Labels Matter: Progressive Better than Liberal, Reagan-Like Better than Conservative

[skipos]

I am sure many DUers will have a negative reaction to this article because 1. It is from Rasmussen and 2. It is hard (and depressing) to admit that labels matter to many Americans and 3. It is hard (and depressing) to admit that anyone likes Reagan.

Regardless, I live in the one of the bluest towns in a blue state, and most of my friends and family vote Dem most of the time, and this poll is very consistent with my experiences.

Thursday, July 26, 2007
During last Monday’s Democratic Presidential debate, Senator Hillary Clinton indicated that she preferred to be called “progressive” rather than “liberal.” The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that is probably a good move--Americans are more receptive to the term progressive.

Just 20% said they consider it a positive description to call a candidate politically liberal while 39% would view that description negatively. However, 35% would consider it a positive description to call a candidate politically progressive. Just 18% react negatively to that term. Those figures reflect a huge swing, from a net negative of nineteen points to a net positive of 17 points.

Political Description of Candidate / Pos / Neg / Net
Like Reagan / 44% / 25% / +19
Progressive 35% / 18% / +17
Moderate 29% / 12% / +17
Conservative 32% / 20% / +12
Liberal 20% / 30% / -10

More...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/labels_matter_progressive_better_than_liberal_reagan_like_better_than_conservative

[Totally Committed]

1. I KNEW there was a reason for Hillary's "I'm a modern Progressive" schpeil the other night!

She must have seen the results of this "research" before the debate.

TC

[MADem]

2. Wonder if she will loan out her time machine, then? The survey happened

24-25 July.....

[Totally Committed]

3. Then, Brava, Mrs. Clinton!

Well done for being ahead of the curve.

Or, maybe she had her own polling done? Just a thought.

Still, credit given where credit is due.


TC

[MADem]

4. I think the polling company is following the trends they saw appearing out of the debate

They saw an audience reaction, and polled to it to see if it was a fluke, or a real reaction...

[rinsd]

6. Hence the inclusion of Reagan (nt)

[MADem]

7. Actually, the Reagan thing has to do with this curious theme they're associating with Obama

It was originally shopped by POLITICO (Right Wing website, trying to be evenhanded) and here it is reproduced at CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/25/politics/politico/main3095922.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3095922

Obama is touting a new and unconventional brand of grass-roots politics, but his strategy borrows from precedents set by a previous generation of Democrats such as Jimmy Carter and Gary Hart. His advisers also invoke as inspiration a surprising Republican: Ronald Reagan.

"Now, it is blasphemy for Democrats," Obama pollster Cornell Belcher said of Reagan, "but that hope and optimism that was Ronald Reagan" allowed him to "transcend" ideological divisions within his own party and the general electorate.

The theme has been shopped around for awhile--even here. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3394235


Andrew Sullivan, too: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/the_reagan_of_t.html

Google Obama and Reagan, you'd be surprised how many are selling the idea.

Personally (and who cares what I think) I believe this is a strategy that, while designed to boost the candidate in circles to the center-right, is also fraught with potential pitfalls. Plenty of people view Reagan as the Great Bullshitter, not the Great Communicator. It's plainly a triangulation tactic, an effort to reach out to the Mushy Middle, to include those famous "Reagan Democrats" who, through the long lens of history, nowadays don't see Reagan as quite the icon they regarded him as 'back in the day.'

I'd be careful if I were Obama, too, and not have his aides going on the record and flogging the idea so much--if they want to shop the idea, do it NOT For Attribution. They don't lay down "Don't Quote Me" rules way too often, and they don't know how to cover their tracks.

This isn't a critique of Obama, but it is indicative of the overall inexperience of his staff.

The smart quote is "Obama is Obama--if people want to compare him to Reagan, well, there must be something similar in the approach of BOTH LEADERS to the people that they see. But Obama isn't a carbon copy of Reagan or anyone else--he's his own authentic person" -- or words to that effect.

Instead, they're seen as trying to puff up the idea, and it first, has a false ring to it, and second, has potential to turn off the "I Still Fucking HATE The Late Ronald Reagan" Democrats, who outnumber the few Democrats who even will admit they were Reagan Democrats nowadays (having seen the effects of his policies over the long term).


That's my take on it, anyway....

[draft_mario_cuomo]

5. Thanks for posting. That is very interesting nt