Since when is a 63 percent approval rating a bad thing?

[babylonsister]

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200906190026

Since when is a 63 percent approval rating a bad thing?
Jamison Foser
3 hours and 17 minutes ago


It's generally accepted that the news media obsess over horse-race political coverage at the expense of serious examinations of important issues. Media critics on the left, right, and in the middle tend to agree that there is too much focus on polling and not enough on policy, while many reporters seem proud of their focus on the game rather than the stakes. (Politico is, after all, called "Politico," not "Policy-o," and features blogs "on Politics," "on Hill intrigue," "on Gossip," and "on Campaigns" -- but not "on Policy." ABC News' senior White House correspondent calls his blog "Political Punch." And so on.)

The media's obsessive focus on politics does not, however, mean their political assessments are of a high quality. Remember David Broder's prediction that Hurricane Katrina would spark a recovery in George W. Bush's political standing? Or Matt Lauer's suggestion that Bush's poor approval ratings were a political blessing for the GOP? Chuck Todd's statement that if Democrats won control of Congress in November of 2006, Bush's approval rating would be above 50 by the following July? Katie Couric's suggestion that the Bush White House was "breathing a sigh of relief" in response to a poll in which Bush had an all-time low approval rating? Howard Fineman's late-2005 argument that Democrats, not Republicans, had reason to be gloomy about their electoral prospects? Calling the media's coverage of politics and policy "horse-race journalism" is an insult to horse-race journalism -- the Daily Racing Form isn't in the habit of advising readers to bet on the filly with the broken leg.

Not only does the media's keen interest in politics frequently fail to result in politically astute observations, there is also considerable evidence that they tend to overrate the Republicans' political skills -- and the public's predisposition to prefer the GOP.

And that explains the media's reaction to this week's polling data.

Multiple polls out this week found that somewhere in the neighborhood of 80 percent of the American people favor the inclusion of a public plan in health care reform. And polls showed that the Republican Party is less popular than ever. And the Republicans in Washington generally oppose a public plan. And the GOP got its butt kicked in last year's election, in which health care reform was a major issue. And polls show the public trusts Republicans in Congress less than anyone else -- even insurance companies -- when it comes to health care.

snip//

The Republican Party is more unpopular than it has ever been. And it is a sustained unpopularity. According to the New York Times/CBS poll, the last time even 40 percent of America viewed the GOP favorably was in 2006; the last time 45 percent did so was in January of 2005. And the health care reform the GOP opposes has the support of 80 percent of Americans.

That's the polling information the media should be focusing on. Instead, they struggle and strain to find bad news for Obama. He's down to 63 percent approval! He's more popular than his policies! (Except, of course, the public plan.)

Any day now, Matt Lauer will come along to tell us that it is a politically savvy move for the wildly unpopular Republican Party to stand in the way of the wildly popular public plan.

[jimshoes]

1. Isn't that like three times the approval rating

chimpy left office with? Pretty damn good I'd say.

[NC_Nurse]

2. Since the Dems are in charge.

:crazy:

[timeforpeace]

3. It is a good thing.

Next!

[Fovea]

4. When the media whores

need some kind of wedge issue for their Johns, the GOP and Big Biz .

[Turbineguy]

5. When it's

a Democrat.