SurveyUSA: John Warner Up, Jim Webb Down

By: Lowell
Published On: 9/26/2007 6:25:25 AM

The latest SurveyUSA poll (9/25/07) has good news for Sen. John Warner, bad news for Sen. Jim Webb.  According to the poll, 65% of Virginians approve of the job John Warner is doing, with just 28% disapproving. That's a net positive of +37 points for John Warner. The numbers for Jim Webb are 46% approve/42% disapprove, for a net positive of just +4 points.  In August, SurveyUSA had Warner at +24 points (57%-33%) and Webb at +6 points (48%-42%).  So, Warner is up 13 points in the last month, Webb down 2 points.  Amazingly, Warner is more popular than Webb even among Democrats (+36 for Warner, +34 for Webb).  Among Republicans, Warner is +33 points, Webb is -27 points (32% approve, 59% disapprove).

What's going on here?  I'm not sure exactly, but it's almost certain at this point that these numbers are not a fluke.  The fact is, Webb has been consistently trailing Warner in the approval ratings since he took office 9 months ago.  About the only conclusion one can reach is that Virginians are happier with John Warner's job performance than they are with Jim Webb's.

Given that Webb's numbers have not been changing significantly, it's hard to blame his relatively poor approval ratings on this vote (FISA) or that one (MoveOn).  Back in February, before the FISA or MoveOn controversies, Webb was +5 points (47%-42%).  In June, Webb was +3 points (44%-41%).  Today, he's +4 points (46%-42%).  That's essentially no change in approval for Webb despite all the ups and downs in Congress.  The bottom line is that Virginians are fundamentally split on Jim Webb, while they overwhelmingly approve of John Warner's performance in office.

It's important to point out that this isn't a Democratic problem more broadly.  Tim Kaine is +20 points, while Mark Warner is viewed favorably by a 3:1 margin (50%-14%) in our state.  For whatever reason, this appears to be about Webb specifically, not about the Democratic "brand" more broadly.

The bottom line is that Virginians are still not completely comfortable with Jim Webb as their Senator, almost 11 months after his 9,000-vote victory over George Allen and nearly 9 months since he took office.  But no matter what he does, they love John Warner. 

What accounts for the difference in approval ratings? Is it the continuing aftermath of the rough campaign against George Allen (could that help explain the intense Republican opposition to Webb)?  Is it personality (Webb perceived as a gruff, introverted Marine? Warner seen as a moderate senior statesmen and a good guy?)  Is it ideology (not sure what the issue would be here, though...Warner's support for the Iraq war and Webb's opposition would tend to push in the opposite direction)?  Is it constituent services (but then why haven't Webb's numbers changed since he took office)?  I don't get it, unless it's almost purely personality.  I'm stumped, what do you think?


Comments



Perceptive, fair and well-written diary, Lowell. (Dianne - 9/26/2007 6:59:31 AM)
I'd suspect it has more to do with personality and his difficulty in communicating (both himself and his staff [which he supervises]) his positions.  I really like Senator Webb.  He is progressive, passionate, and hard-working (look at all he's done since taking office).

Maybe we can find out more about his life and share it here and spread the word.  He's a good guy with the right instincts and I want him to succeed.



Personally (Gordie - 9/26/2007 7:02:27 AM)
I do believe it is his voting record. It is all over the place. One time he votes like a D and the next time he votes like an R.

Warner at times talks the talk but he votes his vote. Even though I consider it the wrong vote he is consistant with his R principles.

I have Jim's vote out of step about 4 or 5 times, though I cannot name them.

Of course Virginian's do hold grudges and when it is looked at that Webb did not defeat Allen, but Allen defeated Allen, then many people can hold grudges against the winner, even though many people love only winners.



Perhaps, but... (Lowell - 9/26/2007 8:05:31 AM)
...that doesn't explain why his approval/disapproval ratings have been essentially the same since he took office.  In other words, all his votes haven't affected his approval ratings one iota.


