Re: Most would blame Republicans
I mean if you take their numbers at face value without seeing the internals they are reporting 46% repubs, and 36% Obama, along with another 13% blaming both. So they throw out the 13% that include Obama in their blame, and make it look like sentiment is against the repubs on this....
I agree that the language could and should be more precise.
Look, according to CNN's own polling done early Sept on a range of issues
Obama's handling of the:
economy in general = 56% disapprove
Federal budget deficit = 61% disapprove
Health care = 55% disapprove
No disagreements on that data. My view is that the U.S. could and should be doing better. Part of the problem lies with political stalemate, but part also lies with a period of abnormally weak leadership (both Congressional and Presidential).
There are a couple of things that I think if this is protracted that demo's have a problem with, 1. republicans ARE trying to negotiate, and compromise, and all demo's are doing is calling names and distorting things....Although no one is going to come out of this looking good, it is just not factual to try and make it appear as though repubs will bear the entire blame in this.
It really would depend on what compromises are offered. If items related to fiscal spending limits are offered, my guess is that the Senate and President would find it difficult to avoid considering those items. Then, the sacrifices required to end the shutdown or avert a debt default would be small relative to the costs of failing to agree to the compromise. Of course, that would likely invite future challenges via the debt ceiling and continuing resolutions. In terms of public sentiment, the general public would probably accept some modest reductions in spending in return for ending a shutdown and avoiding a debt default. If those compromises are offered early, then the GOP would probably be in its strongest position vis-à-vis public opinion. If, however, the modest reductions are offered after a long shutdown, the public would likely welcome the end of the shutdown but the "gains" won by the GOP would be small relative to what happened, so the GOP probably would not benefit.
If, however, the focus remains on the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which is a policy and ideological difference, I don't think that will be the case, even as the ACA is deeply unpopular in the polls. The ACA dispute is the result of longstanding and fundamental differences that cannot easily be overcome. Hence, linking the continuing resolution or raising the debt ceiling to the ACA is almost certainly not a winning strategy.
I could be wrong, but we'll see. Typically, such linkage only produces failure in achieving the desired goals due to the basic nature of the differences and the only thing that remains are the high costs from the battle that took place. Responsibility for those costs usually winds up largely being placed on those who launched the battle. Already, GOP-friendly interests ranging from The Wall Street Journal
to the Chamber of Commerce have warned the GOP about the perils of its current strategy.
In the end, if the shutdown winds up of sufficient length to materially impact the economy or if the debt ceiling is not raised in a timely fashion leading to a possibly significant recession (even if the government meets its debt obligations, something I thing would be the case), those could be the kind of developments that bring an end to the GOP majority in the House and cause the GOP to lose seats in the Senate. Then, the GOP would find itself in a position of reduced influence in the policy debate and that reduction in influence would be largely self-inflicted.
IMO, the risks of the current strategy outweigh the possible benefits. Neither the continuing resolution nor debt ceiling legislation should be used as mechanisms to try to impose goals that are largely matters of basic philosophical and ideological differences. The normal legislative process and election campaigns are the proper venue for waging such battles.