Obama's approval rating with liberal dems is still over 80%

[Cali_Democrat]

82% to be exact:

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

Interesting.

Overall dem support is 80% which is consistent.

Some so-called pundits predicted the snowdenwald revelations would lead to a total collapse in support among liberal dems.

Thankfully, those predictions turned out to be bogus.

Also, it's important to remember that gallup tends to underestimate Obama's support. So his approval is probably even higher than these numbers would indicate.

Great news.

[Scurrilous]

1. This should go over well...

[Cha]

20. LIke one of those

"lead balloons" we've heard about?

[riqster]

187. "Like a lead zeppelin"

(John Entwistle)

[djean111]

2. So that's the most important thing about Snowden's revelations?

An approval rating that really doesn't mean much of anything - Obama is not running again.
Or does this mean that we all must love everything Obama does, because hey! Approval rating!
Why does Obama need support, anyway? He does what he wants. How does "support" enter into it?

[Cali_Democrat]

14. Overall

Liberal dems approve of the way he is governing.

[Crow73]

106. Larry

Summers?

[tblue]

132. Ray

Kelly?

[1StrongBlackMan]

237. 82% ...

[Summer Hathaway]

18. Who said anything about

Obama's approval ratings having anything to do with Snowden's 'revelations' - besides you, of course?

An approval rating among his own party members means the vast majority of them think he is on the right track insofar as achieving their goals, and governing the nation in a manner they approve of. It has nothing to do with whether he will run again or not; it has to do with the here and now.

"Or does this mean that we all must love everything Obama does, because hey! Approval rating!'

That is a particularly asinine question, but I'll answer it nonetheless. No, it doesn't mean any such thing. Those who find everything Obama does to be unsatisfactory will continue to do so.

"Why does Obama need support, anyway? He does what he wants."

He needs support from Democrats because, as has been stated over and over - and you might try paying attention once in a while - despite his position, he cannot do everything on his own. The support of his party and its members goes a long way in accomplishing what we all want accomplished.

What his approval rating does highlight is the fact that the vast majority of real-life Democrats are happy with Obama's performance of his job - in stark contrast to the keyboard "Dems" on this site who spend their lives bitching on a message board about how THEY are representative of Democrats as a whole.

Hope that clears it up for you.

[djean111]

25. Pretty snotty reply, but you may want to pay attention yourself - the OP says

"Some so-called pundits predicted the snowdenwald revelations would lead to a total collapse in support among liberal dems."

You have no idea how I spend my whole life. Hope that clears things up for you.

[Summer Hathaway]

29. Of course they did.

And, as is so often the case, the pundits were wrong in their prediction.

"So that's the most important thing about Snowden's revelations?"

Just how do you figure that because it was predicted that Snowden would negatively impact Obama's approval rating, that somehow equates to that approval rating being 'the most important thing' about Snowden's relevations?

The 'importance', or lack thereof, of Snowden's actions and/or statements have no bearing here, one way or the other.

[tblue]

133. Please tell us how you do this

"The support of his party and its members"

I'd love to hear what you do to support our POTUS, beyond the keyboard. I really don't know what "support" is in action. Is it phone calls and letters? You know so really, please tell us so maybe some of us can do it too.

[dionysus]

163. shazam!

[MustBeTheBooz]

171. Well said. Thank you! (nt)

[Cha]

101. thankfully not everything is about freaking snowden.

President Obama has a lot of liberal supporters because of the job he's doing.

[Cha]

112. Do your own reseach.. like everyone else. I'm not here to spoon feed those who make

ignorant comments.

[nomorenomore08]

158. Sounds like you consider that a pretty trivial issue. Whereas I say anything that affects ~10%

of the population can't be trivial.

[kardonb]

107. approval rating

it only "doesn't mean much " if it does not agree with your opinion . It shows me , that a lot of people have the good sense to not listen to all the fake "scandals" dreamed up by you eternal discontented folk .

[derby378]

3. Obviously, Gallup never contacted me...

I cannot support warrantless NSA surveillance of our daily activities. Even a former Stasi officer said he was appalled by the reach.

I still want Obama to succeed, but right now, he's got problems.

[arely staircase]

49. and we liberals love obama

by huge overwhelming margins.

[leftstreet]

4. This says more about 'liberal dems' than Obama

From your same link:

July 22, 2013
Obama Approval Dips to 47.9% in 18th Quarter in Office
Second consecutive quarter his approval average has declined
by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ -- President Obama's job approval rating averaged 47.9% during his 18th quarter in office. His quarterly average has declined in each of the last two quarters after showing improvement in each of the five previous quarters, culminating with his re-election.

Why are liberal dems so out of touch with mainstream reactions to Obama?

[shenmue]

7. Maybe it's the 'mainstream' that's out of touch.

Just a thought.

[JoePhilly]

8. So it went up some before the election ...

and came down some after the election.

GASP!!!!

[Progressive dog]

13. Liberal dems are out of touch with mainstream

Libertarian, Republican, and teabagger reactions to Obama.

[Tarheel_Dem]

23. Could it mean that we're not reactionary like teanutters? I think Lib Dems are just smarter than...

the rest.

[Puzzledtraveller]

190. or we are too enamored with the president

[Tarheel_Dem]

195. Or we really are "Democrats", which is a totally different animal from today's "Internet Liberals".

Firebaggers need not apply.

[pnwmom]

35. Because the "mainstream" includes lots of Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents.

Why should you be surprised that the subset of liberal Dems likes him more than the "mainstream"?

[leftstreet]

60. According to the poll, Independents give him 30%

Which doesn't bode well

If you read the poll - inasmuch as any of these polls are accurate - it supposedly uses a cross section of 45,000ish adults

Then it breaks down by many categories

[OnionPatch]

201. Bode well for what? He's not running for re-election.

Just because I may not approve of Obama doesn't mean I'm going to vote GOP.

[leftstreet]

202. His party n/t

[OnionPatch]

214. Then the rest of his party need to define themselves.

And speak out about the areas in which they disagree with the president. Particularly concerning NSA spying and cuts to Social Security. I know I won't be voting for anyone who supports either.

[leftstreet]

217. It's not campaign season yet

I agree with you by the way

[arely staircase]

50. you aren't one? nt

[leftstreet]

63. Apparently not. The poll has 11 (!) political affiliations

Democrat
Republican
Independent
Liberal
Moderate
Conservative
Liberal Democrat
Moderate Democrat
Conservative Democrat
Conservative Republican
Liberal Moderate Republican

FFS !!

[arely staircase]

71. standard polling categories

3 party affiliations and various ideological leanings. what do you find so funny?

[RedCappedBandit]

138. How many "liberal dems" are actually "liberal"?

I wonder, truthfully.

[leftstreet]

140. Maybe they self-identified with classical liberalism

small government, free markets, etc



LOL maybe the survey respondents were Europeans?

[RedCappedBandit]

141. It's a valid question IMO, and a discussion I've had with friends before.

I honestly do wonder about how American liberals actually define the word. I view myself as liberal, but don't really think I mesh so well with your typical democratic politician.

[shenmue]

5. Yay!

[JoePhilly]

6. Sure, but they have not been vetted by the People's Front of DUeya.

They might be splitters.

[msanthrope]

10. You sure it isn't the DUeya's People's Front?

[JoePhilly]

11. YUP, or is could be the Purist People's Front.

[David Krout]

9. You say that Obama's approval should be higher because this is Gallup

But why don't you just search what other pollsters have found when it comes to job approval, in order to verify if your theory is true?

