Lesson #2: If you describe yourself as Liberal, you probably approve of Obama

[USArmyParatrooper]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx

President Obama's job approval rating among Liberals: 76%

President Obama's job approval rating among Liberal Democrats: 88%

These are the most recent numbers from Gallup, even as his overall approval ratings remain at a meager 45%. This hammers home the fact that the current state of the economy, particularly unemployment is the single most pressing issue among voters. President Obama came into office at the worst possible time. Our economy was on the brink of a complete and total meltdown. Fortunately the bleeding has stopped and by definition the recession ended in July, 2009.

But recovery since then has been sluggish, with a few tidbits of positive signs. As for jobs growth we've by far had more positive months than negative - most recently with the 151,000 more jobs created last month.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20101105-713701.html

The Democrats didn't lose seats because Obama isn't Liberal enough. They lost seats for a few reasons, the most important of which is that we live in hard economic times. On the plus side we did the Senate. President Clinton lost the House and Senate immediately following his inauguration never to regain them. President Clinton is widely regarded as one of the more astute politicians to reside in the executive branch, and he didn't have the cards stacked against him nearly to the point Obama has.

In spite of certain Liberal publications like the Huffington Post and certain Liberal bloggers pissing on the President nonstop, his approval ratings remain high among Liberals.


- I just wanted to share some thoughts of my own.

[Cirque du So-What]

1. You needn't go to HuffPo or FDL to find liberal criticism of our President

You can find criticism bordering on vitriolic hatred a lot closer to home *cough*right here*cough*

[Chan790]

4. Guilty as accused.

I think he's done a piss-poor job. I don't think that's going to change though, I think it's a glaring weakness of his personality.

I will still support him however, as long as I have no liberals to support. I just will never be excited by him and his poor performance.

[laughingliberal]

8. Kind of where I'm at, too.

If he's the only alternative to the Republican candidate in 2012, I'll cast another vote for him.

Meanwhile, I'll continue to do what I can to get the message to him that 'centrist' policies that the Republicans were pushing 20 years ago are ineffective and that he needs to support and advocate for traditional Democratic economic policies like the ones that spurred the greatest expansion of a middle class the world had ever seen and the ones that cut poverty in half over a few years.

[jaxx]

2. Yep, I'm a liberal and I support Obama.

[sufrommich]

3. Internet forums tend to distort the temperature of the public.

I think that's true anywhere public comment is published.

[bigtree]

5. many long-serving liberals have been attacked by folks who identify themselves as progressives

. . . as akin to republicans because of their lack of support for one issue or the other. I remember well when these same legislators were fighting to hold up the left wing of our party. Sad to see so many vital folks tossed aside in the push to carve out a wider influence for their pov in the party.

The president is a good liberal, but I doubt that means much to many of the folks here who identify themselves as progressive.

[Coyote_Bandit]

6. Last I checked

24% was a statistically significant measure. So there are a statistically significant number of self-described liberals who do not support Obama.

I'd bet that poll allowed people to self-describe themselves as liberal without any guidelines as to what the term meant. Clearly not everyone has the same standards and measures as to what does or does not make one politically liberal.

I call bullshit on this poll. Without some understanding of who these so called liberals are then the measure is meaningless.

[USArmyParatrooper]

9. Statistically people are far less likely to refer to themselves as Liberal than Conservative.

And if you will only accept a narrow definition as YOU describe that number becomes much smaller.

I have actually seen Obama detractors say, "If you support Obama you're not a 'real' Liberal." If that's your litmus test to be a Liberal then in that case 0% support Obama, which probably sits very well with you.

I have no reason to doubt the vast majority of Americans who describe themselves as "Liberal" go left on all or most political issues.

[jaxx]

11. There is no purity test.

Liberals believe in most of the same things, equality, peace, living wages, choice and so on. Thinking there needs to be "guidelines" and "some understanding of who these so called liberals are" is just plain wrong.

Jeez

[USArmyParatrooper]

14. Also, it's "only" 76% of Liberals who are non-Democrats that approve of Obama.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. support and approve aren't the same

I think he's an atrocious president and I would crawl a mile to vote for him in 2012.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

[USArmyParatrooper]

10. Thank, I made the correction

76% and 88% of Liberals and Liberal Democrats (Approve) of Obama.

[jaxx]

12. Support and approval have a common interest.

Elections. Passing bills to move the country forward is the icing on the cake.

[TheKentuckian]

13. Saying that the problem is the economy and not his policies may not be an oxymoron but it is the

same neighborhood for sure.

The economy is creeping along but as long as the distribution and incentives remain the same we're screwed.

The economy being in the tank has a lot to do with stupid and anti-people policy set and endorsed by both of these corporate parties over the past 40 years or so.

You simply cannot look at the wealth and income distribution in this country and be expecting things to correct without substantial changes in trade and trade policy as well as incentive structures and accountability for criminality.