Too soon (Pain - 9/26/2007 8:26:23 AM)
I think it's likely too soon after a polarized campaign for Senator Webb to be anything other than evenly split.

I like Warner, and I respect him, even though I don't agree with him much of the time.  He's probably running high because he's a likable guy and is retiring, so he's getting a *golf clap* out of respect.

As for Webb, I respect him too and I don't necessarily fault him for voting all over the place, since we pretty much knew going in we weren't getting an unwavering *democrat*, and frankly that's OK with me.  If more people from both sides would vote their heart and not their party then we'd be in a much better place right now.



Actually, Webb's voted 90% (Lowell - 9/26/2007 8:29:02 AM)
with the Democrats.


OK (Pain - 9/26/2007 8:54:48 AM)
I didn't know the specifics, but I guess I was responding to some of the posts I've seen here bashing him for *what-as-he-thinking* votes. 


Agreed, but it doesn't seem to have (Lowell - 9/26/2007 8:59:42 AM)
affected his approval ratings at all.  They've been flatter than Kansas since February.


he needs more time (JD - 9/26/2007 9:20:04 AM)
Kaine and M. Warner are state executives - I think comparing them with Senators are apples and oranges. 
Governors naturally have more chances to take leadership roles, talk directly to Virginians, and show tangible results, even with a Republican legislature. 

Congress' approval rating as a whole is horrible, so Senators have farther to climb.  J. Warner has had decades to carefully nurture his maverick, statesmanlike image.  I would imagine his baseline support is much higher than most any young (or old) Senator in the country. 

Kaine needs much more time to prove himself - both in terms of voting record and in terms of his image.  It, of course, would be better if there were a few more legislative victories under his belt.  As for his image, I like it.  I don't know what more he could do, other than be himself.  Over time I think he'll gain more respect.



Not Unexpected (Elaine in Roanoke - 9/26/2007 9:49:07 AM)
There may be quite a few reasons for the relative static approval numbers for Jim Webb:
1. Many people DO think that George Allen lost, not that Jim Webb won. It shouldn't matter, but in our culture, it does.
2. John Warner is a "Virginia institution." He's been around so long that everyone - even Democrats - look on him as "their senator." If you think about it, he never has really done much for Virginia - with the exception of protecting military installations in the state. We Virginians love our traditions, and Warner has become one, for better or worse.
3. Since John Warner is retiring, he has the "halo" effect of people being nice to someone who is leaving the scene. You know, it's similar to the "speak no ill of the departed" thing.
4. I really like and respect Jim Webb. I have met him several times and know he is a friendly, personable fellow. I have read most of his books and I respect his intellect. Most people in the state haven't personally met him, nor have they read his fantastic novels. They only know the man whose posture is ramrod Marine, whose face - like a good soldier - doesn't betray emotion very much. Since many don't follow policy, they judge him by what they see.
5. I agree with the comment that his staff could do a better job in representing Jim Webb. I think they will as they settle into their positions and adjust to the work they need to do.
6. I'm old enough to remember when John Warner - and his then-wife Elizabeth Taylor - won his first term. He wouldn't even have been the Republican nominee if a plane crash hadn't killed the fellow who won the Republican nomination first...Warner was second choice. For a long time he wasn't so beloved, either.
7. Let's give Jim Webb time to grow in his job. Let's also give the Democrats in Congress time to build their numbers - particularly in the Senate - to the point where they can actually get things passed. Remember: Lieberman is an R masquerading as an I or a D, but the Dems had to have him to be in the majority. If they stray too far from the Bush war stupidity, then Lieberman switches parties and throws the Senate 50-50 with Cheney the power broker...GOD FORBID.


Two factors: (Silence Dogood - 9/26/2007 9:56:03 AM)
One possible factor you didn't mention is that Webb is a democrat, Democrats control the senate, and at least some segment of the population is going to be pissed off that the war isn't over yet and that we haven't impeached Bush and Cheney whether we need 60 votes to get past a cloture vote or not.

