CNN POLL: 74% of Democrats want to re-nominate Obama in 2012.

[jefferson_dem]

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/08/13/rel11d.pdf

[Forkboy]

1. I wouldn't be worried about Dems. It's Independents I'd think about.

Obama's support has been, and will continue to be, very strong with Democrats. It's the Independents who could make or break it for him (though I don't think he has any big worries there either, unless the GOP miraculously finds a sane candidate).

[NJmaverick]

2. You're most likely correct. I would suggest this is what is holding the President

from moving even further to the left. Moving farther left is not going to win many independents over.

[Skittles]

3. moving further to the left would put him in the middle

[NJmaverick]

5. You know the right

had no desire to push for Wall Street/Bank regulatory reform

had no desire for a job saving stimulus

had no desire for pumping billions into green energy and energy conservation measures

had no desire to regulate insurance companies or ensure millions of uninsured could get access to healthcare (through government subsidies)

the right didn't call for the end of DODT or the closure of GITMO

the right didn't want all of the Bush Era restrictions on abortions ended

the right didn't want two liberal female judges appointed to the highest court in the land

[Skittles]

7. the left wants REAL CHANGES, not half-assed measures

[NJmaverick]

9. You are painting with an overly broad brush

some of the left will only except perfect change and anything less than that is considered "half-assed measures"

some of the left appreciate the numerous obstacles to our ultimate goals and are very happy with all the change that has been enacted, even if it's not perfect

some of the left are not happy with the pace of change or that change wasn't as extreme

[phleshdef]

10. You don't know what you want, You just know if Obama gets it done then its disqualified.

[bobburgster]

75. You need to be politically realistic.

in the current political climate you can not just make huge drastic changes. The margin for passage is to slim....even worse when you count how many votes are owned by lobbyists.

[TheWraith]

6. And meanwhile, up is down and water is dry.

Earth to Skittles.

[Skittles]

8. I live in the real world

if you're satisfied that is your fantasy but stop thinking it's those of us in the real world who are dreaming

[TheWraith]

11. If you think Obama is right-wing, than you're not dreaming, you're self-deluding. nt

[Skittles]

13. I never said he is RIGHT-WING

simply that he is further to the right than I care for

[Pirate Smile]

19. You expect him to get unrealistic things through Congress and blame him for not doing it.

Focus on the Senate. That is the real impediment.

[depakid]

36. We expect him to try

and to at least put up a fight and use the powers of his office.

[Jim Sagle]

43. And if you claim he's NOT right wing, you're not dreaming OR self-deluding, you're lying.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

52. Re: delusion

[stevenleser]

56. Since we dont know what data was used to create that graph, it is irrelevant. n/t

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

65. Except that it jibes with votes and public statements. nt

[stevenleser]

67. Like what? You can't claim to have empirical evidence and then not show the data. n/t

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

74. Take Obama off the chart. Do you disagree with where the others are placed?

His positions on the Patriot Act, FISA, wiretapping and assasinations of US citizens abroad alone move him right/up of center. I'm surprised saying he is right of center is controversial at all.

:shrug:

[stevenleser]

77. I think everyone is misplaced on that graph.

First off, Duncan Hunter, Alan Keyes and Tom Tancredo are the furthest right of the Republicans listed. Even so, they are not one tick away on the left/right scale from Hitler and Mussolini, who would be pinned all the way to the right.

Kucinich should be much closer to where Nader is now and Nader should be a few ticks down.
Virtually all of the Democrats listed should be + or - one tick from where Kucinich is now.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

78. Pardon my obtuseness...please give x,y axis for Hitler and Mussolini on the following grid...

'Cause I don't see it. :freak:

Forecast: Lots of straw.





Quoth stevenlesser: "Even so, they are not one tick away on the left/right scale from Hitler and Mussolini, who would be pinned all the way to the right."



Clue: Please don't drag Hitler and Mussolini into this discussion. It just cheapens this already useless debate.

G'day.

[stevenleser]

80. Clue: This graph is your attempt at evidence, so if it doesnt work, its your problem, not mine

Hitler and Mussolini as well as folks like Pol Pot, are not only extremely relevant to a graph like this, they are critical for perspective since they help define various extreme positions on the graph. The maximum and minimum values of any universe of numbers is important to graphing.

Its amazing that this concept would be lost on you. Didnt you ever take geometry or precalculus in high school? Anyone with a basic background in any mathematics, social sciences, economics or anything else where analyzing numbers is important would know this.
That being said, Hitler and Mussolini would be in the top right corner, Pol Pot in the top left corner.

As I mentioned before, Duncan Hunter, Tancredo and Keyes are not one tick from Mussolini and Hitler anymore than Nader would be one or two ticks from Pol Pot.