This shit is not magic, it happened because of human action and government policy.

We aren't fixing the economy we are hoping it is "turning around" or " will come back" like it is a fucking weather pattern

At this rate we'll have another crash we'll before any actual recovery.

[USArmyParatrooper]

15. Here's where we disagree

You believe a complete economic meltdown of epic proportion that was years in the making can be swept away and have low unemployment is less than 2 years.

And I believe that the fact that we've already been slowly recovering an amazing achievement, and that unemployment figures are always the last economic indicator to improve.

[TheKentuckian]

19. I've never, ever asserted that the problems could be corrected in two years

I state that they are not being turned around at all but rather the same paradigm is in place.

I do not believe in the potential for broad prosperity in the underlying economy and you do is the difference.

I cannot ignore the wealth and income distribution, the absurd trade policies, the perverse incentives, the overwhelming corporate influence and obvious corporate capture at all levels of government, the casual tossing away of the poor nor the refusal to address them.

[jgraz]

21. Bingo. It's amazing that people are still playing the "impatience" card at this late date

You'd think we'd explained it enough by now: it's not how fast he's moving, it's the direction in which he's moving.

[USArmyParatrooper]

23. We're discussing the economy

The economy added 131,000 additional jobs last month. Is that the wrong direction?

[jgraz]

27. Yes, it's the wrong direction

131,000 jobs is barely keeping pace with demand, as about 110,000 enter the workforce each month. Meanwhile, Obama has done nothing to prevent the next big crash, which will wipe away any small gains we've made against unemployment.

(BTW, I have a side bet that your next response will be something like, "so, you'd prefer we *lost* jobs?")

[USArmyParatrooper]

29. The sky is orange

(BTW, I have a side bet that your next response will be something like, "No it's not. It's blue")

You said it's not that we're moving too slow, it's that we're moving in the wrong direction. The opposite direction of jobs growth is jobs loss, and you just made the case that 131,000 new jobs is not enough.

I'm glad you have so much confidence in me pointing out your contradictions that you're willing to bet on it.


Summary of jgraz: It's not that 131,000 positive jobs growth isn't enough, it's that it's in the wrong direction. (The opposite of a positive is a negative).

[jgraz]

31. Second side bet: that you'd ignore the core point about the upcoming crash

That, I won.

[USArmyParatrooper]

33. There is no upcoming crash

I literally have my money where my mouth is on that one. If you think otherwise, pick up a bunch of shares of a bear market ETF.

[jgraz]

34. Well, that certainly settles it

:eyes:

[USArmyParatrooper]

36. There's nothing to settle

You speculate an upcoming crash in the economy, and I speculate otherwise.

The only thing that can settle that argument is a time machine. If you think you're right, bet against the market by picking up some share QID.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=QID+Basic+Chart

You said you wanted to bet we're going to crash, didn't you?

[jgraz]

37. I worked in finance for too many years to trust the market

My money doesn't go anywhere near that ponzi scheme, either way. That's the whole point of a crash -- the money isn't going to be there. We have between 600 trillion and 1 quadrillion dollars of untracked derivatives currently in the market. When that bomb goes off, nobody at our level is going to win.

But thanks for your continued investments. It's suckers like you who paid for my first house :hi:

[USArmyParatrooper]

39. I get to turn a profit AND pay for someone else's house?

Sounds like a win win.

So now we're not only going to crash, but crash to the point that "the money isn't going to be there" anymore? Good luck with that.

[treestar]

50. Jerky post

This attitude is like the one I see from right wingers.

[jgraz]

51. You should try understanding things before you pop off with the insults

For example, in my case I left Wall Street and took an 80% pay cut in order to stop fucking over retirees and union workers. If I was a right-winger, I would have stayed there, collected my bonuses and acted like I somehow "earned" it.

What galls me is seeing how many people willingly expose themselves to the Wall Street long con. So few people get that the game is rigged. If you think that's a "jerky post", then I can't help you.

[treestar]

49. This is just dumb

Unsupported nonsense.

Nothing to prevent the next big crash is the best you can do?

[USArmyParatrooper]

22. OK..

So you agree that at this point unemployment would be high regardless of what policies were put in place?

The main factor affecting elections right now is that unemployment is high, which is NOT the fault of Obama or the Democrats.

We have gone from 750,000 lost jobs per month when Obama took office to monthly positive jobs gains. We ARE recovering, just at a slow pace.

He has not ignored the poor. Just one example; would you say extending Medicaid to Americans at, or below 133% of the poverty income level is a good thing for the poor?

[TheKentuckian]

38. His ideology creates poverty. He does not address the structural problems

but rather seeks to cushion the fall.

There is no effort toward or intention of a remedy.

