Pew on Ideology

A lot of fascinating stuff in this new Pew Survey. One key point is that voters' perceptions of how liberal various Democrats are seems to have no basis whatsoever in reality. Out of the six figures listed -- John Edwards, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton -- Bill Clinton rates as the most liberal, ever-so-slightly to the left of his wife and Pelosi who are tied. This, of course, is ridiculous -- Pelosi is clearly to the left of the Clintons and always has been. Meanwhile, Obama and Edwards both rate as to the right of the Clintons.

In Edwards' case I can at least think of plausible reasons people might make this mistake, but if they're making it about Obama as well it's clear that these numbers are being primarily driven by the public's deep, deep ignorance. Two upshots. One is that it's good news for Edwards to see evidentiary backing for the theory that he can stake out the most progressive issue profile and still maintain an image as a moderate. The other is that this is both terrible news for Clinton (as I wrote with Sam it would be crazy for liberals to choose the least-liberal available nominee when she's also seen as the most liberal choice) and also seems to call into question the "unquestioned brilliance" of Mark Penn. His strategy has been for Clinton to stake out an increasingly conservative issue profile to win the general election. It seems, however, that issue profiles don't do much to alter perceptions of public figures. If they do effect anyone, however, it's going to be the sort of high-information political junkies who are disproportionately likely to be primary-voting liberals who Clinton is managing to alienate in droves.

Comments

Penn may be betting that HRC can win the primaries in spite of liberal opposition, and then use that opposition during the general to make the case that HRC is pretty moderate. That seems like a pretty straightforward strategy. And, given that no one thought she would have a serious challenger, an understandable strategy to adopt, as well.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 1, 2007 10:49 AM

I actually think it's bad for Edwards. As the survey notes, liberals share this view of Edwards as the most conservative, whereas they think of Hillary as liberal. That is definitely not good for Edwards in terms of winning the primary. (And this has been reflected in many conversations I have had.)

Now it's a good argument in favor of Edwards to tell your Democratic friends, but I really don't think the situation as is is good for him.

Posted by Tony V | May 1, 2007 10:51 AM

no one thought she would have a serious challenger

"No one" here should be understood to mean "no one in the Clinton camp." Every smart analysis I read of the primary fight, starting as far back as early-to-mid 2005, predicted that liberal animosity towards Clinton would inevitably give rise to an anybody-but-Hillary movement, and any credible challenger able to fill that niche would stand a very good chance of walking away with the nomination. At the time, people were talking Edwards and Gore; now it's Obama and Edwards. That Clinton's people assumed that no one would seriously challenge their candidate, leaving her to run a general campaign from the start, only demonstrates how deeply and cluelessly out of touch these people are with their own party.

Posted by Christmas | May 1, 2007 11:19 AM

Whenever I ask my Republican or Independent family/friends why they don't like Clinton, the answer is ALWAYS "she's too liberal." In the same breath, they say they like Obama. Whenever I drill down and say, "What, exactly, has she done that is extremely liberal?" they either can't think of anything or they say "health care." It is truly amazing to me, because Obama, despite what some liberals say, is the most consistently progressive candidate we have (not including Kucinich).

I don't see how Clinton shakes the rap, because, God knows, she's been trying mightily for years.

Posted by cms | May 1, 2007 11:24 AM

"it would be crazy for liberals to choose the least-liberal available nominee when she's also seen as the most liberal choice"

and plus, seeing as how week the republican field is, i think liberals should try and take all they can get, rather than settle for a lesser-of-two-evils.

Posted by / | May 1, 2007 11:30 AM

While there is undoubtedly a lot of ignorance going on here, I wonder whether a substantial portion of the public interprets "liberal" not as "supports left-wing positions" but as "engages/has engaged in nasty confrontations with conservatives". That pretty much perfectly explains the ordering here -- Monica-gate and the "vast right wing conspiracy" put the Clintons on the far left while Obama's refusal to get into the muck of ordinary political fighting puts him on the right.

Posted by DavidS | May 1, 2007 11:32 AM

I actually think it's bad for Edwards. As the survey notes, liberals share this view of Edwards as the most conservative, whereas they think of Hillary as liberal. That is definitely not good for Edwards in terms of winning the primary.

But the survey doesn't break down ordinary Democrats from likely primary voters, who are more likely to be paying attention and more likely to know candidates' actual policy positions. The poll no doubt includes a lot of responses from self-identified Democrats who nonetheless aren't going to be following this campaign until late this year, and might not end up voting in the primaries at all. Their opinions of Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Pelosi, etc. probably aren't going to differ too much from those of the average independent - at least not this far out from the actual election.

Posted by Christmas | May 1, 2007 11:32 AM

People may well be basing their assessment of Bill Clinton on his activities since leaving the White House, which is after all six years ago. His work in internationalism and charity puts him well in the liberal side, as people see it.

And Hillary has her own record from being a Senator for the past six years. She's running as the same person she's been in New York. And as the same persons she's always been.

Posted by plural | May 1, 2007 11:45 AM

To Tony V, If you compare the rating Democrats give to themselves to how they rate Edwards there is not much difference. So, it doesn't seem like that would be much of a drag on his chances.

The Republicans surveyed are probably a loss to any of the Democratic candidates. But, the perception of the self styled indendents will be very important in the general, and Clinton is in trouble there too.

Posted by AJ | May 1, 2007 11:48 AM

Possibly Christmas, but that's just anti-empiricism. Some evidence that likely primary voters know the true ordering of these candidates would really be better, until them I am going to go with what self-identified liberals say.

And the central point remains. From a general election perspective, yes it is good to be seen as moderate - but he does have to win the primary, and so he may like to get some recognition as an actual liberal in order to do so (something that explains like, every action Edwards has taken for the past 6 months).

