I was wrong. I said that Obama needed to move to the left to get his poll numbers up.

[totodeinhere]

And I said that if he compromised with the Republicans his base would desert him and without them he would be a one term president. And of course I wasn't the only one saying that.

Yet look what happened. He has moved to the right, not to the left. He signed off on tax cuts for the rich. And he continues to talk up bipartisanship and he has said that he is ready and willing to work with the republicans in Congress. That's exactly what I didn't want him to do. But his poll numbers are way up, not down.

And I'm sure that his political advisers are telling him that to stay popular with independents he must get along with the Republicans. And they are saying that some in his base may not like it but they will have nowhere else to go anyway.

If this all seems to be working out in the next few months then it might also mean that while Obama will be reelected, the Republicans will also retain control of the House and might take the Senate in 2012 since independents will also approve of their working with Obama, since it's a two way street.

[derby378]

1. You don't think his speech in Tucson might have something to do with that?

Obama's still in the doghouse with a lot of Democrats ove his first two years in office, make no mistake about that.

[Cali_Democrat]

2. Obama's numbers were steadily moving up before the Tucson speech.

[totodeinhere]

4. His numbers were up even before that speech. And what did he say in the speech?

He said lets not assign blame for the tragedy. Even the likes of Glen BecKKK praised that speech. It was a centrist speech.

[TeacherB87]

5. What? The 15%?

If Obama could pass those tax cuts and still retain almost 80% of liberals he will be fine with the base come 2012. It is about convincing Independents, especially those who voted in 2008 but didn't bother in 2010. The liberals will always go along because they are nothing if a rationally interested group. They know he is the best they can get in this country.

[ClassWarrior]

17. Sure, as you say, "the liberals will always go along because they know he is..."

"...the best they can get in this country."

But they won't be enthusiastic, which means they won't volunteer to get out the vote. Which means most of those independents who are boosting his approval ratings by answering a telephone poll with their asses planted firmly on their couches won't get around to getting off their asses and going to the polls when E-Day rolls around - just like 2010 all over again.

Remember, that 15% to whom you so dismissively refer are the hardcores... the politicos... the activists and organizers. THEY are the ones who guaranteed Obama's success in 2008.

NGU.

[vaberella]

30. No. They moved up to 53% BEFORE the Tucson speech. n/t

[geek tragedy]

3. I really wish the politically best solution would be for him to move left.

Reality has an unfortunate way of messing things up though.

[Exilednight]

6. Approval rating does not equal votes. n/t

[FrenchieCat]

7. Obama signed off on tax cuts for 98% of us.....and in doing so, The rich kept their tax cuts......

So as I see it.....you are still more concerned with the 2%. That's telling
as to whom you truly care the most about.

[Exilednight]

8. If you're not worried about the 2% keeping their tax cuts, then it shows

that someone isn't worried about the 98% that those tax increases on the top 2% could of helped out.

[JoePhilly]

36. Most of that 98% only cared about THEIR TAX CUT.

The majority of the middle class does not care about the deficit or tax cuts for the rich. They care about their own bottom line, period.

That's why the GOP held them hostage. One of Obama's biggest promises was to not raise taxes on that 98%. If he let them expire, the media would have called it his "read my lips moment".

The 98% doesn't care about the 2% getting their cut extended.

[Exilednight]

39. To YOU, it was one of Obama's biggest promises. To others it was his

promise for a national public option, and for some it was his promise to let the tax breaks for the rich expire, and for others it was his promise to close gitmo.

Stop playing the "Obama was held hostage by the GOP card". The truth is, he got played by the GOP like a cheap fiddle.

[JoePhilly]

43. Try to follow me ...

The promise about a Public Option was not one that 98% of Americans cared about, not even close. SOME cared about it and thought it was "critical", most did not. They might have suppported it if it happened, but it was not a deal breaker on any level, except on the left.

