Why does Obama have such high approval numbers among "liberal democrats"?

[FLAprogressive]

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[cliffordu]

2. That's my boy!!!

:hi:


:rofl:

[cali]

3. I'm a rational person.

I'm disheartened by Obama's performance as President. I think he's a weak man.

[Drunken Irishman]

15. I think there is a huge difference between being disheartened...

And outright hostile toward Pres. Obama. Many here are hostile to the point of irrationality.

I'm guessing many liberals who approve of Obama don't approve of him fully - or even mostly. But they're rational. And they can weigh the pros and cons.

I don't blindly approve of Obama. But I think he's doing a good job, all things considered. Doesn't mean he can't do a better job or that I disapprove of him.

[JohnnyRingo]

18. He only kissed one side of my ass.

We were promised both in the campaign and some can't seem to wait until the 2nd term.

[bvar22]

58. You got your ass kissed?

I'm in the Working Class,
and all we got was fucked.




Who will STAND UP and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
Lofty Rhetoric, Empty Promises, and Whiny Excuses are meaningless now.

"By their WORKS you will know them,"
And by their WORKS they will be held accountable.

[JohnnyRingo]

67. I guess it's a matter of perspective

I'm feeling the pain from his GOP rivals who are doing everything possible to derail chances of a second term, including sending the country down the drain. It was Limbaugh who tipped their hand when he announced he wanted the president to fail.

Since that casual breach of poker face the opposition have been very successful in keeping this White House in check. Some on the left, not satisfied with advances like righting a failed Bush economy, passing an amendable health care act, making moves to abolish DADT, and passing social justice laws like the Lillie Ledbetter act, have described their frustration with not having their favorite cause addressed as an outright betrayal.

If it feels like you've been fucked now, just wait until the Obama's pack up and move out of the White House. If you think Americans will say: "Hey the Democrats say they failed in 2008, let's give them another chance" then that fucking you feel is actually a wet dream.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[Recursion]

32. Oddly enough what it reminds me most of is Shi'ites...

...in a non-revolutionary country: absolutely convinced that no matter what happens, it is a necessity of history that they are being sold down the river.

[Kalun D]

50. LOLZ!!

""I think he's doing a good job"" Define "good".


Pushed the crooked banker "bailout" for the criminal bankers who intentionally caused the problem in the first place. IOW rewarding the crooks with more money taken from the victims of the initial theft.

Appointed the same crooked bankers to positions of banking over sight, including bush boy appointees.

Zero prosecutions of the criminal bankers. Even Reagan prosecuted/convicted over 1000 bankers during a similar banking crisis in the 80's. So Obama is even worse than Reagan.

Supported and assisted BP in their coverup of the worst environmental disaster in the history of the world.

Zero criminal prosecution of BP executives. Still supporting offshore drilling.

Failed to pass meaningful healthcare, instead made backdoor deals with big pharma and the health and insurance industries.

Established a catfood commission to look at cutting Social Security which included repug advisors. Pushed through a bill which defunds Social Security which is disguised as a SS "tax cut". The sociopathic repugs have been trying to do this for years. I took a back stabbing two faced predatory corporatist to "git er done"

Has failed to close Gitmo or roll back any of the bush era assaults on democratic freedoms, in fact has escalated those assaults.

Escalated the wars. Cutting back schooling so there's more money for useless bombs.

The worst Nuclear disaster in world history, still supporting the nuclear death industry.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

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

[Kalun D]

73. "Reading" Something I Didn't Say

I'll clarify

After the worst Nuclear accident in history, that was caused by a natural disaster, Obama still supports the nuclear death industry.

Obama has in reality done so many things wrong, there's no reason to make stuff up.

[Ken Burch]

4. But YOU post here...

Oh, did you just admit something about yourself?

[Raine]

8. Zing....

:evilgrin: :thumbsup:

[Ken Burch]

5. I go with Stockholm Syndrome

They're being held politically hostage by this admin, and they have begun to identify with their kidnappers.