Hell, just accepting the frame of what poor is results in failure. 133% of poverty is LESS than a full time MINIMUM WAGE job.

Nowhere in this country is a minimum wage employee not pretty well dead in the water. Poor extends well beyond this bare bones estimation.

Don't try to claim you care about poverty when you allow (and/or encourage) the incentives, the tax structure, the trade policies, and corporate influence that fuels and exacerbates it.

We are getting more poverty not a decline. The wealth and income disparity has not been arrested but has grown. Wages are declining. The home foreclosures have not slowed. Infrastructure remains largely unaddressed which lowers the bottom. Services are being reduced. Nothing is being done to offset dwindling oil or about the negative effects of carbon based fuel which will put the poor of the world to the knife first.

Giving a few folks a little charity is not changing the underlying system. I do not get what about that is hard to understand.

[laughingliberal]

45. Exactly! None so blind as those who will not...nt

[laughingliberal]

16. +1000

Yes, the pattern has been set. Recoveries where people at the top are making out like...well...bandits and a crash just before any benefit reaches the working class. It's not an accident and, you're right, it's not going to change by going down the same road.

[mmonk]

17. Reality matters, not perceptions.

Reality is he is not very progressive. In fact, he is probably more conservative than some Republican presidents in the past. You can label something or someone all you want but the only thing that matters is reality and legislation and outcomes come from reality, not perception.

[Gormy Cuss]

18. So liberals criticize the president while approving of his job overall.

That's what many of the "pissers" here have said for months. Liberals understand that criticism of a leader isn't the same as working against that leader.

[de novo]

20. Very good point.

Amazing that it needs to be said.

[USArmyParatrooper]

24. For many (likely most) Liberals that is true.

But those aren't the Liberals being addressed. Hell, even I fall into that category.

[and-justice-for-all]

26. Liberals understand that criticism of a leader isn't the same as working against that leader."

I agree.

[USArmyParatrooper]

30. If only that were true for all Liberals.

[and-justice-for-all]

25. The only thing I am put off with is the bipartisan bullshit....

he should have told the thugs to go fuck themselves as they did to us for 8 fucking years of uber thug fail.

I am pleased with the massive amount of legislation that they did pass for US and what they did to save the jobs they did, if everything was allowed to go down with the ship, due to bush/reagan polices, we would be a third world country right now.

[JHB]

28. By the Gallup site, Obama is tracking closely to Reagan's approval pattern...

...both overall and within their respective parties.

But that never stopped movement conservatives (Buchanan, Gingrich, etc.) and media (Washington Times, Limbaugh) from loudly and incessantly criticizing Reagan whenever he "caved in" (read: compromised) and didn't give them everything they wanted.

In doing so they helped drag the entire framework of debate so far rightward that it was even possible to create the unholy mess that we're in. So "nonstop pissing" has its uses in the long game.

[SidDithers]

32. K&R...nt

Sid

[Greyhound]

35. Or, If you approve of Obama, you probably call yourself a liberal.

More useless noise...

[Individualist]

40. Correct

There are liberals, and there are those who call themselves liberals.

[USArmyParatrooper]

41. And whether or not you approve of Obama is the ULTIMATE purity test!

[DevonRex]

44. Around here it is. If you approve of him you're called all sorts of names. nt

[Number23]

48. That is EXACTLY what some have decided it is. And these same people no doubt wonder

why the number of Americans embracing the "liberal" banner is at its lowest.

[Scurrilous]

42. K & R

:thumbsup:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. I don't describe myself as a liberal and I don't approve of Obama.

"The Fascists will shoot you.
The conservatives will applaud the Fascists.
The moderates will watch the executions on TV.
The Liberals will cry over your grave and feel guilty for turning you in to the Fascists."

SDS saying.

[laughingliberal]

46. SDS rocked! nt

[grahamhgreen]

47. Really? If he pulled out of Iraqistan, we would have swept the elections. Public Option = WIN.

You say he lost because we "live in hard economic times."

It was his response to the hard times, instead of responding as a liberal, jailing banksters, and bailing out homeowners, ending "free" trade, bolstering unions, he did the opposite - entrenched a corrupt lazy, power elite into our system that it will take a generation to remove.


You could not be more wrong.


If you ask what policies do people support - the majority support positions far to the left of Obama and the republicrats.

the guy can't even close GITMO - is torture a liberal position?

[NYC Liberal]

53. "majority support positions far to the left of Obama and the republicrats"

So why did they vote for Republicans then? And not just your run-of-the-mill crazy Republicans, but some batshit insane teabagger Republicans?

As for not closing Guantanmo, talk to Congress. Obama signed the order two days after he took office. Congress has refused to provide the funding to transfer the detainees to regular prisons and dismantle it ("only American murderers and terrorists in our prisons, dammit!").

[BzaDem]

52. This should humble certain people here, but it won't. n/t