Is Obama's popularity decreasing because he's not liberal enough?

[Writer]

[JVS]

1. Shitty options.

[cliffordu]

6. Yep.

[uponit7771]

31. +1

[maxsolomon]

33. +3 you missed the obvious

yes, because he has not advocated forcefully in public, and apparently in private, for liberal ideas that are popular and just.

still, he is 1000x better than GWB was or McCain would have been. When the GOP is in the White House, the country gets measurable worse. when the dems are in, it maintains the current degraded state. and realistically, maybe that's the best we can hope for.

[provis99]

2. voters aren't rational. They mostly vote for silly irrelevant stuff.

Whether a candidate is liberal conservative or moderate doesn't matter.

[madmunchie]

3. He is losing in popularity because he isn't putting his neck out there

to really forcefully and definitively stand for something. He needs to right now at this moment become a fighter for us all.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

7. I think you hit the nail on the head.

People want *some* swagger. They want a president who they feel is taking charge. Obama isn't doing that.

[boppers]

11. I don't want a spoiled, petulant, schoolyard bully for a president.

"Bring 'em on"...
"Wanted dead or alive"...

Not in my party, if I can help it. Sure, it appeals to the WWE crowd, but Obama's not trying to win a "Wrestling Title".

[SemiCharmedQuark]

12. There is a happy medium between these two extremes.

[boppers]

14. Happy medium?

vs.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

15. Ghandbo!

[boppers]

16. "Please, Sir, kindly stop your persecution, or I will destroy your whole family, while fasting."

Ramdhi?

[JVS]

24. Too bad. Look how he treats Dean

[madmunchie]

32. There is a middle road - especially if your IQ is over 75

[freddie mertz]

38. Which excludes, well, you can fill in the blank...

[IndianaGreen]

4. Other: Obama chose the corporations over the people

and the people ain't stupid.

[undeterred]

20. +1

[GreenPartyVoter]

34. +another 1

[gimama]

5. where's the option for

"hell, YEAH!" ?

[burning rain]

8. "Not liberal enough" is simplistic, but then it appears your point is to snark.

Democrats prosper politically when we create policies that substantially benefit all, or nearly all Americans--programs like Social Security and Medicare, for instance. Health reform that included, for example, a robust public option and drug reimportation, would be better for the broad citizenry and would be drawing more support than what's taking shape now. It's striking how polls on public support for health reform dropped sharply after the public option was dropped.

[CTyankee]

19. I voted for option 2 in this poll and I agree with your analysis.

People don't usually call themselves "liberals" because of all the negative stuff thrown at liberals over the last 30 years. However, push comes to shove and the people want Medicare, SS, health care for children, etc.

People are disgusted by watching how the sausage is made. As well they should. Maybe now people will start taking a harder look at what is going on in this country...

[burning rain]

27. It's a funny thing....

when a liberal program substantively helps everyone, or nearly every one, as do Medicare and Social Security, it largely ceases to be perceived as liberal!

[CTyankee]

28. That's why I love the bumper sticker If you LIke Medicare, thank a Democrat!

Remember when the public option's poll support was 70%? That was only a couple of months ago...if the PO was a socialist plot, then an awful lot of Americans sure are socialists!

[burning rain]

30. I do recall....

and it's also striking how healthcare reform's poll numbers went underwater right after public option was dropped. People like socialism when they stand to benefit from it themselves, and at the same time vehemently deny it's socialism. By dropping public option, Democrats suggest they'd rather lose their re-elections with the support of corporate interests they pander to, than win with the votes of grateful citizens.

[CTyankee]

39. It used to be that politicians were afraid of their constituents. Now they don't seem to care

that much, as long as they have corporate $$$.

I'm telling people now that I'm a socialist and I don't care what they think!

[burning rain]

40. It's not so bad to lose your re-election while retaining the goodwill of corporate & other....

big-money interests, for they can better and more safely cram money in your pockets after you're no longer in office, anyway. :grr:

[CTyankee]

41. Oh, geez, yes. I've wondered that myself. One 2 yr term in office and you get a cushy

corporate job! What a travesty of our political system!

This is so bad I cannot even talk about it. My hubby is so mad he cannot even TALK about Lieberman. Everybody I talk to is mad as hell...

[last_texas_dem]

9. My take is that it is likely that his popularity is decreasing because

more voters, both liberal and moderate, are seeing his leadership strategy as ineffective.

[Mudoria]

10. +1

[smalll]

13. Clearly, no. He sank well below 50% Gallup-poll wise before the West Point speech,

rose well after it, and today lives around that same 50%.

And what does "liberal" mean anyway? Want to fix healtcare? -- I'm with you! Single-payer, public option, something to cut through our hopelessly baroque Gordian knot of a health care system. He promised he would do so, after all.

But bug out of Afghanistan? Even though he promised to win? Even though he believes, though many "liberals" don't, that the United States occasionally does some good in this world, even though he does not believe that American troops abroad equals Nazi-style empire-building???

(Also, back to the last few weeks Gallups: we may have to worry about teabaggers. But leftbaggers, well, we only really have to worry about them on places like DU.)

[cornermouse]

17. Other than hard core neo-cons, Bush and his policies weren't even

popular among republicans. Independents and moderate republicans took a chance and voted for Obama and the democratic party to change the direction the country was going. Instead people got what was more or less a continuation of Bush's policies. I suspect Obama and the democratic party will be seen as too weak to be of any practical use and they're going to revert to voting for republicans.

[Douglas Carpenter]

18. nothing to do with either him or the country not being liberal enough

he appears ineffectual by not standing and fighting - of course, given the power of corporate lobbyist interest over much of Congress- it would be hard to say whether enough of Congress would "fall in line" to actually pass progressive legislation that defies corporate lobbyist interest. I would guess, probably not. That leaves the President between a rock and a hard place given that if the President were to stand and fight, much of his fighting would be against fellow Democrats. And these would be fights he might very well lose to corporate lobbyist interest exercising their power over enough fellow Democrats who together with the Republicans would block more progressive legislation. The media would of course report this as him lacking leadership over his own party - either way.

[VMI Dem]

21. Will a right leaning centrist ever be liberal enough?

Ha.

[ChiciB1]

22. OTHER! It's Not That He's Not Liberal Enough... It's Because He's Not

listening to HIS BASE, or even the more moderate wing of the BASE! We don't expect EVERYTHING LIBERAL, we expect SOME FAIRNESS!

Fairness and playing BY THE RULES, IS not WHAT HE'S DOING! He sold us OUT! I'm FUMING, and yes I am a Liberal, but don't expect a complete LIBERAL agenda, just something more like a Democratic Agenda!!

Not getting it, not even SEEING it on the horizon!! SELL OUT to THE BIG GUYS!! Very simple for me!!

[GreenPartyVoter]

35. Well said!

[Thrill]

23. No he won't fight for anything.

I assume many people are disappointed in this. He appears to be just a weak President. And I've been one of his biggest defenders. But its becoming clear to me. He acts like a Senator and not a President. Its a shame.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[GoCubsGo]

26. Exactly right.

I guess it wasn't just the wing nut right that bought into the "most liberal person in the Senate" B.S. Still LMAO over that.

[paulk]

29. looks like that deleted post

hit a little too close to home...

ed 4 sp

[polichick]

36. No, it's because he seems to be a corporate sell-out. nt

[freddie mertz]

37. What a lousy, fixed poll selection.

Pretty much what I'd expect from this particular author.