Posted by Tony V | May 1, 2007 11:48 AM

It's quite simple, really. Respondents in the Pew poll are equating "populism" with "conservatism" and DLC-style wishy-washyness with "liberalism".

Posted by Brautigan | May 1, 2007 12:03 PM

"Meanwhile, Obama and Edwards both rate as to the right of the Clintons."

Did you mean that Obama and Edwards are to the left of the Clintons?

Posted by Bruce Wilder | May 1, 2007 12:13 PM

What Brautigan said. Plus, I'd argue that GOP marketing has successfully turned the word "liberal" into a bogeyman phrase that roughly equates to "wealthy secular elitists." Liberals are the all-purpose scapegoats for cultural demons as diverse as radical feminism and Girls Gone Wild.

As a result, economic populism no longer registers as a liberal position. It seems to strike the moderate-to-conservative midwesterners I know as common sense centrism.

A progressive with a religious man-of-the-people profile like Edwards or Obama might be able to exploit this disconnect very effectively. And I'm quite certain the Right Wingers understand this, as evidenced by their campaign to paint Edwards as a rich metrosexual and to paint Obama as a crypto-Sharptonite black radical.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | May 1, 2007 12:18 PM

I think that the Pew survey in no way constitutes a failure on either Penn's or, for that matter, the progressive's attempts to paint Clinton as a conservative. Rather, I think that it can be attributed to the success and effectiveness of "The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" has had in defining their opponents.

Until now.

In addition to hell freezing over, the returns of TVRWC may indeed be diminishing. In today's National Review Online, Bruce Barlett writes:

"At some point, politically sophistaced conservatives will have to recognize that no Republican can win in 2008 and that their only choice is to suppor the most conservative Democrat for the nomination. Call me crazy, but I think that person is Hillary Clinton."

While you may be prepared to write the political and professional obituaries of both Hillary Clinton and Mark Penn, I am not.

The Clintons have beaten the GOP despite having every sling, arrow, and punch imaginable thrown at them. Penn, like Emmanuel and unlike Shrum, has a proven track record at winning, no matter how dirty and bloody the fight may get.

If Hillary ends up winning the Democratic primary, I don't doubt that the Clintons, and Penn, will beat them yet again.

Posted by JoeCHI | May 1, 2007 1:26 PM

LaFolette nails it. It isn't the economic positions of Progressive Democrats that alienated voters anymore than it was the reactionary and kleptocratic economic positions of the GOP that resonated. The effective meme has always been pseudo populism versus perceived and sometimes evident elitism.

Failure to appreciate this is one reason for the Democrats political collapse despite 8 years of Bill Clinton. Just as the late dawning but growing recognition of it is a major motor of their recovery.

Posted by W.B. Reeves | May 1, 2007 1:36 PM

I think the perception of HRC is pretty obviously based on the VRWC's endless (and grossly inaccurate) portrayals of her as a fire-breathing lesbian. I don't like Penn either, but I'm sympathetic to his problem: he's trying to change her image, but that may already be indelibly stamped into the public mind (esp the majority who don't follow politics closely). Edwards I think is benefiting from the perception that a Southern Democrat must be a moderate, and I agree that's helpful to him. The kind of committed Dems who are likely to vote in the primaries probably know better, and will be inclined to favor him as the most progressive, while the aura of moderation will help in the general election, assuming he's nominated.

Posted by beckya57 | May 1, 2007 3:00 PM

"...these numbers are being primarily driven by the public's deep, deep ignorance."

Oh, get over yourself. "Smartest kid in the class" behavior gets really tired, really quickly.

The public ain't interested enough in where a bunch of politicians lie on some dimension called "liberalism" to know what you know. Shocking. You are in the stinkin' business! You make your living knowing this stuff. The people contacted for this poll probably know more about the stuff they do for a living than you do. I don't recall any admission from you that you are deeply ignorant in some broad way.

The truth of the matter is, the people who responded to the survey will have just about zero influence over who becomes the Democratic candidate and who is elected president. Those who are not nominated and then elected will have a very small impact on respondents lives, and can safely be ignored without any harm to the poll respondent. Any rational person can easily decide that spending their time managing a little retail business on ebay or figuring out how to get the best value for their wine budtget is a better use of their time than curing their "deep, deep ignorance" of issues you find fascinating and remunerative. And I bet not one of them held up their hands and say "oooo, pick me! to be included in the poll.

So let's have a little less disdain for the rest of us, OK?

Posted by kharris | May 1, 2007 3:08 PM

Bill Clinton is the most liberal because liberal means libertine. Hillary is the next most liberal because she tolerates his escapades and is a lesbian anyway. Pelosi is next because she's also a lesbian - like everyone from her district.

HTH

Posted by Gary Sugar | May 1, 2007 3:12 PM

My theory is that there are two dimensions to how some people evaluate ideology. One is position on a left-right scale. The other is how confrontational that person is perceived to be. So if you're loud and proud, like Howard Dean, you get pegged much farther to the left than your issue positions warrant.

Posted by The Fool | May 1, 2007 4:06 PM

Why attach no significance to this finding:
among liberals, Clinton has a 2-point lead over Obama, among conservatives, a 27-point lead.

They do get it--both the liberals and the conservatives.

Posted by Cansee | May 1, 2007 4:20 PM

kharris, "ignorant" is not the same thing as "stupid". "ignorant" just means you dont know something, "stupid" means you dont have the abilitiy to comprehend basic things, even after education.

you said roughly the same thing as matt did, just in more words.

Posted by / | May 2, 2007 12:30 AM