If 81% of Obama's base approves of him should he change something to appease the 14% who don't?

[NNN0LHI]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/14/7760560-the-liberal-disaffection-myth

By NBC’s Domenico Montanaro, Political Reporter, NBC News

09/14/11

President Obama’s base has abandoned him – so goes the conventional Beltway wisdom.

The problem with this accepted narrative: There’s no data to back this up, according to the most recent NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll.

The survey, which was conducted in late August, was abysmal for the president, save for his head-to-head match ups with GOP presidential contenders. But it also included these numbers:

-- By an 81%-14% margin, Democrats approved of his job performance, essentially unchanged from his 82%-14% score in July.

-- Among liberals, it was 74%-21% -- exactly the same numbers from July.

[TheWraith]

1. One assumes that it's POSSIBLE for 100% of the base to approve.

That's not the case, nor has Obama ever had 100% approval from Democrats, even in 2008.

[trueblue2007]

56. you guys you wre wrong, wrong, wrong. DEMS love Pres. O !!!

and if you don't, things will be worse if you vote in a Repuke.

[crim son]

2. GWB had pretty good numbers

and he still sucked, bad.

[ProSense]

4. So

"GWB had pretty good numbers and he still sucked, bad"

...are you comparing Obama to Bush or is it your belief that "sucked, bad" is an appropriate description of President Obama?

[JuniperLea]

107. When the hell was that?

For a couple of weeks after 9/11, maybe... only because people were scared shitless.

W never had "good numbers" that I can recall... that's why it was such a shocker that he was "selected" for office.

[Claudia Jones]

3. misleading

81% - or more - of the base would approve were the administration moving to the left instead of the right.

Don't buy into the cable TV framing of this.

Obama should not change to please any faction - the 10% or so trying to move the party to the right, or the 14% trying to move the party to the left. He should do that which brings the greatest relief to the working class people. Then everything else will take care of itself. I have no doubt that were the administration moving to the left, the same conservative Dems who are demanding party loyalty today would be vocal critics.

[TheWraith]

6. You're completely rewriting what the poll actually says.

81% of Democrats approve of Obama's job performance. That's the fact. And "conservative Dems" aren't the ones demanding support for Obama--they are much, much less likely to approve of the job he's doing than liberal Dems.

[Claudia Jones]

25. define "Dems"

Are we defining Dems as all who vote Democratic? Of course they are going to approve. That tells us nothing. People are constantly told that there are only 2 choices. Those who vote Democratic approve of one of those two choices.

Here is what that poll tells us: those who approve of Democrats approve of Democrats. That tells us exactly nothing.

[woo me with science]

54. Well said. nt

[TheWraith]

86. Democrats are defined as Democrats. This isn't rocket science.

Some people here want to go to such absurd lengths to "define away" the polls which point out that their viewpoint is a tiny minority of the Democratic Party and liberal Democrats in particular, all the way to wanting to implement purity tests of poll respondents, in order to redefine "liberal" and "Democrat" as "Someone who agrees with me." It's an implementation of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, where no REAL liberal could possibly approve of Obama, therefore any scientific numbers which say otherwise must be lying. :eyes:

[Motown_Johnny]

102. Dems are those who self identify as Democrats when taking the poll

WTF kinda question is that?


Have you never taken a poll?

[sabrina 1]

58. 81%, and I think that even that number has gone down into the

70s, of DLCers approve of him. That is NOT the base of the Democratic Party. And it represents such a small % of the voting public, I don't know why it is being relied on as proof of anything.

It may be HIS base, since he is a DLCer, but the majority of the people, 57% or more, do not approve. So I don't know what you expect to accomplish with this constant repeating of that extremely misleading poll. When 80% of voters approve of the job he's doing, then it will be worth reporting.

I do not know a single Liberal/Progressive Democrat who is not totally disgusted right now. To get that number, they must be calling people on the OFA list.

[TheWraith]

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

"I do not know a single Liberal/Progressive Democrat who is not totally disgusted right now."

Newsflash: your personal social circle is not a statistically valid sampling of either the public, the Democratic Party, or liberal Democrats. Actual polls, which are conducted scientifically rather than to back up your personal feelings, show that Obama has the approval of four out of five liberal Democrats, and despite your cries of "DLC! DLC!", the more liberal a person is, the MORE likely they are to approve of Obama's job performance.

[sabrina 1]

90. Sorry, but if it was just my social circle you'd have a point.

So long as people blindly support wrong policies because of party loyalty and refuse to look at the reasons why Democratic Party is losing support, they, you are guaranteeing a Republican majority in the next election.

And some of us will be extremely angry about that failure, as we are about the losses in 2010, caused by the same willful blindness to the facts, and the loss of Kennedy's and now Weiner's seat.

Your 81% doesn't explain all those losses, does it? That's the problem with constantly using these faux numbers, they ignore all other evidence that if Democrats want to win the next election they better take the blinders off and start asking themselves why they are losing and why the president's ACTUAL poll numbers are now in the low 40s.

