What Liberal Revolt?

[scheming daemons]

Does President Obama have a problem with his political base? That conclusion seems inescapable in recent weeks, as prominent liberal voices have expressed their unhappiness with the president, especially in regards to compromises in the health care reform legislation passed last month in the Senate. Howard Dean, for one, said he would prefer to "kill the Senate bill" and start over, as did groups like MoveOn.org and prominent progressive bloggers like Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake and Markos Moulitsas of DailyKos.

Encapsulating the theme, Doonesbury's Mark Slackmeyer -- the comic strip's most "unreconstructed" liberal -- vented his frustration with Obama during a week in which the fictional NPR talk show host pronounced Obama a "complete disappointment" and declared that Obama had "totally lost me."

Now of course, Doonesbury is a work of fiction, but you still have to assume that if a pollster asked, Slackmeyer would have answered "disapprove" when asked to rate the president's performance. How many real-world liberal Democrats share that sentiment?

According to the daily tracking poll conducted all year by the Gallup organization, very few.
.
.
.

Full article here:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/mp_20100104_1650.php

[Skittles]

1. I don't know ANYONE who is happy with this bill

outside of certain DUers

[TheWraith]

10. "But everyone I know voted for McGovern!"

Same effect.

[elocs]

27. I did and I hope to god that the Dems never throw another lamb to presidential election slaughter

like that. Naive idealism is great, but the point of running in an election is to actually win or to even have a slim chance of winning.

It was my very first presidential vote.

[ShortnFiery]

28. When "winning" only benefits the upper 1% regardless of Party, what GOOD is winning

for those of us in the working and middle classes? :shrug:

[elocs]

36. Surely there was a Democrat who had even a small chance of winning in 1972,

but George McGovern was not that candidate. I'm speaking specifically about 1972. The counterpart today would be to run Dennis Kucinich because that would pretty much be the same outcome as McGovern experienced in '72, but maybe not that good.

Today, particularly after 2008, I am much more cynical and jaded about politics inasmuch as candidates seem to tell you exactly what they believe you want to hear in order to get your vote and then once when they are elected they serve their true masters and do what they were always going to do all along. I don't have trust in words or promises anymore.

I don't think we can elect a president who will truly look out for the interests of the working and middle classes however much we might expect a Democrat to actually do that. Democrats seem big into compromise and bipartisanship and I tend to agree with Grover Norquist that bipartisanship is another name for date rape. Either way, if that is the approach of Republicans to bipartisanship, then it will never work as those naive Democrats believe. The irony is that the working and middle class Republicans work and support the ideals of the Republican party which really benefit the rich. Quite the con job there.

[ShortnFiery]

38. No, George McGovern was an excellent candidate. The media lied about him to the populace.

Not all that much different than the way they TRASHED both Gore and Kerry.

If only President Obama had the COURAGE and CONVICTIONS of the 1972 George McGovern we'd STOP occupying ME nations and use all those BILLIONS (700+ for 2010) for domestic programs that Americans so desperately need for increased quality of life.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0106-03.htm

THE DEMOCRATS see a hobgoblin under the bed, and his name is George McGovern. Low-grade panic is beginning to set in as pundits forecast a repeat of 1972: "As Massachusetts goes, so goes the District of Columbia." The prospect of "another McGovern" whets the appetite of Bush partisans while generating gloom and shame among Democrats. Howard Dean, for one, flees the association, while other candidates tar him with it.

Here's the problem: In 1972, McGovern was right. If there is shame attached to that election, it is America's for having so dramatically elected the wrong man. Apart from the rank dishonesty of Richard Nixon and his administration (a pattern of lies that would be exposed in Watergate), there were two world-historic issues that defined that election, and on both Nixon was wrong. 1972 was a fork in the road, and history shows that the United States made a turn into a moral wilderness from which it has yet to emerge.

McGovern was an opponent of the "we/they" vision. A prophet of detente, he has since been vindicated by history. He offered America a way out of the trap that opposes "realist" and "idealist" perspectives. McGovern understood not only that the Vietnam War was wrong but that in the nuclear age, the realist is the one who sees that the structures of war itself must be systematically dismantled. One hears the complaint from today's Democrats that McGovern, a decorated World War II bomber pilot, did not tout his war hero's record, but that entirely misses his most important point -- that fear of war and glorification of war are simply not to be exploited for political purposes, whether at the personal level or the national. What McGovern the candidate refused to do is what American presidents should refuse to do.

[ShortnFiery]

40. "... ideals of the Republican party which really benefit the rich"

IMO, presently BOTH the Democratic and Republican Parties' Congressional "Leadership" primarily SERVES THE RICH.

