Obama's silent majority

[BzaDem]

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/barack_obama/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/12/08/obama_silent_majority

--snip--

"It's a fun topic for cable news and the blogosphere, where liberal commentators and activists routinely brand the president a Judas and threaten to support a primary challenger in 2012. And it's a fun topic in the "mainstream media," which takes all of this racket as confirmation that Obama is rapidly losing -- or has already lost -- his base.

There's just one problem: The premise on which all of this is based is totally and completely wrong. Liberal commentators and activists and interest group leaders may be seething over Obama, but their rage has not trickled down to the Democratic voters (and, in particular, the Democratic voters who identify themselves as liberals), even though they've been venting their grief for the better part of two years.

As I noted earlier this week, Obama's approval rating among Democrats has held steady at or near the 80 percent level throughout all of the turmoil of 2010. This puts him in as strong a position with his own party's voters as any modern president has been at this same point in his presidency (with the exception of George W. Bush, whose numbers remained unusually high for well over a year after 9/11). Look closer and you'll also find that Obama's approval rating among Democrats is actually highest among those who call themselves liberals -- an 83 percent score in the most recent round of Gallup polling, completed a few days ago. Among moderate Democrats, he clocks in at 75 percent, and among conservative Democrats, 69 percent. Again, these numbers have more or less held steady all year. To the extent Obama has a serious problem with Democrats, then, it's with those who are on the right, not the left. This is hardly what you'd expect for a president who, according to the dominant narrative, has spent his presidency poking a stick in the left's eye by cutting deals with conservative Democrats and Republicans.

Obama, in other words, seems to have developed his own silent majority. Rank-and-file liberal Democrats may not agree with everything he has done, but they do not share the sense of abandonment and betrayal that has defined liberal commentary throughout so much of his presidency. The party's liberal base still very much likes him; it's the elites who have turned on him."

--snip--

Very good article. The article talks about how the "discontent" some people have with Obama is very similar to the discontent with right wingers had with Reagan in 1982 (when people openly talked about primarying him) prior to him winning 49 states in 1984.

[jaysunb]

1. k&r n/t

[msongs]

2. including democratic voters that stayed home in the millions cuz they had nothing to vote for? nt

[BzaDem]

3. Actually, Democratic and liberal turnout was about the same as it was in 2006.

We lost because centrist Independents thought we were too far left, and voted for Republicans by 18 points.

[Cant trust em]

12. How 'bout that. nt

[Edweird]

13. So, you're asserting that these 'centrist independents' showed up in droves to vote for candidate

Obama but not president Obama because he was 'too far left'? Seriously? President Obama has shifted so far to the right that Rush Limbaugh is agreeing with him and he's too far to the left for people that voted for a candidate that railed against 'tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires' and promised a public option? Wow.

[BzaDem]

17. It's not just me asserting it. It's what actually happened. Large numbers of Obama voters

did not vote for Obama because he was too far left for them (in their minds). This is a very easy question to measure.

The fact that you even find this surprising shows how much DU is a bubble that is somewhat disconnected from reality. Just because you don't think the President is to the left does not mean there aren't tens of millions of people who think the President is too far left.

[Edweird]

24. You're half right. One of us is clearly disconnected from reality.

You're just wrong about which one.

But don't worry, I'll remind you of how wrong you are in 2 years.

[BzaDem]

36. For example, 20% of the electorate in 2010 was liberal (according to the national exit poll). Guess

what percentage of the electorate in 2006 was liberal? In an election year where Democrats retook the House AND the Senate?

Wait for it...

Wait for it...

20%.

Looks like liberals didn't stay home after all.

See, I get my facts from actual data, as opposed to being as anti-data as Republicans are on the subject of global warming. For example, I cite data, while the only thing you can do (if you don't retract your bogus statements) is to attack the exit poll (just like Republicans attack Science when it doesn't produce conclusions they want).

So far, you have attacked the accuracy of a poll showing Obama's stratospheric approval ratings among Democrats ... with ... election results that don't disprove the former statement at all. Keep it up there! :rofl:

[Edweird]

47. Like I said: see you in two years.

I knew what was going to happen this past November, and I knew why. I called it last Feb. It's not that hard to figure out - as long as you're not in massive denial.

