OMG Great NEWS!! Obama has a commanding mandate for reelection!

[DFab420]

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/08/29/130.poll.pdf

73% of All Democrats want the man re-elected! Talk about a majority!! Clinton only had 57% at the same time.

President Obama must be doing something right. Lol but let's just focus on the 27% that think it's wrong ALL WRONG!! AHHHH!!

:kick: :bounce: :toast: :party:

:rofl:

[Enrique]

1. what's the mandate for?

just being Obama?

[DFab420]

2. Hey. Let Obama be Obama ya?

[dennis4868]

15. NO!

A mandate to improve legislation that was passed the last 2-3 years and to get done everything he said he would do - BUT WE NEED A COOPERATING CONGRESS...DUers think Obama is a king, sorry to tell you he is not...needs a congress that does not obstruct 24/7 (which DUers blame Obama for).

[roguevalley]

21. let me see ... ricik perry, michelle obama, mitt romney, fill in the blank

and obama. what a rousing endorsement. Why isn't it 100% if its such a victory. If there were legit candidates on both sides he would not be re-elected.

[DFab420]

22. So, just so we are clear. You don't believe the President Barack Obama is a legitimate candidate

for the office of the Presidency??

Does this mean you are

a) Supporting a non-viable or third-party spoiler candidate in any general election

or

b) Disrespectful nicknames, crude insults, or right-wing smears against Democrats

Also I'm not sure you read the poll right but only 22% of republicans want their front runner elected. While 72% of democrats want their PRESIDENT re-elected. How you don't read that as a victory is down to how you want to do your math I suppose.

But your right in a democracy it should be 100% or nothing right?? I mean it's only good if EVERYONE agrees right? I mean that's the point your making when asking for 100% right?

[roguevalley]

23. first of all, you are sad to assume anything. PEOPLE CAN CRITICIZE

A FUCKING PUBLIC SERVANT IN THIS COUNTRY! He is riding a tidal wave of disappointed citizenry and you criticise me like I'm some sort of outlier? He's a CIVIL SERVANT, not a king or god. Jeez-us.

And I meant Michelle Bachmann, not Michelle OBAMA who I love tens ways to Sunday.

72% of the respondents don't have any other candidate to choose from and they only have the nut squad on the other side. This is NOT a rousing endorsement from the dems.

[DFab420]

25. I'm sorry to assume what you meant but you did say..

"If there were legit candidates on both sides he would not be re-elected."

Which one would assume to mean you don't find Obama to be a legitimate candidate.

Also you show me one thing thing in the past 234 years of us being a country that has received 100% support. Hell even the American Revolution had critics!

ALSO, if you looked at the actual poll they could have chosen the option of primary-ing Obama and they said NO. See where is says "DIFFERENT CANDIDATE"......thats another fucking choice right there.


Sorry but if you want to primary the President. You are an outlier, especially in the Democratic Party. Prob not so much on the other side of the field though.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[stuckinarut]

39. Some estimates of Loyalist (or middling non-partisans) expatriots

reach to near 50%. The Revolution, or "first civil war"was not a forgone conclusion that's for sure. There's a reason a popular motto for the revolutionaries was "join or die". They meant it.

If you enjoy history, I would recommend "While the Women Only Wept" by Janice Potter MacKinnon, or "This Unfriendly Soil" by Neil MacKinnon (yes, a married canadian historian couple lol . both amazing reads for any historian, and they personalize alot of the experiences of women and children, non-combatants, non-partisans, that were swept up and pushed out by the revolution's fervor. Often with outright threats on their lives, and livelihoods, many colonials went north to canada where the crown provided them with the sustenance and utilities to make a harsh life for themselves, and try to begin anew.

You provoked my interest with the revolution comment.

[Sheepshank]

24. Michelle Obama is a candidate? n/t

what the heck....how fun those debates would be!

[itsrobert]

3. Looks like the trend of his numbers are going down

How was Clinton trending at this point?