The only difference between the Democrats and Republicans in the Executive and/or Legislative Branch control is the EXTENT of endless warmongering and whether or not the poor and destitute will rate unemployment insurance and food stamps.

[elocs]

45. Yes, that may be true now but it is historically true of Republicans.

I thought of that after hearing a comment about how your basic poor Confederate soldier in the Civil War really was conned to do the fighting for rich plantation owners.

Our problem now as Democrats is how do we trust candidates who will tell us whatever they believe we want to hear in order to get our vote, then once elected they do what they always intended to do.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheWraith]

51. Not my point: anecdotes about who supports what don't mean much.

Skittles saying that no one they know is happy with the bill means about as much as me saying that I can't think of any friends I have who are against gay marriage. But that's not because being pro-gay-marriage is universal, it's because I have friends like me.

What I quoted was a famous comment from somebody in McGovern campaign HQ that election night. Sure, it could be completely true, but unless you know the entire US population it's also not much good to base such things on your friends. I dare say there's a lot of people who are going to be happy to see pre-existing conditions go away, premium increases be regulated, and a dozen other things this bill does.

[Clio the Leo]

2. The few who do just so happen to have access to the Internet.....

... and have lots of time on their hands. I say it all the time, "loud" doesn't mean "numerous."

[Armstead]

39. I know a number of people who don't spend much time on Internet who are disgruntled

This meme that the only people who have problems with the performance of Obama are crazed obsessed bloggers is pretty lame.

The Internet has opened access to communication and linkage is a good thing. It allows you to express your support, and me to express my frustrations.

It doesn't mean that either of us are not "real people."

[mkultra]

70. I dont know any real liberals that are upset

And i know a TON of liberals.
The only people i ever hear claim both to be liberals and to dislike Obama are here.

[bluestateguy]

3. We're good soldiers

We may be pissed about the bill, but when a pollster calls us up, we give all pro-Obama answers.

[Clio the Leo]

5. And when our backs are to the wall....

.... we know who brought us to the dance (this time anyway.) The last weeks worth of underpants bomber pundit/GOP outrage has been proof of that. Many of the talking heads who were highly pissed a month ago about Afghanistan were even MORE pissed at DeMint and Cheney for bashing the President.

[ShortnFiery]

29. Yeah, keep telling yourself that, but the entire country is in for a LONG COLD POLITICAL WINTER.

The only people who will benefit are the ultra-wealthy because the LOBBYISTS representing Wall Street and the corporations comprising the MIC ***OWN OUR CONGRESS*** ... it doesn't matter now who or from what party we vote for. Save for "a few" non-leadership small "d" members in Congress, everyone else is bought and paid for by the Political Ruling Elites.

Until we achieve Campaign Finance Reform, those of us in the Working and Middle Classes are SCREWED. The best case scenario for our financial welfare is GRIDLOCK. Therefore, I say, "I hope these CORRUPT legislators keep on fighting each other UNTIL the American People wake-up."

[dkf]

4. Those aren't good trends if you ask me.

Lower lows...

Maybe its bottoming though.

Is that the good sign?

[scheming daemons]

6. Among all groups except conservative Republicans, approval went up during Nov/Dec

Look at the graph again.

[dkf]

7. Yeah but the longer trend is down.

That is why I said it looks like he bottomed for now.

[scheming daemons]

8. Not among Liberals it isnt... 90% on inauguration day... 89% now

Among some other groups the trend is down... but not among liberals.


That was the point of the article.

[dkf]

12. Sometimes I think people say they approve just to give the other side grief.

You think Markos would tell a pollster he disapproved of Obama? No matter how mad he is, I doubt it.

[Cha]

56. Now you're just speculating to

try and bring others down to where you are.

No thanks, dkf.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cha]

66. Gawd damn right I'm cheerleading on Progess .

MoFo deadenders crying in the whine have no appeal.

[Drunken Irishman]

9. It was bound to go down.

But the drop isn't dramatic at all. On inauguration day, Pres. Obama had a 90% approval among liberal Democrats, probably roughly an 87% rating among moderate Democrats and roughly an 80% approval rating among conservative Democrats. Today, it's 89% among liberal Democrats, about 83% among moderate Democrats and maybe 78% among conservative Democrats.

To simplify it, here is the total decrease in an entire year:

Liberal Democrats: -1
Moderate Democrats: -4
Conservative Democrats: -2

That's well within the MOE for the liberal and conservative Democrats and the moderate Democrats drop is hardly anything.