The most extreme right Republicans (Hunter, Tancredo and Keyes) are probably three ticks in from the right. All the Democrats you have in the top right quadrant belong in the bottom left quadrant within one tick in any direction from -2, -2.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

82. The graph lacks evidence yet you pinpoint various areas on the graph.

I rest my case.

[bobburgster]

76. Nice pic....who made it?

and based on what?

[vaberella]

15. Laughable when looking at Teabaggers. n/t

[Forkboy]

24. I honestly don't know if that's true or not.

Every Indy I know is further left than I am, but that's just anecdotal, so I honestly don't know. Might depend a lot on the region in question as well.

[beforeyoureyes]

79. You think independents voted for Obama for right of center governing?

That is a corporate media myth talking point...

Liberal policies are GOOD policies and if Obama truly championed them, the independents would be in the bag.

People are seeing the same old, same old with this President. That is where the loss of support is coming from...

[bigwillq]

4. Good post.

:thumbsup:

[Forkboy]

25. I worry about how long we can count on the Republicans sucking wind.

We're lucky that they suck so much, because what we're selling probably doesn't come across all that much better.

[depakid]

12. Almost 1/4 of Dems prefer someone else.

That's impressive, considering that quite a few of those are likely dissatisfied but think that he would have the better chance to beat the Republican.

Expect those numbers to get worse for the administration as the economy continues to stagnate on Main Street.

[catgirl]

16. It is impressive

He's doing a hell of a lot better than Bill Clinton did. What a Debbie
Downer move. Shouldn't be surprised though.

[Ter]

41. How Clinton escaped a primary challenge still baffles me to this day

n/t

[stevenleser]

57. What is so baffling about that? There have been no succesful primary challenges of incumbent

Presidents since the 1840s. It is a fools errand. Even if you somehow win, and you won't, you are virtually guaranteed to alienate enough of your party to assure a general election loss.

[Ter]

60. No one challenges a President expecting to be successful

You challenge him when you think either they will lose in the general election, or when you think they are so bad the opposition isn't much better. Another reason to challenge is to set yourself up to run with name recognition next election. Reagan and Pat Buchanan did this, in 1976 and 1992.

[stevenleser]

61. Tell that to your family or to the supporters who fund your campaign

"I'm not going to win this time, dear, but support me through all of the long hours and vitriol we are going to have to deal with"

or

"Please give me $25, $100, $2000 to run my campaign. I really don't expect to win so that money is completely wasted, but please fork it over anyway."

Yeah, good plan.

[Ter]

69. I highly doubt Reagan or Buchanan thought they were gonna win in 1976 and 1992

Kennedy might have thought he would win in 1980, or perhaps not. Maybe his motive was to push Carter to the left.

[jefferson_dem]

17. Ah...

Right.

Keep spinning. It's what you do.

[depakid]

21. Hardly spin to look at what the numbers say

Many of people's problems around here is that they have never taken any stats or qualitative analaysis courses- and have no experience in interpreting data or methodology.

That leads them at times to make inaccurate or absurd claims, and renders them unable to reasonably predict tendencies or trends.

Oh, polls says ___________ therefore good for Obama! That's all they want to hear- and so that's all that they see.

[jefferson_dem]

22. The only factual statement you made was in the subject line.

The rest was totally unsubstantiated nega-spin.

[depakid]

26. Not spin at all!

Only someone with no experience interpreting data would think that.

Some dissatisfied people WOULD choose to renominate when asked in such a poll, based on their perception of who would likely beat the Republican (or that a primary would damage the eventual nominee).

You see people make that argument all the time right here on DU!

And if you don't think those numbers will trend poorly for the administration as the economy stagnates and unemployment remains high, -or gets gets worse, well you'll be on the receiving end of a reality check come the next several rounds of polling on the matter.

[jefferson_dem]

27. "Only someone with no experience interpreting data would think that."

Well...ya got me there.

Right.

[SoxFan]

30. Depakid, please be honest

Did you vote for Obama or Nader?

If you have a choice between Obama and Nader in 2012, who do you vote for?

[phleshdef]

31. Neither, he/she is Australian and therefore doesn't vote.

I could be way off, he/she might be an American citizen abroad, but based off the profile, thats all one can gather.

[depakid]

35. You could be way off

and not paid much attention over the years (or even over the last several weeks).

Yep- I vote alright (though I am in fact working in this election in Oz for the Greens, who it looks like will hold the balance of power no matter which of the major parties wins).

As to Sox Fan's question, it's more important who I and others like me be voting for in 2012 (though I can honestly say that, as things have played out, I regret my support for Obama in 2008- as I had a feeling I might).

At least Hillary wouldn't have backed away from conflict, enable and legitimized Republicans at every opportunity or grovelled to the likes of Lieberman.

[jefferson_dem]

47. "At least Hillary ..."

That really says it all.

[SoxFan]

48. Obama v. Nader v. Romney

Who do you vote for?

[NorthCarolina]

50. Hillary may not have backed from a fight as easily, but she is still

DLC, so her political agenda would have been the same as Obama's, so nothing of significance would be different. Obama appears to be timid because the Democratic Party controls the White House, the house, and the senate. It's hard to keep the mantle of progressive while pushing a conservative agenda through a Democratically controlled legislature. Cleaving off the Senate to the GOP, which is what I believe they hope to do, will give the administration the luxury of plausible deniability....blame the lack of progressive legislation on the GOP controlled Senate. As of now, they are having to rely on the "we don't have 60 votes" mantra....and they know much of the public doesn't buy that line.

[depakid]

51. I imagine that would be the case, as there were few policy differences between two

and those that there were (mandates for example) Obama backed away from

So, all things being equal, we'd all have been better off with someone who wouldn't have spent 18 months enabling and legitimizing and seeking acceptance from Republicans- but instead deriding and placing the blame on them for their failed policies and ideology.

That and twisting the arms of the likes of Lieberman et. al -making them pay a price, rather than grovelling to them.

[stevenleser]

58. Either tell me what planet you are on or admit to what you are smoking or snorting...

So, in your world, he is "trying to push a conservative agenda through a Democratically controlled legislature" and that is the problem?

In your warped interpretation of reality, the Senate really wants a much more progressive agenda and Obama won't let them have it?

Wow. Just wow.

[NorthCarolina]

64. Nowhere did I say

that the Democratically controlled Senate wants a more progressive agenda than Obama. The DLC controlled Senate is as conservative minded AS Obama. Rather, I said that a GOP led Senate would give them plausible deniability for the DLC conservative pro-corporate legislative goals. They will obviously achieve their goals either way, but a GOP led Senate would allow the DLC the luxury of hiding behind a false progressive mantle. It's a little tougher to claim to be a progressive when your party controls everything in DC.

[Hawkowl]

73. Agree 100%

That is just about exactly how I see it. My biggest fear of Hillary was her corporate whoredom as a Senator for NY. Obama was much more sly and simply waited to command a higher price as President.

[Aramchek]

38. he'll be our president til 2017, what will you do until then? this same old game???

[depakid]

63. If you mean have a laugh and point out absurdities with the Apparatchik's

Probably so if that scenario comes to pass..

[Mass]

49. Very unimpressive. Compared to the previous Democratic president, these numbers

are pretty good, in fact.

[xchrom]

14. Good. I don't see anything revelatory there.

The masses are usually late to whatever the real game is.

[Pirate Smile]

18. I'm surprised how low Clinton's #'s had dropped - 57%.

[jefferson_dem]

20. In December 1994, Clinton was -14 versus an un-named repug...

My...how things changed in the next two years.

[Pirate Smile]

23. Those are the things great to remember. Ohhh, the sky is falling. Not so fast.

[Ter]

42. If it wasn't for Timothy McVeigh, crazy Newt Gingrich, and a lackluster candidate like Dole...

He may have lost. Clinton had some good breaks politically by 1996.

[craigmatic]

28. Anybody get the feeling that Obama might not want to run again? Or am I just being paranoid?

You have to admit he governs like a guy who doesn't care if he gets re-elected by pushing his agenda and facing the kind of opposition he does.

[old mark]

29. He almost certainly will run. He LOVES the job, don't let that humble bullshit fool you...

He is a politician, first and foremost.


mark

[marlakay]

40. I sometimes wonder that

especially when he took a stand on the mosque today.

[cherokeeprogressive]

32. 26% of Dems don't... that's a lot of piss tests. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

33. Authoritarians love those piss tests don't they? I guess they do crank and coke an know it will

will flush right out.

They can sit and spin though. Their shit is coming down too.

[bornskeptic]

53. No. 26% of Dems and Dem-leaning independents don't.

So something like 20% of the people polled do not claim to be Democrats. According to exit polls 10% of self-identified Democrats voted for McCain, and 11% voted for Bush both in 2000 and 2004. Most of those people are southern and border state Democrats who usually vote Democratic in local elections, but won't ever vote for a Democratic presidential nominee who is pro-choice. The majority of the 26% almost certainly come from those two groups.

[saltpoint]

34. A similar question, asked of Democratic Committee

Chairs & officers county by county and district by district, would likely yield an even higher percentage to re-nominate.

This is where the canvassing occurs, where the after-hours pizza is delivered, where strategy is explored and enacted, and where real work gets done -- very likely quite a bit of it in Obama's case.

If his interest in a second term is a given then his renomination is certain, IMO.

[Kind of Blue]

37. The Base is still there and still strong.

Nice way to close the week. Now, moving on to the problem of kicking Republican/Blue Dog asses and getting our Democratic-leaning Indies to vote.
Thank you very much for posting.
KnR

[CTLawGuy]

39. I would bet money

that if you asked only LIBERAL Democrats the "renominate" number would go up.

[smalll]

44. Wow -- "different candidate" -- 23% --

So any old nameless, faceless challenger already has 23% in his (or her) pocket.

A challenge is not unplausible -- it won't be a Ted Kennedy-level challenge ('80) but it could definitely be a Buchanan-level one ('92.)

That needn't be fatal however: Bush the father lost far more because of Perot than because of Buchanan's quixotic attempt.

Plus, I just think, us here in GDP need to be able to properly, freely FIGHT with each other in GD"Primaries" for a few months every four years. You know, just to let off some steam. Relieve the pressure. My war-hammer's getting rusty. :shrug:

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

45. That's not how it works....

A nameless, faceless candidate gets 23%.

The minute that candidate has a name and a face, half (or more) of those 23% say, "Naw, that's not quite what I was looking for -- what else do you have?"

An actual candidate would probably get no more than 10% support, depending on the candidate, of course.

[Alcibiades]

54. Nameless opponents regularly do better than real ones

Polling creates false choices that are unlike those in the real world. Most actual ballots don't have a "someone else" option, and people who do choose this option are throwing their vote away. This is very much like the finding that Americans hate Congress, but like their congressperson: some Democrats may not like Obama, but they probably don't like anyone else, as in an actual, specific person with actual, specific positions, better.

[smalll]

71. Thanks. You're right. I feel a little silly; I forgot about that. /nt

[BeyondGeography]

46. A primary challenge would help clarify things for a few people

Obama would welcome the chance to debate a challenger from the left. He would be respectful and persuasive to many (though not all) who presently feel disenchanted. It would serve more to unify the party than to divide it further, IMO.

The comparison with Clinton is tricky because he was headed into much better economic times than we are by all indications. Obama's numbers by 2012 could be closer to Clinton's '94 numbers than they are now. But the point still stands.

[Scurrilous]

55. K & R

:thumbsup:

[L0oniX]

59. The use of this poll panders to the crowd that wants the comfort of being in the majority group.

Safety in numbers and all that. The majority isn't always right but it certainly should be.

Good luck with any real change to our corrupt system from either party. What's needed first is campaign finance reform where corporations are entirely excluded from the political system. Next we must remove person hood from corporations. Then we need to reduce the pentagon budget to something reasonable and comparable to what other countries spend. That would mean voting everyone of the sons of b*tches out of office that continually vote for more war and pentagon funding. 3rd is that we need to have a law that forbids any congress person and or senator from voting on any issue that has any connection to their sock portfolio. 4th we need a jobs restoration bill that demands a fare and equal trade that reduces the unfair advantage that slave labor gives other countries. We can't continue to have our jobs go over seas for any reason ...and I emphasize "any reason". We have to decide who we care more about ...our own or other countries. IMO we need some nationalism and I don't mean go overboard with this but enough of it to secure our jobs and our financial well being. 5th we need to restore the constitution and prosecute the war crimes of those involved at all levels. WTF people why do we stand for this shit where they get to commit crimes and don't pay for it when the little guy gets life in prison for getting caught with an OZ of weed in Texas? I mean what the fuck?

I think we members of DU could work on these issues and agree to come to a reasonable conclusion as to what really needs to be done and in what order to fix our system. The infighting gets us no where and hurts us. At this point politically I can't get behind anyone unless I or we can force them to carry out what they promise and infer that they will do once they gain office. Maybe we need an employment contract with them that gets all the promises down and binding. We can't take the lies anymore from any party. Our country is in a very dangerous position and it's not a joking matter anymore.

I don't believe that DU has the gumption to do this but I throw it out here anyway. I have settled for what Gore Vidal and others have said about our sorry ass situation. I only wish that we wouldn't stand for anymore of this selling us out shit and do something about it instead of playing debate team here. Telling me or others that what they think or what they would do will not work is not constructive "if you don't offer a reasonable solution" in its place. If you have a better idea or better arrangement of the steps needed to fix and or restore our constitution and balance of powers then speak out. I do think I know this for sure ...unless we remove the corporate owners of our system we are going to be their slaves if we are not already. Are you willing to settle for that?

[stevenleser]

62. More like you don't like the results of the poll, so you attack it or those who refer to it

Nice try.

[L0oniX]

70. Nice try but you read into it too much. My response is about polls in general.

[Forkboy]

68. That's what all polls do, and that's many use them for.

[denimgirly]

66. If he can be a Progressive and not just campaign like one then I'd vote again...

otherwise NO CHANCE...i'm staying home

[dionysus]

81. bless your little heart for doing your best to help republicans.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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