General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsObama's approval rating among liberal dems is 85%, but among conservative dems it's only 60%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspxSo it appears the more liberal members of the Democratic Party really approve of the job Obama is doing.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I am surprised at that result.
I've been told I am conservative. (though my winger friends say I'm a communist :rofl
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)tend to be more conservative.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)It suggests that Obama has a higher approval rating among liberal Democrats than conservative democrats. It makes no implication that those who dislike Obama tend to be more conservative.
As it seems, it's not just statistical illiteracy that is dangerous. What is really dangerous is the statistically illiterate who assume they actually understand statistics.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)I know these numbers can be painful for some folks.
It reminds me of the 2012 election polls. The conservatives just hated those damn polls, so they created their own 'unskewed' polls.
Rather amusing.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Statistics are generally meant to be narrowly interpreted. They should only be given weight along the vein of the questions asked. The question asked was the approval of the President's job. Which means the statistics give insight into how different groups approve of the President and his job.
You cannot realign data to answer questions that were never asked.
Is there a body of data which suggests those who disapprove of Obama tend to be more conservative? Maybe? But it isn't the data that's in your OP.
If I wanted someone to read a book to me, I wouldn't ask someone who doesn't know how to read.
I certainly don't trust the statistically illiterate to explain implications of a data set.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Love it.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)What a crybaby.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)In any case if someone doesn't of something that means they disapprove. It's a simple function of language and logic.
The only other option is "don't know/not sure" which is usually about 5%.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Just as it doesn't say how many conservative Democrats disapprove.
I've taken both logic and statistics courses and the logicians follow the rules of statistics just like everyone else. If you want to know Obama's disapproval rating for a specific demographic, you cannot extrapolate it from his approval rating. You actually have to poll for his disapproval rating and you need to make sure to divvy it up by demographic.
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Democrats that disapprove of Obama are more conservative, as a group, than Democrats who approve of Obama. This is because the group that approves consists of 85% of all Liberal Dems, and 60% of all Conservative Dems, whereas the group of people who disapprove consists of 15% of Liberal Dems, and 40% of Conservative Dems.
Which means that, if you sample at random from the pool of disapproving Dems, you are more likely to hit upon a conservative Dem, than if you sample at random from the pool of approving Dems.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)You can't say that because 85% of liberal Democrats approve of him, 15% disapprove. Just as you cannot say that because 60% of conservative Democrats approve of him, 40% disapprove.
As I said before, you cannot realign the statistics to answer questions that were never asked. Gallup provides an overall disapproval rating (and you will notice it isn't the inverse of his approval ratings) but does not break it down according to demographics.
If this were a statistics exam and the prompt stated "85% of liberal Democrats approve of President Obama's job" and the question was "What is the percentage that disapproves?" and, with no other information, you respond with "15%," you would be marked wrong.
Now, I don't know about the two of you, but I don't manufacture evidence because it suits my argument.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Aside from the general silliness of dwelling on the distinction between "not approving" and "disapproving", the overall approval rating is 45%, while disapproval is 51%, which means of the general population, only 4% fall into the "neither" category. In other words, almost everyone has on opinion. This isn't some local ballot measure nobody has heard of, it's the president.
So it is completely implausible that somehow the disapproval rating among liberal Dems is actually higher than the disapproval rate for conservative Dems. Well, at least to anyone with the arithmetic skills of a 4th grader.
The funniest part of all is innumerate people like yourself accusing others of not understanding statistics.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)That is exactly what the OP did. And the strangest part is that it wouldn't even be particularly difficult to find an actual body of data that supported his or her assertion. Which demonstrates not only a willingness to abuse mathematics but also a general laziness and disdain for research.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The statistics weren't made up, they came from a Gallup poll. I'm sure you'd like to "unskew" them, but like I said, the math here is pretty simple.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Disapprove of Obama's job.
I await with bated breath.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Given that only 4% of the population neither approves nor disapproves, the idea that, out of the 40% of conservative Dems who don't approve, fully 25% fall into "neither" is completely implausible.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)It is very important when structuring a poll that the questions you ask be specific to whatever it is you are trying to study. In the case of the presidential approval rating, it is structured to gather information on the APPROVAL rating, not the disapproval rating.
If you were to invert the data for the approval rating, it would not give you the same value that would be obtained if the disapproval rating was being polled. The reasons for this are abundant and generally explained in 101 level statistics courses (also political statistics courses). But what is most important to take away from all of this is that you cannot extrapolate from the data an answer to a question that was never asked.
Despite the illusion that a dichotomous poll can simply be inverted to determine the subordinate (the superior being the approval rating and the subordinate being the disapproval rating), you cannot actually do that in statistics.