[Shiver]

6. Because as much as we like to think it does

DU does not represent the left. DU, as much as I love it and the people here, is on the fringe. The good fringe, though, but because of that they will never be happy.

[Skittles]

7. if by Fringe you mean POLICTICALLY INFORMED

then yes

[JANdad]

9. Amen

EOm

[Shiver]

11. Yes. Politically informed and politically unrealistic.

We know what we want, and we know it's right. But we don't know the realistic way in which to get what we want. We get pissed if we don't get everything right away, and deem anything that is not 100% perfect to be caving or an abysmal failure, even if reality suggests that there was no way we could get exactly what we wanted.

[sendero]

29. We know that the Republicans always get what they want..

... whether they have majorities or not, and we don't. I have no idea about the polls, I just know that it was Republican policies that have put the country to its knees and I see now that Democrats are joining in.

Most Americans understand about as much about economics as they do nuclear fission, that is to say very very little. They go by the sound bites they hear, and the Reps are good at sound bite and the Dems (mostly, with a handful of exceptions) suck at sound bites.

Personally, when it comes to national politics I have given up. I will not vote for Obama because if I want Republican policies I want Republicans to take the blame for them and as it is they are just shifting the blame for their failures on the the Democratic brand. It's pathetic.

[Recursion]

31. That is a dangerous myth

If anything Free Republic is more disappointed with their leaders than we are.

Activists always feel this way, and there's nothing that's ever going to change that.

[sendero]

34. The day..

.. I care about what the cretins at Freep think you can bet my pulse will be zero.

As for myths, the myth is that the Democratic party gives two shits about the middle class and poor any more. And if they don't care about us, I don't care about them and the fact that Reps are worse is no comfort.

[CrispyQ]

33. Makes me question why the dems don't hire someone like Lakoff.

The dems do nothing to counter Frank Luntz & they play right into the right's hands by letting the right frame the issues. Obama never reframes the debate & he has had many great opportunities to do so. During the summer of '09, when the health care debate was most heated, there was that giant health fair in LA - people traveled from all over the country to get free health & dental care. He could have used that opportunity to say, "Single payer will be like this, only better! You won't have to travel to LA, you can choose your doctor & your health care won't cost you." But no. While the teabaggers spent the summer ranting against socialized medicine, Obama was silent & let an opportunity slip by.

Hmmmmm, could it be that the New Democratic Party, doesn't want to frame issues in a way that makes liberalism appealing?

[sendero]

35. When I watch the Kabuki theater..

.. that passes for politics in Washington I'm certain that "our" party has no interest in "winning" anything for us. Because they pass up opportunities to twist the knife in Republican policies over and over and over and over and over.

The great crash of 2008 should have been the death knell for Republican economics yet here it comes, more tax cuts and deregulation, the exact thing that has sunk our economy, the Repukes want us to eat more and the Dems apparently agree.

[walldude]

68. Oh please....

Boehner gets 98% of what the Republicans want and the freepers want to oust him, we get 2% of what we want and we are called whiners because we complain.

Not getting 100% is acceptable. Not getting 25% is not. It's called compromise for a reason.

[Shiver]

71. Boehner did not get 98% of what the Republicans wanted.

Planned Parenthood was saved. EPA was saved. Funding for the ACA was saved. Head Start saved.

The Republicans wanted 100 billion in cuts or more. They did not get that. This was a compromise, believe it or not, because I have yet to see anyone truly happy with it.

And you half proved my point, actually, even if you grossly exaggerated the percentages. Freepers are on the other fringe, and nothing but perfection will ever be good enough for them. Fringes want ideological perfection; it's why they worship Sarah Palin and people on our side love Dennis Kucinich. Idealogically, both are near-perfect. Realistically, neither would get anything done, and would be about half as effective as Obama has been unless they put idealism aside.

[leeroysphitz]

28. +1

[Recursion]

30. Last week we had an April Fools article rec'd up to the top of the Greatest Page

And we still seem to have a majority of posters who think that the Majority Leader of the Senate can force the minority to stand up and talk when a cloture vote fails.