The bottom line is this, however: more people voted against Jim Webb last year than voted for him.  If he has any interest in pursuing re-election in 2012, he needs to be proactive about meeting his constituents around the Commonwealth on weekends and whenever Congress isn't in session.



How's that again? (Nell - 9/26/2007 4:46:47 PM)
more people voted against Jim Webb last year than voted for him.

If that were true, he wouldn't have won.  Did you mean "more people voted against George Allen last year than voted for Webb"?



Gail (DukieDem - 9/26/2007 4:53:32 PM)
He's adding in those who voted for Gail.


one quick observation (Kathy Gerber - 9/26/2007 9:58:28 AM)
Three of us went to Warner's retirement announcement.  Within  the last several years two of the three have asked for and received assistance from Warner's office on matters of international red tape.  The third person is from the Midwest and has only been here a few months.

With Warner's impending retirement it will fall to Webb's office to take care of things like this.  One can only hope that they are putting the infrastructure in place and collaborating with Warner's highly effective staff to make it happen.  By the way, effectiveness in this area is a factor in how Virgil Goode stays in office.  Political ideology and the drama of electoral politics become irrelevant during a time of personal crisis.



At This Moment (Gordie - 9/26/2007 10:40:30 AM)
I wish to forget the past and not worry about a survey.

At this moment I would like to propose that This blog and all blogs in Virginia start a campaign to announce our support to nominate Senator Jim Webb for the "Citizen of the Year" award.

His actions on the floor of the senate compare to Stanislav Petrov actions in 1983 that prevent a nuclear war between the Soviet Union and the United States due to a computer error.

Yesterday on the floor of the Senate Jim Webb warned his collegues about a resolution that was laying the ground work for an attack on Iran. The same type of resolution that laid the ground work for the invasion of Iraq.

From another source, Yesterday on the floor of the Senate Jim said;

On the Senate floor today, Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) made an impassioned appeal to his fellow senators, declaring that the Lieberman-Kyl amendment on Iran should be "withdrawn" because the "proposal is Dick Cheney's fondest pipe dream." Webb cautioned that the "cleverly-worded sense of the Congress" could be "interpreted" to "declare war" on Iran. He continued:
Those who regret their vote five years ago to authorize military action in Iraq should think hard before supporting this approach. Because, in my view, it has the same potential to do harm where many are seeking to do good.
"At best, it's a deliberate attempt to divert attention from a failed diplomatic policy," said Webb. "At worst, it could be read as a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for military action, without one hearing and without serious debate."
Webb said that amendment's attempt to categorize the Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp as "a foreign terrorist organization" would, for all practical purposes, "mandate" the military option against Iran. "It could be read as tantamount to a declaration of war. What do we do with terrorist organizations? If they are involved against us, we attack them."

He also slammed the lack of debate and examination that was accompanying the amendment, saying "this is not the way to make foreign policy":

We haven't had one hearing on this. I'm on the Foreign Relations Committee, I'm on the Armed Services Committee. We are about to vote on something that may fundamentally change the way the United States views the Iranian military and we haven't had one hearing. This is not the way to make foreign policy. It's not the way to declare war.



Gordie, This comment deserves.... (Dianne - 9/26/2007 11:19:47 AM)
a diary of it's own!!!  Good work.


After (Gordie - 9/27/2007 7:03:55 AM)
Yesterday's passage I find that their are allot of stupid Democrats in the Senate who are playing games with the future of this country.

From what I have been able to find out, at least Webb voted against the doctored version, but Hillary and Obama took the heat in last nights debate for their vote.

Shame on Hillary for positioning herself for the General Election. Edwards is looking better every day.

To write a diary about stupidity would be dumb on my part.



