[link removed]

FAIR
View article on FAIR's website ([link removed])
Does Biden’s Lower Approval Rating Mean Democrats Should 'Move to the Center'? David W. Moore ([link removed])


NYT: Democrats Deny Political Reality at Their Own Peril

New York Times (11/4/21 ([link removed]) ): "Significant parts of the electorate are feeling leery of a sharp leftward push in the party."

Recent polls show that President Joe Biden’s approval rating has declined significantly ([link removed]) since he took office.

A decline is not unexpected, of course, given the historical phenomenon known as a honeymoon period ([link removed]) . But many in the media have interpreted this decline as a negative assessment specifically of Biden’s too-progressive agenda (FAIR.org, 11/5/21 ([link removed]) ).

Numerous articles and editorials have thus argued that Biden should return to the “center” (see here ([link removed]) , here ([link removed]) and here ([link removed]) ), a rather vague political location these days, but one that would require him to significantly downsize many proposals in his Build Back Better legislation.

A prime example is a recent New York Times editorial (11/4/21 ([link removed]) ) with the headline, “Democrats Deny Political Reality at Their Own Peril.”

The alleged reality: That “significant parts of the electorate are feeling leery of a sharp leftward push in the party,” and that “the concerns of more centrist Americans about a rush to spend taxpayer money, a rush to grow the government, should not be dismissed.”

The solution?

What is badly needed is an honest conversation in the Democratic Party about how to return to the moderate policies and values that fueled the blue-wave victories in 2018 and won Joe Biden the presidency in 2020.


** Bait and switch
------------------------------------------------------------

In all of these articles and editorials, the authors focus on Biden’s declining approval rating as “bait”—what we should be concerned about—and then switch to talking about the president’s legislative agenda. But there is no necessary connection between the two. People could disapprove of the president’s performance in office for many reasons not related at all to the proposed legislation.

If Biden’s approval rating has declined because of the size of his proposed legislation, then we should expect either that public approval of his proposals has been low, or that approval has declined. But neither is the case.
FAIR: Cherry-Picking Polls to Hide Public Support for Biden’s Spending Plan

FAIR.org (10/15/21 ([link removed]) ): "The margins in favor of the reconciliation package vary from a low of 12 points in the WP/ABC poll, to 24 points in the Pew poll."

In an earlier post (FAIR.org, 10/16/21 ([link removed]) ), I cited several polls showing double-digit margins of support for Biden’s initial plan costing $3.5 trillion. Polls since then confirm majority public support ([link removed]) for that package, as well as the compromised package of just under $2 trillion recently passed by the House ([link removed]) .

If the size of the legislation was a problem for the public, then we would expect to find higher support for the new compromised version than for the original bill. But the polls do not reflect such a difference.

The ABC/Washington Post poll (11/7–10/21) and the Quinnipiac poll (11/11–15/21) found almost identical results ([link removed]) for the $2 trillion bill—58% to 37% and 58% to 38%, respectively.

And these figures were quite close to what Quinnipiac (10/1–4/21 ([link removed]) ) and ABC/Washington Post (8/29/21–9/1/21 ([link removed]) ) reported earlier about the $3.5 trillion package: 57% to 40% and 53% to 41%, respectively.


** 'Too big for voters to comprehend'
------------------------------------------------------------
WaPo: Democrats’ problem is not focusing on issues most vital to independents, 2 prominent pollsters say

Biden's "gotta lead from the middle out,” says pollster Joel Benenson (Washington Post, 10/23/21 ([link removed]) ), whose clients ([link removed]) include Google, Comcast, Viacom, Microsoft and Bank of America.

It would appear that many of the cited articles reflect the long-held opinions of the authors, who hold on to those views regardless of what the polls might show.

Perhaps they are persuaded by the prevailing view, as reflected in a recent Gallup poll ([link removed]) , that most people want less, rather than more, government spending. These pundits don’t seem to accept the notion, as noted in an earlier post (FAIR.org, 10/24/21 ([link removed]) ), that while most Americans may express conservative beliefs, in fact large majorities generally support activist government.

That disjuncture is reflected in an article by the Washington Post’s Paul Kane (10/23/21 ([link removed]) ), who apparently could not believe that Americans might support such a costly bill. He refers to an argument by two pollsters—one a Republican, the other a Democrat—who acknowledge that “individual pieces of this massive agenda are popular,” but then assert that “the package is either too big for voters to comprehend, or the price is so high that it sounds scary.”

That sounds like a classic case of denial. There is no polling evidence for such an assertion. In fact, polling suggests the opposite.

There are many possible explanations for Biden’s low approval ratings. Pushing for his Build Back Better legislation is not one of them.
Read more ([link removed])

Share this post: <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Twitter"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Twitter" alt="Twitter" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Facebook"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Facebook" alt="Facebook" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Pinterest"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Pinterest" alt="Pinterest" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="LinkedIn"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="LinkedIn" alt="LinkedIn" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Google Plus"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Google Plus" alt="Google Plus" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Instapaper"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Instapaper" alt="Instapaper" class="mc-share"></a>
​

© 2021 Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting. All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you signed up for email alerts from
Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting

Our mailing address is:
FAIRNESS & ACCURACY IN REPORTING
124 W. 30th Street, Suite 201
New York, NY 10001

FAIR's Website ([link removed])

FAIR counts on your support to do this work — please donate today ([link removed]) .

Follow us on Twitter ([link removed]) | Friend us on Facebook ([link removed])

change your preferences ([link removed])
Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp
[link removed]
unsubscribe ([link removed]) .