[DFab420]

4. He's actually had an uptick of two percent??? How is that trending down??

[itsrobert]

5. Slight uptick, overall decline; his numbers were 77 in July

2 percent is insignificant. That's less than margin of error.

[DFab420]

7. yea but so is the difference between 77 and 72 %

If the margin of error is +- 4.5% ponts then in actuality it hasn't changed at all


Nice try though. I'm sure you can find some other way to marginalize the President.

[itsrobert]

13. He's doing a good enough job himself

He doesn't need my help.

[Myrina]

6. LMAO please note the survey consisted of close friends and cabinet members ....

:rofl: :rofl:

[DFab420]

8. Where does it say that????? Or are you just making things up?

"Interviews with 1,017 adult Americans conducted by telephone
by ORC International on August 24-25, 2011. The margin of
sampling error for results based on the total sample is plus or
minus 3 percentage points. The sample also includes 927
interviews among registered voters (plus or minus 3 percentage
points).
The sample includes 805 interviews among landline respondents
and 212 interviews among cell phone respondents"

[tridim]

9. And nobody from FDL or OET!!!11

:rofl: @ you

[Life Long Dem]

18. I don't understand why anyone would even say something like.

Even with sarcasm it just makes no sense. I can see Rush L. saying that. But your supposed to be a Democrat and you seem to want his numbers to be lower with that comment.:shrug:

[CakeGrrl]

19. You mean, like the comments on DU where people claim that

"every Democrat they know""" is disgusted with the President?



** = the poster's very small circle of like-minded friends who get together and have a communal complaint session


;-)

[Larkspur]

10. You'll probably find the 27% in the Unemployment line

wondering where are the jobs?

[GreenPartyVoter]

12. Ba-da-boom!

[woo me with science]

16. Maybe parents of the nearly 25 percent of US children who now live in poverty. nt

[woo me with science]

17. Or it could be the seniors who have not had a COLA increase in over 2 years,

and whose predicted COLA for next year will be more than offset by increases in Medicare Part B premiums.

[Fruittree]

29. And of course if Obama were not

president no children would be in poverty, seniors would have the largest COLA increases ever, there would be no unemployment and the world economy would be booming...I hope you don't seriously believe that.

[woo me with science]

38. Of all the attempts to defend Obama from criticism,

that one has always been my absolute favorite.

Impotence and irrelevance, 2012!

:patriot:

[Fruittree]

46. Possibly because you have no reply?

Specific discussion of and criticism of a policy is fine and useful...How could something have been done better or what's a good direction...Blanket complaining (whining?) where Obama is blamed for things which have been issues for years and which have so many multiple layers of causes over which one person cannot possibly have control no matter what their title might make you feel good but is essentially pointless and unfair...Out of curiosity - who's your choice for president and how do you think they would fix the issues you mention?

[woo me with science]

48. No, because it is a patently ludicrous comment

for anyone who has been paying attention to this President's actual behavior, and a comment that frankly insults the nearly 20 percent who are currently out of work in this economy and the seniors who are unable to afford food and shelter.

"Well they would be poor with the other guy, too!" What the hell kind of argument is that?

You act as though this President has been in the forefront trying to solve these problems, instead of spending the past two years virtually ignoring the jobs crisis and then fighting FOR changes to Social Security and Medicare that will make seniors poorer rather than more secure.

You show ME how he has made a sustained and serious attempt to bring jobs to families in this country so that children are not living in poverty. You show ME how he has done anything to prevent the changes to Social Security and Medicare that HE offered up on the table less than a month ago and that will almost certainly be passed when the Super Theft Congress convenes later this year. These will include chaining the CPI so that seniors have even LESS money to spend on food and shelter, and raising the age for Medicare.

