at the least) in the disaster.  I have come to believe that all any politician wants is to take as much money out of the taxpayers as possible and then put that money in their own pockets.  It's all one big money laundering scheme and the only purpose of government is to keep it running regardless of the harms to the citizens, the country, or any party's electoral success at any given time.


    I meant to post something (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 05:33:08 PM EST
    here earlier but didn't hit post, and it got sucked up into Joshua online gaming :)  I'll try again.  I have no reason to suspect that average citizens really understand what a derivative is.  None of our friends even actually understand in layman terms what Wall Street did with derivatives and what caused the crisis.  I dare Kevin Drum to get out a camcorder and hit the streets asking people to define what a derivative is and what Wall Street did with them, and faked triple A ratings and hedgefunds, to get us to this place in hell.  I dare him!  Do it Kevin, get on that stick!  People do not understand nor do they have a current great affinity for PBS or Michael Moore documentaries.  Many of us are coming off of a profoundly GOOD time had by all (though not exactly in this house because I have some say so around here and I peed on many hairbrained credit involving ideas around here).  I think there is a lot of guilt out there too because most people knew they were getting in over their heads but everyone was doing it.....who wanted to be left out?  Once the guilt is dealt with though and Americans realize that our government has decided to deleverage Wall Street with the very flesh, blood, and bone of our children.....everyone who is a "leader" had really better watch out.

    They may be having a vote (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 11:25:20 AM EST
    But it's a procedural one.  Unless things have recently changed, they don't have the votes to overcome a filibuster.

    that may also be the point (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by CST on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 11:29:58 AM EST
    from cnn:

    "Reid's strategy is to force Republicans to either allow debate to proceed or go on record opposing Wall Street reforms that are strongly supported by the American public."


    According to The Hill (none / 0) (#3)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 11:43:07 AM EST
    Senate Republicans have an alternative bill or two ready to go.  It might be hard to say they are party if no when they say they have an alternative plan.

    Let's see their bills then (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 11:51:08 AM EST
    If they want to be the party of weak refrom rather than the party of know, it is just as good for the Dems.

    The GOP - Party Of KNOW (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by dead dancer on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 01:54:30 PM EST
    bra ha ha ha

    Party of no rather (none / 0) (#5)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 11:51:46 AM EST
    Dang autocorrect!

    not if they can't vote on it (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by CST on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 11:51:57 AM EST
    If they vote against something people like, they voted against it, end of story.  It really doesn't matter if they have something waiting in the wings that no one ever gets to see.  That's the benefit of being the majority party.

    I wonder why they haven't been touting (none / 0) (#7)
    by Radix on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 11:52:31 AM EST
    their alternate plan/s already. Seems kinda of odd.

    Because they know that (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 11:55:00 AM EST
    being for 'no reform' is a political loser.

    Never mind- misread your post! Sorry. (none / 0) (#9)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 11:55:38 AM EST
    It doesn't matter (none / 0) (#10)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 11:59:47 AM EST
    They get to say they had an alternative plan and the Fems wouldn't give them an up or down vote.  Then they give a few bullet points that is red meat to those who support them anyways and Chris Matthews gets to ask "Senator Reid, you knew you didn't have the votes, yet you went ahead with a vote anyways and didn't try to get the Republicans on board or let them present their own bill that would do X, Y, and Z."

    No one who supports the Dems would like the Republican bill anyways, but you aren't the intended audience.  It's those people writing checks, their base, and those in the middle who will look at it and say "Why were the Dems rushing this through and wouldn't even consider the Republicans' bill?"


    in order to say that (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by CST on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 12:04:35 PM EST
    they are still in the position where they have to explain why they voted against a popular bill.

    The Dems won't have to vote against the republican bill because it will never come up.  The procedural points are much harder to make during an election season than "so and so voted against/for X".  "X did such and such"

    Procedural whining doesn't make a very good commercial.


    It's really hard to say (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 12:49:57 PM EST
    That this is a "popular" bill, especially on an issue so complicated.  My guess is, outside of blogs, most people have  no idea this bill exists or what it entails.  And frankly, after the HIR debacle, I don't think that people who are aware if
    of the existence of this bill really trust that it will be a good one.

    I think the framing of this bill (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by CST on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 02:31:49 PM EST
    will be much easier than HIR.  HIR is a much more personal issue for people.  Bank reform doesn't really touch on the personal lives of most of the voting public, so there is less inherent fear involved.

    The issue itself may be fairly complicated but the framing is not.  The voting public is angry at wall street and anything that looks like it might reign them in will be fairly popular.  It's not like you're gonna have people screaming about killing grandma and death panels.


    No, but (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 02:40:55 PM EST
    As kdog pointed our in the thread about the bank tax, people are savvy enough to realize those are just going to somehow get passed on to them.

    And it also assumes people are willing to listen and believe the Dems' argument.  Right now the mood of the country seems to be "a pox on both your houses."


    Is this like how (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 12:07:56 PM EST
    people would believe there was a GOP Health care Reform bill- but in reality no one believes that?

    I think all that is needed is (none / 0) (#17)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 01:22:15 PM EST
    to make sure the Dem bill is significantly better to even a casual observer.

    I admit that is by no means a given.


    Because (none / 0) (#15)
    by CoralGables on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 12:55:28 PM EST
    like all other alternatives they suggest (without any details), it's a book of blank paper they put together an hour or two before the vote to use as a prop.

    It still doesn't matter (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 01:04:43 PM EST
    What matters is the Dems don't have the votes.

    Now if they can spin it (and have people actually believe them) that theirs was a good idea, it will be a good thing.  But if the R's can make a case that they had an alternative plan, people are going to ignore this tiff and move on with their lives thinking it's just more Beltway noise.

    The latest poll I saw on Politico said 65% approve of financial reform.  Good.  What does that mean?  It doesn't mean that 65% think the Dem bill is good and should pass.  (BTW - that number us down 11 points since last year, so what happened between now and then?  The economy didn't get any better and banks certainly didn't get more responsible.  And part of that pill was taken AFTER the mews about the Goldman Sachs emails came out)


    The point is,a s I think BTD shows in another (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 01:41:40 PM EST
    thread, is to have something good, and then convince the public that it is better than what the Repubs have on offer. That is how you get the votes.

    Oh, I agree (none / 0) (#21)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 02:26:08 PM EST
    But as you pointed out, these are the DEMS we're talking about.

    I think there is a difference between (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 03:27:23 PM EST
    wanting reform and believing we will get it, and I think a lot of people, after witnessing the way health whatever reform was watered down, have little confidence that real reform stands a snowball's chance in hell of being passed.  And I think that would apply to just about any issue on the agenda that needs fixing.

    The template was pretty much etched in stone with the health care/insurance/whatever clusterf**k; financial regulation is following right along.  Same strong words, same finger-wagging lectures to the industry that nearly crashed the economy, same deal-breakers that aren't really, same cozy relationships between legislators and industry execs, same insider's network with back-door and legislative staff access, and on and on.  No guarantees that the American consumer who's been so totally hosed one way or another by the industry won't continue to be hosed via the gaping loopholes our legislators are pretending they don't see.

    People just plain do not believe that what's happening in Congress, or in the WH, is going to help them - and really, why should they?

    We could all show up in DC with flaming pitchforks coming out our hind ends, and the response would probably be, "Oh, goodie!  S'mores!  Wait - you did bring the marshmallows, didn't you?"


    Bipartisan support to filibuster (none / 0) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 04:58:58 PM EST
    financial reform legislation. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), voted with the GOP to refuse debate on the bill. link

    Nelson voted no on cloture (none / 0) (#29)
    by Kimberley on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 05:46:21 PM EST
    My guess is he's looking to weaken the derivatives portion of the bill from behind the cover of a united, disagreeable opposition.

    I would have had this guy stripped of any real committee power in the chamber and working from a school desk near a sprawling, asbestos wrapped furnace in the basement by now, but I've got a little bit of a mafia mentality...

    Instead, I suspect, we'll soon be hearing many tortured arguments maintaining that regulating existing derivatives is unnecessary to reform.


    Twitter (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 12:44:28 AM EST