Gordon Smith's Approval Rating Continues to Slide
Jon Isaacs
If you believe the Oregon news media or the typical Oregon political insider Gordon Smith's 2007 political maneuverings have been brilliant. Case in point - the latest Congressional Quarterly Senate race ratings.
Over at Loaded Orygun, Torrid Joe reported today that CQ has downgraded the 2008 Oregon race from "Leans Republican" to "Republican Favored" in part, according to CQ, "because of some very public breaks with President Bush —particularly over his handling of the war in Iraq — that reflect public opinion in Oregon and also burnish Smith’s reputation as a Republican centrist."
Thankfully, insiders, reporters and pundits don't get to decide who Oregon's US Senators are, Oregon voters do. And when it comes to Gordon Smith, Oregon citizens are way ahead of the political chattering class and news media.
This week, Survey USA released their monthly Oregon approval ratings for Senators Wyden and Smith. We've been tracking these numbers here on Blue Oregon since the start of the year, and in particular since Smith began his public "re-positioning" on the Iraq war. They have shown a consistent and steady, month by month, drop in Smith's job approval. And now they've started to hit the danger zone.
Let's look at Smith's numbers, month by month:
January, 2007: 58% Approve, 30% Disapprove
February, 2007: 48% Approve, 38% Disapprove
March, 2007: 50% Approve, 40% Disapprove
April 2007: 51% Approve, 41% Disapprove
May 2007: 49% Approve, 38% Disapprove
June 2007: 47% Approve, 45% Disapprove
Any pollster will tell you that there's only so much you can take from any one survey since it is only a snapshot in time. The important thing to look for are trends in similar polls taken over a significant period of time. The Survey USA numbers leave little doubt that since Gordon Smith's first original public flip flop on Iraq in December his standing with Oregon citizens has been severely damaged. Smith has seen a precipitous drop in his public approval of 11% and a dramatic rise in his disapproval of 15%. This is a real shift in public opinion that cannot be discounted.
I've said before, the worst place for any candidate or elected official to end up is in the dreaded "flip flopper" category, and that's exactly where Smith is now. The most famous (or infamous depending on your perspective) examples of this are John Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted against it" comment in 2004 and George H.W. Bush' "read by lips" promise to not raise taxes in 1988 before he raised taxes in 1991. I'm not saying its impossible for an elected official to sincerely change their position on an issue, but in general voters sour on flip floppers.
Clearly, Oregon voters are souring on Gordon Smith.
Update: Here's a chart from Kari Chisholm, with an update from his post on the SurveyUSA numbers last month.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Jun 21, '07
I wouldn't characterize Smith as a "flip-flopper" so much as I would a "panderer." As a moderate Republican, I find myself disgusted with the way he's changed his positions since the election. Had Smith come out against the war BEFORE the election, I think it might have played better. But it seems that he changed his mind after realizing what a liability the war and the president have become to Republicans throughout the country. To his credit, he was one of the first Republican Senators to change his postion on this. That should make it easier for the rest to fall in line. But it's almost too little, too late, as far as I'm concerned.
2:35 p.m.
Jun 21, '07
"To his credit, he was one of the first Republican Senators to change his postion on this."
When did he actually change it? Last I saw, he voted for Bush's endless war, same as the rest of the GOP.
Jun 21, '07
I'll say this again because it bears repeating: no amount of low approval ratings for Gordon Smith will unseat him next Fall if the Democrats don't have a viable candidate to run against him.
I'm sorry, but that's the fact. Until a viable alternative arises (and I think Steve Novick has a long way to go to prove his viability), Smith will coast back into office.
That's what's so depressing. Smith should be one of the most vulnerable Republicans this cycle. But the Democrats recruitment failures are giving him a "Get Out of Jail" card.
Jun 21, '07
That's astounding. He has no opposition that the media is taking seriously and still people are not liking him.
4:17 p.m.
Jun 21, '07
It's only going to get worse for Smith. I'm not sure what "recruitment failures" Chris is talking about. There's still plenty of time.
I'll refer the gentleman to what I wrote some months ago.
We're about halfway through the timeframe. At this point in 2005, we'd seen filings from Amy Klobuchar (MN), Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Bernie Sanders (VT), and Jon Tester (MT).
But Claire McCaskill, who defeated GOP Senator Jim Talent, filed on September 13. And Sherrod Brown, who defeated GOP Senator Mike DeWine, filed on October 18. And Jim Webb, who defeated GOP Senator George Allen, filed on February 9, 2006.
Stay tuned. Don't worry. Be happy.
(And, btw, Steve Novick will make a fine candidate against Gordon Smith. Especially if he beats whoever else eventually gets into the race.)
Jun 21, '07
Well, it would be real interesting if Senator Smith followed Barack Obama's lead today on earmarks. That could improve his ratings. In case you missed it, he became the first Prez. candidate to disclose his earmark requests. My guess is that Senator Smith, like Hillary Clinton will not be following suit.
