Government Shutdown

CNN Shutdown Poll: Americans Angry with GOP, Democrats, and Obama

|

When the public is asked to choose whether they blame President Obama or the Republicans in Congress for the partial shutdown of the federal government, the NBC/WSJ poll finds 53 percent choose the Republicans, 31 percent say President Obama, and 13 percent blame both equally. But there's more…

When asked what the public thinks about each party independently, there was plenty of blame to go around. The CNN poll found 63 percent of Americans are angry with Republicans, 58 percent are angry with Democrats (a statistical tie), and 53 percent are angry with President Obama. Moreover, among independents they blame all groups equally (60 percent Republicans, 59 percent Democrats, 58 percent Obama).

While clearly the public holds the GOP primarily responsible for the shutdown, the Democrats and Obama's favorables have not escaped unscathed.

NEXT: Syrian Warplanes Bomb Rebel Positions Near Chemical Weapons Site

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Here’s something fun. The NSA has the Sad.
    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/a…..redirect=0

    Former intelligence officials who remain in regular contact with those still in government say that morale at the NSA is low, both because of the reaction to leaks by former contractor Edward Snowden, which put the normally secretive agency under intense scrutiny, and because of budget cutbacks and the continuing government shutdown, which has left some employees furloughed without pay.

    I blame BOOOOOSH!

    1. They have lied and fucked up so much, they now have no credibility left with the public. Libertarians don’t fully get that because they have always been skeptical. The IC community spent 30 years rebuilding their credibility after the Church Commission in the late 1970s. They were largely successful in rebuilding their image and good will from the public, especially post 9-11. They have largely pissed all of that way and are now in worse shape than at any time since the late 1970s.

      Yeah, they should have a sad. Their leaders have totally betrayed the public and the institutions they were supposed to serve.

  2. This was the obvious outcome. Nobody looks good, and people are really pissed at the National Park Service.

    1. Utah is taking over the national parks there, and paying the bills.

      http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_new…..ayers?lite

      1. Hopefully by sending their SWAT teams against the NPS.

  3. Blame? They should be given credit for shutting down what we don’t need. If only they hadn’t voted to pay the furloughed non-essential workers for doing nothing. Shut down some more.

    1. I know some of these furloughed workers. They have taken this time to organize campaign/fundraising events for other parasites.

      1. Same here, especially in the forest service. Instead soliciting donations for more fire protection, they went straight into political mode and started soliciting for a campaign to force more public funding their way….

        1. which should be a Hatch Act violation since they’re getting paid. but FYTW.

    2. The Wall Street Journal poll seems to have a strong selection bias toward Obama supporters. Take a look at this question:

      A lot of people are unable to get out and vote for many reasons. Did you happen to vote in last November’s election for president? (IF “YES,” ASK:) For whom did you vote??Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, or someone else?+

      Yes, Voted

      Voted for Barack Obama …………… 44
      Voted for Mitt Romney ………………. 35
      Voted for someone else …………….. 6
      Not sure ………………………………….. 5*

      That’s a 9% advantage for Obama. If the poll were representative of the population rather than skewing too heavily Democrat, shouldn’t those numbers equal the actual vote difference (aka 4% Obama advantage)?

      *BTW, I love that 5% of the population are “not sure” who they voted for last year. Those must be the people who had somebody else vote for them. But of course, we don’t need voter ID laws….

      1. Perhaps the blue-haired GOP loyalists are dying that fast.

        1. Now I understand why a communist like Obama would cut their medicare.

  4. Which is a huge win for libertarians. More dislike and distrust of government is a good thing.

    I think it also slightly benefits the GOP, as they at least have a few moderately libertarian people in office. I’m surprised the number of them that think they should just totally cave because some poll said people don’t like Republicans.

    1. I am not sure. Suppose the liberals prove to be right and the GOP takes a beating at the polls over this. Won’t that make it pretty much impossible for future politicians of any party to really stand up and try to put a stop to the growth of government?

      1. John is more correct here. The shutdown has been terrible for libertarians. Instead of actually suggesting that perhaps the NIH, federally managed parks and monuments might be something that we could live without, or better yet should not be under federal control anyway, they quite publicly and repeatedly shouted about how essential and important they are.

        The people that are ‘mad at the government’ are mad that it is not doing stuff. That is not a libertarian victory.

        1. I don’t agree. I don’t think it’s about stuff being shut down as it is about all of the political gamesmanship being used.