Same with GITMO. SOME cared about it and thought is was "critical", most Americans did not, again, except for some on the left.

The promise about not raising taxes on the 98% crosses party lines. Most DEMOCRATS in that 98% didn't want to lose their own tax cuts just to ensure that the rich didn't get to keep theirs. THEY DID NOT CARE.

The "truth" is that COWARDLY democrats in the House and Senate PUNTED on this during the summer and fall of 2010. If they were smart, or had some guts, they would have made THAT an election issue.

And if you READ what I wrote, I did not say that "Obama was held hostage". The "middle class" was held hostage.

And I will stop playing THAT card when folks like you stop playing the "Obama is evil incarnate" card.

[Exilednight]

44. I never played the Obama is an evil incarnate. I just state the obvious

and it's obvious that he was played like a cheap fiddle.

He might be the smartest guy in the room, but that's a pretty easy accomplishment when you surround yourself with idiots.

As far as taxes go, he could of gotten everything he wanted, but he got played. The threat of shutting down government would of worked in his favor, and Republicans would have folded, but as usual, Obama blinked first.

[JoePhilly]

58. How exactly would he have gotten "every thing he wantd"?

The expiration of the tax cuts would not have shut down the government. They simply would have gone away, all of them. The government would still run.

[totodeinhere]

9. I am against tax cuts for the rich. You must have misunderstood me. n/t

[mkultra]

53. im for tax cuts for the rest of us

And if that means we run up more of a deficit, so be it. I would rather have the deficit than families with less cash.

[Radical Activist]

65. I guess you don't care about people on unemployment.

Maybe his numbers went up among the unemployed because he acted for them.

[elocs]

10. The Senate will be gone after 2012. The numbers are against the Democrats

with the Republicans only needing a net gain of 3 seats. There will be 23 Democratic seats in play as opposed to only 10 Republican. Math sucks. So does reality.

[jenmito]

11. And Obama's approval among independents has grown from 41 percent in December to 56 percent now

according to the latest CNN poll: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/18/cnn-poll-obamas-job-approval-rating-on-the-rise/

[Clio the Leo]

12. the simple fact of the matter is...

.... there are LOTS more folks in the middle of the spectrum than there are on the far left. The sooner we all understand that, the less frustrated we (all) will be. He gets it, "not everyone agrees with us" I believe were his exact words. Of course, some of us were screaming so loudly, we couldn't hear. ;)

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[ClassWarrior]

16. So who's going to get them out to the polls if the base is dispirited?

:shrug:

Poll numbers and a buck and a half will buy the Pres a cup of coffee.

NGU.

[Hawkowl]

19. +1000

This is EXACTLY the problem. This is what cost the Democrats the 2010 midterms and it will cost Obama re-election. There will be no enthusiasm from the traditional base of the party and no GOTV volunteers. People will stay home and only those rabid racist, rethuglican conservatives and haters will be motivated. Obama will have great poll numbers right up until he gets his ass kicked into next week.

Obama has dismissed Dean's 50 state strategy. He has embraced Wall Street and corporate donor's. He has systematically attacked teachers, unions, and progressives. Moderate republicans are not going to flock to the black man. They will turn out for the moderate rethuglican like Romney or Mitch Daniels or any other old white guy in a blue suit. And the conservative Teabaggers will vote rethuglican because THEY have nowhere else to go.

It is my hope that when Obama loses because of this idiotic strategy, the Democrats will return to the party of FDR and Truman and repudiate rethuglican lite.

[Drunken Irishman]

25. And when he doesn't lose?

Will you admit you don't have a clue what you're talking about?

[ClassWarrior]

46. If he alienates the base and still wins, I will be relieved, because...

...I'll be awfully damn worried and working awfully damn hard up until E-Day.

NGU.

[Hawkowl]

61. Yes.

If he doesn't lose, I will admit that. Would you admit the Dems need to move back to the left if he loses?