[soyousay]

11. Most people have not a clue whats really in that bill.....including most of DU.

The revolt happens when they are finally told whats in it when it is too late to do anything about it.
From the mandates to the hinted higher premiums for smoking and obesity i am sure our wonderful leaders will have packed it full
of goodies. But hey who cares because our democratic team is going to the playoffs this year and we won the super bowl last year so rah rah rah!

[dkf]

14. I don't get how they will implement it either.

Is everything going to be submitted to Sebelius?

[JTFrog]

16. A DU expert who rags on democrats...

Welcome back.

Hope this stay is shorter than your last one. :eyes:

[Drunken Irishman]

21. So you don't say...

[ShortnFiery]

31. "But the drop isn't dramatic at all."

Bookmarking THIS GEM! When President Obama turns out to be a ONE-TERM President despite all our encouragement for him NOT to follow BushCo's Privatization and Warmongering Agendas, I'm going to bring this back to your attention. You've been way too loud and proud to not have someone in the future not say, "You've been warned." :(

[Drunken Irishman]

50. Deal!

And when he wins in a landslide, will you promise to stop posting your stupid fucking trading cards? :)

[Blasphemer]

43. It may be bottoming

We'll have to see how they progress over the next few months. Just looking at the current trend lines, they are down overall and it seems that the greatest upward shift is amongst Conservative Democrats.

[DeSwiss]

13. I know of ONE liberal.....

...in particular who is definitely revolted.

[dkf]

17. I'm a moderate but this HCR makes me gag.

I'm in the Dylan Ratigan camp of disgust.

[Grinchie]

60. I know at least 10 that are disgusted

And they know another 10, and so on and so forth.

The DLC Screwed the Pooch with this giveaway.

[spoony]

15. What about a telephone makes a person more real than being online?

Why are those so eager to dismiss any dissent also the most likely to pretend that the internet isn't populated with "real" people? Get with the fuckin times.

[BklnDem75]

46. Huh?

You can't even determine the sex of the person you're talking to over the internet, let alone their party affiliation. What's to stop a bunch of freepers from claiming they're Dems? Ever heard of freeped polls?

[spoony]

48. People can lie over the phone, too.

And assuming that people who disagree with you online are infiltrators or whatever is an easy, cheap way of dismissing them, like I said.

[BklnDem75]

54. I think there's a bit more to it

than asking random people what they think over the phone.

[yurbud]

67. this reminds me of ''Dewey Beats Truman'' when a lot of poor folks didn't have phones

now a lot of young and even middle aged people don't have or at least don't use, land lines. When are they going to figure out how to compensate for that in their numbers or contact people by other means like email?

[andym]

18. That's because DU represents a population of mostly extreme liberals

At least the results on this poll run last week seem to show DU average (I estimated 332/400 using an approximation of taking the overall mean after multiplying the average for each range by the number of votes) is significantly more progressive than the self-described liberals (242.3/400) in national polls.

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7349242

[GreenPartyVoter]

47. Our "extreme" is just the mainstream in some other countries.

[andym]

57. Forget other countries, DU's "extreme" was more mainstream in this country

before Reagan (on economic policy especially).

[GreenPartyVoter]

68. So I've heard. (I was 8 when Ray-gun was elected.)

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[2 Much Tribulation]

19. The percentages will stay largely stable because too many people are LEAVING Democratic party

(1) I know of people personally that have left the Democratic Party in their verbal statements (reporting what I heard), though I urged them not to leave.
(2) One poll, unfortunately by questionable Rasmussen, a week ago shows a 6 point drop in party identification for Democrats in a short period of time (if interested someone can find that and be more precise)
(3) The only real question is what are the numbers in terms of member loss. I don't think numbers are being added anywhere at the moment and I KNOW members are being lost from personal experience. It's just a question of HOW MANY
(4) In any event, NOT A GOOD IDEA to make whoever IS or may be in "revolt" feel small and insignificant, because it increases the chances they will either leave or be inactive quite a bit.

[Grinchie]

62. Point 4 -- DU Moderators need to learn this.

Beware of drowning the message in the bathtub by being too eager to placate the Propaganda Club that seems to be in the majority at the moment.

[Kablooie]

20. And I thought the health bill would be so easy, a caveman could do it.

Unfortunately cavemen designed it.

[grantcart]

22. Every Monday Gallup produces the same break out by ideological classification

and Obama is at historic highs with liberals and historic lows with conservatives.

But the otherworld of DU is in denial.

Hence Nate's rather gloomy description.

[tblue]

23. Wow! So everything's fine! I guess.

I would never tell a pollster how mad I was at Obama. I'm glad he has strong support because the rightwing hate machine is in overdrive. Anything that pisses them off can't be that bad.