          People are getting fed up with how the government operates and its inability to do anything in a sane manner. Pile this on top of the scandals, the out-of-control spending, and everything else, and I don’t see the statists coming out very good.

          1. I’m sure there are plenty of GOPers who would be glad to get rid of national parks and the NIH. Bo, in his own standard style, fails to attribute any blame to Team Blue’s toxic rhetoric. They LITERALLY show Republicans throwing old ladies off of cliffs to scare the populace. How do you fight back against that kind of rank, base, disgusting rhetoric?

            1. The Democrats’ numbers, including the presidents, are also diving. Not sure how that’s a win for them. Because, come 2014, the election will be about the economy, which will either be the same or worse than it is now. And the GOP will at least have an argument that they’re trying to do something about the madness (though their past and current complicity is considerable).

              1. -The Democrats’ numbers, including the presidents, are also diving. Not sure how that’s a win for them.

                Because the Democrats stand for almost nothing these days except, ‘the GOP is evil and we are better than evil.’ Obama’s re-election campaign was based entirely on having a hugely negative campaign and in the end having slightly lower unfavorable than Romney.

            2. It is not agreeing with the silly rhetoric of the Democrat Party to realize that the GOP was in a bad position here. You can wail and blame ‘the media’ and the ‘the Democrats’ all you want, the GOP should now they are working in a world with those things and act accordingly. I bet you were shocked when Obama won re-election too, probably calling anyone who doubted you a Democrat shill who was relying on the ‘wrong’ liberal polls.

              I admire your passion, but welcome to the real world. Stay a spell, and you might actually learn things that will advance your passions.

              1. So you’re condescending and dumb? I bet you’re a big hit at parties.

              2. I bet you were shocked when Obama won re-election too, probably calling anyone who doubted you a Democrat shill who was relying on the ‘wrong’ liberal polls.

                I bet you’re wrong.

          2. Quite possibly, different people are angry about different things. Tea partiers & other conservatives are angry about the obvious gamesmanship in things such as the WWII memorial & other national parks closing. The mushy middle is probably angry at “the politicians”, including both Congress and the President, for not ‘compromising’ and ‘getting things done’. The left is angry at the Kochtopus because Anarchy!

            Of course, if the pollsters would only ask why people are angry, instead of assuming it’s coming from the same place, we could know for certain. So I’m angry at the pollsters. j’accuse, Emily!

            1. Excellent point. Just what are people angry about?

              Me, I’m happy. The longer this continues, the more I want it to continue.

              1. Me too. I love it.

          3. I don’t agree. I don’t think it’s about stuff being shut down as it is about all of the political gamesmanship being used.

            This.

            People aren’t pissed because the NPs are closed. They’re pissed because the NPS has gone out of its way to make the pain be felt. Quarantining the elderly in a hotel. Fining people for taking pictures. Closing off open air monuments. Evicting people from their homes.

        2. I kind of feel the same way. I tried to steer the narrative in my online and real life social circles to how 80% of the employees were still there, the park closing were just temper tantrums by the executive branch, there is not going to be a huge catastrophe or problem caused by the shutdown, and that we can get along just fine without all those non-essential employees.

          Instead the narrative was largely “Why can’t those damn politicians get their shit together and fix this problem?”. One liberal family member was rank and file party member, fear mongering all day for the first few days, until it became apparent the sky had in fact non fallen.

          1. One liberal family member

            According to Bo, you misspelled Republican.

    2. But, ProL, being popular is the only thing that matters!

    3. Yeah, I’ve never been so pleased by what the government’s doing.

      1. If only the “furloughed” government workers would get paid as much as workers at a lumber mill shut down by the EPA get.

    4. “Which is a huge win for libertarians. More dislike and distrust of government is a good thing.”

      No-the majority of the blame is going to the Reps – not a coincidence, given the legacy media narrative. The Reps are losing the publicity war – they will have to accept being painted as nihilistic anarchists trying to cut the government to the bone.

      The Dem talking points about cancer-stricken children and military death benefits have probably worked, too – despite the House passing bills to fund those very things.

      The takehome point is going to be “don’t sabotage govt spending – the people want Essential Service!”

      1. Oh, and “the Reps need to repudiate the destructive Tea Party antics of their conservative members and go back to cooperating with Dems like in the good old days.”

        1. And many of the people who blame the Dems probably do so because they need to cut a compromise to get the gravy train rolling again.

      2. -The Dem talking points about cancer-stricken children and military death benefits have probably worked, too

        Dem talking points? It was the GOP that held a rally wearing lab coats and stethoscopes, talking about how the NIH was a ‘core mission of the federal government’ and lamenting the shutdown’s effect on ‘the children.’ The GOP has quite publicly echoed that this or that federal program is ‘essential.’