Constituent services and public exposure (Teddy - 9/26/2007 11:01:17 AM)
are key to raising Webb's approval ratings. The former needs drastic improvement immediately. The latter is a function of whatever press department exists for Webb and the Democratic Party itself.  Where are the press releases, the photo ops published?  Where are the speaking engagements and the meet and greets in far flung spots in the Commonwealth? Raise the level of consciousness. We have permanent campaigns nowadays, remember.


Jim Webb pisses everybody off (DanG - 9/26/2007 11:13:15 AM)
The reason his approval rating is so low is because he pisses everybody off.  Notice how Warner doe pretty solid with his "conservative base", and is able to keep liberals happy?  Part of this is perception, he's been labeled a maverick so long people think he truly is one.

But Webb angers his base almost as much as he anger the conservatives.  Webb's 59% amongst liberals is lower than it has been in the past, and conservatives, while probably appreciating his stances on immigration, are still furious about how he talks about the war.  He angers both liberals and conservatives.  Notice how a LOT of liberals and Moderates take no opinion on him (over 10% in each).  I think this is there way of saying that Webb sometimes frustrates them.  But push come to shove, those people will be voting for Webb in 2012, make no mistake.



Tough Choices tend to piss people off (snolan - 9/27/2007 11:13:31 AM)
It's simply the nature of the beast.  If you do the hard thing now, deflating your short-term numbers to establish a fundamental building block for the future; people will cry and cry now, and be very grateful later when they need that building block to survive.


Constituent Services (connie - 9/26/2007 3:55:02 PM)
Teddy, could you elaborate on what experiences you have had with poor constituent services?  I have dealt with the staff in the Richmond office quite a bit and have found them to be professional, knowledgable and eager to help.  Can you give some examples?  I think it might be helpful for them to know where services can be improved. 


Webb fails to deliver.. (IechydDa - 9/27/2007 12:26:44 AM)
by not voting to end the war in Iraq. He has been deserted by independents who thought they could depend on him to vote to end the war. He talks about the war being a mistake, but has not voted in any way to end it.

Not a few Democrats, too, are disappointed in his slow uptake on ending Iraq. He is strong on opposing war with Iran though, but this is below the radar of most voters.



Iran, Iraq (vadem - 9/27/2007 7:23:27 AM)
Webb doesn't vote to end the war immediately because he knows there is no way to do that under the current regime and not cause a much wider problem for us.  The Dems who insist we defund the war and pull out the troops NOW have blinders on.  Yes, its what we all want, but there's a reason Colin Powell warned Bush "You break it, you bought it".  Bush should have been stopped long ago, cause we broke it, and now we bought it.  Not one of the candidates last night promised we'd have no troops in Iraq by 2013.  At least they are being honest now.  Everyone should quit ranking on Webb cause he hasn't single-handedly stopped the war.  He's doing what he can in a slim majority to bring about the best end-result.

As for Iran not being on the radar of most voters, I'd hope that everyone of us is shouting from the rooftops that it should be on the radar.  This is exactly how the administration pulled Iraq over our eyes.  Wake up people, and watch the radar screen, cause its coming.  Jim Webb is one of the FEW leaders we have even trying to put the issue before the rest of the sheep in the Senate.

As I reminded someone last night who was crying about Webb not voting with him every step of the way on stopping the war, "I guess you'd rather have let George Allen take the seat back unopposed."  We should be darned grateful that we have Jim Webb in the Senate.



"At least they are being honest now" (Lowell - 9/27/2007 8:11:52 AM)
Speaking of which, why do we keep comparing Iran and Iraq, as if they're the same situation?  First of all, Iran is definitely developing a nuclear weapons program, unlike in pre-war Iraq.  Are we willing to accept that?  I haven't heard one of the top Democratic 2008 contenders say that (let alone the Republicans!), and I agree with them.  A nuclear weapons Iran is not acceptable to just about anyone in America or elsewhere, outside of China and Russia perhaps.