[Drunken Irishman]

26. Who says the base is dispirited?

Show me evidence they're dispirited toward Pres. Obama.

[ClassWarrior]

27. I said "if." Reading comprehension is your friend.

:D

Besides, what difference does it make whether or not they're dispirited now? The fall of 2012 is what really counts. Will you be this cavalier then?

NGU.

[Drunken Irishman]

34. It matters a lot...

Because the question you pose isn't really tied to the reality of today. You could pretty much ask that question and substitute disinterested base with massive alien invasion or Obama getting caught making out with the First Lady of Canada - it's all unlikely, right?

I see no evidence that points to this being an issue. The base, polls indicate, support Obama. 2012 polls indicate he'd win in a walk.

Can things change? Sure - but I think most would agree, at the moment anyway, Pres. Obama stands a great chance of winning reelection.

In fact, intrade.com puts his odds at winning in 2012 at 54%. The closest Republican? Romney - at 7.2%.

[Exilednight]

41. You don't have to lose that much of the base to lose the election. Obama

won the 2008 election by somewhere around 7% of the vote. Currently, about 15% of liberals disapprove of the job he is doing.

Everyone running around citing poll numbers proves nothing. The Republican nominee will not be Palin, Romney or Huck. They're going to move to the middle with their nominee, and it will probably be a woman - just not Palin.

[Hawkowl]

62. Any idea which woman?

I think a Rethuglican woman who isn't batshit crazy could trounce Obama.

[ClassWarrior]

45. Sure, if independents were to go rushing to the polls, which we all know never...

...happens, Pres. Obama would stand a great chance of winning reelection right now.

Again, there's a difference between "supporting," "voting," and "campaigning."

NGU.

[Armstead]

22. That's because we don't work very hard to sell our beliefs

What is called "far left" positions are generally what people in the "middle" would support if there were a political party that actually championed those beliefs, instead of pretending to in primary elections.

Liberalism is middle of the road. It is only because the Democrats no longer push for it that it is not labeled a mainstream position.

[vaberella]

32. It's not working very hard. We don't know how.

Obama is the only decent speaker in the Dem party who can sell an idea. Everyone else can not. We have a very weak Dem party who can't stay on message or get unified. Republicans, no matter their stupidity, stick to each others stupidity and stand by it.

[mkultra]

55. true, and additionally, the gains seen by republicans in congress only undermine the left

Since politics is a trending art form, when the republicans make gains, then that rising tide raises all conservative boats. unfortunately, many on the far left thought the best plan to move the country to the left was to hand the country to those on the right.

[Hello_Kitty]

57. We're irrelevant and yet we are responsible for the election losses.

For being such a fringe no one pays attention to we sure are powerful when you need a scapegoat.

I'm sure you worked very hard to GOTV last year, right? Sure you did.

[mkultra]

60. I dont know, are you irrelevant?

When you assign false charges to me you are constructing whats known as a straw man. If you are asking my opinion regarding the angry "left", i would say they are less relevant in the presidential then they are in the congressional elections. and yes, i worked very hard last year. The only one whos efforts could be doubted would be one that is disgruntled. That would seem to be you.

[quaker bill]

14. Perhaps he knows what he is doing...

Generally, people who do not know what they are doing politically end up in second or third place, or in most cases, never make it onto the ballot. Bush did not know what he was doing, but Rove apparently did, the reason he was often called "bush's brain".

On any particular day since 2008, self identified "liberals" polled as supporting President Obama +/- 85 percent. On the best day, self identified "Liberals" comprise 22 percent of the voting public. Now the math indicates that 15 percent of the total 22 percent represents roughly 3 percent of the voters. Independents comprise roughly 35 percent of the voting public. The math is fairly simple, gaining 15 percent of the independents is millions more votes than losing 15 percent of the liberals.

