POLITICS: Doug Schoen, Wall Street Journal shill, misrepresents Occupy Wall Street

From a post I did on Daily Kos.

It really shouldn't be all that surprising when the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal releases an editorial which portrays liberals/progressives/anyone so much as slightly complaining about the current status quo as 'radicals'. But this piece by Douglas Schoen reaches new levels of intellectual dishonesty, and shows that when guys like Schoen use terms like "out of the mainstream", they're not referring to America but to the corporate donors who own both parties.

For those who know the name Douglas Schoen, this shouldn't be all that surprising. His bio here focuses on being a "pollster for Bill Clinton", intended to provoke the thought of DEMOCRAT. This is the Fox News Democrat model, perfected by snakes like Dick Morris, in which someone with professional ties to the Democrats in the past (and therefore presumed progressives by their audience) will express disdain at the newest proposal or movement of the day with "Democratic Pollster" written under their name. It's an effective way of saying "Wow, [item of the day] is so out there, even Democrats are against it!"

When Schoen isn't shilling for Murdoch, he's the type of Democratic strategist that tells Hillary Clinton to run like a Republican against Obama and supporting guys like Jeff Greene (remember him?). Think DLC, think Mark Penn, etc.

Based on this record of success, Schoen has some news for Barack Obama and the Democrats: stay away from those radical Occupy Wall Street protesters!

Yet the Occupy Wall Street movement reflects values that are dangerously out of touch with the broad mass of the American people—and particularly with swing voters who are largely independent and have been trending away from the president since the debate over health-care reform.

The protesters have a distinct ideology and are bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies.

Oh shit! Well, okay, Obama does need to win independents in the election, and Schoen is mainly a pollster. Let's look at the methodology:

On Oct. 10 and 11, Arielle Alter Confino, a senior researcher at my polling firm, interviewed nearly 200 protesters in New York's Zuccotti Park. Our findings probably represent the first systematic random sample of Occupy Wall Street opinion.

Honestly, while it isn't going to be absolutely perfect (no polling is), and will only reflect the specific Occupy Wall Street New Yorkers as opposed to the nationwide protests (though I suspect the numbers are similar), this actually should give a somewhat respectable rundown of OWS opinions, depending on the question wording (which is never provided). Nonetheless, let's continue:

Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn't represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse.

...

The vast majority of demonstrators are actually employed, and the proportion of protesters unemployed (15%) is within single digits of the national unemployment rate (9.1%).

The right-wing echo chamber is focused on calling anyone who opposed Wall Street excess as lazy unemployed bums who should blame themselves; Schoen has apparently found they aren't unemployed enough to be representative! Ouch!

Some other demographic info:

An overwhelming majority of demonstrators supported Barack Obama in 2008. Now 51% disapprove of the president while 44% approve, and only 48% say they will vote to re-elect him in 2012, while at least a quarter won't vote.

Fewer than one in three (32%) call themselves Democrats, while roughly the same proportion (33%) say they aren't represented by any political party.

Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, virtually all (98%) say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and nearly one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda.

Expect the 31% number to pop up (I would've loved to see that question wording).

I'm...kinda curious what the other 35% said with regard to party; I somehow doubt Republican, even with the Ron Paul people, but I don't know what the other responses were. But really, this doesn't seem to back up the "Obama sponsored union astroturf" narrative thrown out by the Breitbarts of the world.

Here's where Schoen gets dishonest:

What binds a large majority of the protesters together—regardless of age, socioeconomic status or education—is a deep commitment to left-wing policies: opposition to free-market capitalism and support for radical redistribution of wealth, intense regulation of the private sector, and protectionist policies to keep American jobs from going overseas.

RADICAL! INTENSE! At the risk of sounding obvious, the implication here is that the opinions of OWS are going to be far, far outside the mainstream of American opinion.

WSJ:

By a large margin (77%-22%), they support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, but 58% oppose raising taxes for everybody, with only 36% in favor.

Let's set up a comparison: a new nationwide CNN poll, which asks a similar question. (Side note: Obama scores slightly better nationwide in approval, 46/50, than among the OWS crowd)

CNN:

"Do you support increasing the taxes paid by people who make more than one million dollars a year?"
Support: 76
Oppose: 24

"Do you support increasing the taxes paid by people who make more than two hundred fifty thousand dollars a year?"
Support: 63
Oppose: 37

Schoen's use of "the wealthiest Americans" obscure the issue a bit, but even if we take the $250,000 question, we still see strong support for increasing taxes on the wealthy in the general public.

What else is so radical about these guys?

Sixty-five percent say that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost.

This country does have a program for a secure retirement that goes by the name social security, and people seem to oppose messing with it.

The comparison point on "affordable health care" has been obscured a bit, as most polling on the issue is now highly focused on the health care law as opposed to the general concept (though note the change in perception when you include the option of the law not doing enough to expand affordable coverage). The earliest comparison point I can find is an old CBS poll from June 2009, which is almost directly in line with that portion of the question:

"Should government guarantee health insurance for all Americans?

Support 64
Oppose 30

Instead of noting this, Schoen jumps to a non-sensical comparison point:

Thus Occupy Wall Street is a group of engaged progressives who are disillusioned with the capitalist system and have a distinct activist orientation. Among the general public, by contrast, 41% of Americans self-identify as conservative, 36% as moderate, and only 21% as liberal. That's why the Obama-Pelosi embrace of the movement could prove catastrophic for their party.

Those numbers seem right, but I don't really see what they have to do with the other information provided, or why it implies the "Obama-Pelosi embrace of the movement" (which is pretty laughable anyway) will destroy the Democratic Party. I guess he's implying the OWS are all super-liberals or something (even though their opinions are pretty mainstream), and Americans aren't, so therefore destruction of the party. He continues:

Today, having abandoned any effort to work with the congressional super committee to craft a bipartisan agreement on deficit reduction, President Obama has thrown in with those who support his desire to tax oil companies and the rich, rather than appeal to independent and self-described moderate swing voters who want smaller government and lower taxes, not additional stimulus or interference in the private sector.

I missed the part where it was Obama giving up on the super congress, but ignoring that, I guess the point is independents and moderates don't want the rich to be taxed. From the same CNN poll:

Support for tax increases on $250,000+

Moderates
68% Support
30% Oppose

Independents
63% Support
35% Oppose

Support for tax increases on $1,000,000+

Moderates
81% Support
17% Oppose

Independents
75% Support
24% Oppose

And on the "stimulus" point, the support for infrastructure projects such as those prescribed in the jobs bill is 72-28, with independent and moderate numbers looking similar; stimulus in the form of hiring teachers and first responders is 75-24.

The other points Schoen makes is some kind of nonsensical argument that the OWS people support bailouts (based on a question of whether the bailouts were "necessary", 49 agree 51 disagree), and advocates that the Democrats separate themselves from such insane radical rhetoric as millionaires paying more in taxes.

They're hardly even trying anymore.