Second, nobody's talking about an invasion of Iran, as they were about Iraq.  The talk this time is much more narrow, of air attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities and maybe some military installations.  Totally different than Iraq.

Third, in this case you've got pretty much all our allies, including France and Germany (and, again, almost all major Democratic candidates and most Senators) in agreement that Iran cannot develop nuclear weapons.

Fourth, unlike in Iraq, the president of Iran is not an absolute dictator, so fortunately there are others in Iran with whom we can negotiate.  And we should do that, ASAP.  Moderate clerics, the supreme leader (Ayotallah Khamenei), Rafsanjani, Khatami - let's talk to all of them, especially given that Ahmadinejad is increasingly marginalized within Iran.  Why not a Bush-Khamenei summit right away?  It's long past time...



Iran and Iraq (vadem - 9/27/2007 9:44:55 PM)
Lowell,
Just a couple of comments as to how Iran and Iraq look similar to me.  They were both on a list of at least 5, maybe 7 countries in the Middle East--a list that Wes Clark said he was told about within days of 9-11.  This list was in place prior to 9-11 but it was quickly activated.  So, war was not provoked by any certain event in Iraq.  It was scheduled all along.  In each case, Congress bought the lame arguments (no, I'm not saying that nuclear capability for Iran is lame) presented by Bush, et al, and they voted to look strong.  Clark told them all during a House Armed Services Committee hearing in 2002 exactly what was coming down. 

Air attacks are being planned for, certainly.  But do you think for a moment that no ground troops will be needed, eventually?  Iran will retaliate to any strikes, and there you go...deja vu all over again.  Read Daniel Ellsberg's very stark and no nonsense article. Impending War with Iran http://securingameri...  It was rather chilling to me.

I agree with you on point 4.  A few smart people have been calling for awhile for diplomacy in the region, at a very high level.



My hope is that Iran's nuclear program (Lowell - 9/27/2007 9:59:16 PM)
will be stopped through strong economic sanctions and diplomacy.  If China and Russia continue to block this, as they've been doing for several years now, then the choices could very well be really bad:

1. Allow Iran to join the nuclear weapons club.
2. Take military action to prevent that from happening.

Again, I'd advocate an emergency summit between George W. Bush and Ali Khamenei. 

With regard to the military options, here's Wes Clark's description of how that would play out:

The next war would begin with an intense air and naval campaign. Let's say you're planning the conflict as part of the staff of the Joint Chiefs. Your list of targets isn't that long -- only a few dozen nuclear sites -- but you can't risk retaliation from Tehran. So you allow 21 days for the bombardment, to be safe; you'd aim to strike every command-and-control facility, radar site, missile site, storage site, airfield, ship and base in Iran. To prevent world oil prices from soaring, you'd have to try to protect every oil and gas rig, and the big ports and load points. You'd need to use B-2s and lots of missiles up front, plus many small amphibious task forces to take out particularly tough targets along the coast, with manned and unmanned air reconnaissance. And don't forget the Special Forces, to penetrate deep inside Iran, call in airstrikes and drag the evidence of Tehran's nuclear ambitions out into the open for a world that's understandably skeptical of U.S. assertions that yet another Gulf rogue is on the brink of getting the bomb.

But if it's clear how a war with Iran would start, it's far less clear how it would end. How might Iran strike back? Would it unleash Hezbollah cells across Europe and the Middle East, or perhaps even inside the United States? Would Tehran goad Iraq's Shiites to rise up against their U.S. occupiers? And what would we do with Iran after the bombs stopped falling? We certainly could not occupy the nation with the limited ground forces we have left. So what would it be: Iran as a chastened, more tractable government? As a chaotic failed state? Or as a hardened and embittered foe?

Clark says "special forces," not regular troops.  That's almost certainly correct, as we don't have sufficient ground forces even if Bush/Cheney wanted to use them in Iran.