[Lord Magus]

71. You're the one denying clear data that contradicts you.

So who's in massive denial again?

[BzaDem]

82. You apparently didn't know why and still don't know why. Your post still contradicts the data.

That's like saying "I TOLD you that global warming wasn't man-made! I knew this last Feb!," when in reality, it was manmade in February and it is manmade today.

You being wrong in February is not somehow evidence that you aren't just as wrong now.

"as long as you're not in massive denial."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Edweird]

101. I wonder what your excuse will be in 2012.

Maybe your imaginary friends errr.. "silent majority" all had to 'wash their hair' that day.
Maybe it will be those darn 'centrists'.

Tell me, where were your imaginary friends, I mean: where was your 'silent majority' last November?

[Lord Magus]

19. "Centrist independent" voters tend to not be especially smart.

That's why so many of them bought into the right-wing media's bullshit propaganda about Obama and the Democrats being "too far to the left" and voted for Repugs this year.

[Edweird]

25. Are you familiar with the term 'projection'?

[Lord Magus]

73. Yes.

I saw you engaging in it just a couple of posts up from this one.

[Lorien]

54. Wrong. It was down 60%.

[LoZoccolo]

74. No it wasn't. n/t

[ljm2002]

59. Oddly enough...

...the right wing Blue Dog Democrats were voted out in droves, as compared with the more progressive Democrats, who will now have more clout on the Democratic side of the House. How does that fit in with your analysis?

[Fearless]

78. No we lost because we did nothing in two years worth merit. n/t

[SidDithers]

4. K&R. Good article...

thanks for posting.

Sid

[nofurylike]

5. k&r thank you for posting this great, informative article, BzaDem! nt

[bigtree]

6. one more indicator of high levels of Democratic support for the President

. . . outside the collective wisdom of the internet bubble.

recommended

[apocalypsehow]

7. Kick, Rec. n/t.

[Hello_Kitty]

8. Well then you guys should have no problem recruiting campaign volunteers for 2012.

[bigtree]

9. looks like it

[Cant trust em]

21. He can count on me. nt

[Hello_Kitty]

22. Duly noted, "Can't trust em". nt

[cottonseed]

60. Instead of the faithful "base"? You know, the ones who threaten to sit out the election constantly.

Just fucking shut up already. Good God.

[Hello_Kitty]

64. Just fucking get off YOUR ass already. Thanks for all the help this past election.

Then again, some of you are so snide and condescending you should probably not be talking to voters. You might have made things worse.

[Atticus]

99. "Just fucking shut up already". You see, that's why we're better than

those nasty Tea Baggers!

It's our famous "liberal values" and our tolerance for those with differing opinions.

Well done!

[Atticus]

98. I think it's called "whistling past the graveyard". nt

[sabrina 1]

10. Is it all really just about the president for you?

Frankly, for many people it's way beyond politics and politicians now.

People are suffering, badly. They are losing their jobs, their homes, by the millions. Does any of this matter to people whose main focus seems to be this president? He will be fine. His family will be fine. We don't have to worry about him.

We DO have to worry about this country and its people. We are slipping into third world status in many parts of this country. And the politicians in DC are fighting over how many trillions of dollars we should give to the wealthy, should it be two more trillion, or a little less, or maybe something in between??

And you are worried about poll numbers?

How sad and I doubt he cares one bit about you, unless of course you are a big donor. Sorry, but that is the reality. Politicians don't care about the poor or the middle class. Except at election time. I admire your loyalty, but lines have been crossed by this president, such as actively participating in protecting torturers from prosecution in Spain, that cannot be forgiven.

The president's poll numbers are great! Well, that's the most important thing for us to worry about :eyes:

[bigtree]

14. in these discussions

. . . it does come down to proving support outside of here.

So many pronouncements about the end of the Obama presidency or the impact of the myriad of the complaints from the left. It shouldn't be dismissed so easily that almost none of the wailing, thrashing around, and eye-poking here at DU and elsewhere is making any significant dent in the President's approval at all outside of this internet bubble.

[sabrina 1]

35. Sorry, but the people here ARE people, ordinary Americans,

most of them seem to be working class Americans. And all are Democrats who supported and voted for this president. They are not just words on a screen, they are people. In fact they are probably some of those who were the most active in getting this president elected. Your dismissal of them mirrors the president's. Many of them donated money they could not afford, did without things they needed to help him get elected.