Now, this will seem pedantic to those who don't actually understand the importance of properly structured poll questions, but there is actually a meaningful difference between someone failing to state they "approve" of Obama's job and stating they "disapprove." If you can't wrap your mind around that, you need to set aside some time to take at least one logic and one statistics course in order to have some sort of tenuous grasp of symbolic logic.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)neither. Which means that the overwhelming majority of people who did not answer "approve" in fact answered "disapprove." Why this is so difficult to comprehend for you is one of the great mysteries of this thread.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Which is why it cannot be used to argue that those who disapprove of Obama tend to be more conservative. Because that isn't actually a statement backed by the statistics presented.
Do you understand?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)of conservative Dems would fall into this category. In fact, part of the reason that Gallup didn't break down the disapproval by demographics may well be that they assumed nobody would be dumb enough to not realize this.
Around, and around we go.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)And are either completely unwilling to get it or incapable of getting it. Either way, you don't get it. And that is a problem because at least one thing fundamental to using statistics is understanding how statistics work.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)"lack of approval" is an extremely strong proxy for "disapproval". Fundamental to understanding and using statistics is the ability to do arithmetic, which you obviously lack (or at least you lack the willingness).
Again, since it is completely implausible that 25% of conservative Dems are "neither", then the OP is completely correct in concluding that Dems who disapprove of Obama are more conservative as a group than Dems who approve. I understand why you keep ignoring this fact, but that doesn't make it go away.
yardwork
(61,533 posts)What are his approval ratings among conservative Republicans?
Come on.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)However, that isn't what the OP claimed.
polichick
(37,152 posts)They hold politicians' feet to the fire but don't badmouth them to pollsters.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)you are implying and interpreting something that isn't in the results....and likley isn't the reason 80% of liberal dems responded the way they did. How can you say with any assurance that you are making valid assumption to all of the responders?
As a side note, I actually can see where there may be some loyalists that responded exactly as you assumed, but 80%...nah.
OTOH, Given how the super left, purist, vocal "liberals" here on Du take every opportunity to "Hold Obama's feet to the fire", I wonder at the actual and real motivation here, when compared to the poll results from the outside world.
polichick
(37,152 posts)any result you want when polling. Try it sometime - it's fun and eye-opening.
imo liberals have been far too loyal to a party that is increasingly the servant of corporations.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)no evidence that is the case...you just made it up.
polichick
(37,152 posts)yardwork
(61,533 posts)to vote for the most liberal candidates possible. And we volunteer to GOTV.
So, all in all, we liberal Dems are pretty darn important to winning elections for Democrats.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Do you have proof of that?
You have no way of proving that. It would require a survey, a poll, about lying to pollsters.
JI7
(89,239 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)The Liberals are the base of the party.
And they are the Left of the party. We just want more: Health care, Peace, Green Energy, and Bankers in jail.
It is hard to fathom the opposition to our demands. But your post shows where our opposition comes from; cons.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Only those who voted for the Gipper truly know what it means to be a Democrat.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)I used to try and compete with you, in my own way. But too many jury assaults on my style have edumacted me to just quit attacking the opposition.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)It's like Clique and Claque, the Tappet brothers here.
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)and has no relation to the outside (real) world.
Gee, who da thunk it?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)But there are a buncho here that think they have the credentials to advise the CiC on every issue known to humankind. Why, he works for Them, like a gardner and he better listen to what they say and take the orders! I paid for him with my taxes, gull dern.
If they call him a piece of shit, why he should just accept that as valid criticism - afterall he did say Abuse Me, please!
Scuba
(53,475 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)with the party anymore.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)It is how conservative Democrats and pseudo-moderates manage to get us to take one for the team or to "be pragmatic." Of course afterwards we usually get kind of screwed over cause "where else are we gonna go?"
President Obama had the support of the more liberal part of the party because Gravel was a bit too unstable and Kucinich was getting hosed over by the press. The conserva-dems went with Hillary until they realized she wasn't going to cut it, then all the Wall streeters and bipartisans and triangulators started throwing their money at then candidate Obama.
Oddly he had to make ridiculous concessions to them by appointing an absurd number of conservadems to his cabinet and to turn the treasury and financial appointments over to Goldman Sachs. Sumner, Geitner, and Rahm continually talked him into compromising his compromises even further before anything made it to the republicans.
The presidents first two years were wasted partially by stupid Blue Dogs giving cover to republican obstructionism and fillibusters. Had the party united with progressives and supported the Great Blue Wave, then it would have been easy to pain thte GOP as obstructionists in the media instead of the Democrats in the mold of Lieberman causing such havoc.
