Most 'liberals' polled seem fine with supporting President Obama

[bigtree]

from Ezra Klein: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/obama_and_the_left.html


Obama and the left

I understand why the White House is frustrated by the criticism from the "professional left" and feels progressives should focus on all the progressive things the administration has done rather than all the things it hasn't been able to do or interested in doing. What I don't understand is why Robert Gibbs would voice that frustration to the press. His comments just turn this into a "story," giving the very professional lefties whose criticism is rankling the White House another high-profile opportunity to criticize the White House.

Baffling. Meanwhile, it's worth noting that this is largely a Beltway phenomenon: According to Gallup, Obama is at 81 percent among self-described Democrats and 76 percent among self-described liberals. His problem is that he's at 38 percent among self-described independents and 55 percent among self-described moderates. Now, this might tell you less than meets the eye: Maybe independents would like Obama better if he'd followed the professional left's advice and really hammered the banks or sped up the withdrawal from Afghanistan.

But so far as the polls go, Obama is doing okay among the left. In fact, as the graph below shows (click on it for a larger version), his approval trends among Democrats, independents and the country mirror Ronald Reagan's ratings among Republicans, independents and the country almost exactly.



read: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/obama_and_the_left.html

[saltpoint]

1. If this president seeks re-election I think his

renomination is assured.

His critics on the Far Right are the virulent danger because they do not hesitate to conjure nonsense and slander when attacking him.

And the Supreme Court has agreed to permit their skullduggery to be financed in unlimited sums.

[joeybee12]

3. Oh yeah, no Dem will challenge him...

but his re-elction is far from secure...could easily lose if the repukes don't nominate someone insane...which they will probably do.

[saltpoint]

5. Hi, joeybee12. I'd rather have Axelrod's job, though,

than the Puke strategists' job.

First they have to hope no one gets killed in their nomination alleyfight. It could get real nasty real soon after the mid-terms.

There are a handful of dark horse Pukes who could slip onto the ticket if the GOP base rejects Willard's Mormon profile and if Huck sits this one out.

In that scenario, it's going to be entertaining to watch the really crazy Republican hopefuls try to out-crazy and out-hate each other.

[LaurenG]

2. but is president Obama fine with supporting liberals?

He needs to muzzle his stupid dogs.

edit - spelling

[bigtree]

6. I think the President likes liberals alright

. . . not so much the principles and absolutes we advocate. He's fine with us if we don't mind his co-opting of our goals with his rightward compromises.

[elleng]

9. 'Principles' fine; 'absolutes?' Surely not, he's a reasonable, moderate person.

Liberals and progressives should be happy to support him.

[bigtree]

11. sure

. . . except, of course, for those whose 'absolutes' in their own lives are negatively affected by these compromises.

Politically, they may well be a minority of the support he has from Democrats, but they may also make up a critical difference in close races.

[rucky]

4. So why was Gibbs trashing his base?

[bigtree]

10. this WH believes it's championing the left in its compromises

. . . but they really aim to cast their administration in the center by peeling off compromises from their liberal flank to try and appease the right. This President has always (incorrectly) assumed that his left-leaning credentials are a given, and has operated as if our principles were his to auction off for republican votes. Most Democrats (on the whole) haven't withdrawn their support in response to that agenda. The problem, politically, is that it's going to be hard to get those folks on the left who are outside of those 'centrist' compromises to make up the difference in close races so there will be the inevitable courting of the right by these WH 'pragmatists' to make up the difference.

[jwirr]

13. Political reasons? It is still popular to trash liberals and he may be

using it during this primary election season to court the independents. I suspect that is a mistake because they are also falling away because he has not done what they expected him to do.

[KansasVoter]

7. I was on the good side of that poll until Gibbs decided to make fun of me!

[depakid]

8. Ezra just got smacked down for his take on Ryan "the Republican intellectual"

Not sure why anyone after such a Fox newsy type deal would give Ezra one ounce of credibility anymore.

I mean come on- Ryan the intellectual?

:rofl:

He's flimflam man- and Ezra's opinion on anything hereafter has taken a big dive by being taken in.

[bigtree]

12. so he holds an opinion you disagree with? Meh.

who doesn't?

[zipplewrath]

14. Jobs, Jobs, and mortgages.

Maybe independents would like Obama better if he'd followed the professional left's advice and really hammered the banks or sped up the withdrawal from Afghanistan

There is alot of truth in this. Amongst the "moderate" independents I know (as oppose to the closet conservatives calling themselve independents because their pissed at the GOP) their significant issue with Obama is they don't really "know" what to expect. They'd prefer he be a tad more consistent even when they think he's wrong, that seemingly moving around the map.

They are confused on Gitmo and Afghanistan, and not the same way that the left is. With Gitmo it's a "if he didn't want to close it, why'd he make such a big fuss?". They don't see the point in just moving it to Illinois, they'd rather it either be closed, or stay where it is.

On Afghanistan, they figure either end it, or stop all this "deadline" stuff. Either you're going to fight this war, or your not. They don't see the point in just dragging it out to prove some point that "we tried". We've been there long enough for that standard. And they'd actually like to see Osama hanging from a noose some where.

On HCR, they seem to be vastly more satisfied, again if you filter out the baggers calling themselves independents, they see it overall as a plus sum gain. They aren't thrilled with the mandates either nor the cadillac taxes, again a tad bit of consistency issue, but the various things like employer based insurance, no pre-existing, coverage of kids to 26, they are all good. They were fairly pissed with the process, but that's quickly fading.

They hate the bank bailouts. They don't hate TARP per se and believe it was necessary, but they are pissed that the banks got bailed out "with bonuses" and their homes are underwater on their mortgage.

And they are pissed that the stimulus didn't bring the unemployment below 7%. And that is the real killer. Between their mortgages that are underwater, and the jobs that aren't there, they don't see that Obama has concentrated on their core issues. Too much time running around the world making speaches, and too much time focusing on the banks, Big Pharma, and health care at a time that they needed him to be focused on jobs, jobs, and mortgages.

I don't agree with them on many of these things, at least not entirely. But I can see what they are complaining about.