So, no.

[Shiver]

72. I think he meant informed on the issues.

Not on how politics actually works.

[stillwaiting]

25. Could you name ONE liberal political message board where the majority thinks Obama is doing

a good job?

I visit A LOT of different boards and the consensus on all of them is the same regarding Obama.

The only way the poll numbers could be valid is if ALL of the people that post on ALL of the left/liberal message boards are the "fringe" and don't represent Obama's base. The only way THAT could hold true is if "Obama's base" is comprised of the most politically uninvolved/unaware individuals that identify as a Democrat and truly don't pay much attention to political events.

IF that's true, then their opinion should not mean nothing in this situation. Absolutely nothing.

[sabrina 1]

10. Because a lot of people calling themselves 'liberals'

today are NOT liberals, they are DLCers. It's political tactics, but hilarious to see who is trying to pass themselves off as liberals.

Probably 90% who 'identified as liberals' are not. DLCers/Liberals love everything Obama does, so no surprise there.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Drunken Irishman]

14. Yes...another DLC plot.

Man, this DLC really is impressive. I bet they killed Kennedy.

[white_wolf]

49. No, but they killed his party over time and made it into a

nicer version of the republicans.

[democracy1st]

23. and a lot of these so called liberals couldn't tell you who his economic advisors are!

[pampango]

24. Raises the question: Is it "liberal" to tear down walls between countries (like the EU) or to build

them up (like ?)? Is it "liberal" to raise tariffs (like Smoot/Hawley/Hoover) or to lower them (like FDR)? Could tariffs and walls be "liberal" if done for the right reasons, but conservative if done for the wrong reasons?

Are "DLCers" still liberals is they support civil rights, multiculturalism, progressive taxation, strong unions, multilateralism, and a strong social safety net? Or, by your definition, do "DLCers" not believe in any of those ideas?

"Probably 90% who 'identified as liberals' are not." - Pure "liberals" must be a pretty exclusive club. How could the RW ever have successfully painted us as out-of-touch with the "common man"?

[eridani]

13. Other--many Dems have a personal policy of never dissing any elected Democrat

--to any public polling organization.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[Jmaxfie1]

17. Because he is the most Liberal President since LBJ! n/t

[Art_from_Ark]

45. Jimmy Carter was far more liberal than Obama

[Lyric]

20. Because "liberal" doesn't mean anything anymore.

All principles, values, and ideals have been stripped away as "too unrealistic", so pretty much ANY Democrat can claim to be a "liberal Democrat" now.

[Modern_Matthew]

21. Because their "reasoning" is based on labels, not principles. nt

[democracy1st]

22. I think people are referring to themselves as liberal due to the foolishness

coming from the right,and that just tells you how weak these so called polls really are.

[Edweird]

26. If 'liberal' means pro-war, pro torture, pro tax cuts for the rich with budget cuts for the poor

then it makes sense. Otherwise, not so much.

[rug]

27. Because of the phrasing of the question.

"Do you approve of the job President Obama is doing or do you endorse the coming plagues that will be brought down on the country, even while he is protecting innocent children being massacred in Libya and Afghanistan, by the Republicans, including the repeal of the Lily Ledbetter Act, if you don't vote for him?

[JoePhilly]

36. Because the DU membership is not representative of the country.

There are pragmatic liberals and their ideological liberals.

Most liberals out in the real world are pragmatic. They understand that we aren't going to go from Bush and Reagan's America to a liberal Utopia in 2 years, or 4 years, or even 10 years.

[Exilednight]

38. Reagan took the country from left of center to right of center in less than 4. I guess

what you're saying is that Obama doesn't have it in him to be as transformational to the left as Reagan was to the right.

[JoePhilly]

42. No. Reagan STARTED the process using

the racist strategy known as the "GOP Southern Strategy" (which actually started under Nixon). Via that strategy, you mix religion and racism.

