This week, Obama has an 85% approval rating among liberal Democrats, and 81% among Democrats overall

[BzaDem]

To compare that, let's look at the Democratic approval rating among past Democratic presidents after around 660 days in office.

Obama: 81%

Kennedy: 91%
Johnson: 78%
Clinton: 74%
Truman: 68%
Carter: 62%

So Obama is currently beating the Democratic approval rating of every President in the last 60 years with the exception of JFK.

It's interesting to compare the data with posts here implying that Obama somehow "has a problem with his base."

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

[Lasher]

1. And about a 10% approval rating by me.

If I may be so bold as to consider myself part of the Democratic party's base, I find this conclusion questionable.

[BzaDem]

5. Just because you are in a small minority of the base doesn't mean you aren't part of it

If, however, thought your views were at all representative of the majority of the base, perhaps you need to revisit and reexamine your underlying assumptions (rather than question facts and data that contradict those assumptions). That was, after all, the point of my post.

[karynnj]

20. So - you are one of the 19% not with him

What's this nonsense with giving him your own private % - are their 10 voices in your head - only one with a favorable opinion of Obama?

This is a straight forward poll - 81%, who identified thenselves as Democrats - said they favored Obama.

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. Kind of gives the lie to the notion that it's the liberals who are

abandoning him.

The liberals and progressives might be most unhappy with him, and most likely to express that unhappiness, but remain most loyal. You don't find Reagan Democrats among the liberals and progressives.

[XemaSab]

3. And "D" is a passing grade

:P

[11 Bravo]

39. I've been a public school teacher for 37 years. Trust me, 81% does not translate to a "D".

[Jackpine Radical]

4. Obama has a problem with his base.

However, that base is loyal enough that they're not going to tell some pollster about it. Before the election I told every pollster (I was called quite a few times by various pollsters) that I supported Obama and approved of Health Insurance Reform. My quarrels with Obama are not of such strength that they would cause me to give aid or comfort to a Republican.

[BzaDem]

9. When I say "problem with the base," I am talking about a problem that might hurt his re-election.

Not just any problem with his policies. Even I have problems with some of his policies. I'm just responding to those who think that Obama might lose re-election because of his base.

[Jackpine Radical]

29. I'm talking about a problem that might unelect him too.

I think most liberals would vote for him rather than for a Republican, and they will get out to vote because they're committed to their politics, but they will lack the enthusiasm & commitment it takes to get out & work for their candidate.


As for the independents, their opinions at this stage are not predictive of anything. In 2012 they will vote their pocketbooks, as they always do, and if the economy is better for them on a personal level, they will vote for Obama, and if not, they will vote against whomever they see as responsible for their troubles. That is likely to be Obama.

[displacedvermoter]

149. So his getting reelected is of primary importance

to you? Over any substantive change he might get done if he actually governed like the progressive he campaigned as?

[JamesA1102]

6. DU isn't his base and never was nt

[AlabamaLibrul]

80. DU contains quite a bit of "his" base, and people to the left and especially to the right of "his"

base.

[JamesA1102]

84. No his base is Democrats and left leaning moderates.

Not the extreme leftists and anarchists that populate this site. That's the problem around here. Everyone things that DU represents the real world when it really represents a very small angry minority.

[EOTE]

123. "extreme leftists and anarchists"? Really?

I doubt you're going to find any anarchists around here. Anarchy is actually a right wing ideology. And if you consider the views espoused here "extreme", this probably isn't the forum for you.

[stevenleser]

142. Anarchy is not necessary left or right...

there are quite a few anarchic-socialists, for instance. I think Noam Chomsky includes himself among them. I doubt anyone here would consider Chomsky right wing...

[EOTE]

148. Anarchic-socialists are nothing like true anarchists.

In fact, it's kind of a contradiction in terms. Anarchists generally call for the elimination of all social programs. An anarchic-socialist, not so much.

[displacedvermoter]

150. I am an Air Force veteran who has been voting as a Dem all my

life and I resent such a bullshit, knee jerk statement. I am far from an extreme leftist, and certainly as the director of a public library, don't see how I can by definition be an anarchist.

I am angry though, both at crap like this from you, and the half-hearted efforts at "change" put forth by the Obama/Clinton cabal.

Is that inflammatory enough language?

[bigtree]

7. funny that

It's one thing to assert he's doing something or the other wrong. Criticism is just a vital and necessary part of politics. But to claim, as some have, that our Democratic voters are abandoning the President over these concerns just isn't supported by any polling.

Great post, BzaDem! K&R

[Iggo]

8. Oh cool!

Everything's hunky dory then!

[Radical Activist]

10. Much of DU is no longer Democratic or liberal.

Personally, I enjoy debating with Marxists when they can admit up front that nothing any Democratic President can do in the current system will ever be good enough for them. It allows everyone to put the bashing of everything he does in proper perspective. The same is true for libertarians and teabaggers.

[frylock]

11. wow. marxist? really?!

straight outta glenn beck's mouth. you are right about du no longer being democratic or liberal, however.

[Radical Activist]

14. Oh come on.

I'm not giving anyone a hard time about it. Why pretend? Should I link the recent thread asking everyone who's a socialist to admit it? Was that out of Glenn Beck's mouth too?

[frylock]

18. the fact that you think that marxism and socialism are the same thing speaks volumes

[Radical Activist]

21. Oh, you suddenly know something about it?

I'm sure we both know there are many forms of Marxism, of which the many forms of socialism can be classified under. There's nothing wrong with admitting that the conversation on DU is dominated by socialists as much as Democrats. Why be so defensive?

[frylock]

51. suddenly?

you don't know fuckall about me, sport.