          1. Truth hurts, or is there something else bothering you today?

            1. Your need to apply your own internal Equality Heuristic onto the rest of us is problem enough.

              1. I believe you may be ‘having a sad’ over the GOP’s bellyflop over all of this. How touching.

                1. You got it, Bo. Your own constant insistence on saying “yabbut the GOP” isn’t supremely annoying on its own. I must be a GOP Partisan to be annoyed by you. Great analysis, Esquire.

                  1. Were you annoyed when Reason had a big post about the GOP falling over itself to declare national parks and the NIH essential federal government functions?

                    As I said early on in this, it was plain that many libertarians once again fell for the old GOP trick and got behind their bus to push it, ignoring where it was being steered. You would not be the first to fall for that trick, but hopefully, maybe the last.

                    1. As I said early on in this, it was plain that many libertarians once again fell for the old GOP trick and got behind their bus to push it, ignoring where it was being steered. You would not be the first to fall for that trick, but hopefully, maybe the last.

                      For the last time, I had no investment in the GOP. I am telling you that your constant “but…but…GOP!” is what annoys me and everyone else here.

                      RANDOM POSTER: “Today, this Democrat said something stupid”
                      BO CARA: “DEMOCRAT? What about this stupid Republican over here?”

                      SHUT UP ALREADY.

                    2. I understand, you do not like criticism of the GOP. Many abused spouses act in a similar fashion to criticism of their husbands.

                    3. And I suppose your ‘Please stop talking’ was an invitation to substantive debate?

                    4. A long time ago, there was a troll here by the name of Lonewacko. He was what I called a “shoehorn troll”; that is, we would be talking about something completely different from his personal hobby horse (IllegalImmigration), but he would INSIST it was time to talk about it, no matter how inappropriate or off-topic.

                      That’s you. no matter how inappropriate or irrelevant, you feel the need to shoehorn criticism of the GOP into every discussion. That’s why you’re called “Team Blue”, dude; when you have such an itching need to criticize Republicans that you act like a child wrapped in a diaper and do it wherever you please, you’re going to be treated accordingly.

                    5. A person changing every conversation into one about illegal immigration would be grating.

                      But this is a conversation about the shutdown, and there are Democrats and Republicans involved in the shutdown. In criticizing the anti-libertarian rhetoric of the GOP during this fiasco I am not changing the subject at all. I have certainly never said a positive thing about the Democrats during the shutdown, just pointed out how the GOP is hardly advancing anything of worth for libertarians, and is indeed further harming it. As I said, Reason itself has mentioned this. I guess they were just being Team Blue shills.

                    6. A person changing every conversation into one about illegal immigration would be grating.

                      And you change every conversation into one about the GOP. Which is equally grating. QED.

                    7. I have already explained the difference in the very post you just responded too.

                      It is remarkable, your stance. In a conversation about a government shutdown struggle between two parties, anyone who criticizes the behavior of one those parties must be ‘changing the subject.’ Your need to defend the GOP against criticism is remarkable.

                    8. You TRIED to justify your need to do shoehorn GOP criticism, but I don’t find your justification very compelling.

                      Blue Tulpa.

                    9. It is not shoehorning. You seem to have nothing substantive to say on the issue.

                    10. What is ‘Blue’ about pointing out that the GOP did no favors to liberty when they kept rushing out to hold press conferences and votes affirming the NIH, National Parks, etcetera as ‘core missions of the federal government’ and publicizing stories of all the people hurt when the federal government stopped operating them?

                    11. I pretty sure it’s you we don’t like Bo.

                    12. Right. See, Bo, we call you “Blue Tulpa” because Tulpa gets defensive in the exact same way: if the Reason community views you a certain way, that’s a problem with the community, and not with you.

                      For Tulpa, our problem was our alleged glibness. For you, our problem is our alleged love for the GOP.

                      if you’ve been divorced six times, blaming the opposite kinda falls on deaf ears: the problem is YOU.

                    13. Certainly not everyone here favors the GOP, but it becomes increasingly evident that some do. But that has long been a problem among libertarians. Some people fall easy prey to rhetoric sans actions.

                    14. The only evidence you have is the fact that people get annoyed enough with your shoehorn schtick to argue with you. You would rarely hear anything positive about the GOP if you would shut up about the GOP. People “defend” the GOP because they cannot stand you.

                    15. I doubt that is why you do it.

                      Why would someone be tired of criticism of the GOP if they believe, correctly, a ‘pox on both their houses?’

                      Again, you are not fooling anyone who cares to notice. This is not some new problem with libertarians, having GOP faithful try to steer us toward their own goals.

                    16. The funny thing is NK is usually the one who gets criticized for being “TEAM ORANGE” and too critical of the GOP. Say what you want about him, he’s not a GOP shill

                    17. Yeah, say what you want about me!

                      Wait…what?

                      (no, for reals, thanks Cali)

                    18. Why is he so upset about criticism of the GOP in this context then? I have done nothing but say what Reason itself has said, and only in conversations about the shutdown and who is to blame. He is so aggrieved that in these discussions I lay blame at the foot of the GOP that he must follow me around and reply to my every post (look at this thread as an example) negatively? And then calls what I am doing ‘trolling’ and ‘changing the conversation?’

                    19. Why is he so upset about criticism of the GOP in this context then?

                      I’m peeved about YOU and your desperate need to shoehorn. Which I said about fifteen times now.

                    20. I am curious. Why did Eduaard’s initial comment about ‘Dem talking points about kids with cancer’ set all right with you, but my pointing out that the GOP did the same thing not? How was one ‘part of the conversation’ and the other not? How was one ‘shoehorned’ and the other not? The GOP did, in fact, do this, correct? If it is OK to call out the Dems for it, why is it so upsetting to you that I would also call out the GOP for doing it, so upsetting that you would stalk me the entire thread?

                    21. “‘Dem talking points about kids with cancer’ set all right with you, but my pointing out that the GOP did the same thing not?”

                      Simple. The GOP happens to be on the right side of this issue. The Dems are on the wrong side. And you should want the right side to win, regardless of the party.

                    22. -Simple. The GOP happens to be on the right side of this issue.

                      Now, was that so hard?

                    23. Hey, at least he’s proof to that fucking retard shrike that we aren’t all autofellating closet GOP’s. Or something.

                    24. Ya know what asshole? I haven’t done this in the 3 years I’ve been commenting here, to anyone, not even White Indian. But fuck it, I’m not putting up with this shit anymore.

                      You just got filtered.

                    25. So you filter someone who asks you a plain question that, by the way, simply reflects the position that Reason took in several posts:

                      What is ‘Blue’ about pointing out that the GOP did no favors to liberty when they kept rushing out to hold press conferences and votes affirming the NIH, National Parks, etcetera as ‘core missions of the federal government’ and publicizing stories of all the people hurt when the federal government stopped operating them?

                      Perhaps you are on the wrong website. This is a libertarian one. We are going to criticize the GOP quite a bit.

                    26. Don’t say that name!

                    27. Shhhhhh. You might summon it.

      3. The worst of the GOP blame-a-thon is right now, and that arrow is hitting both targets. We saw this in the 90s–the GOP gets abused nonstop, then the next election comes and no one seems to be that upset with them. And this time, they have a much better case (to people in general) for drawing a line in the sand.

  5. “While clearly the public holds the GOP primarily responsible for the shutdown, the Democrats and Obama’s favorables have not escaped unscathed.”

    Obo owns the media. Who do the NPS personel work for? Him. Who gets the blame in the news articles when that shit pile closes down a public beach? The GOP.
    You’d hope there was some skeptical reading ability among the general public, but it seems the majority are clones of Tony; lefty ignoramuses and happy to stay that way.
    ‘Hey, man, where’s my free shit?!’

    1. The media do not need to do that. The GOP has worked very hard to paint itself as the anti-government party. When the government gets shut down they are then going to own it. I hate to say I told you so….

      1. Yep, it was the GOP that self-branded as “anarchists”.

        1. Are you doing to deny that the GOP uses a lot of ‘anti-government,’ ‘anti-spending’ rhetoric, far more than the Democrat Party does?

          1. So that makes them “anarchists”? So I guess the Dems are totalitarian Marxists then too?

            1. Anarchists is silly, the GOP is of course not even libertarian. Heck, not even ‘cutting projected increases in spending’ for what that is worth.

              But they do throw out a lot more anti-government, anti-spending rhetoric. So when the government is shut down due to a lack of funding they are going to get blamed. That is how things work, and I tried to tell you that. Of course I was just being ‘blue Tulpa’ for saying so.

          2. So that means they deserve the blame for the actions of the Executive Branch?

            1. You are confusing politics with some struggle where truth always wins out. Again, it is touching if not na?ve as all get out.

              1. So you’re basically saying “that’s the way it is”? That’s a really new observation Bo, thanks.

                1. I am saying I told you that was the way it is when this started, and people like you were clamoring ‘you, you shill for Team Blue you, you stop talking!’

                  1. No, that’s not what you were saying, Bo.

                    1. Now you know what I was saying more than I do?

                      Did someone say something about being condescending supra?

  6. So, I just heard that it’s over.

    The orange dick caved, gave Obama everything he wants in exchange for cutting medicare benefits. So basically, he gave Obama everything he wants in exchange for something else that Obama wants.

    1. And cut off money to old people. Yeah, that is a great idea. IF they were going to do that, they should have ended this thing after two days. The only value they got out of this was making the Dems vote to keep Obamacare and reminding the country that the dems and dems alone own that mess.

      1. It is a very weak victory at best, considering older people tend to vote GOP more. Heck, food stamp reduction would have been preferable.

    2. Not sure we’re getting the whole proposal. Sounds like the sequester may be getting traded for Medicare cuts, but I bet there’s more going on. I can’t see how Boehner would have the votes for a total cave–not in the House.

  7. Public cynicism about govt /= limited government. Just as often, it means a craving for a Great Leader who will Cut Through the Red Tape, Get Things Done, and Confront the Special Interests.

    The public was cynical about the govt in 1932, right? How did that work out?

    1. Yep, I agree with Eddie. There was a 24/7 link on the side that said the public was desperate for a Third Party. The public is always desperate for a third party: one composed of national greatness conservatism + free shit + big military. They want the Joe Lieberman Party.

    2. And being mad at both sides doesn’t mean demand for less government. It usually means they want “bipartisan” bullshit.

      1. Afraid so. “Don’t sit around there arguing, get together and pass some laws!”

        1. Correct.

          This entire sad affair will have been a net loss for liberty.

          But, hey, Ted Cruz overshot Rand Paul in polling of likely GOP primary voters, so I guess it was not a total loss for some here.

          1. But, hey, Ted Cruz overshot Rand Paul in polling of likely GOP primary voters, so I guess it was not a total loss for some here.

            Why do you people call you a troll? Such a mystery, so it is.

            1. This entire fiasco was brought on by Ted Cruz’s self-aggrandizing actions. At the time I argued it was a mistake and would end badly for libertarians, both in the results of the shutdown and in pushing Rand to the background. Many people lavished praise on Cruz. Now that both my predictions are seeming more and more evident, my pointing it out again is trolling?

              For you trolling seems to simply mean ‘comments I do not like, especially when they show me to have been wrong.’

              1. You said:

                But, hey, Ted Cruz overshot Rand Paul in polling of likely GOP primary voters, so I guess it was not a total loss for some here.

                Name who those people are who are happy about Ted Cruz overshooting Rand Paul. Name them, Bo. Go on and do it, and provide proof. If you fail to do so, then you *might* understand why you get called a troll.

                1. Please re-read my comment. I said that people were lavishing praise on Cruz and that I said that Cruz’s actions would result in him overshooting Rand Paul.

                  Both are of course true, right?

                  1. There’s your fail, RIGHT THERE. Just because some people are “lavishing praise” on Cruz does not mean they WANT him to overshoot Rand Paul, you troll!

                    Not only that, i want you to link to the comments you consider “lavish” in their praise for Rand Paul. Barring that, stand up and name the commenters you know are guilty of this “lavishment”. Name them, Bo, so that they can defend themselves.

                    1. NK, I assume you meant “lavish” in their praise of Ted Cruz?

                    2. -Just because some people are “lavishing praise” on Cruz does not mean they WANT him to overshoot Rand Paul.

                      Again, re-read the comment. My point was that I warned this would be the result, and here it is, come to pass.

                      When someone tells you they are doing something and you tell them it will lead to a negative result they will not like, and they go ahead and do it saying you are wrong, and the result occurs as you predicted, it seems appropriate to say ‘well, I guess you are happy, eh?’

                    3. Name these people, Bo. Name the people who were “lavishing” praise on Ted Cruz.

                    4. You are deranged, and obviously trolling yourself, as you have not commented at all on my reply to your initial misreading of my post but are insistent on playing some silly, stalking type of game. ‘Name these people or you are a troll Bo, name them!’ Deranged.

                    5. No, Bo, this is a serious question. You said that “some here” should be happy Ted Cruz overshot Rand Paul. This is based on the logic that because they praised Ted Cruz, the completely predictable result would be that Cruz overshoots Paul. I want to know who these people are.

                      Because if they don’t exist, your perception of this place as a GOP-hotbed is not valid. The entire sine qua non of your argument here, which is that “we’re” obviously too “pro-GOP”, rests on a valid observation of pro-GOP sentiment in action. So go on and name those people.

                    6. My perception of this place as having ‘some that favor the GOP’ (which is what I said, not ‘hot-bed’, is this not trolling here?) comes from reactions like yours more than anything else.

                      You are playing a silly game here, and I suspect you know it. You want me to name people, and when I do then, what, you will argue they were actually ‘defending’ him instead of ‘lavishing praise’ on him, or that their praise does not rise to the level of lavishment.

                      But I tell you what, since I am fairly convinced of your trolling, why do you not dispel that by answering the questions I put supra and which I will cut and paste here. If you do that then I will be happy to give you some names of people that praised Ted Cruz and his actions.

                      ‘Why did Eduaard’s initial comment about ‘Dem talking points about kids with cancer’ set all right with you, but my pointing out that the GOP did the same thing not? How was one ‘part of the conversation’ and the other not? How was one ‘shoehorned’ and the other not? The GOP did, in fact, do this, correct? If it is OK to call out the Dems for it, why is it so upsetting to you that I would also call out the GOP for doing it, so upsetting that you would stalk me the entire thread?’

                    7. No answer? Incredible. You were trolling all along.

                    8. Bo,

                      Reread the first comment you made in this thread. You clearly implied that some people here would be happy that Ted Cruz overshot Rand Paul in primary polls.

                    9. *Subthread is what I meant

                    10. Cal

                      Please read my explanation @ 2:14. Does it not make sense (I do not mean this to come out snarky, apologies if it does).

                    11. Your 2:14 post explains your 1:52 post. I’m referring to your 1:34 post

                    12. I meant it to explain both.

                      When you tell someone that X will result from Y, and they insist you are wrong, and then X indeed results from Y, it is common to say ‘Well, there, are you happy?’

                      Perhaps all the people defending Cruz and talking about how libertarian the man is would not be literally happy that he overshot Paul (though I am fairly certain at least some would be), but after having that result explained to them as a consequence of what they were supporting it is certainly fair to say ‘well, now are you happy?’

                    13. I think you’re exaggerating the degree to which people praised Cruz. I don’t think even John would support him over Rand Paul in the primary.

                      I agree with you to an extent as to how the GOP’s strategy on this issue was flawed. That said, I think you’re misconstruing why people disagreed with you on it

  8. “When the public is asked to choose whether they blame President Obama or the Republicans in Congress for the partial shutdown of the federal government, the NBC/WSJ poll finds 53 percent choose the Republicans, 31 percent say President Obama, and 13 percent blame both equally.”

    It seems to me that there’s a bias in these questions, and I’m not sure how it can be resolved…

    The problem is that you’re asking people to choose between an individual and an entity. Do you blame Obama? Well, he’s a person, and your affection for him personally is going to influence your response. The alternative is an entity–Congress. No interpersonal feelings whatsoever.

    If you asked people whether they blamed Obama or [insert local person elected to the House of Representatives] I bet you’d get a different response. I bet a lot more people blame Obama for the impasse than blame their own representative. People dislike “Congress”, but their own representative typically wins a majority of the popular vote.

    If you live in a district with a loyal Democrat as both a representative from your district and a couple of senators from your state, on the other hand, when you say you blame Congress for the impasse, you may be saying something very different from the way most people are interpreting it. You may be saying you wish your representatives were more like the Tea Party.

    1. It says “Republicans in Congress,” not “Congress.”

      1. Yeah, it’s not just this poll I’m talking about. I’ve seen a lot of them.

        1. OK then, I thought it was this particular poll, sorry.

    2. By way of illustration, suppose I live in Nevada. If I tell you I mostly blame Congress for the impasse, what does that mean?

      Does it mean I blame Harry Reid? On the other hand, is asking them whether they blame Obama or Harry Reid for the impasse even a reasonable question?

    3. It is a constant problem that everyone hates ‘Congress’ but thinks that their own representative is just fine.

      1. I doubt everyone thinks that.

        /bluetupla

        1. “I don’t think that. I wonder why Bo is so pro-Congress”

  9. It’s amazing how Progs own the language on this, and therefore the argument.

    “Who do you “Blame” for the shutdown?”

    I’m fucking HAPPY they’ve slightly reduced the rate at which they’re pissing away my money.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.