That strategy continued slowly under Bush #1, was delayed some during Clinton, and accelerated under Bush #2, picking up the Tea Party version in 2009.

But Obama gets 2 years, if that (more like 1), to repair 30 years of GOP destruction.

[Exilednight]

47. Reagan, also, FINISHED the process, and Dems have yet to fight back. n/t

[JoePhilly]

53. He didn't finnish anything.

But you go on believing that Obama should have fixed at all in one year.

[Exilednight]

62. Is the country moving left or right? If you answer the question honestly, you'll

see that Reagan finished what he started.

[TheKentuckian]

48. We are infinity away from any form of Utopia.

None the less, we aren't on a pace to be a sensible nation in a time frame of scores of years or at all.

Folks like to use this kind of framing as an form of inoculation, rather than deal with any criticism on the merits there is an active and I believe pre-planned dismissal as petulance or lack of proper grounding.

This came with canned catch phrases like "pragmatic progressive" which re-frames progressive while also making the term meaningless in terms of deeds, policies, and goals.
"Pragmatic progressive" came into vogue along with the much less successful "sensible centrist" and assumably from the same sources since it was the same peckerwoods and smarmy douchebags that came out after the Inauguration of President Barack Obama trying to dictate the message in concert with hobbling OFA taking it from an at disposal fired up and ready to go grass roots to a DC beltway group overnight, held back by having to wait for "Obama's plan" so it could be sold or blindly and ignorantly pushing "Obama's plan" when there was none.

This place is crawling with "pragmatic progressives" today but before the election there was no such thing or if there was it was a nearly non-existent category with most of its most ardent self identifiers espousing and at times demanding far more than I ever expected on much shorter time frames. Before the election in 2008 I probably was one of the more "pragmatic" that wasn't an open Third Wayer, now with the exact same expectations I'm Pony Rainbow McFringe. The transformation was complete by mid-summer 09.

We are not even on the first shaky steps of a generational time frame movement but are instead continuing the Reagan paradigm and embracing it further. Thirty years of Third Way politics projects out far closer to "A Brave New World" than Norway or Sweden, much less "a progressive utopia" (whatever that is supposed to be".

Also, as a side deal here I think the most vehement supporters of the latest "third way" repackaging have a short political memory being young or politically awakened regardless of age at Bush. Certain elements thrive on a definite lack of personal perspective. It is an easy line to construct when you accept Bush and Bush's crimes as "political differences" and make Bush be the dividing line which in turn makes Reagan roughly "center" and not to be pushed to be reversed. We are not changing the direction because you don't change direction by maintaining heading and slowing down the breakneck pace the last drunken captain was on.

"Pragmatic progressive", "sensible centrist", "pony", "progressive utopia", and "magic wand" all come from the same or similar source and were introduced after Obama was in office to re-direct a message with too much hope for any substantive change from the status quo.

Change came to America by dialing back Democratic regulars aspirations, ceasing to oppose corporate control even rhetorically and instead further embracing public/private "partnership" (Fascism's dangerous relative). Change came with acceptance of Reagan rather than a resistance.

Samge came to America cheered on by "pragmatic progressives" that are difficult to distinguish from "moderate Republicans" other than rhetoric to round up support for the same aims and lack of conviction of principle that people like Arlen Specter were on occasion capable of displaying as well as the venom when they speak about actual liberals and socialists.

[Exilednight]

37. Other: You get these numbers when you allow people to define what category they believe they fall

into. The words liberalism and progressivism have been watered down to include the likes of DLCers.

[mmonk]

39. Perceptions. Americans are followers, not students of facts.

If prevailing media creates a scenario that says this person is liberal, then people that consider themselves liberal will vote for that person and associate with them whether that person is or isn't.

[Jakes Progress]

40. Other: Hero worship and football team mentality.

[CrispyQ]

41. Other

I know many people who consider themselves liberal & vote dem, but they are liberal on social issues only. They support choice, gay marriage, separation of church & state, all that, but economically, they are miserly bastards who resent paying money into the community pot. They are not wealthy, but they are very well off. They have had it pretty good with six figure incomes for many years & they have property & savings, although some took a big hit on 401k's, but overall, they have fared much better than most. The new dems appeal to this group.