Realistically it is actually worse than that. The bottom line is that President Obama will likely never gain more than 90 percent support among these "liberals". So in fact, moving to the center probably buys 5 votes from the center for every one it loses on the left, or conversely, moving to the left to attempt to win votes probably costs 4 to 5 votes for every one it gains. This is why ballot box protesting from the left is self defeating.

Conservative Republicans got this a long time ago, which is why they now have influence. By being absolutely loyal, over time they became an indispensible part of the coalition. Having no loyalty to anything other than our own notions of what is proper, liberals will never become indispensible, and will remain a forever a disgruntled minority. Unity is the path to power, but it is easier to herd cats than unite liberals, which is why no politician makes a serious effort of it.

You get what you pay for folks, and the coin of this realm is compromise for the simple sake of unity, checks are lovely, but they really don't cut it.

[ClassWarrior]

15. Sure. The base will vote for him because, as you say, "they will have nowhere else..."

"...to go anyway." But they won't be enthusiastic, which means they won't volunteer to get out the vote. Which means most of those independents who are boosting his approval ratings by answering a telephone poll with their asses planted firmly on their couches won't get around to getting off their asses and going to the polls when E-Day rolls around - just like 2010 all over again.

NGU.

[Pirate Smile]

18. I wrote this on another thread but think it fits here too:

Some people, especially Independents, like divided Government. I'm talking about the Indies that are in the middle. Not Indies that are essentially D's or R's in all of their voting habits or that tend to be further left or right than the parties.

I know Independents who are actually contrarians. They don't have a strong philosophical view of which is the best way to govern - from the Democratic POV on Government or the Republican POV on Government. If they did have a strong preference then they would essentially be partisans. I know one Indy who always takes the opposite POV of any partisan on either side. I think if you don't have that strong philosophical view to say which side is right and which is wrong THEN you tend to like divided Government where there is always a check on the power of any individual partisan viewpoint. Now, they can relax a bit and, some of them, go back to liking President Obama since they no longer have to worry about what they view as Democratic over-reach.

I'm not saying I agree with this POV in any way. I'm just saying that I know people like this. It drives me batty when trying to deal with them but that is just where they stand.

An Indy I know was happy about the tax compromise AND hates Sarah Palin. Those two things were enough to get him back on the Obama bandwagon even though he had been off it for at least a year (he did vote for Obama which was the first Dem POTUS candidate he had voted for since LBJ. He voted for Perot during the Clinton years and didn't vote in 2004 because he knew by then that Bush sucked but he couldn't get over Kerry's Vietnam protest days - don't ask me to explain, I thought it was ridiculous and argued with him about it).

[HeroTwins]

20. When Obama wins, he'll bring the House with him

[Marsala]

28. That will be very hard with the redistricting cementing Republican gains

Certainly we should gain a number of seats, but taking the House back will be extremely difficult. Holding onto the Senate will be hard enough.

[ProSense]

21. Nothing has changed.

President Obama is still a socialist, DLC, corporatist, center-right, progressive, Bush-lite, Rockefeller Republican and liberal Democrat.

These labels will continue to be used to define him, especially by those who dislike him.

His poll numbers are moving up in part because of the lame-duck session, a slight improvement in the economy, health care law provisions taking effect and other factors.

[CakeGrrl]

23. Polls taken outside of DU generally indicate that

the American public wants things accomplished without political bloodletting in Washington. They want bipartisanship, however odious that term has become on this forum based on what people here believe it represents.

"He signed off on tax cuts for the rich". Yeah, he just woke up one day and decided that's how he could curry favor with Republicans. There was NO other reason that any tax cut concession for the upper incomes was approved on a short-term basis. :eyes:

[krawhitham]

24. It is because he got a shit load of stuff passed in the lame duck session

[1stlady]

29. Everyone forgets

enthusiasm will be through the roof when the GE rolls around, its usually fairly high during the primaries, let alone during the GE. You can't predict what the enthusiasm level will be in 2012, off of how you feel about the POTUS at this very moment, get real.lol By the fall of 2012, the rethugs will have chosen their teabagger candidate, both parties would've had their conventions and plenty of debates and emotions will be high strong on both sides, just like in 08. There was no enthusiasm during last years midterms for many reasons, one, their was no one to be enthusiastic about, two Obama was not on the ballot. And three, everyone knows the lefts constituents usually stay home during non-presidential midterm elections. So the results were to be expected, just as the results of the 94 midterms elections, how soon we all forget.