[Kelvin Mace]

12. I would love their definition of

"liberal" Democrat, considering Obama is distinctly right of center.

[Cali_Democrat]

15. Or perhaps

he isn't right of center?

Just a thought.

[Kelvin Mace]

26. hmmm

1) He wants Larry Summers as Fed Chief, despite the man being one of the principle cheerleaders for laws and actions which crashed the world economy, not to mention being a sexist pig (Summers, not Obama).

2) He has kept innocent people detained in Guantanamo with no plans to ever release them. He has kept Guantanamo open despite promises to close it.

3) He has refused to investigate war crimes committed by the previous administration.

4) He has refused to prosecute Wall Street criminals despite OVERWHELMING evidence of fraud.

5) He has defended the surveillance state he once opposed.

6) He prosecutes whisteblowers while letting the criminals they exposed walk free.

5) He had to be dragged kicking and screaming to support gay marriage and ending DADT in the military.

6) He allowed insurance companies to water down health care reform.

7) He echos right-wing lies about "entitlement reform"

8) He echos right-wing lies about the Keystone pipeline representing "energy independence" for America.

9) He has ordered the killing of U.S. citizens without any meaningful due process.

10) His use of drones on innocent civilians constitute his own war crimes.

Shall I continue?

[Maedhros]

33. Save your bandwidth.

"Liberal" means precisely what they want it to mean, and nothing else. In this particular case, it means "my team."

[Jamaal510]

51. Explain why Republicans

are so hostile against Obama, then, if he isn't a liberal.

[zeemike]

54. It is what shills do.

That is what makes us think he is liberal...so they do it.

[derby378]

67. I thought we all agreed skin color had a lot to do with it

A lot of teabaggers out there think "the boy" hasn't learned his place yet.

[Kelvin Mace]

94. Their is absolutely no disputing

the racist attitudes toward Obama. Clear cut, black & white (no pun intended) textbook defined racism with hoods, burning crosses and a Southern drawl.

[Kelvin Mace]

80. Republicans today are hostile toward anyone

not agreeing with their policies. That would include, by my historical review, Nixon, Reagan and both Bushes.

Obama's conservative views would be more palatable to the GOP if he didn't insist on being black. THAT, is unforgivable in their eyes.

Also, must I remind you that the vast majority of the Affordable Care Act was recycled from the GOP's 1993 health care bill?

Republicans oppose basic reality simply because it disagrees with their worldview. Are you telling me that I should believe Obama is a liberal just because the GOP says he is? 99.9% of what the GOP says is bullshit, why should we consider this true?

[Maedhros]

83. Because Republicans and Democrats are fighting each other for political power

just like rival mob families fight over turf.

"Liberal" means workers' rights, social safety net, commitment to public education, environmental protection and civil rights.

Trans-Pacific Partnership? The opposite of workers' rights.

Chained CPI? Undermines and weakens social security.

Race to the Top? Undermines and weakens public education by pushing standardized tests and charter schools.

Keystone XL Pipeline? Threatens the environment.

NSA Surveillance? NDAA and indefinite detention? Execution of U.S. Citizens with no due process? Secret laws interpreted by secret courts? Ignores and undermines the Constitution.

None of these are Liberal, and all of them are supported by Obama.

[rhett o rick]

216. That's an easy one. They were told to. But they have been very quiet about

the Gen Clapper lies, and the NSA spying. They seem to approve of the Clapper spy system. But then why not, he is one of them. They love his embracing the Patriot Act.

And they give Obama trouble about the economy but dont vote agaisnt his selections of conservatives to run the economy. And they might not say it out loud but they love his attitude toward Wall Street.

[Kelvin Mace]

76. Sadly, you are right.

[YoungDemCA]

175. +1

nt

[Jamaal510]

40. I doubt

that someone who is truly right-of-center would push for higher top tax rates or come out in favor of gay marriage. Almost all Republicans are unanimously opposed to things like gay marriage, top tax hikes, public education, voting rights, the right to choose, renewable energy, and stricter gun laws (which are all things that this President supports BTW). He had even did what past Democratic administrations have sought in reforming health care, moving us one step closer towards single-payer. Why else would Republicans be so hostile towards the guy if he is so right-leaning?

Also, for some of the things that you have listed, it is the responsibility of us as constituents to get out and push Congress to change the laws. For example, push them to crack down on Wall St. Push them to ensure internet privacy and more whistleblower protections. Push them to quit blocking the closure of GITMO. Instill fear in them if they continue voting against health care. We have a checks-and-balances system, so Obama is not going to be able to do everything we want him to do unless people give him a Democratic majority in the House and a supermajority in the Senate (like how it was until Ted Kennedy's death).

[Kelvin Mace]

75. Obama only came in from the

anti-gay marriage cold when he was up for re-election, not before. His support for abortion rights, the environment, renewable energy etc, are luke warm and to the right of moderate liberals like Jimmy Carter, who recently said that the surveillance state (which Obama is defending) had gone too far.

As far as whistle-blowers, Obama runs the EXECUTIVE branch charged with upholding the law and prosecuting crime. His "Justice" Department has been heavy on raiding marijuana clinics, prosecuting whistle-blowers while shielding Wall Street and Bush-era criminals, laws and policies.

Closing Guantanamo is a matter of an executive order, not Congress. All he has to do is order the prisoners released, or brought to the U.S. for trial. What will Congress do? Form its own military?

Congress is certainly to blame for a lot that is wrong in this country but Obama has much to answer for. A intellectually honest argument can be made defending his actions, but any argument characterizing Obama as a "liberal" is as specious as the arguments calling him a "Nazi", "Socialist", "Communist" or "foreign born". This country hasn't had a moderately liberal president since Carter, or a genuinely liberal president since LBJ (except for Vietnam).

[Pretzel_Warrior]

47. bahahhaha!! just like a CON. Don't listen to evidence! does not compute!

you need help.

[Kelvin Mace]

55. Really?

You have evidence to the contrary. By all means share. I am listening.

Also, are you calling me a conservative? Lets be clear here.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

59. I"m not calling you a conservative. You are exhibiting a trait many conservatives have

purposefully discounting/ignoring factual data.

Factually, 82% of liberal respondents say they approve of Obama's job in office. The only way around this is for you to apply a red herring of saying "well, Obama isn't a liberal Democrat" or applying No True Scotsman by saying...yeah, but they aren't REAL liberals. I just know.

[Kelvin Mace]

86. Seriously? You are calling a GALLUP poll "factual"

The very right-wing Gallup organization?

Factual?

The same Gallup that got the presidential polling so very wrong?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/08/gallup-presidential-poll_n_2806361.html

The same Gallup Poll that USA Today fired for being wrong most of the time?

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:JrNJRGleRiIJ:blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/2013/02/19/usa-today-hires-pew-to-replace-gallup-whose-polls-last-year-werent-too-good-november-election/+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

And I am a conservative because I ignore erroneous data you consider factual?

I have been on this board a decade now and my liberal bona fides are firmly established in the over 10,000 posts I have written.

Good day, sir.

[bahrbearian]

125. It it fits their Meme its OK.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

199. nothing like "guilt by association" to cut off argument

and avoid inconvenient truths.

[Kelvin Mace]

228. Warren in 2016...

ah, there is a hopeful thought.

[Tarheel_Dem]

207. What about The Washington Post? If they showed the same numbers, would you believe them?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/07/23/National-Politics/Polling/question_11437.xml?uuid=CDRdXPOHEeKB-o6Ds4ZMNg

[Kelvin Mace]

227. I find it hard to believe what many U.S. media outlets write

as the bias of corporate entities is distinctly conservative. After acting as cheerleaders for Bush, the Post and NYT have little journalistic credibility on political issues.