When there are problems, smart people look honestly at them and fix them. But when people put blinders on as they did in 2010 despite all the warnings, including even from the Party Leadership at the time, nothing gets fixed and they lose, then they look around to see who they can blame rather ask 'what went wrong'.

It is pathetic to see the old 'it's the voters fault' claim, which only makes the party look weak, arrogant and irresponsible, unwilling to take any responsibility for what is after all THEIR JOB.

Voters vote, that is their job, but political parties and their candidates are supposed to work hard to get those votes and when they fail to do so, they should have the guts to accept responsibly. Especially when the voters' complaints are legitimate. If they don't, they will continue to lose and continue to blame the voters, which may feel good, 'it's not my fault it's those bad voters' but which gets us exactly WHERE?

[TheWraith]

91. It doesn't matter if you believe it's universal, when it simply is not.

Your anecdotes don't trump actual polling, any more than the existence of winter disproves global warming. The reality is that your view is not a mainstream one, not even among liberals. If you hang out inside the "Obama bad!" echo chamber, you might believe it is, listening to the angry minority expressing their anger loudly, and reading FireDogLake's spin on how everything is Obama's fault. From there, you might actually believe that Democrats who support the President actually are less common than the people who don't. But I notice that while you mention the MA Senate race and NY-09, you don't mention either of the other special elections we've won in the meantime; or the opinion polls which show public support for Obama's moves over the past year; or the broad support for the jobs bill; or the fact that in 2012 polling he's whipping every Republican; or the fact that support for the Republican Congress is hovering around 12%.

I strongly suggest that you get out into the real world for awhile, and get a feel for what people really think.

[sabrina 1]

92. 43% approval rating is not an anecdote.

I am not a member of FDL and never was. How dare you accuse people of being so stupid they cannot see for themselves when a policy is just plain wrong for this country. I am so sick of this, and this is exactly what I mean. Blind support leads to false accusations, which only alienates people more.

Putting SS and Medicare and Medicaid 'on the table' was sufficient to lose this president the support of many Democrats. And please do not waste time claiming he did not. It was offered to Boehner in the Grand Bargain, and not a surprise, since Obama promised in a statement to the G20 Conference in 2010 that these programs were part of the problem, WHICH THEY ARE NOT!

I am in the real world, and if YOU were there you have a far more realistic view of what is actually going on.

Your selective use of polls is one of the problems as I pointed out. For those of us who do not want a Republican Government the polls right now are far from encouraging. But stay in your fantasy world, not my problem.

I had this same conversation before the 2010 election with loyal party supporters in RL and online and got the same responses you are making right now. It truly scares me as I hoped the Party leadership had learned, even if you have not, from that election.

[mikekohr]

78. Facts, facts, damn facts. Why do you curse us with facts?

Give 'em hell Wraithman. You da man.

[Enthusiast]

94. Of course "conservative" Democrats

are perfectly happy with Obama. Duh.

[girl gone mad]

27. Totally agree w/ Claudia Jones.

We support liberal policies because we believe they have the best chance of helping the most people.

If Obama had gone left, the economy would be recovering, unemployment would be on the decline and Independents would be behind him now. Instead, he lost Independents and gave ammunition to his critics on the right who still accuse him of going left despite his extreme compromises.

[SkyDaddy7]

82. Had Obama done 4 backflips &

2 jumping jacks we would have world peace!

...Oh yeah, and Michael Jackson would still be alive!

[girl gone mad]

105. How do you make the connection from backflips & jumping jacks..

to world peace?

You are trying to be dismissive in a "cutesy" manner, but there is actually ample historical evidence correlating progressive economic policies with growth and full employment.

[SkyDaddy7]

117. Not a single economist including the Progressive ones...

would agree with your original comment that we "could be" at 5% unemployment even if it would have been politically possible to pass a $1.6 Trillion Stimulus (Double what was politically possible)...other than federal spending I would love to hear about these so-called "Progressive" policies that Obama could have signed into law but simply chose not to that would have turned around the WORST economy since the Great Depression in 2 very short years & returned us to the glory days of the 90's!?!?

Let me help...There are no such Progressive policies! Not only that, & I know this is hard for some to understand, but Obama does not have a magic wand, he is not a dictator & actually needs the approval of Congress to pass any legislation. Yes, Obama could have vetoed the $800 Billion stimulus, HCR w/o the PO, put the repeal of DADT off indefinitely, let the unemployment checks end, etc., & stood for only Progressive legislation that was approved by 100% of the Progressive caucus, 100% of the Progressive Bloggers & especially 100% of the Progressives on DU and got NOTHING passed...Do you really think that is what the majority of Americans would have wanted? NEEDED? Of course not!

This is why I simply do not take seriously the stupidity I read here on DU about what Obama could have done & the economy would magically be back to the glory days of the 90's! Why say things that are 100% false? Why believe things that are 100% false?