Jun 21, '07
Hate to rain on your parade, but El Gordo's approval ratings aren't all that bad when you consider overall general public sentiment toward our congress as a whole, including Democrats. Of course you already knew that and have yet to find a somewhat formidable opponent willing to run against Smith. Thus, the continuous deluge of silly anti-Smith posts. Gordon Smith is bad, mmkay.
Jun 21, '07
rainmaker ... you are suggesting el gordo's numbers arent that bad considering the overall numbers about congres ... doesnt work for me ... a real comparison would need to break the numbers down just to oregonians feelings about the whole damn congress. interesting over sight on your part i might add.
and what is a "somewhat formidable opponent" in your mind ... what threshold must they meet for you to consider them a real opponent? i would really appreciate a more detailed explanation.
finally, in my humble opinion and it is only an opinion ... smith is very vunerable in 08 ... so vunerable any democratic candidate committed to running a hard race will be able to beat him. he is so vunerable on so many issues, i cant imagine him winning unless the electorate just goes nuts.
6:39 p.m.
Jun 21, '07
If I were Smith, the thing that would bother me more than declining approval is the increasing disapproval. Look at the graph: the negatives are climbing more sharply than the positives are falling. That's a problem. A voter may slide in and out of approval of Smith, but when that turns to active disapproval, things have been turned up a notch.
But I have to agree with Rainmaker--Smith's numbers are great! I mean, he's not in the twenties, which is, I guess, our current baseline for GOP approval...
Jun 21, '07
Right! your average voter despises Gordon Smith, loves the new Democratic majority and really digs Steve Novick! Yeah, that's reality! More Kool-Aid!!!
9:55 p.m.
Jun 21, '07
Actually, if you want to make an "apples to apples" comparison that confirms how truly bad Smith's numbers are, look at our other US Senator, Ron Wyden.
Same poll:
58% approve of Wyden, 34% disapprove. He has a net positve approval rating from every demographic group except self described conservatives including a 57% approval from Republicans. In fact, Wyden has had a net 4% increase in his approval ratings since the January Survey USA poll, while Smith has had a net decrease of a stunning 26%!!!
9:56 p.m.
Jun 21, '07
Actually, if you want to make an "apples to apples" comparison that confirms how truly bad Smith's numbers are, look at our other US Senator, Ron Wyden.
Same poll:
58% approve of Wyden, 34% disapprove. He has a net positve approval rating from every demographic group except self described conservatives including a 57% approval from Republicans. In fact, Wyden has had a net 4% increase in his approval ratings since the January Survey USA poll, while Smith has had a net decrease of a stunning 26%!!!
12:24 a.m.
Jun 22, '07
Thus, the continuous deluge of silly anti-Smith posts.
For the record, I just did a count today. Since January 1, only about 15% of the posts on BlueOregon have been about Gordon Smith and/or possible Democratic candidacies against him.
There's a lot, but BlueOregon is 85% not about Gordon Smith.
1:19 a.m.
Jun 22, '07
It wouldn't be so noticeable to discuss Smith if he weren't one of perhaps three conservatives maximum who have any stature whatsoever in this state. And God, Walden is almost too boring to rip on for his many flaws, especially when many of them attend to Smith. But Walden, for what it's worth, is fairly consistent and sincere in his conservatism from my observation.
Smith is a pandering, evasive, bandwagon-jumping failure of an actual public servant. Could you DRAW a better picture of a Republican plutocrat than Smith without making him look like the Monopoly guy? He's in the dictionary under politician, for heaven's sake. Even half the people who are going to vote for him can't really stand him...they say so on the rightwing blogs all the time.
So when you combine the rare commodity that is OR-GOP with this particular pathetic excuse for a representative of the people, it's no wonder we talk about the guy. There's a chance to make a different choice next year, but it is not a crime of civics to begin your analysis by saying "and I am looking for another choice because the current guy sucks. And he sucks because..."
9:11 a.m.
Jun 22, '07
the worst place for any candidate or elected official to end up is in the dreaded "flip flopper" category
That's a pity.
Changing your mind based on new information or changing events that affect what's best for your constituents and for the nation should be the hallmark of a good legislator.
Changing your position on an issue to keep ahead of the polling data is cowardly and merits the "flip-flopper" label.
Not changing your position at all is basically insane as in the memerable Stephen Colbert quote:
"(George Bush) believes the same thing on Wednesday that he believed on Monday regardless of what happened on Tuesday".
No defense of Smith here. I concur with Jon on his analysis, but I sure don't think that progressives should buy into the reactionary notions of the far Right as if it were some kind of wisdom. It's an extremely destructive meme for a movement that is predicatred on change based on new and valid info........
10:07 a.m.
Jun 22, '07
Pat, you're right.