The greatest of ironies is how much liberal democrats get blamed for the loss to Bush in 2000 by conservaitve democrats that weren't terribly loyal to democratic ideals in the first place.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Maybe you could agree to disagree with my profuse and distracting typos? They were pretty bad.
Thank you, and I am also an ardent supporter of Warren, whatever she wants to do!
BeyondGeography
(39,341 posts)All the conservatives here love him.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)all those super liberals that compare Obama policy to Bush policy, finding no differences at all, and claim Obama is so NOT liberal, and are vocally disappointed.....I clearly thought they didn't love him.
BeyondGeography
(39,341 posts)Or we're spending time with a very select group of people here.
JI7
(89,239 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)The Obama bashers are much more likely to be conservative than liberal.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Where? Let me at them. Tell us who they are and MIRT will take them out.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Cha
(296,780 posts)great derpers are giving them a run for their money.. so much so that it was featured on a rw hate site as some kind of example. For what? Taking down the President? Have at it idiots.
sheshe2
(83,637 posts)Cha
(296,780 posts)Obama Revolution, she~
Democratic Support Among Young People Reaches a Record High Hello!..
Gallup suggests that the hardening support for Democrats among young people is at least partially based on the fact that the country is more racially and ethnically diverse. Democrats have embraced the changing face of the country, while Republicans have become even whiter.
REport..
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/03/30/democratic-support-young-people-reaches-record-high.html
Yes indeed. And I love that picture!
Cha!
Cha
(296,780 posts)Let's see them whine about that..
More Whine?
I have to thank Obamacare for saving my life
Steve Benen Reports..
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/i-have-thank-obamacare-saving-my
she~
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Trojan Horses...
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)I've seen Obama described as a Trojan Horse on this site more than a few times.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Proud Liberal Dem
(24,391 posts)Why do the Blue Dogs not like him more? I thought that he was one of theirs- or so some people say..........
TheKentuckian
(25,018 posts)Raise taxes too much?
Not enough use of the military?
Not enough fracking?
To hard on BP?
Hasn't tried hard enough to cut Social Security?
Not enough Republicans in the cabinet?
Too tough on Banksters?
What is it that these folks want and are they just registered Democrats that have been voting TeaPubliKlan for 40 years? If not then what is their definition of liberal?
Hell, same goes for the self identifying liberals, what are their policy ambitions and what is their definition of conservative?
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)since I first became acquainted with it back in the LBJ years.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)In my opinion, many that identify as liberal are actually neoliberal with statist tendencies. All too comfortable with economic and trade policies that benefit the rich with a (D), foreign interventionism with a (D) and a predilection for telling people what size soda they can have.
The (D) implies that all things being equal if there was an (R) enacting the same, their protestations would be constant and vehement.
TheKentuckian
(25,018 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)nowhere near resemble reality in the real world.
sheshe2
(83,637 posts)Cha
(296,780 posts)to see that shit.
sheshe2
(83,637 posts)tarheelsunc
(2,117 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)"liberal democrats" = conservative democrats
"conservative democrats" = republicans
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)By your definition there are no liberal Democrats.
In which case most DUers will disappear in a puff of logic.
polichick
(37,152 posts)I only see a few who really fight for liberal policies.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)full of random self-appointed people.
I don't get to say who's liberal or not.
However, I've been here for 12 years knocking down and supporting those who knock down Republican talking points and I don't intend to quit.
Response to CJCRANE (Reply #95)
polichick This message was self-deleted by its author.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)About how utterly and completely and unswervingly loyal they are to Barack Obama.
...Right, Cali_Democrat?
The rest of us like the guy, and just wish he were even better.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)About how utterly and completely and unswervingly loyal they are to Barack Obama."
Link?
Cha
(296,780 posts)whine a lot. And, every time something good is going on about President Obama they have to get on and take a required dump.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Can't never be satisfied with "good enough to pass through Republicans," nope. We ought to be ashamed
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Would you like a link to posters calling for the mass banning of all "disloyal" voices? Don't skip the reccomended list there.
Maybe take a look at all the posters hyperventilating over the notion that the president sells policy to the citizenry?
yeah, these go to full threads. I'm lazy, read 'em yourself.
Maybe a link to the group with the site's longest ban list due to "disloyalty"? Which also happens to hold the lion's share of DU conservatives (if we understand conservative to mean people more interested in the status quo than progress, rather than the reactionary behavior of Republican "conservatives."
I also have a particular poster in mind who's not posting here in this thread and so shall go unnamed, but constantly harps on about hte subject - her favorite argument is "Elizabeth Warren agrees with the president about X, how dare you be opposed!" And golly-o-mighty, this person's slavering desire to hate-fuck Edward Snowden for "embarrassing the president" is just embarassingly explicit. Just look for lots and lots of blue links
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)"conservative dems yowl so long and hard...About how utterly and completely and unswervingly loyal they are to Barack Obama."
Sorry.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)True, I'm counting "screeching about how disloyal others are" as part of the same point, since it's always done as a compare-and-contrast, "look how loyal I am to the leader!" sort of shit.
While I'm being honest though, I think you should know that I wasn't seeking your approval or affirmation.
Sorry.
Cha
(296,780 posts)let that stop the great derpers from whining the opposite.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)now that the Affordable Care Act is looking like a glowing success....there will be this big switch to "We have always liked President Obama...its just that...."
sheshe2
(83,637 posts)"It's only because we did this that ACA is a success!" ( Many here will now be seen patting themselves on the back).
Cha
(296,780 posts)the great derpers who have raged/whined/raged/whined at the Eleventh Hour non stop these last few days about Obamacare to squelch its popularity.
Guess what.. they lost.
sheshe2
(83,637 posts)Lost but not forgotten!
Ah, they'll find a new poutrage and spin it like a top!
Cha
(296,780 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)venting a little bit...." "constructive criticism" etc etc etc.
Cha
(296,780 posts)the derp squad are being swept under the run as we speak.. until the next time that is..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024749963#post195
sheshe2
(83,637 posts)They looooove to say that!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)Cha
(296,780 posts)truebrit71
(20,805 posts)Because on it's face it would appear that those numbers are reversed...
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)It has always been like this. Think back to the 2012 election when GOPers said Dems were over sampled. That really wasn't true, what was happening was that more folks were identifying as Dems, but the GOPers just couldn't believe it so they 'unskewed' the polls.
These kinds of numbers can be painful for some because they don't fit their narrative, but reality is reality.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)...for the President...
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)also exist among liberals and I believe those high numbers among respondents that identify as liberal are actually neo-liberal.
Larry the Cable Dude
(56 posts)We do not know if 85% is average, low, or high for a Democratic President, among liberal democrats.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)The point is that Obama has a higher approval rating from liberal Dems than conservative Dems.
Oh, welcome to DU.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)...
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)but you trust self-identifying liberal Dems on an anonymous message board..
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)...besides, Gallup has had problems in the past, no?
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)but on a message board one person's anecdotal evidence is as good as another's.
Gallup has been out by a few percentage points here and there but when you're talking 85% and 60%, then that wouldn't make a substantial difference.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)...conserva-dems aren't so hot for Obama....your point still isn't making any logical sense.
there are way many here on Du that self identify as liberal dems and screech that Obama isn't liberal enough....they are doing all sort of holding feet to the fire (in their minds I guess). Yet in the real world...not so much.
I have yet to see a trend of posts from a group of conservative dems that screech against Obama as much as the so called, self labelled, liberal dems.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,220 posts)truebrit71
(20,805 posts)...that aren't really very liberal at all...?
All I know is that it doesn't seem to make sense for people that prefer middle of the road policies (corporate-friendly etc.) such as those pursued by the Obama administration to call themselves liberal, when the liberal issues are more in tune with corporate accountability, pro-environment, anti-drilling/fracking/big oil i.e. things that Obama hasn't really championed at all...
That's the part that doesn't jive...
Cal33
(7,018 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,220 posts)where Dennis Kucinich routinely won presidential preference polls by a landslide, and couldn't even hold on to his House seat.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)that's not a full picture of how Dennis lost his House seat.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,220 posts)Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)LynneSin
(95,337 posts)Just saying.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)The snark and disbelief of outraged self identified "liberal dems" on DU that don't like to be linked to other liberal Dems that actually like Obama.
This thread is cracking me up!!!!
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)My favorite post from a DU'er to BBI: (troll extraordinaire) "I can't decide whether you're a caricature or a cliche'"
Cha
(296,780 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)by the amount of "Congratulations Big O!!1 I know I've been shitting on you for six years straight but I didn't really mean it!1" and "apologies" from some for being foul mouthed (bad) vulgar (worse) and ignorant as all hell (much, much worse).
Of course NONE of this is a surprise to the president's supporters. The detractors are finally coming to realize they're on the wrong side of history and I think it's better they do this now than later.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that can't be right because REALLY, REAL "liberal Democrats" of DU don't approve of President Obama ... let alone the job he is doing.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Stop chasing the reagan dems/third way fifth column that will always prefer a GOP. The base is ready Obama, it is ready Hillary, and if you stopped running from us to chase the allmighty mushy middle the the media has proclaimed God, you might find we can do great things.