Criticize Obama about the wars I can 100% RESPECT that but to say Obama simply chose not to wave some magic wand & pass these non-existent so-called Progressive "magic bullet policies" that would have put 15-20 million people back to work in steady long term decent paying jobs within 2yrs after the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression is beyond ABSURD!

Since mid 2009, months after the $800 Billion Stimulus was passed, when everyone was beginning to grasp just how bad the economy was economist across the board have been saying it would be 5-7 yrs before the economy is back to running at the pace needed to get everyone back to work that wants to work. Now, since the Republicans are 100% set on hurting the economy as much as possible for political gain it could be even longer before the economy gets back to where it needs to be to put everyone back to work. Obama has two choices he can stand on Progressive purity & pass nothing but satisfy a minority within his own party or he can try to get what he can little at a time...After all it takes CONGRESS to pass anything valuable in terms of turning the economy around.

The way we get Progressive policies passed is the same way Republicans have got what they wanted passed over the last 30yrs...Sticking together & little by little taking what they could get & not screaming & crying because they did not get everything they wanted when they wanted it. It blows my mind how radically impatient we Progressives are when it comes to reversing 30yrs of Conservative Values!

[treestar]

5. Rec

I get a vibe that the 14% claims to do all the work - canvassing and phone banking, and that its withdrawal of support will therefore lead to a loss, which the rest of us will pay the price for. Therefore, they are entitled to obedience from the elected politician. Which is a sort of blackmail if you look at it one way, and dismisses everyone else's desires as penalty for not doing the work. And the votes are like fodder to be delivered. It depends on a certainty that the voters are mindless.

[David Sky]

7. Lots of polls are poorly constructed, poorly administered, and just plain

lousy reflections of what people are thinking about.

This is just one more good example of a bad polling effort.

One has to ask what the colleges of America are teaching as to techniques of polling, construction of polling questions, and how "insightful" the results of such polls can be.

I'm not going to abandon Obama for Perry or Romney, but I'm not happy with Obama's performance.

I'm working in my state to elect a Senator who is progressive, and to keep my progressive representative.

That's more important to me than insuring Obama gets re-elected, I'm trusting the good sense of the American voter to turn down Romney or Perry, (I hope I'm not foolish about this, but I can't work for a man who hands Republicans victory over issues every week as my President, he will get my vote, but that's all this time around, no $, no work from me!)

[SlimJimmy]

37. +1

[seaglass]

8. If that's enough votes to get re-elected and if that's what matters to him then no.

He doesn't have to do anything for anyone except those who already approve of the job he's doing.

[FiveGoodMen]

10. "He doesn't have to do anything for anyone except those who already approve of the job he's doing"

That's from the Presidential Oath of Office, right?

[seaglass]

30. Haha. My point is that if all Obama cares about is the numbers game

then he only has to do whatever will give him the numbers. Didn't say I agree with it.

[NRaleighLiberal]

9. I find it hard to believe. None of my family, or my friends, approve of his performance.

But he is still a zillion times better than any republican.

Key word amongst all of us - disappointment - followed by disillusionment.

[Amonester]

40. If we do the math just for the sake of it.

Let's say there are 50 million people who vote Democratic.

Those poll numbers would then suggest 40 million of them approve, and 10 million disapprove.

That would mean all in your family and friends are to be counted in the 10 million disappointed group.

10 million people is a very large group of people, and 40 million is four times larger.

Done with the math. :hi:

[deutsey]

88. That's what I hear as well. n/t

[JuniperLea]

108. I find that hard to believe because all of my family and all of my friends...

Still love him... not every little thing he's done do they love, but they love him and give him very high marks.

This includes all the tree huggers.

The key word among all of us is 'pragmatism.'

A key phrase is 'we'd be as bad as BushCo if Obama pushed the hard liberal line' because he's president to all, not just Democrats. BushCo was president to Republicans only... and that was about as wrong as it gets.

I'm not going to be a hypocrite and wish for something I wished against for 8 long disgusting years.

[NRaleighLiberal]

110. Different people, different views - which is fine.

But for us, the time for pragmatism is over. You can't do deals and compromise with a group that is responsible for this mess in the first place. Sometimes, when you know what the right thing is to do, you need to do it. Guess we are just a bit more of a partisan bunch out here!

:hi:

also - doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results - you know the adage. And more than three years of compromise, when it clearly won't and can't work, while people die and get sick and go poor - isn't a good way forward.

[JuniperLea]

111. But you see...

The RW nuts think THEY know what is best... and the Catholics think THEY know what's best... and the Jews think THEY know what's best... and the Democrats think THEY know what's best...

I think I know what's best too... and so do you.

See the flaw in that line of thinking?

[NRaleighLiberal]

112. sometimes, on some issues, one side IS right - and evidence shows us

that endless tax cuts don't work - I also don't believe in the moral equivalent that the media now seems to push at us. So, yes, call me guilty, but at this point in time, about lots of left/right issues, we ARE right - and they ARE wrong - or at least it is time to try something different. Their way does not currently work.

But I do get your point. As I say, I am a bit more partisan than you are, perhaps - not a wrong or right, just an attribute.

[ThomWV]

11. I wonder how they always miss asking me in polls like that?

Do you think something in the polling methodology might be amiss in these changing times? I don't mean intentionally and I don't mean by poorly worded questions. What I mean is things like the difficulty of polling when so many people use Cell Phones only.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. Polls are for pollsters but according to those who are in love

with polls, the 'base' does not matter at all, because the entire election, in fact they say all elections, are decided by a small percentage of 'independents' who are in essence people who on Nov 1 2008 still could not pick between Obama and McPalin. So it all comes down to a few thousand fools flipping a coin in the voting both. Right? If that is the case, the actual Democrats of any stripe do not matter at all. Not at all.
Imagine a person who is unsure if Bachmann or Obama might be the best choice. According to the Beltway, that person controls the whole of our Presidential process.

[Major Hogwash]

13. Just ask Michelle Bachmann if that is true.

She dropped lower than Cain in their latest polls.

[Bluenorthwest]

19. Obviously that was not my point, so let's sustitute any Republican

there. The person who is looking at Perry or Romeny and is still unsure if they or Obama is the best. That person decides for us all, according to the 'experts' who then wonder out loud why people are not more engaged in the election process.
I used Bachmann not because she will be the nominee, but because if she was, the 'independents' would still be flipping that same coin. And according to the OFA, they are the key to all success. The coin flippers.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[hfojvt]

68. I was doing GOTV in 2008

and I stopped by one house with an old black guy on a riding lawnmower. I told him he should go vote and he said "I have not decided who to vote for yet". I thought he was joking. But he was serious. We talked some more. He was describing something about morality and after a few minutes I moved on, and he said he might vote. Later in the day I knocked on the door of a single mother with three kids. She said she wasn't gonna vote because neither candidate was doing anything for the poor. I mentioned that I had been an Edwards supporter and also that Democrats certainly did more than Republicans who were constantly trying to slash benefits so they could give tax cuts to the rich, but she still was not gonna vote.

Then I later went to the house of another old black guy who said that neither he nor his mother were gonna vote because the fact that SCOTUS stole the 2000 election meant that there was no point. I spent a few minutes trying to persuade him and then complimented him on his yard. It was a very neat yard. Very well kept with a pond and a footbridge and paths.

As it turned out though, those four people did not matter, either in the Presidential election, nor in the Congressional election or any of the legislative races. I spent the whole day on GOTV too and probably did not get one person to the polls.

[Ohio Joe]

14. Yes... Yes he should

It would only increase his numbers to stop pissing off the 14% and actually do something for them. The 81% would not only not dis-approve, they would like him more for it.

[treestar]

15. There is no way to stop pissing them off

They are simply impossible to satisfy.

[Ohio Joe]

17. I think that is a load of shit

Just my opinion though.

[Enthusiast]

96. "Just my opinion though." And mine.

[JoePhilly]

21. I've come to call some of them the "perpetually disgruntled"

Anything good he does is called "crumbs".

And any compromise is clearly the most evil action of a modern day President.

[Claudia Jones]

31. any way you can find to smear people

Name-calling, insinuations, personal attacks - whatever it takes to smear those with whom you disagree. Is this how you build unity for the coming elections? You apparently would rather have Democrats lose elections then have the party move to the left.

[dionysus]

85. lol

[JoePhilly]

93. Names like sycophant? Is that the one you mean?

No, maybe "cheerleader" ... na, too tame.

Oh wait ... "Republican mole" ... that's a good one.

:shrug:

BTW ... I think the way we win elections is by embracing every single INCH of progress that we make. I think we win by focusing the majority of our effort on fighting against the insane things the GOP proposes, rather than lamenting every compromise of the Presidient. I think we win, by not screaming that a repeal of DADT is critical when some claim that Obama secretly does want to do it, and then claim that it is trivial, when he gets that repeal done. I think we win by not claiming that Obama cut social security when he did not. Or that HCR was "crumbs".

You want to win elections, and move LEFT?? Then every time we get ANYTHING you cheer. And then when the dust settles, you start to push for what you want NEXT. And if you get an INCH, you take it. You get a FOOT, you take it. And if you get more, even better.

Sadly, the Democratic party is like a bunch of yippy dogs. We bark and bark at the same bone, none of us able to grab it. And when we get exhausted and pass out, the GOP Dolbermans walk over and take the bone and laugh in our faces.

If you pay attention, the media is now pushing two memes about Obama.

#1) Obama is bad, because he is a socialist commie Kenyan who hates America. (right wing version)

#2) Obama is bad, because he is a corpratist bastard, who hates America. (left wing version)

These message share a common "Obama bad" component, but two totally opposite framings. The media does not care WHICH of these framings you decide to agree with, just so long as you internalize the "Obama bad" part.

The goal of this is to (1) increase right leaning turn out, and (2) decrease left leaning turn out.

If you want to WIN elections ... then you need to recognize this.

[YellowCosmicSun]

35. They don't really want him to satisfy them. They're happy to dislike him for some reason.

[Claudia Jones]

42. amazing

You may disagree with some of the things people are saying about the administration and the party, but to say "they're happy to dislike him for some reason" is simply not supportable. Misrepresenting the views of others in order to dismiss or ridicule them is dishonest.

[YellowCosmicSun]

46. You are ignoring those who do this exact thing because you don't want to have to explain them.

You'd prefer to continue believing that all Obama's critics are rational in their opposition to him.
That's just not the case.

[Claudia Jones]

48. false choice

It is neither the case that all critics are rational, nor that all are not.

Most Republican critics are full of it. Most Democratic critics are not. The two types of criticism from the two groups bear no resemblance to one another, and conflating them is a dishonest debate tactic.

[Union Scribe]

72. Oh, good, another one of you. nt

[SwampG8r]

99. bunches and bunches lately

i believe a amnesty was given to a bunch of people who deserved what they had gotten earlier
and now they are back again with the same stuff

[Solomon]

81. Exactly. I agree with you 100%.

[EFerrari]

16. If the president really had 81% approval among Democrats

the question wouldn't even come up.

[Skittles]

44. CORRECT

it's complete bullshit

[BzaDem]

61. The only reason this comes up here is that the 14% are overrepresented here.

If this board had the composition of the broader party electorate (or even the liberal subset of the party electorate), it wouldn't really come up much if at all.

[Number23]

64. The right wing media and orgs are probably thrilled that this "point" keeps coming up

on sites in the "liberal" blogosphere.

"Liberal" groups and web sites are just eaten up with all of this angst and wailing over the president. Meanwhile, he enjoys anywhere from 55-86% support from his base. This is the type of manufactured drama and cognitive dissonance that the right eats for breakfast.

[pnorman]

18. What are his polling numbers in the House, or even the Seante?

That's where it really matters, rather than the minority of potential voters who disapprove of him.

[txlibdem]

20. If Obama is the Democratic candidate in 2012 there will be a Repuke in the White House next

I don't know where these polls are coming from. What questions are they asking to get such a high approval from such an obviously Right Wing President. Actions speak far louder than pretty speeches. Oh, Obama can give us some pretty speeches alright. But no backbone, no fight, no action... unless you count giving the GOP 98% of what it wants as "action."

There are going to be huge numbers of people who sit the 2012 election out, both Democrats and Independents. Meanwhile, the lunatic fringe will stand 100% behind their GOP/Tea candidate because he or she will do everything that Pres. Obama has done so far (give tax cuts to the rich, to the banks, to corporations) but they'll take it a few moronic steps farther. Why in the heck would I vote for Republican Lite (aka Obama).

I guess you can count me in that 21% of Progressives/Liberals. I want a primary challenge to either boot Obama off the stage or to make him wake up and start acting the way he claimed when he was "Candidate Obama."

[treestar]

22. To say he is Republican you have to be living in the same kind of

bubble as those right wingers who insist that he is a marxist.

Just blocking out your fellow Americans who don't agree with you.

[txlibdem]

33. I clearly stated I am in the 21% of Liberals/Progressives

And there are many millions of people who are smart enough to realize when they've been flim-flammed by a con artist. The best con artists promise that you'll benefit greatly if you just do what they want (Obama wanted votes, some con men want money). Every major bill that he has signed into law has had a very large percentage of tax cuts and giveaways to the rich/corporations, even the most recent "Jobs" bill.

When you wake up and realize what a fool you have been by blindly supporting a President who has furthered the right wing agenda far more than any Repuke President could have done, then we can have an intelligent discussion about the Obama Presidency.

[BzaDem]

62. Oh, eventually they will wake up. (See the wake-up moment Nader voters had after 2000.)

They always do. It is really inevitable, and not surprising in the least. On both sides (really on all sides in any political system), there are ALWAYS going to be some people that are never satisfied. That is a constant property of any democracy, and that will never change. The only question is WHEN various parts of that subset will figure it out -- not IF. 2001 was one such moment for 90% of Nader's voters in 2000.

[txlibdem]

73. So a "Democratic" President who enacts 98% Republican legislation is going to save us, not screw us?

Someone's been drinking the "Party Line" kool-aid. "I am a voter robot - my function is to push 'D' at the polls."

I don't have time to educate you on all the inaccuracies in your post. Please spend a little time listening to Candidate Obama's pretty speeches, and the debates. Now there was a candidate I'd want to vote for... and *did* vote for. But this guy in the White House isn't the same person. Not by a long shot.

PS, see the "wake-up call" tens of millions of American families have had already during the Obama Presidency when the Sheriff came to kick them out of their houses. Next, see the "wake-up call" that the bankers, hedge fund managers, and various other crooks who destroyed the economy got: "Good morning, this is the President of The United States calling to say... I'm giving you hundreds of billions of dollars, access to 16 Trillion dollars in practically 0% loans, and... here's the best part... none of you crooks are going to jail." You still think this President is on "your" side??? I have to repeat: you need to wake up.

[LoZoccolo]

76. Where did you get the "98% Republican legislation" number? n/t

[Inuca]

95. My guess is

that it's a reference to Boehner saying that he got 98% of what he wanted in the debt deal. And if that's the case, it's nonsense.

[SwampG8r]

100. same place as the other stats on this thread

right outta his azz
same place you get yours

[LoZoccolo]

113. I get mine mainly from Gallup and generally cite the source. n/t

[txlibdem]

104. Truth becomes "nonsense" in your world???

Good luck in the future. You'll be marching to the polls to push "D" and fulfill your one and only function in this society. Then when the Corporate Dems you voted into office continue to vote for tax cuts and sweetheart deals for the rich only you'll be saying how great it is.

I wonder what would have happened to the millions of families who've already been thrown out of their homes (often by the Sheriff) if the 16 Trillion dollars made available to the big banks, at next to zero interest rate, had been made available to Americans struggling to pay their mortgage to refinance their loans instead.

PS, another 4 million foreclosures coming in the near future... I don't know if you're happy with that outcome from a Democratic Administration.

[LoZoccolo]

114. So where did you get the number? n/t

[txlibdem]

115. You no got GOOGLE?

http://realestate.yahoo.com/Foreclosures/housing-predictor-10-million-foreclosures-through-2012

http://www.mainstreet.com/article/real-estate/foreclosure/10-million-more-foreclosures-2012

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-11-17/duke-says-fed-sees-4-25-million-more-foreclosures-through-2012.html

http://articles.philly.com/2011-09-17/news/30169422_1_foreclosure-rate-foreclosure-filing-foreclosure-listing-firm
..."Foreclosure woes may hurt Obama in 2012"

http://www.realtytrac.com/content/news-and-opinion/housing-predictor-10-million-foreclosures-through-2012--4972

[Enthusiast]

98. I won't be flim-flammed again!

[txlibdem]

101. Now *that's* the spirit!

:thumbsup:

[YellowCosmicSun]

36. Dead wrong. Glad you don't represent many people.

[txlibdem]

74. Are you able to back up your one-liner post with facts or "pundit projections?"

Didn't think so...

:thumbsdown:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. Only if he wants our votes.

[BzaDem]

63. Why wouldn't the Democratic party just wait until the 14% change their voting behavior?

It's not like that won't happen. (See Nader's voters voting behavior in the subsequent election.) Ultimately, Republican governments end up hurting the 14% far more than Democratic politicians (who can easily find jobs in the private sector that multiply their salary five fold). I doubt very many people other than the politicians like this, but that doesn't make it not the reality.

Really the only strategy for the Democratic politicians in dealing with this particular small subgroup is to inform people of the consequences of their actions, sit back, and wait. In these particular types of situations, there often (unfortunately) isn't a way to bring unrealistic expectations back down to earth other than to let reality run its course.

If someone wants to execute a strategy to change their government, the first thing they should probably check (before anything else) is that their strategy doesn't move the government in precisely the opposite direction (relative to the non-execution of said strategy).

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

69. Fine. Then if they lose they certainly won't have any room to blame the Left.

If the majority of the people in a democracy are willing to settle for right/center right form of government (which they've been doing since LBJ) that's their right. Which doesn't obligate the left to abandon it's principles and buy in to that form of government. If the Democratic Party leadership is determined to sell itself to the right doesn't mean that the 14% have no choice but to follow their course.

[BzaDem]

70. The 14% certainly have a choice to do everything in their power to enable the right to win.

But what they don't have the choice to do is move the country to the left by not voting for the Democrat. That choice simply does not exist, no matter how much they might wish it does and no matter how much they use it as a coping mechanism. It is no different than the supposed choice of someone to heal oneself by touching a hot stove.

Again, most people figure this out at one time or another (particularly after events like 2000). As 2000 showed, what happens after those types of elections is that the 14% moves to the rest of the party (not the other way around). It's just a matter of timing.

[txlibdem]

116. You've got your numbers wrong

There are MILLIONS of Progressives and Liberals. You don't think we have any political clout?

Maybe we need a series of marches on the White House to show just how loud we can be.

PS, learn your history. Gore lost by 3 electoral college votes only (Bush 271, Gore 266) giving the 3 to Gore: Bush 268, Gore 269.
How many millions of Progressives (Democrat or Independent) can The Pres. afford to continue to piss off?

[unblock]

26. "approval" is, for the most part, an idiotic and easily manipulated and misinterpreted metric

remember shrub's 90% approval rating right after 9/11?

approval often has very little to do with policies.

at times it has to do with the state of the nation or the economy; at times it has to do with who people intend to vote for; at times it has to do with who the likely opposition is or what they are saying.

and in the case of most republicans and a few democrats, it has to do with little beyond party identification.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

28. Apples and oranges.

You're comparing a favorablity rating among all voters to one amonmg Democrats?

[unblock]

38. "approval" among any population is a silly metric, period.

i'm not comparing apples and oranges, i'm saying the whole fruit basket is rotten.

[YellowCosmicSun]

34. If you don't approve, then nobody does, right? screw any poll that says otherwise.

[unblock]

39. and i suppose you "approve" of the result, so who cares if the poll question is stupid?

"approval" is simply a very mushy and imprecise concept, and people even respond very differently depending on what question immediately preceded the "approval" question.

it's a nearly worthless question. i don't agree or disagree with the results, i simply don't think there's any value in the question or the results, whether it was 0% or 100% or anything in between. i assure you that there's a pollster who can get the rating to be whatever their client wants it to be just by phrasing or positioning the question one way or another, or using any of a number of manipulative techniques.

as a side matter, i support obama for re-election and i think calls for a primary challenge or anything else that would shorten his re-election coattails are highly misguided. i suppose you might say i "approve" of obama, despite wishing he were a stronger force for a more progressive agenda. but that doesn't change the fact that the whole "approval" concept is statistically (nearly) worthless.

[YellowCosmicSun]

45. The poll demonstrates results. You say they are false because they don't match your belief.

I say they are accurate because of the science of statistics.

You aren't in a very strong position.

[unblock]

59. lol! you obviously need to take a few courses in statistics.

also, i never said they were "false", nor did i say they didn't match my "beliefs".

and the science of statistics has a lot to say about bias and measurement error, which is what i'm talking about here.
it also has alot to say about well-formed questions, and "approval" quesitons are among the most notorious of ill-formed questions.

statistics is a rich and wonderful field, but there's quite a lot more to it than asking any old question about anything and then claiming the results mean anything of consequence.

[bluestate10]

29. I am one of the 81%. But.

I think that President Obama should and absolutely must get tough with republicans in the House. It is obvious that House republicans have no goal other than obstruction, President Obama seriously risks loosing part of the 81% if he does not demonstrate greater toughness and less willingness to compromise with hostage takers. My view is that President Obama has to use the Executive branch prerogatives to take administrative actions that make House hostage takers suffer and have to explain to their voters why they are screwing them.

[MineralMan]

32. K&R. Election campaigns are based on majorities, not minorities.

President Obama will win another term. The strategy of those who are attacking him from the left is not a useful one. It will only assure non-cooperation in the future.

That is my opinion. If you disagree with it, that is just fine.

[PufPuf23]

41. The number is imagination.

I have lived my entire life between San Francisco and Portland in coastal counties and now live in NC California.

I was more excited and active about POTUS Obama POTUS candidate McCarthy in 1968. My home and residence now until I croak is Humboldt county, CA. I know not a single strong Candidate 2080 Obama supporter than has a favorable opinion of POTUS Obama on a policy, appointee, nor integrity level.

Given the WTF "We are less evil campaign of 2012", POTUS Obama should announce he is mot a candidate in 2012 for the good of the Democratic Party and take his neoliberal pals home with him. The WH, Senate, DNC, and DCCC do not represent their historic voters but rather monet, croney, and fantasy of self (narrcissism) and will fail altogether or fail to move forward until the neoliberals are purged (and many at the top would be prosecuted under a fair justice system).

Bleah.

[JNelson6563]

43. He will never poll 100% of any group.

But it's the majority that will re-elect him, much to the dismay of some here.

Julie

[David Sky]

47. SO TRUE, never 100%..........but, let's face it!!! He has no rational reasonable opposition, but...

There are stupid people in America who vositte................we ask the reasonable people to ..........

SHOW UP and VOTE REPUBLICANS OUT!

If you cannot support Obama for re-election, FINE! Cry us all a river!
s
Just vote in 2012, AGAINST any Republican seeking office, show up and vote, kiss Obama the kiss of death, just don't vote for the opposition to him.............sadly, we elected a guy who can speak inspirational speeches, but cannot follow his own words with actions........he bows to Republicans.........he should bow to the people who elected him, and wants him to do their bidding.............no?

[JNelson6563]

77. No.

But keep talking, that way you can reveal ALL of your ignorance, instead of just some of it.

[Number23]

67. Julie, you just addressed the critical issue

He will never poll 100% of any group.

Exactly. There has never been a leader of any nation, state or tribe that has or could poll at 100%.

The president has to do what he can to get MAJORITY support. And he has done that. Handily.

[Claudia Jones]

49. how elections are decided

Here are the approval ratings from all voters for the recent Democratic party presidents at the same point in their terms:

Truman 54%
JFK 56%
LBJ 56%
Carter 30%
Clinton 44%
Obama 40%

Independents

Truman 52%
JFK 53%
LBJ 45%
Carter 30%
Clinton 41%
Obama 40%

[mmonk]

50. It's threads like this that work the most against Obama.

The right leaning independents will not vote for him this go around. If people want to keep many of us from voting for him, keep it up. We will not be demoralized from pushing the right ideas that work and help the American people. I've been told to shut up too many times by too many politicos. It's why this coming election, I'm only voting for real progressives. As far as the presidency goes, I have to be convinced that in voting for Obama, we still won't continue the rightward slide. Threads like this do not help because they promote the idea any of our concerns and/or desires or input are invalid on their face. We know that not to be true.

[Odin2005]

51. That's because a lot of progressives are Independents, not registered Dems.

[BzaDem]

65. But that doesn't explain why 74% of liberals (regardless of party) approve of his performance. n/t

[Odin2005]

79. DOH, so much for a good hypothesis.

:(

[madfloridian]

52. "Yes, intensity with the base matters --and if Obama can’t get them fired up, then he’s in jeopardy"

Indeed he is.

That seems to be the point of the whole article...proving that the base loves him. That the problem is with independents.

But in the end they had to add that oops what happens if the base stays home...maybe the base matters after all.

Right now it just seems wrong making it all about Obama..when so many are hurting financially, so many in pain.

Right now people matter. They are thinking that if he can't get the job done someone else can. I know because that is what I hear around us.

[NNN0LHI]

75. Only 81% of white Democrats in your state voted for Obama in 2008

Maybe you are hanging around with some of the 19% who didn't vote for Obama in 2008 and will never approve of him no matter what he did?

Ever even consider that possibility?

Don

[madfloridian]

53. The poll appears to separate liberals from Democrats?. Really?

"- Among liberals was 78%/18%. Now, it's 74%/21%.

- Among Democrats, it was 82%/13%. Now -- 82%/14%."

Can they do that?

[BzaDem]

66. Why not? Who says they are separating them? When they poll thier sample, they ask what party you

identify with, and what ideology you identify with. Then they measure approval among both subsets. There is surely vast overlap between the two, but looking at both of them gives one more information.

[scentopine]

55. Obama's approval rating at all time low

In addition, for the first time, more Americans have an unfavorable opinion of the president than a favorable one - 39 percent have a favorable opinion, while 42 percent view him unfavorably. Eighteen percent are undecided.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20107584-503544.html

Obama is punishing teachers all across America for not living up to expectations. Meanwhile Wall Street continues to rape us.

Obama has a 39% passing grade and that counts as a fucking A? Bullshit. He was expected to do better than Bush. He deserves an F with no chance to retake the course.

[defendandprotect]

57. ROFL --

[Major Hogwash]

60. Boy, nothing ever proved so fatal to the haters as the actual results of this poll.

It's kind of astonishing considering the GOP got nuttin', ya know.

Maybe we can talk Sister "Aimee" Sarah to hear the voice from up above and jump into the race and save us all from damnation as we guffaw at the losers the GOP has lined up so far for us.

But, then Sister Sarah never listens to the people that live on the 2nd floor.

LoL

[NNN0LHI]

71. The number of DUers who think Obama should throw his base who supports him under the bus ...

... was very startling to say the least.

It was a real eye opener.

Don

[oldlib]

80. I will still vote for Obama

and I am on the far left. The alternative is unthinkable. After the next election, I want Obama to come back to Democratic principals, and to make real progressive changes in this country. That is our only hope, since we know that the GOOP won't help.

[deutsey]

89. Same here.

I'm disappointed (though not surprised) by the past three years, but I'm still voting for Obama.

If any of the GOP contenders wins, we are (to use a word coined over there in freeperville) "screwn."

[kctim]

83. No, he should not

At least half of that 14% will vote for him simply out of fear.
The 81% would dive to about 65% if he were to move further left.

To lose 7% of your voters or to lose at least 15% of your voters?
Not hard who to cater more to.

[NNN0LHI]

84. And the other half of that 14% would not vote for him even if he ...

... was standing out on the street corner handing out hundred dollar bills and free frozen turkeys to everyone.

And they would take the hundred dollar bills and the free turkeys but they still wouldn't vote for him.

Don

[TheKentuckian]

97. Is there something the "14%" want that the "81%" would be upset about? is there any room

for compromise?

[BzaDem]

106. I think many of the 81% would be fine with at least a fair amount of what the 14% wants (such as

single payer).

The problem is that policies that fit such criteria usually also fit the following criteria simultaneously:

1. It is implausible for it to happen in the present
2. People outside the party would have a problem with it

As for 2, it isn't because they have thought it through and disapprove of the policy. It is because they don't really follow politics and they use the media and other proxies to figure out which party seems more "moderate," and vote accordingly. As much as we might detest that, the middle is what decides elections in this country.

There are rooms for tradeoffs. Sometimes it makes sense to enact a policy if it is plausible to happen even if it would hurt politically. But when it would hurt politically to advocate for and be impossible to enact, there is less of a reason to advocate for it.

[Motown_Johnny]

103. No he shouldn't because some people won't be happy no matter what

Those 14% need to be considered extremists who will always want more no matter what is done to appease them.

[Broderick]

109. Among liberals this week it is 69% approval

on Gallop

Democrat 75% approval

What I find strange is that liberal "democrat" is 78%. Not sure of the difference between liberal and liberal democrat though.


So liberals are a bit lower

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


the box is scrollable left to right and up and down.