[Radical Activist]

55. Oh, ok.

If we can both acknowledge that there are many socialists and Marxists on DU (since you want to make the distinction between the two) and that there's nothing wrong with that, then there was no need for your ugly accusation of red-baiting by bringing up Glenn Beck. It's simply the reality of this site that might as well be admitted openly. Under the new rules, you don't have to pretend to be a Democrat anymore, so why bother?

[WillyT]

27. And Much Of DU Is So Blinded By Party Loyalty, And Fealty To This President...

that they don't see the iceberg dead-ahead!

Didn't see November's whoopin coming?

Many of us did.

Think further capitulation to the rising right is gonna do wonders in two years?

Wrong again!

:banghead:

[bigtree]

34. call it what you want, but the 'iceburg' isn't the progressive or liberal voter

The majority of opposition to this President is clearly coming from the right, in response to his political and legislative victories.

No matter what you recommend he do to address that, he's still enjoying a large majority of support from Democrats. That percentage should increase when there's a republican challenger.

I personally think the myopia is coming from those who spend the majority of their time castigating this Democratic president and party, instead of focusing their attention and concern on the republican opposition.

[BzaDem]

35. The amazing thing is that you still think that November was caused by Obama not being "left enough"

as if Independents swung against him by 18 points because they didn't think he was progressive enough.

:rofl:

You're going to keep hitting your head against that wall (per your icon) until you revisit and reexamine your fundamental assumptions about elections.

[stevenleser]

143. It is amazing that some are still pushing that meme despite all the evidence that 2010 was not an

ideological election.

[Radical Activist]

43. Oh, you're hurting my feelings.

I'm sure two years of non-stop criticism that's barely distinguishable from Fox News will help get us back on the right track.

[WillyT]

46. I Wasn't Trying To Hurt Your Feelings, I Was Trying To Get You To Snap Out Of It !!!

Some here act like they are sitting around with the "study group" in a library module debating the best way to attack the next homework assignment/pop quiz/final exam...

At THIS level, there are no more pop quizzes or exams...

This is NOT about government theory, and statistical probablitliies...

THERE ARE PEOPLE OUT THERE, RUNNING OUT OF MONEY!!!

And they could not give ONE SHIT about how the Congress gets it's work done.

And... their desperation could very easily and soon... become all of ours.

WE NEED A FUCKING, KICK ASS LEADER !!!

And if he ain't up to it... maybe he should just step aside.

:argh:

:wtf:

:puke:

[Radical Activist]

47. There's the problem.

We don't need a kick ass leader. We need a kick ass movement. A movement that doesn't expect a President to hand us change down on a silver platter. We need a movement of people who expect the President to respond to us but don't expect Obama to do our organizing for us.

We need a movement of people who understand that effective activism means a lot more than pestering an authority figure. After 30 years of complaining about conservative Presidents I think the left has forgotten how to do anything else. That's not enough anymore. It's time to use big-boy tactics and stop whining for Obama to do our job for us.

We just had two years of Obama pushing progressive proposals in Congress with very little help from the netroots, who seem to think the President is the only elected official in Washington. There was real organizing work to do to pressure the Senate, and the response from the netroots was a circular clusterfuck. Fail. Massive fail.

[WillyT]

And On Most Of That We Agree, But...

the President is NOT some passive bystander. HE has the "Bully Pulpit".

And like it or not, most people need to have a cause to support, and a leader to follow.

He has this in him... I saw it during the campaign... he's smarter than the average bear...

Explain to me... WHAT THE HELL IS HE DOING/THINKING???

I'm truly at a loss here.

:shrug:

[Radical Activist]

49. Then you'll have to be more specific.

For the past two years I've seen Obama give powerful speeches to Congress, do countless TV interviews, town hall meetings, and more recently, big campaign rallies. Then I keep seeing this talking point that he needs to use the bully pulpit. That's the bully pulpit! That's what it looks like. What planet have you been on? He has used it non-stop. There has to be something else behind that kind of cognitive dissonance. The Cenk style whiny hand wringing over nothing and everything gets old and it doesn't seem rational.

[WillyT]

57. You Bring The Top Six Banks Into The White House...

and, without cameras, you inform them that your advisors are recommending shutting at LEAST two of them down (putting them into temporary receivership), you don't REALLY want to do this, but the people are calling for heads to roll because of THEIR (the banks) bad behavior, your hands are basically tied, and the only way to avoid this action is...

And then you either get what you want, or you put a couple of them into receivership.

TR - "Speak softly, but carry a big stick."

Not JUST a foreign policy position.

:shrug:

[Radical Activist]

60. That would make a very exciting episode of the West Wing!

And it's not like the banks would have a way to retaliate and sink his entire Presidency is response! :crazy:

[WillyT]

63. Well Then... A) We Are Not A True Democracy (We The People Is Dead), And...

B) When TR entered the White House in 1901, he took control of a federal government that often aligned itself with big business. Roosevelt restrained his progressive leanings for a short time, wisely avoiding a shakeup on Wall Street, where jittery investors saw him at best as a loose cannon and at worst as a dangerous demagogue.

In early 1902, however, TR took the offensive against powerful corporate trusts. He convinced Congress to create a Bureau of Corporations to regulate big business, then shocked the nation by bringing an anti-trust suit against J. P. Morgan's Northern Securities Corporation. Morgan condemned the president, not just for what he had done, but for the ungentlemanly way in which he had done it -- publicly and without warning. A new paradigm had been established in Washington, and Roosevelt would go on to file suit against more than 40 major corporations during his presidency.

Link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/26_t_roosevelt/t_roosevelt_domestic.html

And C) The election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt was upsetting for many conservative businessmen of the time, his "campaign promise that the government would provide jobs for all the unemployed had the perverse effect of creating a new wave of unemployment by businessmen frightened by fears of socialism and reckless government spending."<11> This combined with fear that he would begin tinkering with the currency.

The Herbert Hoover administration had steadfastly defended the gold standard even when Britain abandoned it in September 1931. With a devalued currency British manufactured goods became cheaper than American counterparts, resulting in more economic hardship for American industry. Roosevelt's campaign had promised to re-evaluate America's commitment to the gold standard, and through a series of actions from March 6 - April 18, 1933 abandoned it.

Conservative businessmen and other supporters of the gold standard were dismayed. Hoover who had championed the standard wrote that its abandonment was the first step toward "communism, fascism, socialism, statism, planned economy."<11> He argued that the standard was needed to stop governments from "confiscating the savings of the people by manipulation of inflation and deflation....We have gold because we cannot trust Governments."<11>

Roosevelt also dissolved any "gold clause" within contracts public or private that guaranteed payment in gold. This clause was part of every government bond and most corporate bonds, "It was a standard feature of mortgage agreements and other contracts. For creditors, it offered protection against inflation or congressional tinkering with the currency." For debtors though it was dangerous as "The gold dollar, before Roosevelt reduced it, was $1.69. This meant that a bank, for example, could suddenly require a farmer to make mortgage payments in gold coin-transferring a $10,000 mortgage into one worth $16,900, raising the farmer's debt burden by nearly 70 percent."<12> Likewise the U.S treasury could be required to pay the bearer of a $10,000 Liberty Bond $16,900 in gold coins.<12> (The constitutionality of this Roosevelt policy was later challenged before the Supreme Court in the Gold Clause Cases.)

With the end of the gold standard "conservative financiers were horrified. They viewed a currency not solidly backed by gold as inflationary, undermining both private and business fortunes and leading to national bankruptcy. Roosevelt was damned as a socialist or Communist out to destroy private enterprise by sapping the gold backing of wealth in order to subsidize the poor."

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

WE wrote the fucking playbook... and Teddy was a goddamned Republican... what the HELL is wrong with us NOW ???

:shrug:

[Radical Activist]

67. No shit we're not a true democracy. We never have been.

Including in 1901 when women and most black people still couldn't vote.

You should realize that TR was the more moderate, business friendly alternative to William Jennings Bryan, who would have done far more. So back in 1901 there was someone complaining about what an anti-democracy, corporate sell-out TR really was, just like you are about Obama. The same goes for FDR.

History always looks a lot messier when it's being made. If you had been around to see all the failures and compromises of TR and FDR, you would have hated them just as much as you hate Obama. There were plenty of disappointments and compromises to get upset about back then too. That doesn't mean we have to be short sighted and ignore the progress that's being made. People will look back on this as an historic time and you have to decide whether you want to be part of the progress or part of the doom-and-gloom crowd everyone will have forgotten about in 50 years.

[WillyT]

69. Then What The Fuck Is All The Shoutin About Man ???

I choose not to settle for the crumbs from the upper crust any longer.

If we don't have any leaders, or any party, that can get behind that, then I'll just take my chances as an individual, since organizing apparently means SQUAT!

And BTW - I do not now, and never have "Hated Obama", although his weak-kneed approach to governing does in fact SUCK!

Good-night! - I have to be at work at 4:45am to get the machines running to make sure that the 12.4% of the unemployed here in CA get their checks on time. Scanned about 300,000 of those forms today. And you should see the notes that come with those forms...

:shrug:

:hi:

[Angry Dragon]

76. And those are just words

I am sure you could give a very emotional speech to rally the troops,
but if you have nothing to back those words up with, then they are just words.

He needs to get down and get his hands dirty. He needs to fight.
Not fight dirty, but fight. I have not seen him fight.
That is my opinion. And he needs to figure out what he is fighting for.
You want the people to get behind him. The people told him that over 50%
of the people wanted single payer, public option. Did he fight for that?? No

You are asking the people to get behind him and the people do not know where he is going.

[WillyT]

83. Exactly !!!

:applause::applause::applause:

:hi:

[Beetwasher]

87. And HCR, Financial Reform, Lilly Leadbetter, EPA Regulations, Consumer Protection Agency

and on and on are actions that speak louder than his words.

When you say "fight", WTF are YOU talking about? You want him to punch Repubs in the nose? In poltics "fighting" is using words and creating policy. He's doing that. What ELSE would you have him do to "fight"???

[Angry Dragon]

92. You and I have differing definitions of fighting and how one goes

about it.

At this time this country needs a different kind of leader than the one we have.
If mccain would have been president we would be in worse shape right now.

To put it bluntly, I am not impressed with his leadership skills.

[Beetwasher]

94. I Have Realistic Expectations Of Leadership, You Have Naive, Cartoonish Notions Of Leadership

That rely on vapid slogans.

Yes, all Obama has to do is "FIGHT!!!!" and "SHOW LEADERSHIP", but you can't acutally say a damn thing that he should actually DO.

[Angry Dragon]

109. Thank you for your candor.

This is what he should do:

1. He should direct the appropriate agencies to round up and arrest all persons involved in torture and war crimes during the bush administration. Stating the reason for this is that the USA is not a country that believes they are above the laws. That we can not go forward until we take care of the past.

2: He should put a moratorium on all foreclosures until the banks can prove they actually have the legal right to foreclose.

3: He should instruct the DOJ to start investigating all major banks to see what they had to do this the melt down of this coutry back in 2008.

4: He should fire a large part of his advisors and cabinet.

5: He should attack all lies coming from the right. Do not let up. Never leave the air waves if that is what it takes.

6: He should tell the right what his plans are, if they have different ideas he will listen. If all they want to do is say no then he will tell them he has no time for them if they have no desire to help this country.

7: He should raise the tax rates on the more wealthy. The right will say that small business create jobs. He will ask them how many small businesses this will affect. They will have no answer because they do not know. He should tell them to guarantee how many jobs will be created. They will not.

8: He should state that Social Security will not be touched. The cap will be raised.

9: He will make it easier to form unions.

10: He will instruct Congress to produce bills to close tax loopholes for corporations.

11: He will instruct Congress to work on a law to make Citizens United ruling a moot point.

12: He will ask Congress to pass a law to forbid any former elected official from lobbying.

13: He will make it illegal for elected officials from forming pacs.

14: He will really sit down and determine if we really need to invade countries and look at the wars we are in now.

15: He will sign a Executive Order require Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. to report to Walter Reed to be tested for sanity.

[Beetwasher]

110. And he Should Have The Letter "M" Stricken From The Alphabet

Some of your ideas he's already doing, some he's planning on doing and some are pretty unrealistic but your desire for them is understandable and some are just plain loony. But at least you finally got specific.

[Angry Dragon]

114. Where are yours'??

I told you what I think care to give yours'??

[Beetwasher]

120. I'm Not The One Whining That He Needs To Show Leadership

I believe he already is and is doing an admirable job under the circumstances.

But if your asking me for a critique of Obama I would say that I believe his biggest weakness so far has been his reliance on his policies speaking for themselves. I believe he underestimated the necessity of being in campaign mode 365/24/7 and has suffered politically because of it. I also feel he could be more pointed in his attacks, but really, that may not be his personality and I don't know if that would necessarily be effective and runs the risk of backfiring.

[Angry Dragon]

125. Thank you for answering back

There are different styles of leadership.
Some let their ideas speak for themselves and let others run with them.
Some are very hands on.
Some rule with an iron hand, etc.

You state his leadership style is one of letting his policies speak for themselves.
Whether we like it or he likes it, he was elected to lead. That is what a president does.
At a different time this leadership style might have worked. I do not feel that it works now.
You have at least 50% of the people that are suppose to work with him, fighting him every step
of the way. I throw all the republicans in there and some democrats. The elected ones in congress.

The problem for me is that I do not know where he is leading us. It seems he is going one way
and then all of a sudden the course changes. Perhaps it is just me. But I do not know where he wants to lead me.
How can I follow if I do not know where we are going. A great leader is followed because that is
where the people want to go.

Of the 15 items I had, which ones do you have problems with.

[Beetwasher]

126. You Seem Very Confused

First you say you want him to lead. Then you say he IS leading but you disagree with his style. Make up your mind.

And I'm not going through your whole list item by item I don't have the time and it's not worth my effort to get involved in a muddled tit for tat with you when you are obviously unhappy with Obama and that's fine, but you can't in one breath say he needs to lead and then in the next say his leadership style is one you disagree with.

For the record, I didn't say his leadership style was "letting his policies speak for themselves" I said that was a mistake I believe he made, I did NOT say that's his leadership style. They are two very different things.

"Perhaps it is just me."

Yes, perhaps it is. Indeed.

[stevenleser]

145. Items #1,7,9,15 are non-starters. Items 10,11,13 have 0 chance of passing congress

Re #1 - There is zero chance of a successful prosecution of anyone for something on which the office of the Attorney General of the United States has issued a memorandum saying it is not legal. That is a complete and unassailable defense. Now, some of the acts were prior to the memorandum, but those do not implicate high enough officials to matter. Unfortunately, only bodies outside of the United States can hold the Bush admin accountable for what you list in #1.

#7 - Requires congressional approval. It will be torpedoed in the Republican house

#9 - Requires congressional approval. It will be torpedoed in the Republican house

#10/11/13/15 - Will not pass Republican HOuse

[Radical Activist]

91. But he needs to use the Bully Pulpit!

Interesting catch-22 that keeps showing up on DU.

"Obama needs to use the bully pulpit more!"
"He does!"
"Those are just words!"

:shrug:

[Angry Dragon]

98. Someone else mentioned the bully pulpit but

"Those are just words" are mine.

I do not know what you see when you look around this country.
What I see is a housing market that is full of fraud and greed.
People losing their houses because of bank fraud.
I see corporations buying and selling politicians.
I see all kinds of hate in this country at a level that I have never seen.
I see a media that only has one message.
I see an attack on the education in this country.
I see an attack on unions.
I see politicians get elected that I would not let into my house.
I see war criminals walking around and bragging about it.
I see a justice system that favors the rich and famous.
I see a country that has lost its soul.
I see a country that wants to shape the world to fit its needs.
No matter who they step on or kill.
I see continued attacks on the people on the bottom in this country.
I see two paths for this country. One of a slide into the ancient history books or
I see a country that finds itself in a bloody civil war.

Unless there is a leader that can stand up for this country.
In my opinion at this time, Obama is not that leader.
If he is, I have not seen it.

[Beetwasher]

101. Yes, We've Heard All The Vapid BULLSHIT "Stand Up For The Country!!!"

But aside from being an empty slogan, you have given NOTHING CONCRETE that you think he should be doing that he hasn't done. You've done nothing but spout vapid, childish slogans.

[Radical Activist]

104. I'm not really looking for a leader.

I'm a movement kind of guy. The most I really expect from a President is to help move things along and respond to movements when they organize. That's probably why I'm not too disappointed. People who look for leaders usually are.

I see Obama making progress in all the areas I care about but not as much progress as I'd like in most. By biggest disappointment is in the left for whining to leader instead of building the movement. This is a golden opportunity that's being blown.

[treestar]

99. this is so vague

this critique point is all over DU but it's very unspecific. Content free as to what it means.

And the Republican party thanks you for assisting them by spreading their talking point.

[Angry Dragon]

116. See post #109

[stevenleser]

144. And Repugs had polls saying people didnt want government health care.

I almost think one can discount most of the polls on HCR because most people have no idea what they are talking about. Who can forget the quote that "the government should stay out of our medicare."

[Angry Dragon]

75. I agree with you

A leader needs to lead
Most have no idea where he is heading
so how can one follow??

I am also at a loss

[swilton]

97. My first question on this survey was how did they define liberal?

The country has moved so far to the right after the 2000 quasi election that you could almost consider Even Bayh a liberal.

[bluestate10]

140. I am a moderate.

Many members of this site are well left of me. But I consider myself as sharing specific core values with them such as concern for those needing help, emphasis on science, some belief that government can make a positive difference in the lives of citizens. Some of the posts appear off the mark, in particular those incessantly raging against the TSA and body scanners.

BTW. I don't feel that the site is marxist, but there are some marxists posting.

[frylock]

12. so either libruls are tearing down his presidency, or everyone approves of obama..

one things for certain, you guys should pick a narrative and stick with it.

[BzaDem]

15. Why do you think that recommending those who claim to be progressive to vote Democratic

is somehow inconsistent with non-Democratic-supporting progressives being a tiny minority?

A tiny minority can effect extremely close elections. That doesn't mean they aren't a tiny minority.

[northernlights]

13. I wonder how many people are no longer democrats

I know of an awful lot who changed to green and socialist in the last few months...

Since they're no longer democrats, they probably don't figure in that poll.

[newblewtoo]

16. Wow. You posted what I was

thinking as I was scrolling down.

[JuniperLea]

19. Really? I don't know one of those people...

And I live in a very green/blue state, and consider myself a socialist first and foremost. Even my Independent and Socialist friends still support Obama.

I'm really confused with DU these days.

[bigtree]

22. question for them is

. . . will they support Democrats or republicans? And it's not so simple for them to just say neither. In our presidential elections we have a choice between republicans or Democrats. Who will they enable with their vote?

[superduperfarleft]

25. Many leftists eschew voting in that it's participating in the sham that is our "democracy."

Personally, I think organizing locally is far more important than voting for some figurehead, by your mileage may vary.

[bigtree]

28. yeah

It's soooo principled enabling the republican candidate by withholding their vote for the Democrat in the election. Enabling republicans into office does wonders for their agenda.

[superduperfarleft]

30. Clearly you have no idea what their agenda is.

I'm talking the hardcore anti-capitalist left that wouldn't bother with a site like DU.

[superduperfarleft]

24. That's what I was thinking too. n/t

[jonnyblitz]

17. too bad the next election isn't this week.

:D

[EFerrari]

23. If that approval doesn't translate into votes, what good is it? n/t

[bigtree]

26. it did translate into votes in the last presidential election

There's little to believe it won't this time around.

[EFerrari]

32. In the last election, we didn't pull the same number as 2006.

I frankly have no interest in bashing this president for what may happen years from now. What's the point, really?

An approval rating in November 2010 doesn't say much about 2012.

[BzaDem]

33. While this is in 2010, it shows that the people claiming Obama has a re-election problem because of

his base are mainly saying that because they live in a closed circle that doesn't correspond with most people outside the circle.

[bigtree]

36. midterm support always drops off, especially for the ruling party

. . . but, you're correct. These early polls are little more than entertainment for political addicts. :)

[BzaDem]

31. We lost Independents in the midterm election by 18 points.

Not sure what that has to do with Obama's approval among his base.

[EFerrari]

37. Exactly. If his approval rating doesn't translate into votes

what good is it? Either way, approval or disapproval?

[BzaDem]

38. I'm only talking about his approval among the base. That's the only subject of this thread.

I'm not saying Obama is a shoe-in for re-election. He could certainly lose if centrists continue to vote against him. I'm just saying that if he loses, it won't be because he has a "problem with the base."

[EFerrari]

41. "The base" is a squishy category.

I personally hope there is no primary challenge because imo, it would be suicide. And it looks like the Republican party will be forced to put up a sociopath for the presidency next time to satisfy the extremist elements in their party that are running roughshod.

AND, this administration has generated problems with unions, with women, with Latinos, with gay folk, and to the extent the stimulus did little for them, with the black voting block, and with the left for his spokesmen's stupidity, and with the unemployed. That pretty much leaves them with the centrist middle class voters most easily picked off by the right and they lost a number of them in the midterms.

Obama's re-election will not be a walk in the park. And it will take all of us who still have the moral energy to make it happen.

[grahamhgreen]

40. Apparently you missed the last election.

[BzaDem]

56. What does the last election have to do with my post? The fact that we lost independents by 18 points

has nothing to do with the fact that the base is solidly behind him.

[Rex]

42. I agree totally, some people here want us to stay divided by

breaking us up into two camps. Sad, pathetic and wrong.

[Lucky 13]

44. I don't care if I'm in the last .000001%

I will keep standing up for what I think is right and speaking out against wrongs wherever they come from... Left, right, or mushy center.

[Ted_White]

45. I would like to see a description of "liberal democrat". I question the self diagnosis of political

labels. Our politics have moved so far to the right, that a centrist is now deemed liberal. For instance, Nixon could arguably be more liberal than Obama. One may argue against this, but one could also make a strong argument that a moderate Republican 40 years ago is more liberal than Obama.

FDR had the New Deal. LBJ had the Great Society. Obama had a trillion dollar stimulus that was laden with tax cuts that mostly benefited the upper 5%. Yet, somehow we think that is liberal.

[frylock]

53. the liberal of 30 years ago is now today's marxist

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9612004&mesg_id=9612196

[laughingliberal]

74. True dat. nt

[myrna minx]

85. This just cracks me up: DUers are radical leftists and marxists.

:rofl: The folks making those claims have obviously never met a radical leftist or marxist, because they would know the difference in a heartbeat. It's nice to have Glenn Beck talking points here, though. :D I love how being to the left is now a pejorative to some here.

[scarletwoman]

48. I find those numbers rather meaningless without knowing what % of voters identify as Democrats.

Like, I could post that 90% of socialists approve of some socialist candidate, but what exactly would it mean?

As I recall, several polls leading up to the midterms showed that the number of voters identifying as Democrats had shrunk significantly from 2008.

If fewer voters are willing to identify as Democrats, what difference does it make that this shrinking percentage of diehard partisans approve of Obama?

What if by 2012 only 20% of voters identify as Democrats? What good would it do to tout that 85% of that 20% support Obama?

[BzaDem]

61. The more previously-non-approving centrist Democrats become Independents, the more his approval

rating should go DOWN, not up.

So the fact that it is still sky high suggests that the actual progressives still solidly support him.

[scarletwoman]

62. That makes no sense. If Democrats are becoming Independents, what good does that do?

If you have 100 voters identifying as Democrats in 2008, and 50 of them have stopped identifying as Democrats in 2010, how is that good news?

"Sky high" approval among a shrinking number of voters is meaningless.

[BzaDem]

65. If centrist Democrats are leaving the Democratic party to become Independents, that says nothing

about whether progressives support Obama. The only topic of this thread is about the approval of the base. I'm not saying Obama is a shoe-in for re-election -- if centrists swing towards Republicans like they did in 2010, he could very well lose. I'm just pointing out that the idea that Obama might lose because of the base is pure fantasy (and that his approval among the base is quite strong).

[JoseGaspar]

72. The OP is cherry-picking...

If you follow the OP's link to Gallup's "Presidential Job Approval Center", there is a host of data... much of it contradictory. Add some spongy words like "liberal" and "approval", and then take the OP's predisposition to match the data to his/her conclusion, and you can make pretty much any argument you like.

To your point, the difference in "approval" between those describing themselves as "liberals" and those describing themselves as "liberal democrats" is 12 points (73% versus 85%)... a very big difference. It certainly seems like you have an argument. More to the point, the approval ratings for those self-describing themselves as "liberals" and "conservative democrats" is nearly identical.

In truth though, these daily snapshots are not that useful except in sum. On one of the tabs, Gallup allows you to graph the approval ratings of any four presidents since Truman. Obama is on the same trajectory as Carter (a little bit worse) and the two show the worst trend lines of the set... including those of Nixon or G.W. Bush.

But, hey... why disturb a delusion in motion?

The NEXT election will be much, much better...

[BzaDem]

73. Of course, you neglect to mention that his trajectory beats Reagan, who cruised to re-election

or that he mostly ties or beats Clinton, who also cruised to reelection. Or that his trajectory among Democrats beats every president in 60 years save JFK.

And then you accuse ME of cherrypicking.

:rofl:

[JoseGaspar]

77. Look again...

Clinton hit bottom in the summer of '93, came back, plateaued around the time of the '94 elections and then came up slowly but steadily from there. The direction of travel was the opposite of Obama's. Of course, you can argue that Obama's approval will change direction as well. You can also argue that the Martians will land and make you the Emperor of the Earth. It is just so much conjecture.

On another matter... you roll around and laugh entirely too much.

It ain't healthy.

[BzaDem]

78. Serious question: do you know how to read a chart?

On nearly all readings since June, Obama was AHEAD of Clinton. At this point in Clinton's term, Clinton's approval wasn't "recovering." It was actually doing a nosedive to 40%. It then went up for a week or two, after which it fell again to 42%. Clinton didn't start recovering until Spring of the year AFTER the November elections.

Of course, you conveniently left out Reagan, who after his first year was below Obama for EVERY single reading, and went all the way down to 35% in the winter after his midterm elections. And he won 49 states in his re-election.

[JoseGaspar]

86. "Serious question"?

No... just a typically insulting one.

You continue to cherry-pick. In this case, you are picking peaks and valleys in order to make mountains out of mole holes. Clinton's "valley" was in '93 (37%), a low that he never returned to. After that, he went back up to the high 50s before settling back down to the 40s. Your "choice" of dates "makes" your "case". If you drew trend lines at each point (what else can "trajectory" mean?), it is just as I described.

What should be "concerning" to you is that, unlike Clinton and many of the others, Obama does not show a wildly oscillating approval rating. Instead, he shows a a steady erosion of support, without any evidence of major counter-balancing trends.

Your interjection of Obama being "ahead" of Clinton at one point is just moving the soap... and your Reagan discussion attempts to launch the soap into the next county (let's see... if Obama can just go down to 35%, he is sure to win 49 states in 2012).

Consider how far afield you are from your initial premise. The Gallup poll is gossamer... it cannot support what you purport. Your willingness to "slice and dice" is your own testimony to that fact.

But, don't let me stop you. Please do return to exactly the same narrative you had before these elections. I'm sure it will work out better this time.

[Beetwasher]

95. LOL!!! You Think Obama's Approval Chart Would Be BETTER If It Oscillated Wildly? You Mean Like W's?

:rofl:

Umm, that sort of manic approval chart is very, very unhealthy.

[JoseGaspar]

134. You got me... Mr. Washer of Beets.

I confess... I am worse than those who think Obama is just like "W". I actually want his chart to look like "W"'s too. I didn't say anything remotely like that but you discerned it, nevertheless. You are certainly entitled to roll on the floor in celebration of your smartness.

You are also a very sensible person. It is far better that Obama's approval ratings move in only a single direction... downward... steadily.

[Beetwasher]

136. As Others Have Pointed Out, That's Actually NORMAL For Pretty Much EVERY PRESIDENT

In their first two years. So yes, I did get you.

Maybe he should invade a country to get it moving up? Or allow a terror attack? Maybe that would help. :eyes:

You are clueless about the data your attempting to discuss.

[BzaDem]

107. Actually, the Gallup poll supports exactly what I said, and your flailing around proves it.

So now you acknowledge that Obama was ahead of Reagan at every point in his second year, and that Reagan nevertheless won 49 states. But that, to you, is evidence that.. wait for it... wait for it...

that is Obama is a one term President like Carter.

I mean, you can't make this stuff up. Is this really the best you can do? Surely you could come up with spin that's at least slightly more credible than what you are currently promulgating.

[JoseGaspar]

135. I don't flail or roll on the floor or laugh out loud.

I take politics seriously because it is a serious subject. You, on the other hand, think you are engaged in the "grand debate". You aren't.

I don't acknowledge anything about any of your attempted distractions. I can read the OP, if I forget what the subject was... because the OP is yours, is it not?

You are cherry-picking to support a narrative that you have made up. Reagan does not enter into it. You want to change the subject because you don't like where the discussion went. Sorry...

Put up a thread on how Reagan did worse than Obama for his first two years and I may participate in it.... if I see it and if I am not busy. Be prepared to explain how Reagan's turnaround occurred and why.

In the meantime, stop laughing. It is a condescension which is unseemly even if it were warranted, which it isn't.

[BzaDem]

137. So you comparing Obama's trajectory to Carter's in your original reply isn't changing the subject,

but my response to your reply (where I pointed out Reagan's trajectory) IS changing the subject?

And you then pretend this magical distinction you made up is you being "serious?"

[XemaSab]

50. Certainly not those on DU

I wonder if the difference between DU and the people polled is that people on DU tend to be high-information voters. :shrug:

[blogslut]

54. I love DU

But sometimes our collective sentiment is far removed from the rest of the electorate. Do you remember who won our fund-raising presidential race in 2008?

[XemaSab]

59. Kucinich?

:shrug:

[blogslut]

64. Yes

The majority of donations on this board went to forwarding Mr. Kucinich in that contest. It was an admirable sentiment but, well...it was an admirable sentiment. :)

[Beetwasher]

112. "but, well...it was an admirable sentiment. "

:rofl: :thumbsup:

[apocalypsehow]

52. And it drives the haters crazy. Rec. n/t.

[proteus_lives]

58. +1

[Marr]

66. So, just out of curiosity then...

in the off chance that Obama does lose reelection, who will you blame? Since it obviously won't be the base that cost him reelection, will it be the fault of Independents? Will you deem *them* unreliable and unworthy of courting, or is that particular piece of post-election condemnation only applicable to the left?

[BzaDem]

68. I'm not saying Obama can't lose re-election.

If centrist Independents move to the Right as they did in 2010, he may very well lose re-election.

"Will you deem *them* unreliable and unworthy of courting"

Why would I deem them unworthy of courting? They are needed to win elections. Each year, they decide between the Republicans and Democrats, and we need to convince as many of them as possible to vote for Democrats. This post was mainly directed at people who are in denial about the choice we have (as if there is some viable "third" choice). Any true progressive would vote for the viable candidate that best approximates their views out of the choices available, which happens to be the Democrat.

[stevenleser]

146. If he lost election today, I would blame it on three groups...

Him and his administration, the DNC, and his base. All have had a hand in what has happened thus far. I cannot say what might happen between now and 2012 that might alter the blame ratio in terms of if he lost.

[Number23]

70. lol Give 'em hell, Bza!

:thumbsup:

[TheKentuckian]

71. That is wonderful.

He's lots better than Barbour, Palin, Mittens, and Daniels all rolled together!

No sarcasm intended, but the bitter sadness is.

Sometimes the cafeteria options lead to a drink and a grumbling belly.

The corporatists will be the death of us as a people with self determination and hope for anything like broad prosperity. Whatever the flavor it is all poison.

[readmoreoften]

79. Wow he's pushed that many people out of the party, huh?

[BzaDem]

81. Ah, nice try. Democrats went down only about 3-4 points since the '08 election

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/30/party-id_n_725948.html

Considering the number of those that were centrist Democrats who left the party because it was too far left for them (as opposed to not far left enough), the number of people who left the Democratic party because it wasn't left enough is basically negligible.

I know it might be sad to you that you are in such a small minority, but your inability to comprehend that doesn't make it untrue.

[quaker bill]

82. I approve

However, it is always important to remember that at one point 85 percent of the entire American public thought invading Iraq and Afghanistan were good things...

While in this case I agree with the vast majority, just because something is popular does not mean one should feel a need to agree with it.

[mod mom]

88. Polls should be suspect, especially after this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/22/pew-research-confirms-gop_n_786754.html

[BzaDem]

119. Gallup polls cell phones. n/t

[Time for change]

89. It will take a lot more than this to convince me he doesn't have a major problem with his base

There is a tremendous amount of anger towards him coming from the left -- and rightly so IMO.

I find it interesting that his approval rating among liberals is only 72%. That seems surprising in view of the fact that his rating among "liberal Democrats" is 85%. Could this mean that liberals are deserting the Democratic Party in droves (I can't find comparable ratings for the other presidents at your link)? If so, that would explain a lot. I'm seriously consider quitting the Democratic Party myself, for the first time in my life.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

90. Then it's no wonder we won all those seats in the congress....oh, wait.

[Edweird]

93. Obviously. Just look how well the last election went.

[BzaDem]

118. Why do you assume the results of the last election at all contradict my post? We lost the last

election because centrist Independents swung to the right. This post is solely about the base.

[Edweird]

128. "Centrist independents" You have got to be kidding me.

Obama has advocated and implemented RW policy after RW policy. No amount of CFL light bulbs in the White House will fix that. Since when do 'liberal democrats' support RW policy? They don't - which also explains the last election.

[BzaDem]

131. Actually, independents voted for the Republicans by 18 points. So yes, centrist independents.

Your post can easily be explained by the fact that most people think you are totally wrong. Sure, you can SAY that Obama implemented RW policies, but that doesn't mean he ACTUALLY implemented RW policies. It simply means you are wrong about it every time you say it. For example, if you were to make 5 more posts about it, you would simply be wrong 5 more times.

"Since when do 'liberal democrats' support RW policy?"

They don't. Again, the problem isn't liberal Democrats supporting RW policies -- the problem is your mischaracterization of Obama's policies as right wing in any way. If you correct for your error, it makes perfect sense that 86% of liberal Democrats support Obama. Perhaps rather than blaming the 86% of liberal Democrats support Obama and obviously don't think his policies are right wing, you should ask yourself why you continue to think, believe, and repeat an obviously false premise.

[Edweird]

133. The individual mandate - RW.

Attacking social security - RW
Union busting - RW
Privatization - RW

Not to mention the continuation of Bush policies.

It is what it is.

[BzaDem]

141. You are correct that "it is what it is." It just isn't what you SAY it is. n/t

[Edweird]

147. Good luck with that. n/t

[treestar]

96. I haven't seen JFK lionized on DU

Interesting. Just FDR and LBJ with some Truman thrown in.

[Lil Missy]

100. DU is not representative of the majority of Democrats. n/t

[robcon]

102. Different numbers from Zogby...

"But, Zogby notes, perhaps most ominous for the president is that he's now losing support among his own party people. His approval plopped nearly 10% in just one week, from 78% down to 72% in Zogby's latest read.

Obama, John Zogby writes, "is failing to please more than one-fourth of his own party’s voters. This is a perilous position for the President."
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/11/obama-romney-palin.html

[BzaDem]

117. You are quoting an Internet poll.

Nate Silver says they are so unreliable and unscientific that he actually dropped all their interactive polls from his forecasting system entirely.

[dave29]

103. DU does not even remotely reflect the opinion of a majority of Democrats

the question is... why?

[robcon]

106. Why doesn't DU represent average Democrats? That's easy.

DUers are more liberal, more politically aware and connected than most Democrats.

When Kucinich, who could get 4% of any Democratic primary, gets 38% of a poll of DUers in 2008, (number 1 candidate) there is a disconnect.

DU is not SUPPOSED to be representative of all Democrats, and it isn't.

[dave29]

115. I didn't say it was supposed to

but now that you say it isn't, can you point me to where it says that in the rules?

[robcon]

138. I said it WASN'T supposed to. We agree, I think.

Reading disablity? Orneriness? Argument for the sake of argument?

It seems you want to find something to disagree with me on, so you make up a straw man.

[Margarito]

124. when did gallup poll DU?

How do you know that approval of Obama among people in DU is different than the 85% in that other poll? guessing is not scientific.

[dave29]

129. maybe once you get your post count up, you can run your own poll

and you'll see what I am talking about.

:hi:

[DainBramaged]

105. There aren't enough of us to win him re-election, we need the Independents too.

And as so many people claim the Quinnipiac poll was garbage, it's my turn to insist that Gallup is pure shit.

[walldude]

108. Really? So that leaves 19% of Democrats that are still

actually LIBERALS. Swell. You middle of the roaders and right leaning Dems have done so well so far, that we should take this loss as a reason to move further to the right. Hell of a plan. Love it.

I don't know where they get this shit or what your definition of a liberal is but liberals used to be for the people. If you think this administration has made the majority of it's decisions based oh how it will help the American people, then you are NO LIBERAL.

[BzaDem]

113. Perhaps rather than calling the 86% of self identified liberal Dems (who approve of Obama) wrong

you should ask why Obama disapprovers are in such a tiny minority of liberal Democrats in the first place? Maybe instead of everyone else being wrong, it is actually you that is wrong?

Just food for thought.

[JuniperLea]

111. No he doesn't! You hate him and you know it!

That's what the noise says, anywho.

[Margarito]

121. This proves that Joe biden was wrong in scolding "the base"

Which base was he talking about? biden was pretending that liberals were hating on Obama, which isn't the case.

[Iggo]

122. He has an 81% approval ratings among Obama supporters.

Wait.

What?

[sufrommich]

127. No, he has an 81% among Democrats. nt

[Iggo]

139. Sorry. I was projecting a couple of years into the future. (n/t)

[Bullet1987]

130. Approval Ratings are grossly misleading...

...his numbers are high for 18-29 year olds too out of all age groups. So why the hell didn't they come out to vote in the midterms and might not in 2012? Just because a person says they approve of his job doesn't mean they're inspired enough to go out and vote for him. Many voters also think he hasn't gone far enough.

[BzaDem]

132. 18-29 year olds NEVER come out in ANY midterm. That doesn't mean they won't come out in 2012. n/t