Clinton Pollster: Obama Better Off Now Than Clinton In '94

WASHINGTON -- President Bill Clinton's chief pollster when the Democratic Party suffered massive losses in the 1994 midterm election said the landscape facing President Obama now is better suited for a comeback.

In a conference call on Friday, Stan Greenberg pointed to several silver linings for a White House that had just lost 60 seats in -- and control of -- the House of Representatives. Obama, he predicted, has a clearer path to a political comeback than Clinton did 16 years ago.

"In almost all cases here, President Obama is doing somewhat better than President Clinton was and that was at a comparable time," Greenberg said, "[Obama's] approval rating is higher, [his] personal favorability rating is a little higher. And the other important piece here was when the Democrats were thrown out in '94, they had been in power for a long time and so the negative feelings on the Democratic Party were stark and reflected the difference on those numbers in '94."

The other difference, Greenberg added, "is the state of the Republican Party. They have, through three elections now, their standing has not changed. Republicans are an unreconstructed party going into this and you still have a large majority in the country who want the president to succeed. So as a starting point to this, I think the president can position [himself] and make changes that are important ones and they need to be important changes, on addressing the economy and on the way politics is done."

Greenberg's vision is an optimistic one. And it fails to take into account that Clinton also lost the Senate (which, depending on who's asked, made his comeback harder or easier) and that Clinton's political DNA seems better suited to being thrust against the ropes. In a bit of mixed-messaging, the co-host on Friday's call, Bob Borosage of Campaign For America's Future, made the case that Obama was worse off than Clinton at their respective nadirs.

"I would argue, in a sense that Obama has a hard road to hoe because Clinton, like Reagan, was propelled to reelection by an economy that was on the way back," Borosage said. "And, at this point, there is no sign that this economy is going to get significantly stronger over the next two years unless something dramatic happens."

That said, there were some empirical data points noted by Greenberg that suggest the foundation for a comeback. According to a survey released on Friday by his firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, Democrats had a 37 percent negative rating among the public, compared to a 47 percent rating in 1994. Meanwhile, 56 percent of respondents in a surveyed said that they were hopeful for the Obama presidency, a three- point increase from the percentage of vote Obama gained in the 2008 elections.

Comments

[S1m0n]

04:54 PM on 11/07/2010

I don't think that much of anything the president could have done would have altered the outcome of this election to any great extent, given the political and economic realities and the general tendency of voters to swing away from the president's party in the first mid-term after he comes to power. The democrats' performance in this election was in no way out of the ordinary. Add the economic factors, and you don't have to account for anything said or done by a democrat to arrive at this result.

But it all changes again when it comes to the next presidential election. Losing during the midterm doesn't presage defeat. Loss of the first midterm followed by election to a second term is the commonest pattern, followed by the majority of presidents. There is no reason to panic. This is how it usually goes.

[MinerSam]

05:05 PM on 11/07/2010

Given the 85% control the Republicans have of US drive time with its Momen by Momen repetition of Moment by Moment LIES.

[MinerSam]

04:52 PM on 11/07/2010

Democratic analysts, communications and PR people are the biggest morons this side of the moon. And all that their focus groups show is what a bad job they have done in educating the electorate and the degree to which people busy with their lives who are not psychic are *** Brainwashed *** by the much more Media savvy republicans with the help of a Media -- i.e. 6 corporaitons & corporate funded Public Media -- beholden to the Republican-Tea, Ga&OIL Potty for consolidation, tax cuts, predatory standards for corporations, and their Destruction of the Government WE PAY to protect our interests while they blame Democrats for what they perpetrated upon us since before Reagan told us that our Goverment is the enemy and remoived the Solar Panels from the White House roof.

The problem is a tremendous loss in Governorships and State Legislators during a period when Gerimandering will yield even more Republican Terrorists in the WeThePeople's House!

[bascombe]

03:45 PM on 11/07/2010

FROM OPEDNEWS: “We must respectfully remind you that we told you that all this is exactly what would happen unless we took stronger action to demand a REAL health care reform bill in particular, instead of that groaning load of corporate special interest dictated and favoring rubbish we ended up with. And by the way, if we were official prophets you would owe us a new pair of sandals right about now.

It was March of earlier this year and the title of our alert was "The Democratic Party's Plan To Throw The Next Couple Elections". Look it up, the text was published on OpEdNews.com and is still there.

http://www­.opednews.­com/articl­es/The-Dem­ocratic-Pa­rty-s-Pla-­by-thepen-­100307-583­.html

For those with short attention spans (from corporate media conditioning) who think our alerts are too long, we suggest you knuckle down and actually read our words this time and see if they start to make sense to you. And please take particular note we said "The Next Couple Elections" PLURAL. Because this is just round one of the dynamic we foretold.”

[bascombe]

04:19 PM on 11/07/2010

the link
http://www­­.opednews­.­com/arti­cl­es/The-­Dem­ocrati­c-Pa­rty-s­-Pla-­by-t­hepen-­100­307-583­.h­tml

[kenhamlett]

01:40 PM on 11/07/2010

It clearly is and always has been the economy, and the President seems, at least this week, to understand that. No one knows what will happen in 2012, but it is ominous for the President's prospects that he could not hold his own Senate seat in Tuesday's election. The Republicans may hand him some advantages, as they did President Clinton, but he will have to be as savvy as Clinton at taking advantage of them, and, unfortunately, we have not seen that side of the President to date.

[AZreb]

07:54 AM on 11/08/2010

Obama does not seem to have the political "savvy" that is needed to really connect with people - sure, it is fun to see him and Michelle dancing in India with the kids, but when it comes down to the nitty-gritty of person to person connection, he seems to be in the ozone while we are stuck in the muddy puddles.

I beleive that part of the problem is that he depends too much on his cabinet members and their actions (or inactions) in investigating and listening to the electorate. When the feds' "committee" came to AZ to speak with Gov. Brewer about the border problems, they held their meetings in a nice air-condidtioned room in Phoenix, never going to the border area itself and speaking with the people who live in the border cities and towns and on the ranches.

Just recently ICE, DHS and other federal government representatives came to Pinal County, AZ, to speak with the county officials and resdients. BUT when it came time for the residents to ask questions and make comments, Pete Rios (county official)closed the meeting to the public. If the feds had wanted to really hear the people most affected by the drug and human smuggling and illegal aliens, they could have made time to speak with the residents.

[thetruth92802]

11:56 AM on 11/07/2010

The Forgotten Man

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KGlBHyVeYU

[Schweik]

11:32 AM on 11/07/2010

With a signficant difference.
Clinton fixed the economy.
Obama emphatically has not.

It's still the economy, stoopid.

[Knowitall]

05:07 PM on 11/07/2010

Clinton hadn't fixed anything in 1994, only 2 years into his presidency, that's one among other reasons that he lost the House and the Senate. For one thing, he had absolutely no help from the Republicans, just like today. The "fix" to the economy didn't really start taking shape until he was going into the last year of his first term.

This is a pattern with the Republicans, throw a monkey wrench into the Democrats plans for recovery, and offer no cooperation whatsoever. Then after standing on the sidelines criticizing, when they finally control one or more of the houses, then they loosen up the obstructions to all the work the Democrats have done, and try to pretend that things got better because they were there elected. That's why you hear Republicans today, trying to take credit for the good economy toward the end of Clinton's presidency, completely glossing over what Bush did to the economy and blaming the Democrats who took over the house and senate in 2006.

[PolicyWonkette]

11:25 AM on 11/07/2010

Much to the consternation of HP I'm sure. After all that effort, people still like this president. Keep trying. I'm sure the site will be fully in the GOP corner by 2012. Not that it will make a difference then, either.

[rossitheaussi]

04:40 PM on 11/07/2010

Arianna Huffington has done nothing for 2 years except serve her own ends, she has not been a friend to this President, no different than Faux Propaganda, she has brought him down, every chance she got.

[timm0]

08:52 AM on 11/07/2010

gop will complain for the next two years that Obama is blocking all the legislative genius they will try to pass in Congress. Of course, their legislation will be hollow junk, but they have no intention of investing time and energy into legislative solutions because they will be 100% focused on taking the Senate and White House in 2012.

The Obama/Reid/DLC position had been to buckle to repug threats and 'appear above the fray,' compromising away attainable legislative gains. That has been a failure that the pugs won't emulate.

Faced with a similar powerlessness that Senate Dems faced in the last two years, the repugs will relentlessly campaign against their 'oppression' at the hands of Obama and Dems. When slop from the repug House arrives in the Senate, the screams from the pugs for bringing it immediately to the floor for a vote will be deafening. And since it's a 'fight,' the media will play it up as "the" story.

In the meantime, Obama will continue to be missing in action, refusing to use the bully pulpit, not publicly confronting the pugs and their lame solutions, and bargaining away potential 2012 primary opponents.

But the repugs will win the PR battle - again. They will win because, as ch1ld1sh as they may appear, the image they want to maintain is that they are working hard to fix problems and that Dems don't know what they are doing. It worked at mid terms, so why mess with success?

[billw8017]

01:05 PM on 11/07/2010

You are not taking internal opposition into account. Reid and Pelosi and a majority of Democrats were ready to go in a more liberal direction, but the obdurate opposition of the Republicans put the most conservative Democrats in a position of power. To blame Dennis Kucinich or Henry Waxman for Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln and turn to Rand Paul, Boehner and McConnell for the rescue is ... pretty well what America did on Nov 2nd.

When you don't win, you can only persevere; and, if you think you are right, like Martin Luther, you stand as you are because you can do no other. Barack Obama, while leader of the Democratic Party, is as well the President of all Americans and can try to live up to that. His opponents can be judged accordingly.

[AlGionfriddo]

07:14 AM on 11/07/2010

An unfortunate percentage of swing voters are going to vote for whichever party best frames the issues. Facts and policy positions are minor. Look at cases where people consistently vote against their own interests. The Republicans are masters at winning elections because the Democrats allow them to frame the arguments. Look at the millions spent on Think Tanks, most of which are conservative backed (Koch brothers). The Dems can spend millions to win over the voter but the Rushthuglicans will spend billions, backed by corporations who profit most due to deregulation and the ability to pollute the environment with impunity, all while profiting even more. Citizens United is the greatest enemy to the Democratic Party. The last big GOP victory was won with less than 10% of the independent cent vote. Those people overwhelmingly voted GOP.

[Beyrak]

05:06 AM on 11/07/2010

Obama is no Bill Clinton.

[ObamaRican]

10:50 AM on 11/07/2010

I thought that was what the article was pointing out. If you elaborate, we may better know what you mean:-)

[thetruth92802]

11:59 AM on 11/07/2010

thank you Bill had to go too the middle for the United states,Obama is so far Radical left he can't tell from right from wrong..

[The-JuRK]

12:28 AM on 11/07/2010

Obama is better off than Clinton was in 1994 because Obama isn't Bill Clinton.

I knew, knew, KNEW Bill Clinton was going to get in some kind of trouble with women. I knew it when he got elected and he did not disappoint.

So Obama is better off because you don't hear that about him. Michelle would throw more than a lamp at him!

[james cambridge]

12:07 AM on 11/07/2010

One of the biggest problems facing this country is reflected in the comments in this thread that suggest that we are in a depression that is comparable to or close to the one in the 1930's. Ridiculous! This lack of economic knowledge is what allows the Republicans to fool the electorate as well, because the electorate has no understanding of Keynesian Economics and how it runs BOTH political parties (as well it should). Both government spending and tax cuts are Keynesian policies designed to stimulate the economy. Both require massive government intervention to carry out. Neither poltical party is a small government party...indeed they can't be because if they withdrew our Federal government from it's massive intrusion into the U.S. economy, we would mire the entire planet in economic and social chaos like we've never seen. And by the way, we are NOT facing what Americans and the world faced in the 1930's. They didn't have social programs like Unemployment Insurance to fall back on. They also had at least 25% unemployment while we have 9%. Even including underemployment we don't come close to the chaos and near political and social destruction that we faced back then. We need to teach economics in high school so our population knows the truth about what creates a stable economy and though it's too late for the Teabagging lunatics, maybe their children can learn how government policy is essential to maintaining a stable, if not fair, economy.

[hearmeloudandclear]

01:39 AM on 11/07/2010

Thanks James.... Your post is educational - and I, for one, like learning. It just makes sense, however your expression of these facts are important to some such as myself who would not have been able to express it as well as you did. (Makes me want to take a class.).

I've been trying to figure how one can stimulate a dead economy - or one on the brink of "going over a cliff" without any spending in some manner?

How can Tea Partiers come in and say cut ALL spending.... I've listened very hard because I wanted to understand how we can do that with our economic circumstances presently? Interestingly - even "Repels" are not specific when they say what they want to cut.

Since I'm sure that none have read the 2000-page Health Care Bill they're really going to have to go to work and may not have enough time for their campaigning these next two years. (...though they've already started).

Bottom line --- "The Party of No" - the obstructionists have to go to work - and with Bachman, Rand Paul and other TP's looking over their shoulders, this is sure to be interesting. But then again, maybe Sarah will help them if they need any real expertise. lol

[james cambridge]

09:48 AM on 11/07/2010

If you look at the actual history of people like Jim Demint and others, including Sarah Palin, the small government rhetoric is just that...people like them just want to trim around the edges (and get rid of programs for the poor, of course, which actually don't stimulate the economy)...the teabaggers are in for a rude awakening.

[hearmeloudandclear]

02:24 PM on 11/07/2010

I'm not only concerned about the poor quality of education being taught in the area of economics - but the quality of education in general in this country. We've fallen far behind poor countries in math and science ... Therefore, I don't understand making cuts in education considering the tremendous highschool dropout rate. And I question now the quality of education in our higher learning institutions.

And to my point I go to a potential Presidential contender Sarah Palin - She makes a great case to me for our lack in real, education - education that produces demonstrable results. As we know, the system fails miserably in the urban/inner city areas But people such as Palin have brought me to the conclusion that poor education is failing in a lot of areas outside of the inner cities - a lot is 'needin 'fixin (as Sarah may say). Palin is a perfect example of a person who supposedly obtained a college degree - in communications (though hard to believe). yet she does struggle to speak coherently except in sound bites run-together slogans, and jingles - simply put, she rambles -- albeit she does randomly throw in words like "constitution", "take the country back", etc etc).

Bottom line - Karl Rove said it is "gravitas" she lacked that a President needs -- it's a simpler word than that - it's called "BRAINPOWER".

[MalleusMaleficarum]

11:36 PM on 11/06/2010

Greenberg is the ranking pollster for the so-called New Democrats/Reagan Democrats -- and their principal vehicle - The Democratic Leadership Council -- the engine that allegedly drove Bill Clinton into the White House. Greenberg controls a fistful of corporate-loving affiliates: Democracy Corps; Third Way; Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosner; James Carville and Bob Shrum. Greenberg believes he can solve any political problem by genuflecting to corporate whims and pivoting to the right. Over the past 20 years, Greenberg has been behind the defeats of hundreds of candidates and political parties in more than a dozen nations -- prominently in the USA, the UK, Bolivia and Israel. One of Greenberg's closest friends is Rahm Emanuel, who made his fateful prediction that the progressive Democratic base had, "No choice." They would be compelled to vote for Obama and the Democrats no matter how disappointed they were with the corporate compromises on Banking, Health Care, Torture, Guantanamo and the surge in Afghanistan. Emanuel was wrong, because Greenberg was wrong. Greenberg and Emanuel have zero respect for the Democratic Base, because they sold out to the corporations decades ago. Mark Penn is in the same corporate boat. Right now, they are putting immense corporate pressure on Obama to pivot right -- and his decision will be clear very soon -- perhaps, sealing his fate and that of the nation to a shift to a hardline crypto-fascist corporate Republican regime in 2012.

[DFL]

09:46 PM on 11/06/2010

Republicans take note, the main power in this country still lies with we the people! and if you make things hard for us with healthcare or by messing with our social security or medicare, you will find yourselves booted out of power again just like in 06 and 08! and all the corporate money in the world won't help you!

[DCDave]

03:42 PM on 11/06/2010

But Obama's dissaproval rating is also alot higher than Clintons was which means that people have already made up their minds about him. In 1994 like 20% of the population was neither for or against Clinton, for Obama its like 5%. The electorate is just way more politicized.

Also Clintons revival hinged on the economy picking up. The economy today is in much much much worse shape than it was in 1994. If it doesn't pick up soon Obama is done.

[Totto]

07:08 PM on 11/06/2010

Bush's Second Republican Great Depression sure is a pi$$er, ain't it?

[DFL]

09:39 PM on 11/06/2010

Hoover gave us republican depression #1 and bush gave us republican depression #2

[dc2nm]

07:19 PM on 11/06/2010

That is not a foregone conclusion. It really depend on how negative the GOP acts over the next 2 yrs. If they are ineffective, the fickle independents will turn on them.

[DCDave]

11:37 PM on 11/06/2010

I agree with you that its not a foregone conclusion, but if the economy is not fixed it doesn't matter what he does, he will not be re-elected.

[DCDave]

10:25 AM on 11/08/2010

I was also just pointing out it is much much harder to change someone from disapprove to approve than it is to go from undecided to approve.