I think the dem party is as divided as the repub party, but not in danger of splintering off like they are. When that happens, there will be an exodus of the sane repubs to the dem party & the transition of the dem party to the new dem party will be complete. It will basically be the old repub party with a slightly more liberal bent regarding lifestyle choices, but no New Deal economics. At this point, the liberals will have to decide what to do.

[boston bean]

43. There's a lot of people who call themselves "liberal democrats"

but they are obviously not "liberal democrats".

No liberal I know is actually happy with the sad state of affairs we find ourselves in.

[SidDithers]

44. Because real liberal democrats know he's doing a good job...nt

Sid

[davidthegnome]

46. As opposed to those who don't?

Who are, by your logic, fake liberal democrats?

You know, personally, I think you can be a liberal democrat no matter what you think of the President or the job he's doing.

[BzaDem]

66. At least you are consistent.

Many apparently believe one cannot call themselves a liberal democrat if they DO approve.

[BulletproofLandshark]

55. I'm a real liberal Democrat.

I don't think he's doing a good job.

Hypothesis disproved.

[Pisces]

57. I agree. Real Democrat who thinks he's doing a great job under the circumstances.

[JackRiddler]

51. Stockholm Syndrome & lazy, wishful thinking (believe so you don't feel bad about not DOING)

[JackRiddler]

60. To be fair, there is another factor...

In the insane binary logic of the media, low approval for Obama is translated as preference for Republicans. People choose accordingly.

[Kalun D]

52. Going with misinformed

the majority of the populace still gets their "news" from the TV, which is under absolute and total corporate control

it offers an alternative version of reality which most people believe. Obama is especially good at lying straight faced, and he has a very charismatic presence on camera. He tells people just what they want to hear, and then does the exact opposite behind their back.

[JHB]

54. Because saying "disapprove" in those polls is taken as support for Republican obstruction...

...and not as pressure for the president to take a less "centrist" path.

[Marr]

56. I don't think the information is accurate, personally.

I know, people refusing to believe polls simply because they don't support their own opinions is a cliche, but in this case, that's where I am. Perhaps the poll question was leading, or it's perceived by recipients in way like 'who do you support more-- Obama or the Republicans'... I don't know. All I do know is that it doesn't square with my personal experience, my own intuition, and the results of the 2010 elections which I feel were largely a referendum on Obama's performance.

What's more, I really wonder what the statment means. If a pollster were to ask me right now if I support Obama, I'd respond with a "yes", though I know that I won't be volunteering for or donating to his campaign this time around. That is to say, I think a positive response to that question doesn't necessarily equate to real support-- or even a vote, for that matter.

[KG]

59. i'm of a mind that the poll cited so often on DU is just numbers pulled out of thin air.

[bvar22]

61. Shame & Embarrassment

I always give Obama the highest marks possible in every public poll I participate in,
but privately I am beyond disgusted with him.
Its the Battered Wife Syndrome.
I had "HOPE" thing would be different.

I suspect I'm not the only one who does this.

[ooglymoogly]

64. +1 me too

[ooglymoogly]

63. You left off: Because the pundits and poll takers would not know

a liberal if their limousine drove over one. Cut to the winger or "centrist" posing as a lib or the die hard Obama supporter poll taker identifying centrists as liberals; or the liberal who knows for his and his fellow liberals' own sake he has to support a failing prez that he/she is desperately angry with, as best he can; because that poll just ain't so and all of us who are liberals know it.

[Zorra]

69. Maybe many people that are actually centrist define themselves as liberal?

[FrenchieCat]

70. Because they aren't so short sighted not to see the alternative

as to what could happen in 2012, if they didn't support this President.

Perhaps these are the folks that genuinely care about this nation and its future,
as opposed to those who only want to make the point that they have all of the answers,
if only.....