But getting back to Smith. He says he changed his mind in July 2006. But he didn't change his position until December 2006. 350+ Americans, including nearly a dozen Oregonians, died in Iraq during that time.
As huge as the PR was that he got in December, it would have been even bigger in July. And it's possible that it would have started an avalanche of support for withdrawal. Lives might have been saved, if Gordon Smith had had the courage to speak up in July.
And that's the most charitable explanation of what happened - and an explanation that takes him at his word.
1:52 p.m.
Jun 22, '07
Here's a fun comparison. So, approximately 16 months out from the next election, Smith's approval numbers are 47% Approve and 45% Disapprove. Let's go back and look where a few other senators were two years ago.
SurveyUSA Senator approvals 6/06/05
George Allen, 53% Approve, 32% Disapprove Conrad Burns, 50-42 Lincoln Chaffee, 53-39 Jim Talent, 48-38 Rick Santorum, 45-44 Mike DeWine, 45-43
The closest parallels to Smith's ratings are Santorum and DeWine, who ended up getting throttled at the polls 59-41% and 56-44% respectively. Of course, as we know, the other four who were in better shape than Smith all lost too...
Sorry, Rainmaker, whatever you may want to believe, those are NOT good numbers for an incumbent.
Jun 22, '07
I still say Smith is toast for these reasons: he’s a conservative Republican who’s not trusted by his own right-wing, running in a moderate to liberal state in the middle of an unpopular, disastrous war he was for (maybe) -- before he was against (sort of).
It’s the demos seat to lose (and they could).
4:07 p.m.
Jun 22, '07
Great job, Nate. One other thing to point out--NONE of those guys had disapprovals as high as Smith.
Jun 23, '07
But getting back to Smith. He says he changed his mind in July 2006. But he didn't change his position until December 2006. 350+ Americans, including nearly a dozen Oregonians, died in Iraq during that time.
One point of clarification, Smith said he reached his "tipping point" regarding Iraq in May of 2006. The reason this is significant is that a month later, he gave a shrill speech -- after invoking the memory a recently-killed Oregonian -- in which he repeatedly ranted about how "Al Qaeda is counting on us" to do what Senator Carl Levin's (D-MI) amendment would have done: begin moving forward a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.
I don't have the "changed my mind in May" piece handy, but Novick pointed this out in one of his first posts on the subject and his bottom line is spot on:
Perhaps someday Sen. Smith will be made to account for some of finer points of his "courageous" "opposition" to the war.11:50 a.m.
Jun 23, '07
OK Kari,
There have been a few better terms used in this thread and elsewhere:
Pander Bait and switch Poll driven Cowardly Bandwagon jumping
All I'm saying here is we shouldn't be in the business of using terminology designed by Republican gunslingers to appeal to lazy monarchist leaning reactionaries.
The vast majority of people are made nervous by change, as it requires thought and may ultimately lead to new perspectives.
You know, like slavery is bad; It's actually possible to overcut a forest; Women are qualified to vote, think, work outside of the house; Letting all of the blood out of sick people tends to kill'em; The world is a sphere.....)
Progressives are about thinking, analyzing, and changing based on new and valid information.
If the wingnuts can make that seem weak, immoral, or un-masculine (flip-flopper) they've given their audience a good excuse to continue to reject the adoption of new ideas which is a central concept of our world view.
<hr/>Yesterday, Today, and Forever Jesus is the same All may change but Jesus never, Glory to his name.
Jul 21, '07
I agree with much of what Pat writes:
"The vast majority of people are made nervous by change, as it requires thought and may ultimately lead to new perspectives.
You know, like slavery is bad; It's actually possible to overcut a forest; Women are qualified to vote, think, work outside of the house; Letting all of the blood out of sick people tends to kill'em; The world is a sphere.....)
Progressives are about thinking, analyzing, and changing based on new and valid information."
That said, I take issue with Pat's strategy on getting there. I believe getting progressives into office will bring about positive change and that allowing the Republicans to be the only ones focusing on the "lazy monarchist leaning reactionaries" will hurt their chances of winning the election. Unfortunately, there are too many of them to ignore.
Many people are persuaded by these loaded terms. I see Pat's strategy of avoiding them all together as similar thinking that Kerry had when he decided not to respond to the Swift Boat ads.
Even though it takes using some tactics that many on the left think they are above, winning makes using them worth it! Its worse to lose and let progressive changes be rolled back then to use them and win.
Would Kerry have won if he responded? We'll never know for sure but its worth thinking about.
Basically, whoever takes on Smith should not be afraid to play hardball.
I truly believe that the main reason Republicans win (when they do) has little to do with their issues, votes, or actions. It is all about their superior ability to manipulate the voter. They are way better at it than the Dems and part of the reason is a general feeling within progressives that its wrong to even play the game.
<h2>I want the Dems to win much more than I want them to play nicely :)</h2>