[vaberella]

31. I don't think you know much of what you're talking about.

First off, Obama has always talked about bipartisanship, even as a candidate he stated this and always stated this. You can ignore it and make up your own ideas. But the facts remain the same---he's always said it. While a lot of Dems don't want to waste their time with Repubs. They have always controlled half of the government and without them some of the most key legislation of 2009/2010 would not have happened without Repubs on board. Dems weren't in this alone and people need to get a clue, recognize it, understand it, and respect it.

So this is not new.

His base, for all intents and purposes are made up of a mix of people. Many on the left, especially a lot of the pundits and bloggers on the left---have went on and on with their own little pieces of op-ed claiming that Obama has in some way deserted the base. In actuality---if we look at all of his campaign promises, of those he's completed he's not compromised on. He's compromised on very little as a matter of fact. Another thing I'm noticing that you are ignoring or totally ignored. I guess it wouldn't fit your rhetoric if you did write that he fulfilled many campaign promises. Most of which, speaking of the promises, are demands from the left and not from the right.

Next you talk about the tax cuts. You are intentionally spreading false disingenuous information. You're post implies that he sold out the American people. Keep in mind that the Bush tax cuts INCLUDED tax cuts for the middle and low income earners. You intentionally ignored it. Middle class tax cuts and tax cuts for the rich ARE NOT mutually exclusive. They are together. That being said...when Obama was pushing for the American people to rally behind him and get on Congress so that we can have tax cuts for the rich expired---he didn't get enough support unfortunately or the Dems who lean right already stated very clearly that they would not agree to a repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

They voted on this legislation twice and twice it failed in the House. How in the hell do you expect Obama to allow Bush tax cuts for the rich to expire when the House won't let it happen. Shoot 31+ dems in congress wrote a letter requesting that they don't expire. Obama had to make a decision. Lose the tax cuts for the middle class altogether---that means no extra something in the pay check for Christmas or for the next year to two years for many middle class workers. Or suck it up and deal with the tax cuts for the rich. Don't portray this as a sell out. People on this board are ready to risk the livelihood of many in the United States if it allows them to stick to their ideals. Fuck the middle class cause we can't let the rich win. Well Obama didn't think like that. Congress wasn't letting anything go through without some sort of compromise on the tax issue. The Dems in congress dragged their feet so Obama took over and did what he could.

You're argument on that front is an Epic Fail.

He always had play nice with Repubs. That's how he became President in the first place. That's pure logic and makes for good politics. It's a good thing Obama doesn't have you for an adviser or we'd all be stuck with McCain right about now.

You can wallow in your doom and gloom presumption on your own---in regards to the House being run by Repubs. I find it unlikely since I intend to make a difference. In any event...I won't waste time on any of your other projections. As you stated, you were wrong on all fronts in the past---I don't know what will make you right next time around.

[totodeinhere]

56. For someone who says that I don't know what I'm talking about, you don't exactly have your facts

straight either.

They have always controlled half of the government and without them some of the most key legislation of 2009/2010 would not have happened without Repubs on board.

The GOP did not control half of the government. The Democrats controlled both Congress and the White House in 2009 and 2010. And some key legislation that was passed during that time was passed without any Republican votes. It only passed because of huge Democratic majorities. So before you accuse someone else of not knowing what they are talking about, I would suggest that you take a good look in the mirror.