[Tarheel_Dem]

235. Well, not much I can do about your "beliefs". I realize many "liberals" find that only Russia Today

& Al Jazeera are "genuine" news sources these days, much like the Fox News crowd "believes" that Fox is the only outlet for truth in media. Your "disbelief" sorta reminds me of Mitt Romney on election night, he dismissed the mainstream news outlets and polling firms, only to be blindsided by his alternative news sources. Yours is a minority view among liberal Democrats, and those are just the facts, despite your dis"belief".

[Kelvin Mace]

247. Actually, I find nothing Russia Today reports on reliable

(even the weather reports should be verified) and Al Jazeera's reliability depends on the topic.

Why do you believe in the U.S. corporate media where 90% of the media sector is owned by six companies? In fact, they are so secure in their control, they can even write stories about it.

Comparing me to Romney was a nice smear, and so VERY original.

I am certainly a minority among self-described "liberal" Democrats, but then again, when the party is lead by a guy JUST to the left of Mitt Romney, I like being in the minority.

[TiberiusB]

196. Factually? Not so much.

While I find most polling pure bs, and Gallup's in particular, there is a very real distinction between "liberal but largely party loyal" and "liberal", and that difference does not favor this administration.

According to Gallup, 82% of liberal DEMOCRATS say they approve of Obama's performance. The number drops to 68% if you simply count "liberals." The numbers fall still further if you consider only "moderates", dropping to 50%. When race is a factor, a whopping 50%+ divide between black and white Americans opens up. It is hardly surprising, though, that minorities would like to see the first minority president succeed while many conservative whites are already convinced he's failed.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

198. most "liberals" who are not democrats are either Green Party or Libertarians

I think we can agree most Libertarians are not happy with Obama.

[Maedhros]

203. Most Libertarians identify as "Conservative"

save for the subset of Civil Libertarians who are for the most part "Liberal."

Which makes sense, since limiting civil rights (such as freedom of assembly and rights to privacy) is generally a Conservative strategy.

[TiberiusB]

234. The real money is in tracking issues vs ideaologies

Just look at any poll to see how many people favor expanding Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, job and infrastructure bills, education, blocking Keystone, and many other ostensibly liberal causes. The right/left divide, while very real on certain issues, is largely an invention of the media and beltway on many of the most important problems we face.

Sadly, in the end, it is mostly about keeping the most money in the fewest hands possible. That's why, regardless of who the corporate approved candidates are today, we need to get money out of politics and start picking our own candidates ASAP. Otherwise, we'll just keep circling ever closer to the drain.

[Maedhros]

236. I saw Michael Moore speak about 15 years ago.

The crux of his speech was that this idea that the United States is a conservative nation was propaganda fed to the public to justify regressive policies. He quoted poll after poll that showed exactly what you describe: widespread and deep support for Liberal policies. He also noted that the country's demographic had changed, and that a majority of the country was either female or of color. There was a great money quote, which I will paraphrase: "They want you to think that the Average American is old, white and Conservative. In reality, the Average American is Oprah Winfrey."

Moore went on to explain the Gingrich Revolution as the last gasp of the vanishing Old White Guys demographic. They were used to controlling everything and having everyone cater to them. The found terrifying the idea that people unlike them (i.e. female and not-white) could shape the future course of American history, and so they began frothing at the mouth and throwing what amounted to a huge political tantrum.

Here we are 15 years later and all the "problems" the Old White Guys had in 1998 are orders of magnitude "worse." A Non White Guy even got elected President! It's not surprising that they've doubled-down on the crazy.

The trick for the rest of us is to keep them from doing real damage. Maybe it's too late for that?

[zeemike]

53. No no...that is the new liberal.

the old liberal is under the bus...and the professional left needs to STFU about it and go along with the program like they are told...

The new liberal loves Big Brother just like the GOP because the GOP was right about keeping us safe...Those terrorist are everywhere.

[TransitJohn]

82. He's done nothing meaningful to stem climate change, but the opposite

He continues to raid, prosecute, and imprison legal medical marijuana dispensaries that don't distribute across state lines
He kowtows to Republicans in the House
He offered up Social Security to the Republicans in the House, proposing cuts himself
He expanded gun rights, allowing possession of firearms inside National Parks
He opened up more areas to offshore drilling

[arely staircase]

85. can't stand him can you?

[dionysus]

164. their bitter tears are nectar to my soul....

[Not Sure]

90. +1

My thoughts exactly.

[Ed Suspicious]

84. That's fucking frightening. If President Obama represents something left of center, liberalism is

functionally dead.

[Art_from_Ark]

150. Yay. Today's "liberals" overwhelmingly support a president

who has likened himself, in both words and deeds, to a 1980s moderate Republican :bigwhoop:

[Maedhros]

204. Reagan was MODERATE?

I suppose by today's standards, but at the time he was a reactionary.

[Art_from_Ark]

206. I should have put the word moderate in quotations

Reagan was only "moderate" in the sense that he at least did not actually start bombing the "Evil Empire"

[pnwmom]

57. The pollster allows people to define themselves. So a liberal Democrat

is anyone who considers himself to be a liberal Democrat.

I know how much that idea pains some of the purists here, especially those who view Obama as "right of center."

[Kelvin Mace]

91. That is certainly the problem with the poll

As to "purists", no politician will agree 100% with any "purist" definition of "liberal".

That said, when you contravene a number of generally agreed upon liberal ideologies repeatedly, you really don't get to honestly be called a "liberal".

According to some on the Right Obama is a Fascist and Communist, which he cannot be anymore than he can be a Black Klansman. I have no doubt that Obama is, as the kids call it today, a "neo-liberal", which makes him a center-right moderate by classical liberal definition.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/us2012.php

This Political Compass' analysis of Obama is SPOT ON:

This is a US election that defies logic and brings the nation closer towards a one-party state masquerading as a two-party state.

The Democratic incumbent has surrounded himself with conservative advisors and key figures — many from previous administrations, and an unprecedented number from the Trilateral Commission. He also appointed a former Monsanto executive as Senior Advisor to the FDA. He has extended Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, presided over a spiralling rich-poor gap and sacrificed further American jobs with recent free trade deals. Trade union rights have also eroded under his watch. He has expanded Bush defence spending, droned civilians, failed to close Guantanamo, supported the NDAA which effectively legalises martial law, allowed drilling and adopted a soft-touch position towards the banks that is to the right of European Conservative leaders. Taking office during the financial meltdown, Obama appointed its principle architects to top economic positions. We list these because many of Obama's detractors absurdly portray him as either a radical liberal or a socialist, while his apologists, equally absurdly, continue to view him as a well-intentioned progressive, tragically thwarted by overwhelming pressures. 2008's yes-we-can chanters, dazzled by pigment rather than policy detail, forgot to ask can what? Between 1998 and the last election, Obama amassed $37.6million from the financial services industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. While 2008 presidential candidate Obama appeared to champion universal health care, his first choice for Secretary of Health was a man who had spent years lobbying on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry against that very concept. Hey! You don't promise a successful pub, and then appoint the Salvation Army to run it. This time around, the honey-tongued President makes populist references to economic justice, while simultaneously appointing as his new Chief of Staff a former Citigroup executive concerned with hedge funds that bet on the housing market to collapse. Obama poses something of a challenge to The Political Compass, because he's a man of so few fixed principles.

[frylock]

99. for many here, liberal = not republican

[Kelvin Mace]

105. Yeah,

which is really depressing.

[Maedhros]

205. Liberal = my team.

Conservative = their team.

My team > Their team.

[HoneychildMooseMoss]

243. Or even, liberal = not libertarian

[pnwmom]

131. The typical conservative today doesn't believe in Social Security,

Medicare, the ACA, unemployment insurance, a woman's right to choose, or equal rights for gay people.

Just because Obama has disappointed people in some other measures doesn't mean he's not a liberal.

The old definitions don't work because when the Soviet Union broke up, and China began to change, the ballast we had on the left disappeared and our whole country moved to the right. In other words, the left and the right were in a tug of war. When the Soviet Union broke up and China began to liberalize, we lost some of our strongest tuggers. The result here was that our whole country moved to the right.

[Kelvin Mace]

146. Some words must have a fixed meaning or they cease to have any meaning

Obama is not a liberal in the political definition of the word, he is a "neo-liberal" which is to say a center-right moderate to center-right conservative using the original definition of the words.

The typical Obama liberal believes that that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare need to be "reformed" (i.e. cut) that abortion needs to be restricted and that gay people only get rights when they are needed to win elections. An Obama liberal believes that a Monsanto employee should head the FDA, that people who engineered the near financial collapse of the planet should be put in charge of finance.

Again, these may be great neo-liberal positions, but they are neither liberal, nor progressive. You can't claim LBJ or FDR was a liberal and that Obama is too. Obama is dismantling the Great Society and the New Deal safety nets. By his actions he is not a liberal. To me, claiming Obama is a liberal is to abuse the language in an Orwellian fashion.

Today's conservative is yesterday's John Bircher extremist, which makes them TODAY'S John Bircher extremist. To not call them that is enable extremism. People keep shifting the middle to the right, but then retaining the same labels despite the fact that those labels no longer apply.

China has liberalized in a the context that it has adopted same the predatory form of capitalism that is in vogue in corporate America. Beyond that the country is still as tyrannical and murderous as ever, as is Russia (currently governed by an ex-KGB agent). In some ways these countries have become worse than they were, just like the U.S.

[pnwmom]

148. You are misstating his positions.

As President, he has to work with members of Congress that want to do away with most social programs entirely. So he searches for compromises with them, and then people like you scream that he's betraying the left.

If he had the kind of Congress Lyndon Johnson had, or had stacked the Supreme Court like FDR did, he could have achieved different results. I think he's doing very well considering the circumstances.

I disagree with you strongly that terms like conservative and liberal must be absolute terms to have meaning. IMO, they are clearly relative terms, and most Americans understand this.

[Dawgs]

185. Compromising with Republicans to cut SS or Medicare should NEVER be considered by ANY Democrat.

And certainly never even be thought of by a liberal.

[pnwmom]

221. When has he cut SS or Medicare?

The Rethugs are lying when they say he's cut Medicare. The only funds he removed there were from an experimental private program that turned out to cost more than Medicare without achieving better results. So it was ended, as it should have been.

[Dawgs]

244. First, I never said HE did anything. You're putting words in my mouth.

Second, you were the one that implied a Democrat president has to compromise with Republicans on social issues.

[pnwmom]

248. No, you were being deliberately misleading. In direct response to my saying you were

misstating his positions, you made the claim about cutting back on Social Security and Medicare.

And compromising about some issues doesn't mean Obama has actually cut back on either Social Security or Medicare.

[Dawgs]

249. Not surprised that you're still wrong. My intent and comment stand as they were presented.

No Democratic President, Obama or otherwise, should ever compromise on SS or Medicare. Doesn't matter that it was in direct response to your ridiculous comments.

[Kelvin Mace]

189. Where in the Constitution does it say the President

MUST compromise with Congress? Obama keeps coming up with these compromises and then the Republicans move the goal posts (and the football, Lucy-style) and Obama shuffles further right. If he is sincere in his pursuit of "bi-partisan compromise" then he is a very stupid man for not seeing he is being played.

As to a stacked SCOTUS, who helped stack it? That would be the Dems who had their chance to filibuster Alito and Roberts, but in the "spirit of bi-partisanship" refrained and thus cemented any already partisan court firmly on the extreme right for the next 30 years.

I disagree with you strongly that terms like conservative and liberal must be absolute terms to have meaning. IMO, they are clearly relative terms, and most Americans understand this.

Well, you seem to be getting your wish. For example, the word torture now has a "new" relative meaning. Things that were once war crimes that people were executed and imprisoned for are now perfectly legal. If Obama is a liberal, then Phyliss Schafly is a feminist.

It seems to me that my liberal views (which includes views once held by many Republicans) are, under the "new reality" of word definition, extreme Communism, whereas the extremely racist, and demonstrably insane views held by Republicans today are "mainstream".

If this is a worldview that "liberal" Democrats are now espousing then we are done. I don't want to belong to the 1972 Republican Party

[pnwmom]

220. You can't get bills passed unless you get them through Congress

and that usually involves compromise.

[Kelvin Mace]

230. There are a number of issues Obama could act on that DO NOT

require Congress.

He is commander and chief of the armed forces and the chief of the executive branch. He does not need Congress to:

1) Close Guantanamo.
2) Try prisoners at Guantanamo in federal court.
3) Investigate war crimes and prosecute war criminals.
4) Investigate and prosecute financial fraud.

He also does NOT require Congress to make him:

5) Stop prosecuting whistle-blowers.
6) Stop raiding state sanctioned marijuana clinics.
7) Stop appointing arch-conservatives to cabinet positions.
8) Stop offering cover to GOP insanity by adopting their talking points.
9) Stop pushing "free" trade deals that screw America workers.

And that's just a few things I could come up with off the top of my head.

[1StrongBlackMan]

238. You do realize that …

The word “Governance” appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. To suggest that this nation can be governed, especially in an environment of a divided Congress and an equally divided electorate, is purist fantasy that betrays either: a complete ignorance of politics, and/or a stunning denial of life experience.

[Kelvin Mace]

245. To govern

requires making decisions that need to be made with a disregard for polls. As Obama no longer faces re-election pressures he is free to do the right things with those issues which are totally within his purview.

He chooses not to.

[1StrongBlackMan]

251. True ...

President Obama is not facing re-election; but he is never the less, invested in the 2014 election out-comes ... and this is exactly why he is not "free to do the 'right' things."

Note: I left out the "with those issues which are total within his purview" part because I have no idea what that means ... I can't think of a single "issue totally within his purview" that President Obama has bent to the positive. Perhaps, you can be a little more specific? But I will attempt to answer more on what I believe has been President Obama's (and his team of advisors') plan since about mid way through 2010 ... a strategy which built on his perceived weakness (i.e., bi-partisanship/compromise) and the gop's craziness (obstructionism and just straight craziness).

I think that the strategy is designed to win ... and win big ... in 2014; then and only then, will he/we be able to do the things required to fix the economy, act on climate change, and all/most of the other things that Democrats want, because we will hold the Presidency, the Senate and the House.

The plan is to put the gop's obstruction on full display (and keep it there), while continuing to seek bi-partisan solutions, in order to get that plurality of republican voters and plurality of independent voters that poll as seeing the republican party as the party of obstruction and President Obama as the "reasonable" party trying to get things done.

See ... because of the gerrymandering after 2010, the Democrats need about +5 to attack and win those gerrymandered (red) districts; but no amount of "Democratic messaging" (or action) will accomplish anything there. No ... there is nothing Democrats can do to get working class republican will not suddenly see the light and vote their interests. And, there are not enough Liberal, Democrats, or left-leaning independents to +5.

So, in order to compete in those districts, we must get the above-described demographic to either: vote Democratic (very unlikely), or vote 3rd-Party (which further splits the republican party, forcing them farther into the crazy for the 2014 General elections); or, sit home in the 2014 General election (which the polling suggests is very likely).

Since the first scenario is so very unlikely, I won't speak to it; but the other two options are very likely, and polling suggests, are likely to occur simultaneously, i.e., the cohort will voter 3rd-Party in the primary (for a more moderate republican candidate) and when the crazy wins the republican primary (because the crazy by definition is more engaged), they will sit home in the General, because they can't/won't bring themselves to vote FOR more of the same crazy.

Now ... for the all important, other side of the equation ... Democrats MUST GOTV for the 2014 General election to get that +5.

Will you help?

[frylock]

98. i'm an astronaut..

self-described, mind you.

[pnwmom]

152. When did you get your NASA training?

I'm impressed.

[frylock]

160. probably around the same time you took your liberal training

[pnwmom]

161. And that is the difference. There is no education or qualification process to become

a liberal, unlike an astronaut.

The analogy fails.

[frylock]

168. can one be considered liberal while unconditionally supporting conservative policy?

not in my opinion. but it's been evident for several years now that some "liberals" are perfectly content listening to the pretty words.

[pnwmom]

178. One can be considered a liberal without meeting a DU 100% purity test.

The typical conservative today doesn't believe in Social Security, Medicare, the ACA, unemployment insurance, a woman's right to choose, or equal rights for gay people.

Liberals don't have to meet a 100% purity test to remain far more to the left than most conservatives today.

[frylock]

183. that's not what was asked..

can one consider themselves to be a liberal if they support the surveillance state because a dem is in office? can one consider themselves to be a liberal if they support the increased drone bombings because a dem is in office? can one consider themselves to be a liberal if they support the crackdown on whistleblowers because a dem is in office? evidently they can make that claim. it doesn't make it correct, however.

[pnwmom]

219. One can definitely be a liberal and believe that your questions don't all have black and white

answers and that a 100% score on those questions isn't required to be a liberal.

[frylock]

222. what is required to be a liberal?

this is why I self-identify as progressive. the term liberal has been co-oped and redefined by centrists who believe that they're liberal because they aren't republicans, and because they vote for democrats. what is that makes you a liberal? you seem to support a great many conservative policies because Obama puts them forth. what exactly sets you aside from a moderate republican?

[pnwmom]

223. Back in the old days, it was possible to be a Liberal Republican,

like John Lindsay of New York, or a conservative Democrat, like George Wallace.

So I think some older people who used to consider themselves moderate Republicans are waking up and realizing that makes them liberal today -- this has happened to some of my friends.

But they don't feel as strongly on as many issues as the people I know who have identified as liberal all along.

Neither Obama nor I "support a great many conservative policies." We do support pragmatic solutions to move ahead, rather than perfect solutions that never get anywhere.

[frylock]

224. you can couch it any kind of feel good language you like..

whatever it takes for you to sleep at night. drone assassinations are not a liberal tenet, nor is cracking down on whistleblowers. there is simply NO grey area. but again, this is why i'm a progressive. the term liberal means nothing anymore.

[pnwmom]

225. What you call "cracking down on whistle-blowers" I call filing charges against people

who leaked diplomatic emails (Manning) or IP addresses we have been hacking in China (Snowden) -- in addition to acting as whistle-blowers with regard to the helicopter videos or US internal surveillance. Too bad they decided to leak much more for no good reason.

[frylock]

233. of course you do..

that's well documented.

[Cha]

16. Yeah, I figured it was high.. but, this

Great News, Cali.. Mahalo!

[JI7]

17. i wonder what the libertarian numbers are

[SunSeeker]

61. Fuck Rand Paul. nt

[Cha]

109. Good question..

According to DU or the rest of the country?

[Skraxx]

19. This Liberal Democrat Still Supports Him

[SunSeeker]

58. +1

[Auntie Bush]

128. This Liberal supports him too.

[Tarheel_Dem]

21. K&R

[great white snark]

22. Unfortunately only "Great news" to some.

Personally I'm ecstatic...the Glenn Green Eggs & Hamsher crowd not so much.

[Bradical79]

182. Just shows how far right wing we've been pushed.

Corporate favortism? Check. Continuation of expensive and harmful "war on drugs"? Check. Health care plan proposed by conservative think tank? Check. Domestic spying program? Check. Torturing prisoners? Check. Yup liberals should love the guy.

[MineralMan]

211. Sounds like an early 60s garage band name...

"Greenwald and the Hamshers"

They had one hit, and they're still playing it on an old 45 record player.

[Progressive dog]

24. ^^K&R^^

His support drops as conservatism increases, even among Democrats. His support rises as liberalism increases.
It is great news.

[BenzoDia]

27. k&r - Great news

[Fumesucker]

28. LoZoccolo, is that you?

[leftstreet]

56. !!

That was his name! Good memory - I couldn't think of it

I miss him so

[Rex]

62. LOL!

This thread is GOLD!

[Arctic Dave]

30. They only polled people who post in the BOG.

[arely staircase]

77. the 18 percent who disapprove all post in GD

[Hekate]

126. Ain't that the truth. This thread is kind of hilarious.

I'm delighted. I've been led to believe that the word "Liberal" is poison and that no one identifies themselves as Liberal any more. Hey guys! Here we are! You know, on the Left! And we like Obama!

[Number23]

144. "But you SELF DESCRIBE as a liberal!1 It don't mean nothing unless (xx person) says that you're one!

How DARE you think that you get to call yourself what you are!!1 You ain't a "REAL, dyed in the wool, tried and true progressive" until XX says you are!"

[Bobbie Jo]

197. Hilarious, no?

....that is after they proceed to tell you that you're an authoritarian, surveillance state supporter!!11!

[stonecutter357]

31. K&R

I don't need Glenn are comrad eddy to tell me anything.

[Thinkingabout]

66. K & R

[Marr]

32. So why all the demonization of "The Left"? /nt

[Rex]

36. Just the Usual Suspects...the same ones year after year.

It is because they hate The Left as much as the Right does and they also strangely agree with the Right on a lot of things. Funny how that works.

[frylock]

100. but they're liberals, because they say that they're liberals

[Rex]

181. I don't see them ever say they are liberals.

Most of them are supposed 'conservative dems' that voted for Reagan. You know, former idiots that like to prattle on about how we that have ALWAYS been loyal to the party - 'are doing it all wrong'.

That is why I never believe a word they type on these pages. I still think they would vote for Reagan.

[YoungDemCA]

173. Because liberal =/= Left

Despite what the far-right corporate American political establishment says.

[Rex]

34. Ya, that is why I don't listen to the liars on this site

that pretend The Left and The Right decided to get together and hate on Obama. As usual they are way off course in their projections.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

39. one could almost conclude the "left" on this site are either maladjusted individuals with serious

issues or actually wolves in sheep's clothing or a blend of the two.

[Rex]

41. No you would assume that which proves my point.

Thanks!

[Ed Suspicious]

87. Cheese and rice! Fighting for strong labor, bolstered social safety net, and environmental reforms

makes us maladjusted with issues? Be gone blue dog. Why don't you go fight for a balanced budget amendment or a Goldman Sacs exec to set monetary policy.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

88. I want those things too. but beating the shit out of Obama day in and day out

isn't going to get those things. GOT IT?

[Marr]

92. So-called "centrist" Democrats don't want those things.

If you consider things like the Trans Pacific Partnership acceptable, you can't reasonably claim that you actually want the things mentioned above. They may not particularly care either way, or would be happy to see them happen all on their own-- but if their chosen authorities act counter to those goals, they'll defend those authorities.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

95. I never said Trans Pacific Partnership was anything near acceptable.

I believe Obama has it on a slow track. This has been in the works since 2007. No reason he can't stall it, but his presidency will eventually end. You've got to attack people other than Obama for things you think he MIGHT do. Go attack the people actually doing those things.

Mount a rebel strike against the Koch lair or get a grass roots campaign to help oust Senate Turtle McConnel and Orange Boehner.

I'm not saying you personally are doing it--but my problem is with the people who make unproductive insulting posts against Obama and Kerry and others in the administration INSTEAD OF THE REAL PROBLEMS IN OUR COUNTRY--starting with the whackjob majority in the House of Representatives.

[HangOnKids]

162. Is Obama The President?

Well yes he is. Does he have a job to do? Well yes he does. People are not making unproductive insults they are EXPRESSING their concerns. Why does that fact upset you?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

165. Because Obama is RIGHT there with you on many issues and begging you

To blast your congress person, media, and other policy influencers with your concerns.

Stating your concerns as insults against Obama on a message board meant to be about supporting Democrats is corrosive and doesn't really serve the purpose you claim it does.

[HangOnKids]

167. I never stated any concerns about Obama as insults

Why are you directing this at me? I know clear writing takes skill but your reply to me is quite ridiculous.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

169. It was a general comment about the tone here

Afte you seemed to indicate most of what I see on DU is legitimate complaints about Obama administration's policies.

This thread is about the fact that over 80% self described liberal Democrats approve of the job Obama is doing.

[HangOnKids]

170. When making a general comment

use they or one, not YOU. I never made those comments, or whatever has your bee in a bonnet. "Seemed to indicate" is quite nebulous, I suggest you get more precise when making assertions.

[Rex]

180. He is a broken record that I will completely ignore now.

Since all he really means to do is waste your and mine time with the stupid meme, "the Left hates Obama blah blah blah" when clearly that is not true at all.

[YoungDemCA]

174. Thanks for the psychoanalysis...

...but I'll pass.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

37. Sitting in an echo chamber of Occupy trolls can be misleading,

I don't meet these "progressives" raging against Obama in real life.

[Coyotl]

143. Indeed.

And the Obama bashing trolls were left out of the sample because they are not Dems.

[pnwmom]

38. Yes, but

none of that 80% who call themselves liberal are real liberals.

[Rex]

44. LOL!

[Pretzel_Warrior]

45. lolol. yup. are you a "REAL" American? a "REAL" Democrat?

did you pass my purity test?

[arely staircase]

52. yeah but his approval is 0%

among rw libertarian trolls on liberal message boards.

[SunSeeker]

64. LOL! nt

[Summer Hathaway]

122. ...

[Number23]

155. It's almost Friday night!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023437932



The best part of that thread was the sputtering by people who have been called out but are apparently not smart enough not to needlessly announce to the entire world that that's what's happened.

[Tarheel_Dem]

213. A big thumbs up!

[mwrguy]

42. I support him absolutely

No made-up scandal is going to drive a wedge between me and my president.

[arely staircase]

43. let the butthurt begin nt

[Rex]

70. I see it has already caused some hurt feelings...

That dam reality!

[Iliyah]

46. Kool, although its gallup

gallup was terrible during the 2012 elections alongwith majority of the polling posters and the only consistent one was PPP. Welcome news tho and as usual Dems will be called all sorts ugly names - LOL

Since majority of Dems support the LGBT family I recently read on another site that supporters as well as LGBTs are naked nazis . . .

Corporate media ain't gonna cover this.

[Whisp]

48. This is the reality.

That Obama is a much respected leader.

The whingers here are not going to like this one bit!

pathetic.

[L0oniX]

65. This Gallop? "Polling Firm Gallup Lands In Legal Hot Water" pffft

“ Most people don't know ... that the public opinion research side of Gallup is the tail rather than the dog, and I think most of them don't know that the tail's not wagging as well as it used to wag." - Cliff Zukin of Rutgers University

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/30/170598814/polling-firm-gallup-lands-in-legal-hot-water

Keep trying.

[arely staircase]

73. yeah, it is gallup

so its probably closer to 90 percent.

[Cryptoad]

68. The Democratic Tea Party,,

seems to be very small in numbers.,,,,,Thanks you,,, Thank you,,, Thank you!

[SunSeeker]

69. K & R

[mick063]

72. Trains are different than cars.

No turning here. Must follow the tracks.

I believe there is trouble ahead. I guess we fix it after the wreck.

[Demo_Chris]

74. Color me skeptical...

DU is a relatively balanced cross section of Democrats, from far left to far right and everything in between. Yet here, certainly, Obama's "approval" is nowhere near this.

I suspect instead we are seeing a predictable reaction to polls and questions of this sort. No Democrat wants to publicly state that Obama is doing a bad job, and most would even hesitate to offer that the job he is doing could well be improved. That goes against the narrative after all. In any case, the question is unimportant. The issue here is not whether the left is disgusted with Obama but whether they are disgusted with themselves for falling for the same bullshit yet again.

Obama is doing a competent job, he hasn't blown up the country yet and things might even be slowly getting better. Does this mean that liberals approve of the man or the policies? Hardly.

[Ed Suspicious]

89. I defend him while talking to conservative. I point out his flaws to liberals of whom I pray see

that he on all but a thin slice of social issues, has moved the center-left to the right. So I can see what you're saying. When polled I very well might grant him higher approval rating than I would among my liberal comrades.

[Maedhros]

208. Myself as well.

Conservatives attack Obama on a number of ridiculous fronts:

Birth Certificate
He's a-comin' fer ma' guns!
Socialist (HA!)
Sekrit Muslim

But, on Obama's policies that I find unacceptable:

Signature drone strikes, double-taps, bombing weddings and funerals, defining militants as "all military aged males"
Indefinite detention, holding innocent Gitmo prisoners cleared of all wrongdoing
Claiming the power to execute U.S. citizens with no due process, oversight or accountability
Secret laws, secret courts
Blanket NSA surveillance of U.S. citizens
Failing to prosecute war criminals who tortured people
Criminalization of investigative journalism

Conservatives march lock-step with the President.

[Fumesucker]

129. This was a weekly argument in GD some years ago

And yeah, what you say is the way it always shook out.

We all know that if we tell the pollsters we don't support Obama that it will be automatically assumed he's too liberal for us when exactly the opposite is the case.

[Summer Hathaway]

130. "DU is a relatively balanced cross section of Democrats ...

... from far left to far right and everything in between. Yet here, certainly, Obama's 'approval' is nowhere near this."

I always have a good laugh when I see someone trying to hold out DU as representative of real-life Democrats.

Yeah, Obama's approval rating on DU is nowhere near what it is in real life. That's because a lot of Obama supporters have left this site because they're sick of the Obama-bashing that goes on day in and day out. It's also because there are so many RW and Libertarian trolls who are not only free to post their talking points here, but are actually embraced by those "Dems" who think that anyone who rags on Obama is one of their own; i.e. the "enemy of my enemy is my friend".

"I suspect instead we are seeing a predictable reaction to polls and questions of this sort. No Democrat wants to publicly state that Obama is doing a bad job ..."

People who respond to polls are not stating anything 'publicly'. When was the last time you saw poll results that said, "And a Mr. Richard Feder, who lives at 27 Main Street in Fort Lee, New Jersey, responded as follows ..."?

The minute I saw this OP, I knew it was a matter of time before someone twisted themselves into a pretzel trying to explain how this poll result couldn't possibly be representative of the opinions of real-life Democrats, on the basis that DU is the be-all and end-all when it comes to the thinking of party members - despite the fact that a good number of those who post here are not now, and never have been, Democrats.

"The issue here is not whether the left is disgusted with Obama but whether they are disgusted with themselves for falling for the same bullshit yet again."

And there it is - the other predictable excuse to be offered up, that the Democrats who responded as they did to this poll are simply self-haters who are "disgusted with themselves" and, due to their own self-loathing, felt obliged - anonymously - to assuage their guilt by saying the exact opposite of what they really feel.

"Does this mean that liberals approve of the man or the policies? Hardly."

Actually, yes, it does. Of course, this poll (and others like it with similar results) is reflective of real-life Democrats - not those pretending to be one on a political message board, nor the perpetually pissed-off who need to cling to the idea that their incessant whining is widespread among party members.

The results are in - and you can spin those results any way you want. The fact remains that DU has become as representative of Democrats as Freeperville is representative of MENSA members.

[pnwmom]

135. +1000. n/t

[Demo_Chris]

137. You could be correct...

It could be that the average Democrat thinks that secret free trade deals are freeking awesome, that the government spying on them is fine and dandy, that insurance mandates are just as good as single payer healthcare, that vaporizing the innocent with drones and perpetual warfare is great television, that permanent tax cuts for the wealth and a revolving door between Goldman Sacks and the White House is the NEW New Deal, that repeated offers to obliterate Social Security and allowing BP to decide when the Gulf is clean enough is just common sense.

So maybe you're right. Maybe 80% of modern LEFTIST Democrats think just like you do. Maybe they no longer care about anything more than pulling the lever marked D and scoring another win for the 1%. But I don't think so.

I think come the next elections we'll find out who's correct. I think right now the DNC better start praying long and loud that the GOP keeps up the batshit crazy social conservatism, because that's pretty much the only motivator our party has to get people to the polls.

[Summer Hathaway]

157. The typical (and predictable) response

from someone living inside the DU bubble:

"Everyone who disagrees with MY view of Obama and his administration thinks the following ...," ending with a tirade about how "they no longer care about anything" and want to "score another win for the 1%".

How many times has that sad ol' tune been played on this board?

It just never occurs to people like you that perhaps others don't see things your way because your view is completely skewed, and your over-the-top rhetoric is merely poorly-disguised bullshit.

When confronted with reality - like Obama having an 80% approval rating among Democrats - you simply retreat into stereotyping everyone who sees things differently as warmongering, drone-loving, 1%-embracing idiots who don't care about anything or anyone, other than themselves.

Hey, guy, there's a whole big world out there, full of real people who are not the stereotypes you desperately want to convince yourself they are. You might try venturing into it sometime; you might just learn something.

[Number23]

145. KILLED it! "DU has become as representative of Democrats as

Freeperville is representative of MENSA members."

[Dawgs]

193. How do you know? n/t

[Rex]

200. The Old Guard barking the same old message.

Thankfully they only represent 1% of DUers. I tend to ignore them completely since they don't want to have a discussion.

[Number23]

232. And you tend to agree with them. Until you don't. Again, depending on what the rest of the thread

is doing.

Some of your posts in this thread are "let the butthurt begin!" and the rest are "the people supporting this are the old guard representing 1% of DUers that I ignore" which in addition to making absolutely no sense whatsoever is obviously not true since you are posting to or about them in this thread.

Agreeing with folks. And then disagreeing with them. And then agreeing with them again. Of course, depending on what's happening with the rest of the thread. I bet it takes you six hours to pick out which cereal to eat in the mornings.

[Rex]

240. BARK BARK!

Little doggy!

[Number23]

242. Barked the even littler one...

[Number23]

231. How do I know what? Is your question supposed to mean something?

[Dawgs]

191. So many accusations and assumptions, yet you offer ZERO proof of any of it.

How is your post any different that the one that bothered you?

[RedCappedBandit]

139. Agreed

I "support" Obama.

I voted for him twice, and donated what I could in each election.

I would do the same if I could go back in time.

That doesn't mean I approve of everything he's doing, whatsoever. I'm glad he's in office rather than any of these right wing shitheads we could have ended up with, but I'm hardly ecstatic about him. And frankly, I think the fact that I (we) did support him in the elections means we CAN be critical of him when we think he's in the wrong? WTF is the problem with that?

[DCBob]

78. Good to hear. The recent postings on this site was starting to making me wonder.

[MineralMan]

212. Not really "recent" postings.

Same stuff has been posted since January 2009. Non-stop.

[Thinkingabout]

79. Thanks for the post, President Obama is doing a fine job, I understand not all things are possible

or even reasonable to expect him to accomplish and I know the operations of this government is not controlled by one person. I voted for him in both elections and support his decisions. Those who suffer from ODS have their own problem, in need of finding themselves. I hear related talk of OWS and those with ODS, don't know if there is a relationship but if it is then I will rethink my sympathy for OWS. I understand well the information collected by NSA and know there are many who cry about how this invades their privacy but apparently they do not understand the information gathered. Then one post ask what the libertarians poll on Obama but again I do not expect a high number for libertarians.

[leveymg]

81. Gallup is a push-poll that reflects a GOP agenda and perceptions

Gallup's numbers of consistently skewed.

[20score]

93. No approval number, even 99%, will make the police/surveillance state, laudable.

Being okay with these programs doesn’t make anyone a good Democrat, it makes one a bad citizen.

[winter is coming]

97. ^^ Thread win. n/t

[Pretzel_Warrior]

115. and somehow, I will go to sleep tonight with peace

knowing I will wake up tomorrow in a free country. Even though the NSA has been grabbing hold of some digital data of mine.

[20score]

119. No, you won't.

But good for you.

If you're okay with this, you either don't know what's going on... or worse.

[YoungDemCA]

176. Very well said!

Thank you.

[frylock]

96. this bodes well for his reelection!

[TheKentuckian]

102. froody!

[Crow73]

103. I missed

that call I guess...

[etherealtruth]

104. This does not suprise me ...

Dems in the real world appear to remain very supportive

[Peregrine Took]

110. That's the difference between "libruls" and progressives...

libs will buy anyone who comes along with a good line of slappy happy feel good patter.

[CakeGrrl]

111. A reminder that

people outside the cyberspace bubbles are paying attention to a lot of other things that the President is dealing with - and handling well, given the resistance, naysaying and opposition that persists on a daily basis.

[Andy823]

118. I agree

Contrary to what some here may think, DU does not represent what the entire country thinks. Here we see the same old "doom and bloomers" who really never like Obama in the first place, along with a whole lot of trolls that are only here to keep things stirred up, doing their best to trash the president every chance they get. Seems like since the first part of the year, when all those "scandals" started showing up the ODS has become an epidemic here. It seems like out in the real world, things are not as crazy as they are here.

I aree with you that people outside the bubble are paying more attention, and are seeing things for what they really are, and know how hard it has been, not only since the first of this year, but since president Obama took office, to get thing done with republicans doing all they can to stop anything that might actually help this country move forward. Instead of laying the blame on the president for all the crap, they know who is really to blame. I think they understand that "CONGRESS" needs start doing their job, and that the president is not the one who "HAS" all the power to "FIX" everything like so many hear seem to think.

ODS is a terrible thing to have, and we can be thankful that it has not spread from DU to the "real world" as this poll shows!

[Maedhros]

209. The startling number of dead children stacking up as a result of the President's

drone warfare strategies suggests there is at least one thing the President is not handling "well".

[AverageJoe90]

113. Great news.....=)

So I guess the Glenward Snowald gambit failed after all.....

Thanks for posting this, fella.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

114. kickety kick

[Enrique]

116. all those naysayers that said Obama would be voted out

they're wrong!!!

[DeSwiss]

117. Also according to Gallup.....

...George Bush once had an approval rating of 90%.

- The only approval rating that matters to me, is MY OWN.

[tblue]

134. If polled people like it

then so do I! YAAY! I'm with them, whatever they say. If they disapprove tomorrow, I'll do that too.

[Bonobo]

120. On the other hand, there are people that call themselves "liberal Dems" that are, ummm...

NOT liberal.

[AZ Progressive]

121. So your point is that OK, the 4th Amendment is dead, just live with it

After all, Obama's not going to be punished for it and we will always end up having to vote for the Democratic candidate because the Republicans are batshit insane and evil (which they are.)

[Puzzledtraveller]

186. Or

They believe a republican will never be elected POTUS again so therefore why worry.

[LWolf]

123. To clarify:

With those who self-identify as "liberal" dems.

[truebrit71]

124. Proud to be part of the 20% of liberals who think he's been full of meh...

...besides, who defines "liberal democrat" in this survey?

[Union Scribe]

149. Actually almost a third of liberals don't approve.

He's at 68% with liberals. The increase when you add "Democrat" to liberal is just party hack loyalty.

[Historic NY]

127. Wait say what? 82%

[Douglas Carpenter]

136. frankly, I don't doubt the figure - but I think this is a big part of the reason why advancing a

progressive agenda is so difficult in the United States. Or to quote the infamous David Frum, "The Republican Party fears its base. The Democratic Party loathes its base" - The Clinton years even more so than the Obama years proved that as long as the Party leadership is to the left of Atillia the Hun - the liberal base (or at least 80% of it )of the Democratic Party will remain as loyal and faithful as the family dog no matter how little their opinions count.

[Maedhros]

210. From the film "The American President"

Lewis Rothschild:People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.

President Andrew Shepherd: Lewis, we've had presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference.

[Number23]

142. K&R

[Union Scribe]

147. Which is the lowest it's been all year.

He's also at the lowest of the year in support from liberals at 68%. So what are you crowing about exactly?

[Hekate]

151. KnR

[cthulu2016]

153. Is 68% considered to be over 80%???

Gallup weekly, latest Aug 5-11...

Scroll down to "Democrat" ... 80%

scroll down to "Liberal" ... 68%.

[Cali_Democrat]

166. liberal democrats: 82%

Keep scrolling, dude.

[RedFury]

226. So what?

People can label themselves anything they want -- fact is, there's very little "liberal" in the way Obama is conducting his Presidency and a whole lot of "conservative." He's either a huge fraud -- "Change we can believe in" -- or simply lacks the yarbles to act on his principles.

That said, I'd agree with anyone that you haven't had a "soft left of center" candidate for POTUS since Jimmy Carter, thus the "choice" was clear -- Og knows where we'd be if either McCain or Romney were running the ship; don't even want to contemplate the though of Palin being POTUS. The US is demonstrably a Dog-fearing, conservative & Imperialist country getting dangerously close to becoming a Police State. How is that for "Liberal"? Of course, not being American gives me a bit of an advantage in seeing thing as they really are -- not as I wish them to be.

So yeah, you did the best you could with what you had to choose from....but labeling Obama a "Liberal" and "Liberal Democrats" supporting him is Monty Phyton material.

Best always.

PS -- Want Liberal? Think back (or read if you are too young to know) to the US in the sixties. That's when your country was a beacon of progressive ideas and lifestyles. And I don't mean your leaders but rather your people. Ancient history...

[demosincebirth]

154. Many are tasting the sour grapes, here. They can't believe what they're seeing...80%?

How can that be?

[Rex]

241. It is funny watching them flip flop all over themselves

trying to deny reality.

[Number23]

156. 80% of Dems; 68% of liberals; 82% of liberal Dems. Damn fine numbers from his BASE

Oh, yes indeedy. Love the spinning by some in this thread who either can't read charts or who are desperately trying to somehow turn 70-80% approval into a negative. And his numbers with liberal Democrats (which are probably the only liberals that the White House truly cares about) has barely changed in the last month -- 83% in July to 82% now.

But when you've staked your claim on the idea that "ALL liberals are disappointed/disgusted/so terribly upset" with Obama, I can understand why seeing that those claims have been pulled out of air or your ass would be terribly upsetting.

I hope you start posting these weekly. It will be good to keep track of where the president stands with his base.

[Skraxx]

159. The Only REAL Liberals Are Right Here on DU. I Know This For A Fact, Becuase I Read it, on DU

[Number23]

229. So some so terribly, DESPERATELY would like to believe.

[YoungDemCA]

172. Define "liberal"

Because "liberal"=/=Left.

[GoneFishin]

177. Condoning extrajudicial killing, indefinite detention of innocents, and spying on innocent citizens

is mutually exclusive with liberalism. This poll is therefore bullshit.

[MrSlayer]

179. Most people are clueless regardless of what they call themselves.

There are as many uninformed liberal dumbasses as there are uninformed conservative dumbasses. Very few people really know the issues and follow as closely as they should.

If they did, the whole country would have been pissed for at least thirty years and no president would be approved except by the fascist third that slavish follows the 1%.

[Puzzledtraveller]

184. ^^THIS^^

[BrainDrain]

188. Hmmmmmm....I wonder how

The gallup questions where phrased?

"Do you think that President Obama is doing a better job than say......oh I don't know.....Uncle Joe Stalin?

Seriously, you think that his 80% approval rating among "liberals" is somehow either relevant or important?
And this supposed support is meaningful is what way?

Exactly how many of these 80% sit in Congress?

This is like saying he has 80% approval with non-pregnant rabbits. BFD.

The man is a lost cause. A PINO.

bah

[Dawgs]

192. What about liberals that are NO LONGER Democrats?

And how about a poll that shows how many Democrats have left the party since 2008.

[think_critically]

194. probably true

I think this stat is probably true b/c most liberals are so against the republican party. I will say that most of us probably are very disappointed in him in some way shape or form. Personally, I agree with him on the NSA issue and think it's ironic how most of the people on this site probably google all day long and have no idea that google saves that data and sells it to the highest bidder. That's somehow ok but the government monitoring cell phone calls and putting numbers through algorithms is somehow an abomination. I will be outraged when it gets to the point that some idiot can't call the president a socialist scumbag without getting arrested. Until that happens I really don't care. Obama does piss me off though with his bull shit professorial way of communicating and his lack of boldness. If he would just be honest with people and stop acting like a professor then he would be a lot better off.

[AZ Progressive]

215. Cali_Democrat to DUers: suck it up and accept the Third Way if you are critical of Obama

And accept the NSA's Surveillance and support of Big Corporations and Free Trade.

[zappaman]

218. Not bad for a domestic terrorist!

[1StrongBlackMan]

239. Wow ...

An entire thread where folks that don't want to believe the numbers are arguing: "You're not a Liberal Democrat because you don't place proper weight on only those issues that I want you to believe? AND arguing that they are not purists?

I think we have a name for that ...

[La Lioness Priyanka]

246. overally i support him around 80% too

[Scurrilous]

250. Boink.