But no, it isn't just the people you meet here. I know many young people who voted for him, worked for his campaign, believed in him and were energized and excited to be part of it. Now, they are disillusioned. The wars rage on, this president has protected the Bush torturers, that was a shocker and MY personal line in the sand.

Polls. If I am polled on this president, I will not say I do not support him. That would imply support for a Republican. So, no matter how disappointed I am, I will not tell a pollster I do not support a Democrat in the WH.

But it is not about him anymore. He is just a politician, better than some, worse than others. And, since it's unlikely there will be a primary challenge, a serious one anyhow, he will most likely be the nominee and the choice once again will be a Republican, most likely Mitt Romney, if the Republicans are smart. So, most people here will hold their noses and vote for the Democrat. But outside of here, Romney looks pretty moderate, looks like a nice guy, not too radical.

Independents are the ones this president has to worry about. He will get the democratic vote, because with a Democrat we get some crumbs, which is why these polls are meaningless. But it is looking more and more like he has lost the Independent voters who voted for him in 2008. And that could lose us the WH. And that is another reason why people are angry. His failure to keep those to whom he made promises and has now broken them, on board, will cost US the WH and maybe even the Senate.

[bigtree]

38. good for them

. . . but the point is that they don't hold the monopoly of opinion or influence in our party or the political system, and, there is a vast difference between the opinion of the President here and the opinion outside of the internet. That's important in discussions here which suggest the political sky is falling around him.

[sabrina 1]

40. I don't think it's a matter of opinion. It's a matter of right and wrong.

It is wrong to protect war criminals eg. There are no two sides to that. We as a society and all civilized societies have agreed that torture is never right and there is no room for opinion on the subject. Our laws are clear.

When a president who spoke so eloquently about the Constitution is found to have secretly gone out of his way to protect Bush torturers from prosecution, not even here, but in another country, that is just wrong. He said he was going to 'look forward' iow, not go after them. But he never said if someone else went after them he would go out of his way to protect them, using the power WE gave him to do so.

That is just one reason people are angry. Unless you do not share the belief that torture is wrong and torturers should be prosecuted, I do not see how that can be defended. We did not defend Bush did we? What amazes me is how many things people here were outraged over when Bush was president, but now, they are either silent about or worse, try to defend when a Democrat does it.

Eg, there was always outrage when Bush talked about Offshore drilling. But, when a president who spoke out against in his campaign, suddenly flip-flopped, without any explanation other than to, tragically incorrectly as it turns out as 11 men died in the explosion in the Gulf, claim that the data used to impose the ban on offshore drilling was 'old' and that rigs are not dangerous now, there was little to no risk of them blowing up and spilling oil. 18 days later he was proven wrong. His slur against those who wanted to keep the ban in place, blew up in HIS face. But did he apologize?

So again, it is not about politicians, it is about issue, sometimes they are life and death issues for people, as these were.

I have lost faith in the presidency period. I don't think it matters who is there, just slightly better for us if it's a democrat. I will focus my attention on congress from now on and won't be paying much attention to the presidential race.

Because if we have a Congress that truly represents the people, a president like Bush, eg, can be stopped. We didn't and we still don't, but can if we put all the effort we put into electing this president into electing real Democrats who are beholden only to those who elected them.

[BzaDem]

15. "People are suffering, badly." Yeah. That's why he made the deal. n/t

[Lord Magus]

23. Some people value ideological purity over real-world consequences.

Approximately 100% of Repugs think that way, but unfortunately some Democrats and liberals do too. Yeah, it would be great if we'd already dealt with the tax cuts (with no renewal for the top rate) back when Repugs had less capability to block votes, but failure to do so was Congress's fault, not Obama's. Now the highest priorities are getting unemployment extended and keeping the lowest income earners from seeing a 50% increase in their taxes.

[aquart]

27. No, we recognize the true consequences and the propaganda ones.

The consequences of this appalling capitulation is to starve our economy until the end of the Obama administration guaranteeing a Republican win whether we primary or not. That is the Republican goal and Obama handed it to them.