[vaberella]

59. I know very well what I'm talking about and that's not what I mean by half.

By half I mean that a good number of them is always represented. ie in Congress--in the Senate---there was always enough REpublicans that we needed 60 votes to end a filibuster and that meant Republican participation.

In the House---for big time legislation---a lot of the time saw Republican moves. In actuality---even if it made it in the House---we had to deal with Repubs in the Senate who intentionally set it up to make it slow down into law.

Not to mention there were enough Blue Dog Dems to cause problems---ie Conservadems in the Senate---who managed to KILL the Public Option along with Lieberman.

This is what I mean. Meaning---Republicans were never able a group of people we could ignore. We ALWAYS had to deal with them and they controlled the other half of Government by the ability to filibuster. If they were so small a number in the Senate do you think we'd have to worry? No. Obama knew this and he always talked about a balance because he knew in some cases we'd need them.

DADT and HCR is a perfect example.

Additionally---I need you to name one Legislation passed in the Senate that made it to law WITHOUT Republican votes in cases of a filibuster. 1 Legislation. We NEVER had enough Senators to get a legislation passed without Republicans or 1. WE had 59 at most and there would be 1 or two to fill out. In order to get a vote passed a filibuster.

[trayNTP]

33. All he had to do was move wherever their corporate masters wanted and the coverage would do the rest

"left or right" is irrelevant.

better coverage = better poll numbers PERIOD

[impik]

35. When did he go to the right? By ending DADT? START? Unemployment benefits?

or maybe it was the food safety bill?

Truth is that this is the mos progressive president in 50 years and one of the most progressives president ever. People want to see a smart man working for them. They don't give a damn about ideology. Life outside DU are completely different.

[JoePhilly]

37. Around these parts, if Obama's approval goes up, that's BAD NEWS.

[impik]

38. Oh, of course. This place is hilarious and sad at the same time. Poor people will have

To deal with Obama 6 more years.

[Imajika]

40. Moving to the middle and capturing independents...

...is a very good way to drive up poll numbers.

This is exactly what Clinton did.

Those who have been saying the President has to move to the left don't understand politics very well.

[OwnedByFerrets]

42. His number going up arent helping ME one bit

Middle class americans (although that doesnt mean what it once did) are hurting and living on debt. I've seen nothing that is helping them to get from paycheck to paycheck, and in the end, thats what matters to most.
Quoting some numbers that can be manipulated (see the previous 8 yrs) means nothing.

[Hello_Kitty]

47. I guess we can look forward to more hugely popular free trade deals then

Except that they're actually hugely unpopular but the DLC and New Democrats will tell us that's where the center is.

[Hello_Kitty]

48. And cuts to entitlements!

More of that "moving to the center/right" stuff that will boost his numbers and be so good for Americans to boot!

[Kweli4Real]

49. I'm sorry ...

The things you cited, e.g., bipartisanship, signing off on tax cuts for the wealth (in a deal netting much, much more for the middle and working classes) and working with Republicans is NOT moving to the right; it's called GOVERNANCE.

[Hello_Kitty]

50. Most of what the middle and working class "got" are things the GOP wanted too.

They love the child tax credit and the payroll holiday.

[Kweli4Real]

63. And????

So you begrudge what is right for/benefits the 98% because the 2% got something?

[robcon]

51. Obama has the votes of almost all Democrats, and he's improved with independents.

He'll win re-election in 2012 easily, IMO.

[Hello_Kitty]

52. The Right doesn't like the health care bill. He should call for repealing it! eom

[Hello_Kitty]

54. And Iran's not invading itself, Mr. President!

Nothing says "I'm willing to move to the Right" like sweet, sweet bombing raid.

Get your war on, Obama!

[Radical Activist]

64. He didn't move right. He got shit done.

A lot was accomplished in the lame duck session. That's what people wanted for two years and Obama's numbers went up when they finally got it. His numbers would have gone up 6 months ago if the Senate had done their job and passed more legislation.