There are consequences to pushing a corporate agenda at the expense of the people who are depending on you to help them out of desperate situations. You want some facts about how things have gone with Obama in office pushing Republican policies? Here you go:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/08/26/jonathan-alter-challenge/

* Since Obama took office, we have lost 2.2 million jobs (and 900,000 full-time jobs in the last four months alone). He is now on track to have the worst jobs record of any president in the modern era. (MY ADD: When you see people around DU crowing about small increases in job, they almost never mention that the number of jobs gained does not even come close to matching the number of jobs NEEDED to counterbalance the number of young people entering the economy. We have LOST jobs.)

* The unemployment rate stands at 9.1 percent v. 7.8 percent the month Obama took office. (MY ADD: And these numbers are terribly misleading. They do not include people who have been out of work and have given up looking for work. REAL unemployment is closer to 20 percent).

* July marked the 30th consecutive month in which the unemployment rate was above the 8 percent level, the highest since the Great Depression.

* Since May 2009 — roughly 14 weeks into the Obama administration — the unemployment rate has been above 10 percent during three months, above 9 percent during 22 months, and above 8 percent during two months.

* Chronic unemployment is worse than during the Great Depression.

* The youth employment rate is at the lowest level since records were first kept in 1948.

* The share of the eligible population holding a job has declined to the lowest level since the early 1980s.

* The housing crisis is worse than in the Great Depression. (Home values are worth roughly one-third less than they were five years ago.)

* The rate of economic growth under Obama has been only slightly higher than the 1930s, the decade of the Great Depression. From the first quarter of 2010 through the first quarter of 2011, we experienced five consecutive quarters of slowing growth. America’s GDP for the second quarter of this year was a sickly 1.0 percent; in the first quarter, it was 0.4 percent.

* Fiscal year 2011 will mark the third straight year with deficits in excess of $1 trillion. Prior to the Obama presidency, we had never experienced a deficit in excess of $1 trillion.

* During the Obama presidency, America has increased its debt by $4 trillion.

That is to say, Obama has achieved in two-and-a-half years what it took George W. Bush two full terms in office to achieve — and Obama, when he was running for president, slammed Bush’s record as being “unpatriotic.”

* Consumer confidence has plunged to the lowest level since the Carter presidency.

* The number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty is on track for a record increase on President Obama’s watch, with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels that led to the national war on poverty.

* A record number of Americans now rely on the federal government’s food stamps program. More than 44.5 million Americans received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, a 12 percent increase from one year ago.


In answer to your question, all I want is a strong primary challenger from an ACTUAL (not corporate, Third Way) DEMOCRAT who will reverse this President' trajectory in favor of traditional Democratic policies like progressive taxation, defending Social Security and Medicare, holding banks accountable for corruption instead of protecting them, and an aggressive approach to the economy and jobs crisis including DEMAND SIDE stimulus and a federal jobs program.

I want someone who will be a Democrat. It's not that complicated.

[Fruittree]

49. I will respond in more detail later but...

just so you're aware : My son graduated from a great college, is super-smart and a hard worker - Could not find a job...My mom lives solely on SS (plus any help we can give her) and has $60 per month left for anything she might need after fixed expenses. We are in a position of having to move out of our home if we choose to retire at any time. Believe me, I know it's tough but I also can see where the blame lies and I can see the limits of what any person or for that matter any government can do. We live in a nation where the majority of the jobs are not governement based - How do you force private employers to hire people? How do you go back to a situation where we weren't so deeply in debt that we could afford to spend freely on programs that matter? I do not favor cuts in government programs but I do see that the debt this country has accrued needs to be paid. Other countries are in even worse shape than we are. How does a government stimulus so that people can afford to spend help when the majority of things we have available to buy are made elsewhere so that our stimulus spending is actually creating jobs elsewhere? Yes, we should have a more progressive tax but who's blocked that - Obama or the congress? You seem to assume that if he only waved his magic wand harder - everything would fall into place. Come back to reality and put the blame where it belongs and also take a look at how we got where we are - Think of all the regualtions that were gutted starting back with Reagan and Clinton.

[Blasphemer]

11. The comparison to Clinton in this poll is flawed

Clinton in 1994 (two years before the elections) is not the same point in time as Obama in 2011 (one year before the elections). Usually pollsters try to compare similar points in respective Presidencies. So, I don't understand those who have compared 1994 to 2011. On another note, I guess there was criticism of Clinton coming from Democrats afterall. Whadda ya know?

[itsrobert]

14. Oops, you had to interrupt the Obama pep rally, with some facts

Hope you got your flame suit on.

[Beacool]

27. Aside from the fact that Clinton had a booming economy when he ran for reelection and Obama has not.

Besides, it's irrelevant how a president polls among members of his own party. The essential group that any presidential candidate needs to win is the ever testy "Independents". Right now they are running away from Obama as fast as they can. We'll see where they are by November 2012.

:shrug:

[DFab420]

28. What's really funny is that if he had the support of independents and not his own party..

We would all be squawking about how he needs his base to support him and not worry about those fickle independents.

[Beacool]

40. True..........

I don't mean to be dismissive about any president needing support from his party. Afterall, they are the ones who will raise money and canvass for him, but who a president really needs are the people who are on the fence and who can go either way. He had the Independents in 2008, but he doesn't have them right now and who knows which way they'll go next year.

;)

[CakeGrrl]

20. Allan Lichtman predicts a safe Obama 2012 re-election:

Allan Lichtman's Keys to Re-Election

Of course, some people will say that all streaks have to come to an end (as they cross their fingers).

;-)

[sudopod]

26. I really want to know what that soccer octopus thinks about the election. nt

[Beacool]

41. The poor fellow passed away.

:(

[sudopod]

42. What? awwwww :( nt

[Marsala]

30. That's a good sign

Really, Obama's terrible approval ratings are offset by the Republicans' even more terrible ratings. Americans hate everybody right now, but they still hate the Republicans more... especially if the Republicans nominate Rick "Social Security is a scam" Perry.

[Tarheel_Dem]

33. Exactly! When do a minority speak for the entire party? Except in today's Repuke party,

which is why they'll lose. ;)

[Number23]

34. Rec'd. I saw an article about his upcoming jobs proposal

Came here to DU and of course, the same folks who scream "HEY OBUBA, WHERE'S THE JOBS??!one" are shitting all over the news. I could have written the responses myself before even going to the thread.

I won't link to the vomit-inducing thread, but I'll link directly to the Reuters article on this http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/30/us-obama-jobs-interview-idUSTRE77T6AV20110830

"Asked what his speech could touch upon, Obama cited a number of measures that he has talked about in recent weeks, including infrastructure spending to upgrade the country's roads, bridges and schools, as well as extending a payroll tax cut and jobless aid.

"All these ideas are ones that have been presented to Congress. We'll be putting out several other additional ideas. We've got to do it, unfortunately, at a time when money is tight. George Bush left us (a) $1 trillion deficit," he said, referring to the former Republican president."

[slay]

35. If true, this is horrible news. Obama only looks good when compared to Bachman and co.

his actions are HORRIBLE - wost Dems prez in my lifetime easily.

[JoeyT]

37. Good for him. See if you can convince that dirty 27% to stay home and see what it gets you.

Obviously you want president Perry.

[scentopine]

51. Yes, that seems to be the plan. If Perry wins... it will be the fault of

all the much hated liberal pony lovers who stayed home. If Obama wins, it will be because Obama attracts pragmatically sensible republican and independent voters.

The democratic party seems very confident they can continue to bully and alienate liberals and win with a landslide.

Bachmann is horrifyingly batshit crazy. Arrogant dems felt they could pick up republican voters in the vacuum left by this crazy lady. However, Perry isn't batshit crazy, just batshit stupid in the same way GW Bush was batshit stupid. However, both men are smart enough to insulate themselves with people who tell them how to think. Bachmann isn't. Many dems were cheering the tea party (gift to democrats, they said). They were really cheering the fact that the dem party would be forced to move more to the right in response. Same with Bachmann and Perry. Anyone who thinks these people are good for democrats is a f'n republican slut or just an idiot.

Obama's personal triumph won't be what people remember. That will be an asterisk. What people will remember is a man who won it all in a revolution of party unity only to lose it all in a revolution of false hope, murdered expectations and political expediency.

Our wages are falling, our wars are raging, CEOs are raping us, and our civil liberties are eroding. A Wall Street CEO can steal a life time of worker's savings and Washington gives him our tax money as a bailout. A petty thief living in poverty, who get's arrested, will never find a decent job because that record will follow them around forever.

But here we are, Obama, the democrat, putting Medicare and Social Security on the table with a "super congress". We've been here before of course. The great Health Reform committee that was such a gift to multi-millionaire/billionaire CEOs, when tea baggers said they wanted to repeal it, CEOs told them to shut the fuck up. And they did.

We are still outsourcing to unregulated markets in Asia still hemorrhaging jobs, health care and education costs still climbing 15 - 20% a year. Big breaks for big oil, and nuclear power. And the outsourcing king of tax evasion, GE CEO Immelt, who gave himself record bonuses while his company nose dived share value, is the appointed jobs czar.

I know someone who, after just obtaining citizenship, will be voting for pres. for first time. They are spending a lot of time on issues and candidates. Obama? To paraphrase what they told me "he is all talk, he made promises, he got people fired up, and just let's republicans push him around. Romney is only one who makes the most sense since he is a successful business man. He won't be pushed around."

I've been around enough years to know how the political parties are exploiting voters. They've always lied, of course. But today's lie, the lie that boasts about the safety of deep water oil drilling and nuclear power, the lies that boast about our health care system and denies the crimes of Wall Street and promotes the purity of the rich, the lie that talks about spreading freedom and democracy by slaughtering 100,000+... it is becoming a tighter and tighter death spiral of deceit, arrogance and corruption.

Democrats are counting on the fact that independents and republicans blame liberals for these problems. So there it is. As long as democrats can convince republicans of the huge lie that liberal "entitlements" like social security and medicare are to blame, like health care, wall street will get their reward. And, like health care reform, Democrats will dump the public trust in to the corrupt, criminal cesspool known as Wall Street.

It's just a non-stop campaign of lies. I believe it is time to get off the crazy train of mainstream political candidates. They are just working girls for Wall Street. They don't deserve a vote, let alone the power to degrade our lives and livelihoods.

[Jakes Progress]

43. Oooh. Westside beat Eastside.

Everyone knows that Westside rocks and that Eastside is full of poopie heads.

Go team.

[Safetykitten]

45. 80% of wildebeasts hate getting eaten when crossing the river...see below

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqVHaLI2gpw

You can tell some want to be eaten. Statistically of course.

[sofa king]

47. That's the plan....

Think about all the issues that break 70-30 across both parties, and then think about the ones where the President has carefully placed himself and his party on the 70% side:

* Letting tax cuts for the rich expire;

* Protecting Social Security and Medicare;

* Improving health care;

* Creating jobs;

* Improving wages;

* Protecting reproductive rights;

* Making the government operate within its means;

* Rebuilding national infrastructure, and so on.

Of course, we also let the Republicans do all the heavy lifting on those issues, allowing their greed to propel a barge-load of shitty Republican legislation that went in the exact opposite direction and freaked out a lot of you until the Democrats in the Senate handily killed it.

Why would this President, who is so clearly competent and successful in spite of heavy opposition at every step, feel the need to aim for a 70% majority when he doesn't even need 50% of the popular vote to win?

Because 70% support is far outside of the margin of error in polling, making the next election almost impossible to steal without getting caught. The President's entire campaign appears to be based on that unusual premise, which some of you still refuse to believe is even possible. And yet there it is.

[Scurrilous]

50. Kick

:kick: