Obama Supporters Make Up A Very Big Majority of The Democratic Base. We Will Be Voting in 2012.

[ClarkUSA]

Latest CNN Poll: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/09/26/rel16a-1a.pdf


:redbox: Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?

Approve

White 34
Non-White 70

Democrat 80
Liberal 72



:bluebox: Please tell me whether you agree or disagree that Barack Obama has the personality and leadership qualities a President should have.

Agree, has qualities

White 47
Non-White 83

Democrat 92
Liberal 84



:redbox: Please tell me whether you agree or disagree with Barack Obama on the issues that matter most to you.

Agree

White 35
Non-White 72

Democrat 80
Liberal 78



:bluebox: Do you think the Democratic Party should renominate Barack Obama as the party's candidate for president in 2012, or do you think the Democratic Party should nominate a different candidate for president in 2012?

Renominate Obama

White 64
Non-White 83

Democrat 76
Liberal 78

[ClarkUSA]

1. No One Can Dissuade Us With Negativity.

[Le Taz Hot]

14. Or facts.

:hide:

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[deutsey]

25. lol

[ClarkUSA]

30. "facts"? What "facts" justify not voting for Pres. Obama in 2012? Hmm?

I know of none.

[FedUp_Queer]

54. Here's one.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8621973.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8674179.stm

http://danceforpeace.org/nancy/?p=585

[ClarkUSA]

56. This old news story is all you've got? The ICRC don't seen to be concerned. Why are you?

"The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said that since August 2009 US authorities have been notifying it of names of detained people in a separate structure at Bagram.

"The ICRC is being notified by the US authorities of detained people within 14 days of their arrest," a Red Cross spokesman said.

"This has been routine practice since August 2009 and is a development welcomed by the ICRC."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8674179.stm

This is why you're not going to be voting for President Obama in 2012?

[FedUp_Queer]

55. Here's one. (sorry it posted twice)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8621973.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8674179.stm

http://danceforpeace.org/nancy/?p=585

[BzaDem]

36. Seems to me this OP is a nice dose of facts. Inconvenient facts to the critics,

but facts nonetheless.

[Mr Deltoid]

46. Race baiting

More of the same

[ClarkUSA]

47. Sure, CNN is famous for its "Race baiting" poll questions. LOL!

:sarcasm: :eyes:


:rofl:

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[ClarkUSA]

50. The OP is completely factual. It quotes the latest CNN poll Q&A verbatim.

You're throwing out ugly accusations without any merit, which reflects more upon you than I.

[Beacool]

43. Good one!!!

:7

[woo me with science]

48. Bwah!

:thumbsup: :rofl:

[Scurrilous]

2. Thanks.

K & R :thumbsup:

[ClarkUSA]

3. You're welcome. They say sunshine is the best disinfectant.

The same can be said of facts.

:hi:

[Scurrilous]

22. ...

:thumbsup:

[gateley]

4. What's really beginning to alarm me is the voter suppression

that's going on in so many states. SC alone knocked out a potential 200,000+ people who don't have drivers licenses, don't know how many of that number don't have picture ID's, but... :scared:

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. And when these methods work, the DLCers and Third Wayers

will blame the LEFT for losing the election.

Again.

[OHdem10]

6. 2010 showed us it was not the LEFT but DLC Blue Dogs who lost.

They lost because they wait until just before the election
to start campaigning. 2. They cannot hide under their
desks for an entire term--never going on TV to put up
a stand for anything. Never getting out and making the
case for Democratic Positions on issues. Let Republicans
spread all kinds of disinformation about them, never
refute it. MOST OF ALL appearing to be a fake Republican.

[kctim]

18. They lost because of the HCR mandate

Which is why they were replaced by Republicans and not liberals/progressives.

[TheWraith]

44. They lost to Republicans because they were elected from conservative districts.

This isn't rocket science. A Congressional district in Nebraska isn't going to elect Nancy Pelosi. You can have a moderate Democrat or a far-right Republican in that seat: those are your choices. In ANY election where we lose, it's overwhelmingly likely that the Dems in conservative districts will bear the brunt of that loss, while the Dems in safely blue districts will not.

To take that simple bit of logic and try to spin it into evidence that people elected ~70 extreme-right Republicans because they wanted more liberal candidates is laughable on the face of it.

If you don't believe me, do what I did last year: spend 6 months working your ass off for an unelectably liberal candidate in a deep red district. And like me, read the 70/30 results come election night. Maybe then you'll start to realize that yes, we liberals really are a minority in this country, and the only way to get anything done is slowly and by electing EVERY Democrat we can, not just the ones deemed morally worthy.

[kctim]

51. My bad Wraith

I should have said 'because of passage of the HCR bill.' Moderate Dems did not want another government mandate so they voted for the candidate who supported them instead of the Dem or liberal candidate.
I agree with you, they did not vote for the right because they wanted further left.

I should have been more clear.

[TheWraith]

60. Okay. Sorry if I went off on you there.

That's just one of my pet peeves: the people who argue that the biggest Republican landslide in history was because people wanted more liberal government. :eyes: No, it's because they were pissed off and reflexively voted for the other guy without being wise enough to recognize that it was the other guy trying his best to insure nothing good happened.

[ClarkUSA]

8. SC was never going to be in play. Also, OFA is moving to block OH's voter suppression, right?

I hear you but the only thing we can do is to make sure we get as many people to vote early as possible after making sure they have the right ID or helping them get it. I am in the process of doing the latter right now in PA.

[gateley]

29. And other States besides OH and SC -- I can't keep track

of them all!

What I'm doing in WA (where thankfully, no such measures have been introduced) is volunteering to drive people to the mailbox/PO (mail-in only ballots in most of our State) and buying up stamps for those to use who can't afford them. Don't know what else I can do.

[ClarkUSA]

31. Are you an OFA member? Local groups hold GOTV events regularly.

I'm travelling across state lines from NY to GOTV in PA. Been doing it for months. PA is going to be a real fight, so Democrats have to lock down as many votes in the Philly and Pittsburgh area as possible for 2012. PA Republicans want to get rid of the "winner-takes-all" electoral college vote system the state has but a majority of Pennsylvanians don't like the idea. PA voters have a "throw the bums out" history, so perhaps this polling result will hopefully give them pause. Maybe.

Regarding Washington, a recent poll showed that the GOP candidate for governor was leading the Democratic candidate just outside the margin of error. What's up with that?

[gateley]

32. No, not an OFA member, but I should get on it. And I've no

answer why a fucking Republican would be in the lead except, as is the case elsewhere, times have gotten bad and they will blame the incumbent's party. This is doubly upsetting because Inslee is my Rep, and he's one of the truly good guys -- I'd love to see him as Governor!

[ClarkUSA]

33. The GOTV efforts of your local OFA group will be benefitting Inslee as well.

Electing state Democrats is the priority of every state OFA group. Early voting is the key to winning elections, so alot of GOTV efforts will be focused on accomplishing that goal.

Good luck in WA. Inslee's campaign must be unhappy about the polling results I mentioned. I hope they can turn it around. There's plenty of time. Is he a good candidate on the campaign trail? Is the Republican one of these charismatic BS artists who's blaming the economy on Democrats? Because if he is, I hope Inslee reminds people just which party's policies screwed up this country in the first place!

[loyalsister]

58. Good for you!

Helping people get their IDs is a huge contribution.

[BlueCaliDem]

7. K&R! We will definitely be voting for Obama's reelection in 2012

but it's curious to me that four out of five questions show that Whites, overall, aren't as supportive of the President until the last question. I guess by then they understand it's a fool's errand to try and primary primary Obama - considering the extremely high risk of losing the WH to the Republicans, as history shows when an incumbent is primaried.

The low numbers by Whites in those questions do seem to support Melissa Harris-Perry's piece, don't they? You know the one? "Liberals" here have been griping long and loud about it here.

The 2012 election may be a test of another form of electoral racism: the tendency of white liberals to hold African-American leaders to a higher standard than their white counterparts. If old-fashioned electoral racism is the absolute unwillingness to vote for a black candidate, then liberal electoral racism is the willingness to abandon a black candidate when he is just as competent as his white predecessors.

http://www.thenation.com/article/163544/black-president-double-standard-why-white-liberals-are-abandoning-obama

Yep. That poll does underscore the validity of Melissa Harris-Perry's article, all right.

[ClarkUSA]

9. That's very perceptive. This poll does underscore the validity of Melissa Harris-Perry's point.

And this OP is has been unrec'd back to zero, even before you replied to me.

Now who would do that to such a positive OP about the Democratic incumbent POTUS at Democratic Underground?

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. If old-fashioned electoral racism is the absolute unwillingness to vote for a black candidate,

then liberal electoral racism is the willingness to abandon a black candidate when he is just as competent as his white predecessors.

And that is exactly the point - he is NOT just as competent as his white predecessor. Clinto backed free trade befre we knew what the fallout of it would be. Obama supports it today, and wants to expand it, despite knowing that it is responsible for a huge percentage of US job losses - it enriches the top 2% and devastates American jobs.

That is competent?

Obama let himself be held hostage by the repukes over the Bush tax cuts - ending them would return the tax rates to Clinton era levels. Those cuts enrich the top 2% and lay more of the tax burden, and debt burden, on American workers.

That is competent?

Sure, Clinton failed to get a Health Care reform - but so did Obama. Obama got a Republican Health Insurance reform, which helps a few people, but mostly helps the insurance industry.

That is competent?

Clinton fucked up by killing Glass-Steagal. Obama fucked up by not getting Glass-Steagal reinstated when he had a solid majority in both houses of congress and an 80% approval mandate from the public.

Obama did not prosecute war criminals from the previous administration. Obama did not prosecute financial criminals on wall street. Obama EXPANDED the Patriot Act.

Yeah. clearly, it's all about his race, not his policies.

[EFerrari]

11. Um, she hasn't shown that Obama is 1) held to a higher standard or

2) that he is competent so not only does she not make a valid point, her argument as it stands amounts to a slur.

[xchrom]

12. +1

[BlueCaliDem]

16. That poll show it, and supports her, and I agree with her.

Especially when visiting DU since the 2008 elections, having not seen as many anti-Democrat posts about President Obama except on RedState or the Freeper's site.

Even HuffPost isn't as venomous or nasty as a LOT of posters here are against President Obama.

[EFerrari]

23. No, I wasn't talking about nastiness or support for Obama

but very specifically about HP's argument. She's a very highly trained technician and she fails completely to make her argument.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

20. The difference between Clinton and Obama is simple

Things improved under Clinton even if that was a lot of smoke and mirrors and they aren't, and likely won't in the next 14 months under Obama.

There are many reasons for that, but Obama's willingness to move to the right while they say his "socialist" polices are killing the economy isn't helping.

I'm white and voting for Obama. But he's done himself no favors by not being a leader and bowing to those who want to destroy him, and will destroy this nation if they get their handpicked puppet Romney in there.

[Number23]

39. Excellent post and points

The low numbers by Whites in those questions do seem to support Melissa Harris-Perry's piece, don't they? You know the one? "Liberals" here have been griping long and loud about it here.

You noticed that too, huh?? :)

[SidDithers]

13. K&R. Facts are good...nt

Sid

[HappyMe]

15. I'll be supporting Obama and voting for him.

With pride.

[NNN0LHI]

17. Only people I know in real life who call themselves liberals and don't like Obama are LaRouchies

[kctim]

19. Of course we do

:toast:

[dameocrat67]

24. he does not just have to win democrats who are shrinking tribe

or selfdescribed liberals, who are also probably a shrinking tribe since they are mostly just democrats.

[Warren DeMontague]

26. are people here REALLY not gonna vote for the guy?

I find that hard to believe.

[JuniperLea]

28. The people will...

The trolls won't.

[NNN0LHI]

37. There are some on this board who did not vote for him the first time

Look around you can spot them by what they post.

Don

[closeupready]

27. LOL

nt

[marions ghost]

34. I don't think many people are holding Obama to a higher standard

than whites. That may constitute a certain percentage of voters-- but it can't account for the serious drop in support. (The loyalty of African American voters is to be expected & is not a factor). In many ways this drop shows they are treating him THE SAME AS (white) presidents of the past (and when have we had one that we thought did a great job? :eyes: Presidents in recent history have set a low standard in general...

I think people (especially younger voters) are discouraged because they held out hope that Obama would be a different kind of Democrat, less beholden to corporate special interests than Clinton. The dissatisfaction reflects the realization that Obama has not yet been able to bring "change" to some very key issues.

All that being said, I think Obama will win re-election. (Or should I say "allowed to win" by the grace of Rethuglicans). He has given the corporates a lot of what they want, and they'll prefer him to the idiots and misfits the R party is running.

Of course we'll vote for Obama. We have no reasonable alternative.

[ldf]

40. and therein lies the problem

we are exactly where they want us, with no choice.

and strangely enough we (are supposed to) expect things to get better by continually voting for the lesser of two evils, because the tenets of the democratic party have been long forgotten and tossed out the window as inconvenient.

for some of us (especially us older voters who have heard this tune SOOOO many times before), holding our nose as we vote in the voting booth may not be enough. the stench just may be too unbearable.

we will see, won't we.

[marions ghost]

52. that's right and I agree with

Chris Hedges when he says that whoever expects to change this enormously corrupt system merely by voting is delusional. It will take a movement, a wholesale rejection of the system-- that is so large that it is finally able to put pressure on the status quo.

I still vote, but I have no delusion that voting is going to change anything substantially. And even if you do get your (somewhat more "progressive") candidate in, whatever good they do will be reversed by the next wave of Rethuglicans.

So no, I don't put my faith in voting to address the basic problems.

[flamingdem]

35. Obama/Biden 2012

:thumbs up:

[Number23]

38. Rec'd. Thanks Clark!

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[CakeGrrl]

53. I'm voting a Dem ticket. It's a no-brainer.

It boggles the mind why some people seem to have a need to find out the hard, ugly way over and over that giving the GOP more power is not a good thing for them or the country.

[kentuck]

57. Unfortunately, Democrats cannot afford to lose even 1% of their voters.

So it doesn't matter how big your majority is unless it is everyone.

[ClarkUSA]

59. Only 57% of Democrats (as opposed to 78% liberals for Obama now) wanted Clinton renominated in 1994

President Obama is doing things right in the eyes of a very large majority of liberals and Democrats overall.

"In 1994, only 57% of Democrats wanted the party to renominate Bill Clinton, and he went on to win the nomination and a second term two years later," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

Without a prominent primary challenger, Obama's bid for re-election seems to be safe for now. But of those losing faith, the poll reveals that moderate Democrats are more likely than liberals to say the party should nominate someone else...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/14/cnnorc-poll-more-dems-support-obamas-re-election

<< So it doesn't matter how big your majority is unless it is everyone. >>

Neither party can lay claim to always getting "everyone" in their base. That's an impossible expectation.