[Hello_Kitty]

53. Same here. I don't like everything Obama is doing but I'd still say "approve" if I were polled.

I HATE his handling of health care and the financial system but I LOVE his handling of foreign policy and terrorism.

[reggie the dog]

24. the usa is a lost cause

this poll shows me that liberal americans are farther to the right than conservatives here in France....Yes, according to this poll most liberals favor policies that even our president Sarkozy has some opposition to, and he is hard right....I guess I am no longer in touch with most liberals so I will just call myself a socialist now.

[ShortnFiery]

35. No, "liberals" as defined by ruling political elite democrats are

basically "centrists" and/or "right leaning" democrats not the "liberal democrats" of the 1970s USA Congress. The TERM itself has been ruined by misuse.

[Chulanowa]

25. Weirdest thing...

Is how the conservative republican line CRASHES THROUGH THE FLOOR a mere five days after the inauguration, with the course of hte line suggesting their approval might have been as high as 50% in early January.

I can't make sense of that one.

[boppers]

26. But my internet outrage posts are important, as am I!

Surely, my rants must change the minds of the thousands/hundreds/family members who read my blog!

[jefferson_dem]

30. Truth!

K/R.

[ShortnFiery]

33. The least RELIABLE data are gleaned from Surveys and Self-Reports.

But keep waving those "Democratic Party Insiders Rule" pom-poms high. :eyes:

[jefferson_dem]

42. So Gallup and Mark Blumenthal are unreliable.

:crazy:

Much better to gain insight on public opinion from random postings on a random political blog / discussion forum.

[depakid]

32. Guess you'll have to wait and see

Some folks are stubborn and only learn the hard way- even when the writing's clearly on the wall.

Keep on toting those Gallop polls though!

They reflect American reality don't ya know!

:rofl:

[PVnRT]

34. So, then

those liberals who are upset with Obama and "in revolt" are an insignificant, useless minority...yet they are somehow single-handedly responsible for anything bad happening because they post mean things on the internet and say mean things to reporters.

How does this work again? I'm confused.

[zbdent]

37. according to the Repugs, er, "liberal media" ...

the "left" is simultaneously in lockstep with Obama's "socialist agenda" and revolting against him ...

go figure ...

[Armstead]

41. If I were asked by a poll, I'd go for "Approve" but it doesn't mean I have no issues with him

It would be a hell of a lot more constructive to have a real dialogue about why people express displeasure, instead of trying to dismiss and insult everyone who has some issues with Obama but want him to do well (better) on issues.

[RepublicanElephant]

44. i wonder how many of those polled were mad at obama about some SINGLE issue...

...as opposed to his OVERALL job performance.

and i wonder how many of those polled would rather have the bush/cheney crime family running things again.

[freddie mertz]

49. "There is no revolt, so you 'revolters' should just shut up!"

:cry: :cry: :cry: :boring: :thumbsdown:

[spoony]

65. Yeah I love the dozen threads a day fighting the dissent that doesn't exist.

(But what do I know, I'm online, not like a real person, lol.)

[totodeinhere]

52. I don't take any credence in polls like this.

So much depends upon how the question was asked, how the sample was drawn up, and other factors. Plus what the opinion leaders such as Markos Moulitsas say is important. Usually the most politically involved and the most informed are out front on these issues, then the general public comes along later.

In no way does this poll convince me that Obama is not in trouble with his liberal base, the same base that got him elected. Does that mean that we will vote for a Republican next time? Of course not. But it might mean that we will not work as hard for him next time and in a close election or in another election that the other side tries to steal, our lack of enthusiasm for him might be an important factor.

[Kaleva]

55. Because it turns upside down your world view?

People readily believe things that support their world view and suspect or dismiss that which doesn't. For those that are unhappy with Obama, the Gallup and Kos polls can't be trusted and to those that support Obama and are pleased with his performance, the polls are valid and accurate.

[davidpdx]

63. I'm pretty sure by the end of the year there are going to be AT LEAST two dozen people

on here calling for Obama not to run for another term. I'll give 2 to 1 odds to open. Anyone game?

[mmonk]

64. Alot of people that aren't politically active or intertwined view him

as liberal like they did Clinton. It will depend on how well he can keep the cover in 2010.

[Odin2005]

69. Just shows how many Dems prefer loyalty to a party and a person over their principles.

Clinton was popular too and he signed NAFTA.

[mkultra]

71. My principle is loyalty against republicans

It all starts there. If you try to tell me that i need to take a fresh look at the GOP, then you can forget it.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.