UI is a temporary measure until you can get a job. Obama has guaranteed that there will be no jobs. Because he has guaranteed an insolvent economy.

If all you focus on is the instant gratification, you miss the real and lasting damage.

They told me he was intelligent and he turned out to be a shortsighted fool.

[BzaDem]

29. Even Krugman (who opposes the deal) thinks that temporary cuts like this are not a deficit problem,

and that this will improve the economy and lower the unemployment rate by .55-.95.

So you should probably come up with a different complaint than that.

[Lord Magus]

68. Maybe he just doesn't care about facts.

Rethug concern-trolls usually don't.

[BzaDem]

81. Edit (my sarcasm meter is off today)

[Lord Magus]

69. There is no ecnomist who says that this will "starve our economy".

That doesn't even make sense.

[sabrina 1]

31. He made a deal to increase the deficit by billions, maybe trillions

if Republicans have their way two years from now? How does that help the American people who are suffering, since part of that suffering is BECAUSE of the deficit? He USES the deficit to bring SS and other 'entitlement' programs into the discussion and his Commission, the one he said he would never appoint btw, is planning to cut SS They are lying by claiming that SS ever had or ever will have anything to do with the deficit.

What will you say when he 'compromises' on SS? Because we know it's coming.

I remember when we wanted the Bush Tax Cuts to be dealt with BEFORE the election, don't you? And then we were told it would not be dealt with until after the election. The smart people among us knew right then that a deal was going to be made and that this president was going to go back on another campaign promise and extend them. That would have been a winning issue for Democrats in the campaign. But, why was it not? Who decided to take it off the table until Republicans did not have to worry about it anymore as a campaign issue?

And we were told we were just trying to make Obama look bad, that we should 'wait and see' and that there was 'no evidence' he would extend the tax cuts. But here we are.

Same thing with SS. Why was that not a campaign issue? A winning issue for Democrats, a devastating issue for Republicans? But again, we were told we had to wait until AFTER the campaign? Who is running this party? Sometimes I think Republicans have a mole in the party leadership making decisions that benefit them so much.

So, next up SS. Do you agree with the Commission's recommendations re SS? Since it has nothing to do with the deficit, what justification is there for their proposals? Can you answer that question?

And, if their proposals are accepted, will you defend that also? Where is your line in the sand? Mine was the protection of Bush's torturers. Was that okay with you also? Obama, pressuring someone who was actually going to hold them responsible for their crimes, to leave them alone? THAT didn't shock you?

[BzaDem]

33. None of that suffering is because of the deficit at all. That is entirely false.

If "Republicans have their way two years from now," they are going to cut SS/Medicare regardless of the deficit. The deficit is not their concern at all. Their real concern is cutting government.

The short term deficit is not causing a single person a smidge of harm, nor do progressive economists think that there are negative economic effects to increasing the deficit in a recession. As Krugman/Delong/Stiglitz continuously point out, larger deficits in recessions are GOOD, not bad, and we need bigger short term deficits (not smaller short term deficits).

As for the deficit commission (which deals with the entirely separate problem of LONG term deficits, which are not affected at all by this tax cut), no, I do not agree with their recommendations. In the long run, SS has a solvency problem, but it can be mostly fixed by raising the cap.

"Mine was the protection of Bush's torturers."

It's curious how you are not supporting Obama's re-election because he protects the Bush torturers, thereby enabling the election of a Republican President who not only protects Bush torturers, but actually restarts Bush's torture policy. Seems kind of against your own stated policy interests, eh?

"THAT didn't shock you?" Obama made it plain as day in the campaign that he was going to look "forward, not backward." He said this EVERY SINGLE TIME he was asked about Bush prosecutions. So no, it didn't shock me, because I was paying attention. There will never be a president during your lifetime or 10 lifetimes after that which will go after Bush. You can ignore that reality, but ignoring reality is generally not a good prescription for improving it.

[sabrina 1]

37. I did not say I did not support the reelection of this president.

As always, we will probably have no choice other than to support him. I would like to be supporting someone because I believe in them, NOT holding my nose because the only other choice is unthinkable.

'Looking forward'! He was asked several times about prosecuting war criminals. I just read an interview with him a few days ago where he was asked if he would be looking into charges of war crimes. He did NOT say he would ignoring war crimes, he said he would have to see what evidence there was, and of course if there was clear evidence of wrong-doing, we have laws etc. etc. He added that he did not want to spend his FIRST term focusing on what might be seen as partisan politics, BUT he did take these matters seriously.

I can assure you if I had ever heard him say that he would protect war criminals, torturers, there is no way I would have supported him.

What you are saying is that you accept the fact that we are now a third world dictatorship where torture and the slaughter of innocents based on lies, is simply the way things are. There is no rule of law, and there ARE people who are ABOVE the law. This is what you accept? That is what rightwingers told me when I used to fight with them over Bush's crimes. That no one would ever prosecute him, so I should just STFU about it.

But aside from that, I am not even talking about his egregious decision to dismiss any chance of even looking into those crimes. We had more committees on torture, Leahy's eg, and other war crimes, Conyers', when Bush was president than under this president. I am talking about the fact that Spain, which has jurisdiction over those war crimes was planning on prosecuting them.

We were watching that case. Human Rights organizations were watching it. The Spanish judge said he would wait until the new administration took over to see if the U.S. would now prosecute its own criminals. I guess he wasn't paying attention to Obama either, or maybe he heard what I heard him say, that 'if there was evidence of wrongdoing' etc.

But then, this president made his announcement, there would be no interest in prosecuting war criminals. So the Spanish court began to prepare its case. And now we know, this president personally pressured Spain to leave Bush's torturers alone. That was a step way further than ignoring our laws here. That was going out of his way, spending time he said he didn't want to spend on war criminals, to protect Bush's torturers. Please, stop defending torture and those who protect torturers. It is disgusting. Bush's torturers, contrary to your declaration, COULD have been prosecuted, but this president protected them. It may mean nothing to you, but it means an awful lot to a lot of people around this country and the world.

Btw, were you as dismissive of torture when Bush was president? Were we all wrong to be so horrified at what our government was doing back then after all? I may be misunderstanding you, but that seems to be what you are saying. Bush wasn't so bad after all. It was because he was not a Democrat that we expressed so much outrage over torture?

[BzaDem]

39. "Were we all wrong to be so horrified at what our government was doing back then after all?"

No. We were not wrong to be horrified at all.

"This is what you accept?"

My point is that reality is reality REGARDLESS of what you accept. Reality doesn't change just because you don't accept it (whatever that means). If you believe that a President who commits illegal acts and doesn't get prosecuted implies we live in a third world dictatorship, then yes. Under your assumptions (which I accept for the sake of argument), we live in a third world dictatorship, and that is not going to change no matter how much or little you accept it. This isn't that surprising -- there are a lot of things in life that are horrifying, yet simultaneously aren't ever going to change.

"Bush's torturers, contrary to your declaration, COULD have been prosecuted, but this president protected them."

Even if we assume for the sake of argument that one day in your lifetime, there might be a President that prosecutes Bush (even though that is a false assumption), the chances of allowing a foreign power to do it are still zero. The US would sooner go to war with Spain than allow them to prosecute a former President.

You continue to make it sound like I somehow support torture just because I have the gall to state reality. That is blatantly false. There are a HUGE number of things I don't like that are still never going to change. There are a HUGE number of things you don't like that are still never going to change. (I'm sure there is plenty of overlap.) Life is DEFINED by choices and actions that we don't like yet nevertheless can't stop and can't avoid.

[DearAbby]

11. Okay we get the idea

we aren't important, you wont be needing us in 2012. :hi:

[bigtree]

16. no, you're one pov among many

You are challenged to gain support for your position like the other interests and motivations in our party if you endeavor for your initiatives or concerns to prevail in our political system and advance into action or law.

[calimary]

28. Ouch.

[CakeGrrl]

18. k/r

[PufPuf23]

20. Here is the unfortunate reality I perceive.

Most of us at DU are political junkies.

The polls of DU show that we on average are higher educated and better informed than the average American, Indpendent, or Democrat.

Not wise to to demean the discontent at DU.

Be careful on how one interpets the past (but history does occur in patterns and forms ever more complex).

To criticize POTUS Obama is to feel betrayed. POTUS Obama (mildly) is not easy to understand.

[BzaDem]

30. "Not wise to to demean the discontent at DU."

If the majority of DU has foolish notions of what is feasible and what is good for the economy, it certainly is wise to point it out. Especially when people on DU think that they represent a non-negligible portion of the base in opposing Obama.

[ecstatic]

44. This current DU is NOT more educated than the

average American. That ship sailed the moment Obama took office! These days, half of the OPs are filled with lies, subtle dog whistles, or outrage based on misinformation/ ignorance.

[Lord Magus]

70. I wonder how much of that is from Rethug infiltrators flooding the place.

After all we know they have an organized campaign to do just that to all progressive sites.

[aquart]

26. Apologists' thread?

[bigtree]

34. support for our Democratic President outside of DU

. . . nothing to apologize for.

[TheKentuckian]

32. Jimmy crack corn!

[lamp_shade]

41. Thanks, Bzadem. Another meaningful article.

[tcaudilllg]

42. They are only lamenting the alternative.

Even that won't last forever.

[ecstatic]

43. kr. count me in as a liberal supporter of Obama! nt

[tcaudilllg]

45. Obama is destroying the freedom of the press.

[lamp_shade]

46. .

[DirkGently]

48. This argument just gives the lie to the notion that all who disagree with Obama's mistakes

have abandoned him. It doesn't, as it seems is hoped, somehow contradict the fact that the majority of AMERICANS of every stripe are opposed to the Republicans' $700 billion gift to their rich friends, which Obama is now so vigorously defending. Or that others who disagree with Obama on other things are in a "tiny minority." All it shows is that most liberal Democrats have not turned their backs on the President, as his most ardent supporters so often try to suggest.

[bigtree]

50. actually, a majority polled agree with the compromise

There isn't a majority of 'striped' Americans opposed to the president's negotiated deal. Only about 26% in two polls so far (Gallup and Ram)

[DirkGently]

55. This was a poll that presented a choice between tax cuts for both, or just the middle class?

[Lord Magus]

75. It gave the options that are actually available.

The Senate already had a vote on only extending the tax cuts for the middle class. It failed. It didn't matter that the majority of Americans support that position, because the Senate is a fundamentally undemocratic body on multiple levels. Since the only real options under the current Congress are maintaining all the tax cuts or none of them, you have to decide which of those is preferable. It'd be better if we could have the tax cuts for the rich expire right now, but it would also be nice in general if we had a Senate that reflected the wishes of the American people. We don't have that. So our only option is to work with what exists and try to change the balance in the next election.

[DirkGently]

79. Or ... we could debate the issue and bring -- what was that thing -- "political pressure" to bear?

[Lord Magus]

80. You mean by appealing to the constituents of the obstructionists?

The problem with that is the Rethugs have proven they don't give a damn about what the American people want.

[BzaDem]

83. Exactly. They fear their primary electorate FAR more than they fear the general electorate. n/t

[bvar22]

49. "Silent Majority"

Too much.

Another Republican Marketing Scam making it way through DU today.

[bigtree]

51. so it's 'republican' because it denotes support for the President?

. . . unbelievable the spin that goes on around here just to denigrate our Democratic President.

[Lorien]

53. Yep, and it's as pathetic as Obama's use of a poll that sampled only 1,000

adults as justification for it's reprehensible actions. ONE poll that differed from every other poll out there! Just pathetic.

If Team Obama were a "silent MAJORITY", then they could, at the very least, muster some rec's for this thread!

[bvar22]

57. "Permanent Tax Cuts for the RICH are GOOD for America....

...because they will create JOBS!!!!!
And the Death Tax is BAD becuase Republicans said so...
And defunding Social Security will HELP the Working Class,
Just like NAFTA!!!!"


LOL
Truly Down the Rabbit Hole.

Oh,
AND these "Temporary cuts" are REALLY PERMANENT...
AND everybody KNOWS that.
NOTHING will "CHANGE" in two years.

[Lord Magus]

76. I'm used to seeing this kind of ingorance of how polling works from the Rethugs.

They display it whenever a poll doesn't go their way. I've always thought most liberals understood that 1000 is a sufficiently large sample for a valid poll. And that increasing the sample size does not necessarily increase accuracy.

[Marr]

95. Yeah, isn't that weird?

Makes me wonder where they stocked their mental junk drawers, so to speak.

[NashVegas]

52. Key: "Self-Identified Liberals"

What I get from Facebook, watching my peers who were ahead of the curve at one time, is that they have become completely confused about the reality-based world.

And it's not hard to be, now that we have thousands of online publishers trying to replace alternative weeklies (although, honestly most of those are pretty useless now since being bought out by the corps), Mother Jones, and other truly liberal publications that didn't face competition in the marketplace of ideas before the Web.

I at least give Salon some credit for trying to keep its brains; HuffPo? GMAFB. That's where I'm guessing most self-identified liberals turn these days, that and Talking Points Memo - both of which carried enough water for Obama to get him through the Gobi desert in the first half of 2008.

These are "feel good" liberals, IMO, the people who would rather post an article about how much smarter and more rational liberals are, over conservatives, than take a fucking minute and think about where the money is going to come from to continue the Bush era tax cuts AND pony up still-more unenjoyment benefits AND dice out FICA deductions.

[MadHound]

56. "Silent Majority" Wow, dredging up the ghost of Nixon now,

Is that what your defense of Obama has now boiled down to, retreading the Nixon talking points. If so, then even you should realize that Obama is toast.

[BzaDem]

84. "then even you should realize that Obama is toast."

It's funny how you think Obama is toast even though all the data indicates otherwise.

[readmoreoften]

58. That's only because right-wing conservative Democrats are calling themselves "liberals" these days.

That's what rightwings do. They confuse issues and debates through obscurantism. That's why you'll find Obama Loyalists under radical leftist avatar names or the term "liberal" used boldly in their name. I've never seen a conservative democrat call themselves out as such. Sensing this, many "liberals" have moved over to the word "left" and "progressive" for some clarity.

The bottom line is this: if we don't matter, then stop worrying about us. If we don't matter, then we're irrelevant. So why are you here bothering us.

[inna]

61. +1000

[Autumn]

66. +2000

I agree with the bottom line.:thumbsup:

[BzaDem]

85. If that is true, then there are very few liberals left (since self-identified liberals make up 20%

of the electorate).

You can either argue that people self-identify correctly (and therefore Liberals approve of Obama), or that they self-identify incorrectly (and therefore far fewer than 20% of America is liberal).

[democracy1st]

62. Nothing but a Goldman Sachs admin from top to bottom!

[TexasObserver]

63. Nixon used the "silent majority" meme right up until his resignation.

The fact is the president has lost the backing of many mainstream Democrats and no amount of whistling through the graveyard by his loyalists will alter that.

[BzaDem]

88. So? The data didn't back Nixon up. He had a 22% approval rating.

Obama's approval rating with his base is stratospheric in every poll, beating every Democratic President since JFK.

[TexasObserver]

100. You're whistling through the graveyard.

[asdjrocky]

65. And you're not a crook, right? nt

[BumRushDaShow]

67. K&R

:kick:

[LoZoccolo]

72. K&R!

:kick:

[Fearless]

77. Instead of using Rethug talking points...

to support the president, maybe a closer look at the facts would be a good idea.

[BzaDem]

89. The funny thing is that the article is full of facts and data. It's interesting how you are the one

telling others to look at facts, when your post is literally defined by a lack of knowledge of reality.

[Liberal_in_LA]

86. K&R

[RetroLounge]

87. Unrec

and laughing at the denial

:rofl:

RL

[BzaDem]

90. Wouldn't someone (like yourself) who ignores facts and data be in denial, by definition? n/t

[RetroLounge]

91. Sorry, my cheerleader outfit is in the cleaners

You're on your own.

:rofl:

RL

[BzaDem]

92. Still yet another example of your consistent refusal to engage with facts. n/t

Not surprising though -- many Obama bashers make such ridiculous remarks that the only way they could still be intelligent after making such remarks is to be completely uninformed of the facts in question.

[RetroLounge]

93. Drooling over your hero is not Facts

:rofl:

RL

[BzaDem]

94. If someone were doing that, that would certainly not be factual. However, the OP (and associated

article) is full of facts. You might want to try informing yourself. :hi:

[RetroLounge]

96. Yeah, I'll get on that,,,

:eyes:

RL

[closeupready]

97. Work that PR overtime, WORK that PR overtime, WORK that PR overtime.

:rofl: