Gallup: Obama job rating sinks below 40% for first time

[alp227]

Source: Los Angeles Times

President Obama's summer woes have dragged his approval rating to an all-time low, sinking below 40% for the first time in Gallup's daily tracking poll.

New data posted Sunday shows that 39% of Americans approve of Obama's job performance, while 54% disapprove. Both are the worst numbers of his presidency.

Obama's approval rating has hovered in the 40% range for much of 2011, peaking at 53% in the weeks following the death of Osama bin Laden.

But Americans' view of his job performance continued to tick downward as the debt-ceiling debate heated up. By the time he signed legislation averting a federal default, he was mired in the low-40% range.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-approval-20110814,0,2481281.story

---

According to Gallup's statistics of past presidential approval ratings, so far Obama's 39% low is better than the lows of every president from Lyndon Johnson to George W. Bush. In June 1979 (2 years and 5 months in term), Jimmy Carter had 28%, and in January 1983 (2 years in term), Ronald Reagan had 35%. The last one-term president, George H.W. Bush, had a 29% approval rating 5 months before the 1992 election.

(found this via talkleft.com)

[Gman]

1. Much of that is liberals and Democrats that are pissed off

it doesn't mean they won't vote for him next year. Just that they are pissed.

[DJ13]

3. That could be

But if so the WH had better begin trying to make nice with the liberals if for no other reason than slipping poll numbers can be used as a PR boon by the GOP to weaken his chances in 2012.

[dennis4868]

11. A Quote From Kevin Drum of Mother Jones

"Honest to God, Republicans must all be sitting in their back rooms and just cackling like hell right now. Think about it. They developed a strategy to hamstring the president completely — a strategy that's bulletproof thanks to our country's Constitution — knowing that it would rally their base but also hoping that it would cause moderates and lefties alike to become disgusted with Obama's weakness even though we all know who's really responsible for what's going on. And it worked! In fact, it's worked better than they could possibly have imagined. They can probably barely keep from spitting up their beers right now. We are such chumps".

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[DonCoquixote]

54. Ugh

Hillary had a chance to show what she would do, and she flushed it when she when voted for the Iraq War. She sealed the deal when she threatened to obliterate Iran.

[TrollBuster9090]

71. No, she sealed the deal when she started traveling around the south affecting a fake southern accent

and talking about how much she loves GUNZ. Obama may be insincere about being a progressive, but it's better to be a fake Democratic progressive than a fake Democratic CONSERVATIVE.

Honestly, I don't know why we're even talking about this. I've seen a lot of conservative bloggers talking about Hilary Clinton primarying Obama and that's all the proof I need that a lot of the so called progressives who advocate the same thing are just false flag Republican "opposition research" people.

Lest we forget:
Clinton is MORE of a war hawk than Obama
Clinton has HIGHER NEGATIVES than Obama, and is STRONGLY disliked by as many on the left as on the right
If you think Obama can be arrogant sometimes, just remember how snarky Hilary used to get in 1994 with the House Republicans. That may come across as "guts" to us, but to independents who yearn for less partisan politics, it just comes across as small-minded.
Clinton, like her husband, has always been a "triangulator." As much of a faux progressive as you may think Obama is, Clinton doesn't even bother to make a pretense of it.



I'm TOTALLY AGAINST the idea of primarying Obama, but if people think they must do it, at least do it with somebody besides Clinton. Howard Dean might be a good candidate, but I don't think he's in favor of it. Bill Richardson would also give the Republicans a run for their money, but I don't think he's in favor of primarying Obama either.

So there we have it: MOST of the people who would make good alternatives to Obama are not in favor of challenging him with a primary.

(But I'll let you all in on a little secret: If AL GORE decided to challenge Obama, I'd support him in a heartbeat!)

[DonCoquixote]

73. Al Gore could

because we know he already won >:) then again, while I understand there are progressives, there are also a lot of haters who claim to be progressive, but simply want nothing short of that revolution comrade trotsky promised, and they would pillory al too.

[TrollBuster9090]

84. Then Al would call "bullshit" on them! :)

http://soundcloud.com/aspenjournalism/gore-calls-bullshit-the

[No Elephants]

88. Meh. More direct to just call bullshit on posters who claim that anyone who does not

praise and defend Obama despite his broken promises must be a Trotskyite. That's either lack of knowledge or bullshit or a lie.

[TrollBuster9090]

93. I'm in favor of progressives criticizing Obama for his lack of commitment to progressive ideals.

As I've said over and over again, that's the only way to push the Overton Window back where it belongs, and allow him to play "centrist" in a political spectrum that actually HAS a left.

I just question the sanity (and sometimes the validity) of people who think it's a great idea to challenge him in a primary. It will not succeed in unseating him as the Democratic party nominee. He'll remain the nominee in 2012. All it'll succeed in doing is weakening him enough to lose the election, giving Mitt Romney and VP Rick Perry the golden chance of appointing the next three supreme court justices.

It's better to put up with a faux progressive for another four years than it is to suffer under three more activist conservatives on the Supreme Court that will f-ck up the progressive cause for the next 25 years.

[No Elephants]

95. You do know that questioning, on this board, the validity of people who suggest primarying Obama

is against DU rules, right?

And you do know that Senator Sanders, who is as left (and as sincere) as anyone in the Senate says that primarying Obama from the left would be a good thing, even though, in his (Sanders) mind, Obama will definitely be the nominee? So, are you questioning Sander's sanity?

[TrollBuster9090]

100. Again, you're stretching here.

1. I never suggested anybody specific of being a plant, although it would be foolish to assume they don't exist. However, questioning people's validity is a waste of time because valid people hold the same opinions. So, I've never questioned the validity of any poster, I just question the soundness of the argument.

2. Bernie Sanders would have more credibility on the subject of mounting a primary challenge against Obama if he were actually a Democrat rather than an independent.

3. I don't question his sanity, just his judgement on this particular issue. Although that doesn't diminish my respect and admiration for him.

[No Elephants]

103. 1. I did not stretch anything. You know perfectly well that many DUers want Obama primaried.

So, saying that you question the sanity and validity of Democrats who want Obama primaried includes DUers who do that.

2. Wrong as to Sanders. Sanders is not saying he will primary Obama and Sanders, like many on the Left simply wants to see the Left make its voice heard. Sanders official party affiliation or lack thereof has nothing to do with his desire to see Obama primaried from the left. His statement to that effect is as credible as that of any member of the Left.

[TrollBuster9090]

109. Okay, so the first thing you'll have to do is find

find a VIABLE candidate who could:

a) beat Obama in a Democratic party primary (bearing in mind that it's not just going to be progressives who are voting),
b) win a general election against any (all) of the Republican candidates, and

(and this is the most important part.)

c) be WILLING to CHALLENGE Obama in a primary in the first place.

Do yo know of somebody that meets all three of those conditions? Two out of three won't cut it.

It's all well and good for Bernie Sanders to say somebody should primary Obama for the sake of the progressive cause, but it's another thing to find a candidate capable of winning a general election (as proven by polling data) who'd actually agree to challenge him for the nomination. Do you know of somebody like that? So far all of Obama's credible rivals have shown better sense than that.

[No Elephants]

116. I disagree that the only primary candidate has to be one who can win the nomination.

Sanders disagrees with that as well. Seems as though Bernie and I would settle for one out of three.

And before we get to the next patch of well tilled land, I don't agree with the conventional wisdom as to the Kennedy challenge of Carter, nor with the unspoken belief that 2011 is the 1970's.

[TrollBuster9090]

126. No, it's not 1979

The country is far more hostile to progressives now than it ever was in the 1970s. Reagan would be considered a liberal in 2011. Again, not because he was one, but because the Overton Windown of acceptable political discourse has been shoved so far to the right that the center is no longer the center.

However, if all you're talking about is a Joke candidate who stands absolutely no chance of getting the nomination and would capture only a small number of deligates, who could not win a general election, and who would only be there to prove the point that Obama is not a progressive..heck I'd support that. You could run Dennis Kucinich against him from the left and Dan Boren against him from the right and it would just help to reinforce the "centrist" image he's trying to foster, while at the same time reminding progressives that there are still stalwart liberals in the Democratic party. That would go a long way towards achieving the goals that I've been talking about on this forum.

But you won't find any heavyweight candidates that are willing to do that, and for good reason.

[No Elephants]

133. Disagree on your assumptions, but I am out of time for now to say much more than that.

Enjoy.

[coalition_unwilling]

147. Russ Feingold satisfies your a) and b) criteria but he has

announced that he is not running in 2012, thereby failing to satisfy the all-important c) criteria. With that, I have pretty much resigned myself to Obama being the Dem nominee in 2012.

[TrollBuster9090]

162. Yeah, Feingold would have been good.

Barring that, as I said, the only band wagon that I'd jump on in an instant would be if Al Gore challenged Obama. It would be the ultimate "I told you so" moment, and vindication of the 2000 election mess.

[lbrtbell]

105. Not if they're Democrats

It's against the rules to support a non-Democrat against a Democrat. If talking about Democratic primaries were against the rules, this place would have a total of 10 posts during primary/caucus season.

[No Elephants]

108. No one said simply talking about primaries was against the rules.

Try reading in context.

[TrollBuster9090]

110. Physician, heal thy self. nt

[No Elephants]

111. ......

:eyes:

[dennis4868]

139. SUPER BERNIE...

able to leap tall building in a single bound and ignore fillubusters and write his own laws....give me a fucking break!

[TrollBuster9090]

164. I support Sanders, but that imagery is priceless.

Hilarious.

[No Elephants]

87. Oh, please. People who want communism are such a small minority of the left it isn't funny.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[TrollBuster9090]

82. I never accused YOU of being opposition research.

So, I'm not going to KYA as long as you've got a porcupine up it. :)

[Pavlo]

144. fake Democratic progressive

Hold on partner. It's not better to be a fake anything>

[krabigirl]

150. ITA. Clinton is worse than Obama on many fronts. Primary challenge should be from the left!

[SleeplessinSoCal]

78. The pining going on for Hillary is merely frustration. She proved to be a triangulator like Bill.

[No Elephants]

91. Having looked around the websites of the DLC and the Progressive Policy Institute, among others,

I am beginning to wonder if any of them really triangulate or whether they all simply believe in what they do or whether they are all about nothing more than their own election, re-election and legacy.

And do their motives even matter, given what their actions have been and likely will be?

[SleeplessinSoCal]

160. Politics is not a pretty thing.. And deception seems mandatory with a corrupt Fourth Estate.

[certainot]

65. RW talk radio kicks internet ass and the left doesn't even know it- what chumps

[No Elephants]

89. BS, but what do you suggest we do? Pull their FCC licenses and start our own

successful talk left stations?

What have you done about those things so far?

Or are you too busy posting on the internet about how the internet doesn't matter and how liberals, unlike you, just don't get the power of RW talk radio?

Please get real.

And, if your implication is that talk radio is 100% responsible for how everyone feels about Obama, that claim has been rebutted on this board any number of times. See also Reply 85.

[certainot]

137. it's their best political tool and there is NO organized response to RW radio

they get a free speech free ride while the left allows its politicians and ideals to get swiftboated 24/7 from 1000 coordinated radio stations.

it isn't everything they have but it's the main cog in creating and establishing the alternate reality that allows the MSM to give the 10% half the seats at the table.

to fix it everything needs to be tried but we don't have time for legislative fixes that won't get passed anyway.

universities that broadcast sports on those stations are contradicting their mission statements (racism and global warming denial, for eg) and need to be pushed to look for alternatives by students and faculty.

local sponsors need to be shamed until the only ones left are teabaggers. it's fun to call and talk to owners and managers and employees - very few will defend the limbaughs and because the left gives those stations a free speech free ride never thought they were doing anything wrong- most are following business advice from ad agencies, etc.

limabugh needs to be referenced on a regular basis and be elevated to leader of the GOP. they all ride his bandwagon (written in think tanks and reinforced by the rest of the team).

when limbaugh sells club gitmo t-shirts or rationalizes torture or says "obama's head needs to roll" (sept 10, 2008), or callls teachers and union members parasites and bottom feeders, or gets racist, where the fuck are the organized protests?

these and other suggestions are expanded on here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/05/952830/-Paid-callers-for-RW-radio-means-free-speech-is-a-joke?via=blog_505011

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/23/997257/-Dont-blame-Obama-before-you-blame-the-local-talk-radio-station?via=blog_505011

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/16/995145/-Limbaughs-head-needs-to-roll,-not,-like-he-said,-Obamas?via=blog_505011

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/12/993592/-The-Left-continues-the-biggest-political-blunder-in-US-history?via=blog_505011

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/13/955988/-How-can-liberals-evaluate-their-reps-while-ignoring-Rights-best-weapon?via=blog_505011

[No Elephants]

86. Double ugh. Hillary is further right than Obama. Plus, suggesting that

men's genitals are what make even women strong and/or courageous is sexist and dated.

But, welcome to DU.

[Pavlo]

143. Hillary yes. Obama is a right wing puppet

Nancy Pelosi and harry Reid did us no good by calling the tea
party nuts things like "astroTurf". That just added wood to their fires.
Now the Teabaggers are large and in charge. I also feel like we are getting stepped on left and right.

[defendandprotect]

17. Right...the GOP made Obama put Social Security and Medicare "on the table" -- !!!

[defendandprotect]

18. GOP also arranged for Obama to trample single payer in back room deals with Big Pharma ....

and the private Health Care industry -- !!!


Just forget Koch Bros. DLC influence over the party for 20 years --

and forget the criminal Pfizer and Chevron influence over the party!!


See no evil, hear no evil -- say no evil!!!

:rofl:

[certainot]

66. by ignoring talk radio the left let team limbaugh kill single payer when clintons were working on it

[No Elephants]

97. Jeez. Where did you pull that from?

[certainot]

138. the left ignored the radio and one of it's first main successes was killing "hillary care"

along with clinton impeachment, general obstruction, and swiftboating anita hill to help get clarence thomas on.

ever since beating "hilary care", the one liners that the dittoheads (teabaggers) screamed at town halls to help the MSM beat public option have been pounded into their earholes ove r and over year after year, and the left has no fucking clue and reacts as if it was fox and the teabaggers are something new, reacting too late, with no fucking clue what beat them , blaming obama in this case.

[TrollBuster9090]

72. Not really, it was Baucus, Nelson and Bayh who did that.

Well, trample the Public Option, anyway. Obama gladly gets the credit for the deal the big pharma.

The secret deal with big Pharma was disgusting, but clever, and it almost worked. They knew the HMOs and the Pharma industry would BOTH oppose Obamacare with big money and big lobbying. It was quite clever of them to pit big pharma lobbying money AGAINST big HMO money. Who do you think paid for all those pro-healthcare reform ads? It was pharma.

It's the first time I've ever seen a Democratic president playing the "divide and conquer" game, and I found it refreshing.

However, it would have been more clever (given that it would have actually WORKED) to first pass a law banning corporate funding in elections, thus stopping the flood of corporate lobby money against a public option. Then, while Roberts, Alito, Kennedy and Thomas are trying to figure out a way to strike the law down with wording that doesn't make them sound like the corporate whores they are, they pass a healthcare bill that DOESN'T represent corporate interests.

(Disclaimer: All views are mine, and my response to you should in no way be interpreted as feeding the troll. Any resemblance of the above actions to feeding trolls, living or dead, is purely coincidental.)

[No Elephants]

92. Got a link to support that it was Nelson, Bayh and Baucus, not Obama, who

trampled on the public option?

Because, if we're all just pulling stuff out of our ears, a lot more of the circumstantial evidence strongly suggests that Obama made the deal with health insurers and hospitals the same time as he made the deal with PHRMA.

You found his killing the drug reimportation bill refreshing?

You believe the health care bill that passed does not represent corporate interests?

Wow.

[TrollBuster9090]

98. You're stretching things a little there, aren't you?

1. My post said the plan, as passed, DID reflect corporate interests.
I said it wouldn't have if Obama and the Democratic Congress had pushed a sensible agenda from the start by FIRST taking the lobbying heat off Congress by passing a "corporate money out of election campaigns" bill. It would eventually have been overturned in the Supreme Court, but not in time for the health care industry to block passage of a health care bill that DID NOT reflect corporate interests.

2. If Obama had made a secret deal with both HMOs AND big Pharma, I find it hard to believe that the HMOs would have been spending about a million dollars a day to KILL the legislation while Pharma was spending money in support of it. Kabuki theatre is one thing, but it usually doesn't involve spending huge amounts of money.

3. Re-importations of drugs from Canada is a non-starter. It sounds nice, but it's not realistic. The reason Canada can sell drugs cheaper is because they have price controls. Ditto for Europe. If Canadians or Europeans started re-exporting large quantities of American manufactured drugs back into the United States, the US Pharma companies would simply either raise their price, or cut them off completely. The European pharmaceutical companies wouldn't, but the American ones would. All that would have succeeded in doing was making Canadian drug prices rise to match the ridiculously inflated U.S. prices.

4. Nelson and Buacus were opponents of the Public Option from the start, and they, along with three other Democratic Senators killed the Public Option amendments in committee in fall 2009. In September 2009 most of the senior Senators were still trying to decide whether to salute Obama or send him out for coffee, so I find it hard to believe that he was actually the puppetmaster, pulling the strings attached to Nelson's arms. If Baucus and Nelson voted to kill it in committee, I tend to believe they were the ones who killed it . When you hear hoof beats, don't expect to see Zebras.


The five Democratic Senators who shot down the public option in committee in September 2009 are listed here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5351095-503544.html

[No Elephants]

106. I don't stretch things.

"2. If Obama had made a secret deal with both HMOs AND big Pharma, I find it hard to believe that the HMOs would have been spending about a million dollars a day to KILL the legislation while Pharma was spending money in support of it. Kabuki theatre is one thing, but it usually doesn't involve spending huge amounts of money."

Frankly, I posted on the health care debacle enough when it was pending to want to repeat all that every time a poster who did not see my posts and those of others then says Obama did not make a deal.

Suffice it to say for now that what you "find hard to believe" is your opinion and not proof of anything. As for how much the insurers spent advertising, that was for public opinion, not for Obama. To make a deal with Obama, you accept the invitations to go to the White House and negotiate before the bill ever hits Congress. And he fights FOIA requests and a lawsuit to make visitors's logs public, then the WH starts negotiating to places like coffee shops. The more secretly, the better.

To make a deal with legislators, you lobby as per usual, again, the more secretly the better. Advertising is to try to win over the general public, nothing else.

"3. Re-importations of drugs from Canada is a non-starter." Again, your opinion and quite a different issue from whether Obama killed the drug re-importation bill. And, since you yourself agree that Obama made a deal with PHRMA, the merits of a drug re-immportation bill is beside the main point.



" In September 2009 most of the senior Senators were still trying to decide whether to salute Obama or send him out for coffee, so I find it hard to believe that he was actually the puppetmaster, pulling the strings attached to Nelson's arms.

This is nothing but speculation on your part. They are Democrats. Obama ran on the public option. It was the Party platform. Moreover, Obama was a Democratic President and very popular.

You simply cannot extrapolate from what happened when Obama did not fight for the public option--disparaged it publicly in fact-- and say the same would have happened if Obama had fought hard for a public option.. Besides, you don't know what conversations Obama had with Baucus (whom Obama praised to the skies publicly, even as Obama publicly disparaged the importance of the public option. And it was Obama who stonewalled the House until after the Baucus bill passed. They could not even get a meeting with him.

Also, Obama was the last drafter of that bill before it went up for a reconciliation vote. All he needed then were 50 senators plus Biden.

I could go on. But, again, this is ground I've tilled over and over on this boardc since 2009. It's become tedious for me to keep repeationg things I've posted before so many times.

As far as your saying the health care bill was corporatist, you are right. My reply stretched nothing. I simply read that part of your post too fast. As a result, I was mistaken. I apologize.

Bottom line. I get it. You believe in Obama, and you don't believe criticism of him. I disagree.

I don't think a lot of posting back and forth will change either of our minds, or frankly, anyone else's. By now, people have had a chance to observe Obama and evaluate all of the arguments and perceptions. I don't think we still have a lot of people who are going to be swayed one way or the other.

So, while it is nothing personal, I'm done with this particular interchange about the health care bill. However, fair warning, if I do see more posts attributing bad faith to Democrats who disagree with your view of Obama from a left perspective, I will simply alert and let the mods figure out which of us is stretching things on that score.

[TrollBuster9090]

112. Um...

"Bottom line. I get it. You believe in Obama, and you don't believe criticism of him. I disagree. "

I think you obviously read a lot of things I write "too fast." ie-if I didn't believe criticism of Obama, why would I say in the title of comment 93 that I approve of criticizing him?

And you can alert the mods of anything in this thread that you like, if you feel like wasting their time. I didn't accuse any poster of bad faith because they disagreed with me, including you. If you think I did, that's a good example of stretching things, and reading more into a post than is actually there.

[No Elephants]

117. I have no idea why you say the things you say.

And I'll leave it to the mods to decided if I'm wasting their time. They can always ask me to stop or take other action if they think that.

[defendandprotect]

148. Guess I should have used the "sarcasm" symbol ... !!!

[No Elephants]

96. DLC was formally established in 1985, but those ideas had been pushed in the Party for decades,

and mostly by Southern white males, who also made up most of the original DLC.

Co-Founder From is from Indiana and Founding Member Lieberman is from Connecticut, but Indiana is a very red state and who knows what can account for Lieberman. (Although Obama did win in Indiana, that was a historic win for a Democratic Presidential nominee.)

So, I would say the ideology of the DLC had been around much longer than 20 years. Since the net result of that ideology is that traditional Democratic values are somehow bad for Democrats, it is no wonder the Koch bros thought it worthwhile to donate to the DLC.

We have indeed moved closer to a permanent Republican majority because the DLC has moved the Democratic Party closer to the Republican Party--and continues to chase Republicans as they move further right to distinguish themselves from new Democrats.

[defendandprotect]

151. +1 -- Thank you for the info --

We should also remember that Wm. Greider in his 1992 book "Who will tell the People?"

makes clear that the Democrats were colluding with the GOP back in 1978 to break the

tax code for the benefit of the wealthy.

That was while Democrats were in full power -- and well before Reagan.

[roguevalley]

34. he thinks we're pissed because of their 'crafted' shit? Hell, Obama

brought this on himself. what an asshat. yeah, the republicans made us do it.

[Divernan]

41. No link, as usual. Try to keep up and stay sharp!

[ejbr]

51. What everyone else said! n/t

[TrollBuster9090]

69. They might laugh until somebody points out that Reagan's first term low was 35%

In January.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx

I like to point this out to Republicans whenever I get the chance. Obama's approval ratings have been equal to or greater than Reagan's all the way through his first term.

One reason for the low approval ratings, of course, is that both Reagan and Obama were presidents during times of recession and high employment.
That's the similarity.
The DIFFERENCE is that in 1983 the Democrats weren't hellbent on doing everything they could to make sure the economy STAYED wrecked, all for the sake of Reagan not winning a second term. This is a new level of partisan, party-before-country treachery we're dealing with here. A level we've never seen before.

[liberalmike27]

83. I wonder what Obama's "safe word" was

He seems more than a willing participant.

Still I hate the way they do these polls. So, that's 34 percent republicans and independents who disapprove, and about 20 percent liberals who disapprove for entirely different reasons, 34+20=54

No worries. That twenty is going to end up voting for Obama anyway, as people are more pissed with republicans than they are democrats.

[No Elephants]

101. SOME Democrats who are disappointed in Obama will vote for him anyway.

Some will write in a candidate at the top of the ticket, some will vote third party at the top of the ticket, and some will stay home.

Option 3 will hurt the Party as a whole, and the Left in particular, because the right wing of both Parties can spin failure to vote however they wish; and the likelihood of their spinning it in a way that will lead the Party back to the left is very small. Plus, it hurts solid Democrats down ticket.

And staying home is, IMO, anti-democracy, as well as self defeating for the Left.

[No Elephants]

102. SOME Democrats who are disappointed in Obama will vote for him anyway.

Some will write in a candidate at the top of the ticket, some will vote third party at the top of the ticket, and some will stay home.

Option 3 will hurt the Party as a whole, and the Left in particular, because the right wing of both Parties can spin failure to vote however they wish; and the likelihood of their spinning it in a way that will lead the Party back to the left is very small. Plus, it hurts solid Democrats down ticket.

And staying home is, IMO, anti-democracy, as well as self defeating for the Left.

[vanbean]

145. That was worth repeating. I like the way you think, NE.

[No Elephants]

85. Kevin Drum should speak for himself. We had 2 opportunities to change Senate rules and

whose fault was it that Republicans took House and Senate seats?

President Obama was different from candidate Obama. That is not the fault of liberals who elected him or of Republicans

About 70% of Americans wanted a public option, which candidate Obama promised. They got a health insurance, PHRMA and big health care bailout bill. That was not the fault of Republicans

About 70% of Americans wanted tax cuts for people making over $250K a year, which candidate Obama promised. They got Obama tax cuts. You can argue that was the fault of Republicans. I don't buy it. I think Obama and his Republican trickle down economic team wanted them as much as anyone. And I don't think Republicans would have filibustered an extension nof unemployment at that time anyway. If nothing else, Scott Brown would not have joined them. He's not suicidal.

And if that was really Obama's best horse trading--no cuts in exchange for no filibuster as to a single extension of unemployment, then his negotiating skills are sorely lacking.

Most Americans don't want cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Candidate Obama had promised no cuts and a raising of the wage cap. President Elect Obama promised to cut them. That was not the fault of liberals or Republicans.

President Obama appointed a Cat Food Commission, then put cuts to OASDI and Medicare on the table, supposedly in exchange for an increase in the debt ceiling that Republicans would have voted for anyway. That was not the fault of Republicans or of liberals.

Most Americans think we should be out of Afghanistan and Iraq. President Obama surged in Afghanistan and now is looking for an invitation to stay in Iraq past the deadline Bush and Maliki had agreed on.

Americans are chumps for thinking that Obama either doesn't want to keep his promises or doesn't have what it takes to keep his promises? Riiiigggght. Kevin Drum has an opinion about that and you know what they say about opinions.

What will save Obama is that most Republicans can't agree on a candidate. The far religious right will champion Bachman or Palin or Perry and the moderates will very reluctantly champion Romney or Huntsman, as long as the press doesn't corner them into saying much about their religion.

[No Elephants]

80. Liberals know he is in campaign mode, though.

[Pavlo]

142. make nice with the liberals

I don't want anybody to make nice with me . I would call that disingenuous and dishonest.
I Obama can't do the job lets send Hillary in to pitch.

[TheWraith]

4. No, it isn't. Liberal Democrats support Obama by overwhelming numbers.

The fall is primarily in independents and conservative Dems.

[pnorman]

23. I like to think so, but judging by some of the postings here on DU

from self-identified "Liberals", they will either vote while holding their noses, or sit on their hands in 2012. I urge them all to consider all the VAST resources that have been expended in the past few years towards the SOLE purpose of bogging Obama down and thereby rendering him "ineffectual". If they succeed, it would be an investment that will have paid off handsomely. THINK! Do you want to be the "useful idiots" who abetted their Victory Dance?

[humbled_opinion]

39. NO but...

I don't want to be a useful idiot for a President that is indistinguishable from the CONS. I would rather be fighting against a CON that is raping and pillaging the poor and the old.

I refuse to support a Democrat that is using my party to launch a campaign to destroy Medicare and Social Security.

I could barely swallow allowing Obama to continue the destructive wars and launching another one in Libya, where are the anti-war protestors?

Do you even understand how damaging this is to the Liberal base brand?

What happens when Obama loses and CON takes his place and the CON does more to get us out of these ill concieved wars then the Democrat did?

It actually feels like the Democratic Party used anti-war protestors as a method to attack Bush but really had no intentions of ever ending the wars.... and that sucks...

[pnorman]

43. You've pretty well validated the point of my posting.

n/t

[humbled_opinion]

49. Your Welcome ! n/t

[TrollBuster9090]

74. One third of the "self identified liberals" around here have Lee Atwater's portrait on their wall.

Democratic Underground is a great forum for discussion, but don't take what you see here as anything resembling accurate information.

Heck, thanks to DEIBOLT electronic voting machines and Republican election return officials, even ELECTIONS are not accurate representations of public sentiment.

[iamthebandfanman]

29. still waiting on a number for that...

since people started proclaiming this big liberal support, ive seen multiple % numbers.

[TrollBuster9090]

81. Here are the numbers:

You can read it for yourself at Gallup:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx

As far as I know, Gallup does a DAILY poll that hit a new low of 39%. (Still not as low as Reagan's weekly low of 35% for Jan. 1983.) But they only give you a BREAKDOWN of the specific demographics once a week. So, they haven't posted the demographic break down of that approval rating. The closest is for last week when he had an average approval rating of 42%. Sorry for the vertical columns, but I'm just cutting and pasting from Excel. These numbers suggest to me that his approval ratings remain more or less unchanged for all Democratic party ideologies, including liberals. Where he's losing ground is with "pure independents" and "moderate Republicans." (Although that last group is probably about as big as the group comprising "Great British Chefs.") Approval from conservative Republicans remains in single digits. Make of these numbers what you will.


Approval from Liberal Democrats for the last 10 weeks (most recent at the top):
83
83
81
85
84
86
81
86
87
87

Moderate Democrats:
75
76
73
74
76
76
77
78
81
82

Conservative Democrats:
56
59
60
63
70
63
64
72
65
75

Pure Independents:
27
28
32
34
33
39
32
35
34
38

Liberal/moderate Republicans:
18
21
24
24
26
29
28
30
26
33

[tcaudilllg]

37. Obama's support base is the population segment which prefers "interesting" times to "good" times

the mental condition which disposes a person to leaning Left.

It numbers about 50%... it's why in polls between non-charismatic candidates on either side, you often see 50/50 splits in the month before the election.

Obama has probably pissed off some progressives, particularly ideological purists. He still has the backing of pro-military and pro-civil rights liberals, however.

He needs to fire his advisors. All of them.

[dorksied]

40. I'm a liberal independent

and I'm currently hoping that someone like Bernie Sanders primaries Obama. I'll only vote for him if its a choice between him and the Repukes.

[Doctor_J]

154. Good. Then we won't be blamed if he loses

Promise?

[placton]

26. sorry friend

it means EXACTLY that - in an era when the election is decided by rather small numbers, Obama's awfulness is gonna sink him

[toppertwot]

30. WRONG!!

This life long Texas Yeller Dog Democrat will not vote Obama again, and I am not alone! Obama needs a primary!!

[Gman]

152. Then you damn sure ain't a yellow dog Democrat

[roguevalley]

33. that's what you have when you have a professionally left media

oh, wait ...

[No Elephants]

107. LOL, as opposed to amateur media?

[roguevalley]

163. I'm thinking so. :-D

[No Elephants]

79. I'm not sure that's so. I am beyond disappointed. I would never say so to a pollster, though.

[robcon]

131. I disagree, It is mostly independents, not Dems or Repugs, that Obama has lost.

n/t

[krabigirl]

149. Yep. barring a decent third-party candidate, most will vote for him (well, vote against the GOP)

[DCBob]

2. Still some carryonver from the debt/stock market mess during the past few weeks.

People blame everyone involved... and the President was certainly involved... even if not his fault.

[roomfullofmirrors]

5. what is that on the wall I see? It looks like......... writing.

[TheCowsCameHome]

6. Is it any wonder?

I mean, really.

All of DC needs a thorough housecleaning.

[BlueDemKev]

7. I've heard THAT before.....

"All of DC needs a thorough housecleaning". I've been hearing that for decades. The people in D.C. may change, but the system never will.

[TheCowsCameHome]

9. Yeah, true.

Same old play, different cast.

I wonder if it will ever get better. I'm running out of time.

[BlueDemKev]

10. It won't

And giving the continued decline of common sense and intelligence in this country (and with the internet available to start and spread false rumors), things won't change. All we can do is fight back (peacefully) and ALWAYS vote.

[Yon_Yonson]

25. Are you more amazed at how things change Or how they stay the same?

[rpannier]

38. Very true

Unfortunately we can't send them all packing at the same moment
The biggest thing is, most people think the problem is coming from someone else's rep, not theirs

[No Elephants]

113. Most people have no clue how their rep voted on the last ten significant issues

[mckara]

8. The White House is Tone Deaf!

Today, they were asking for approval of free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. Obama, apparently, wants to fight fire by throwing gasoline on it. I wish that I could give him a swift kick in the ass!

[TrollBuster9090]

90. Not wanting to sound contradictory, but THOSE free trade agreements aren't so bad

General Motors is not going to re-locate to Columbia or Panama, and the South Korean agreement works in our favor, since they already have virtual free import into our market.

The two trade agreements that were big-assed mistakes were Mexico and China. China especially. The free trade agreement with Mexico took 20 years to kill about 1/3 of American manufacturing, but the Chinese trade agreement, with their doctored currency, killed the remaining 2/3 in record time. Blew the American TEXTILE and TOY industries to hell in one or two years. There's nothing left of them.

[No Elephants]

114. How do you know General Motors' plans? As to the Korean agreement, we're told the same thing

about every trade agreement.

"The free trade agreement with Mexico took 20 years to kill about 1/3 of American manufacturing, but the Chinese trade agreement, with their doctored currency, killed the remaining 2/3 in record time."

That means that we now have zero manufacturing, which is untrue. Plus, we should be focusing on how we manufacture more here, not how we get rid of the little we have left.

[mckara]

140. You Should Study the Failure of Neoliberal Economic Theory

Transferring any more jobs overseas will only worsen Demand and lower wages for more American workers. Neoliberal economic policies are destroying Capitalism, which you should research instead of buying into propaganda promoting free markets and free trade.

[AnnieK401]

12. One Poll

I wouldn't go by just one daily poll. The conservative Rasmussen Poll has him at 44% for the same time period. Even Fox had him at 42% in their latest poll. I follow a website that shows an average of the latest polls, realclearpolitics.com, and his overall numbers haven't really changed that much. Not sure why his Gallup Poll numbers have been especially low lately. Look, I am not here to "carry water" for Obama, but I do plan to vote for him for one reason - Republicans.

[TrollBuster9090]

104. More importantly, Gallup's Obama vs. a Generic Republican: 45/39

It's been fluctuating from week to week (probably because their sample sizes are small) but the current Obama vs. a Generic Republican presidential candidate favor Obama 45% to 39%.

This is a VERY IMPRESSIVE NUMBER given that, before the GOP has actually chosen a candidate everybody tends to imagine their FAVORITE candidate as the nominee. Once you actually chose one, they bring all the baggage of the people in the GOP who don't like them, and the number drops.

[No Elephants]

135. If such a thing as a generic Republican existed, I would take that kind of poll to heart.

For the record, I did not take it to heart when, not so long ago, the poll numbers showed Obama would lose to a generic Republican. It is too early now to take even head to head polls to heart, let alone polls afout non-existent kinds of candidates.

[No Elephants]

118. I agree on polls. You have to know a lot more about the methodology

before you take them seriously--and even then.

For example, I once had a pollster actually laugh at me audibly over the phone when I said I blamed Republicans for my dissatisfaction. Someone more easily intimidated than I may have changed his or her answer right then and there. "Oh, will you repeat that last question? Oh, no, I meant I blame Democrats."

Besides, we're still way too far out to take these polls seriously and everyone in the business knows that. These polls are more about trying to shape the result of the election than to predict it.

[pasto76]

13. If Obama loses, a republican will win. Likely Bachmann at this point

stuff that in your pipe and smoke it. Reality is we have lesser of two evils. And their bullshit affects how I pay my bills. In 2008, we had work scheduled for y-e-a-r-s. Then I got laid off. I just went back to work last fall. I also just took my first pay cut. It sucks.


It would be a hell of a lot worse if republicans were still running the show. I doubt I would still have my house.

This primary challenge talk is complete nonsense.

[defendandprotect]

20. Then maybe it's time you pushed Obama to change his behavior -- end the wars -- !!

Is the GOP also forcing Obama to keep the wars going into the second decade?


:nuke:

[harun]

68. To save the economy he needed to end the wars. He didn't.

[No Elephants]

120. End the wars and enact single payer, both of which he took off the table even during his campaign.

[harun]

141. Agreed. Enacting Single Payer would be the biggest jobs program

in U.S. history. You would have a wave of start-ups. People could finally start their own enterprises and afford to hire people.

[No Elephants]

119. Your post is evidence that the plutocracy is succeeding as never before.

"Took my first paycut."

The resounding success of the plutocracy as a result of Republican policies from 1980 forward, no matter who was in office, is exactly why we must try to alter the rush rightward by the Democratic Party.

As just two examples, it was Clinton, not Reagan who signed NAFTA and demanded that repeal of Glass Steagall be on his desk ASAP. Those two things, IMO, are responsible for a very significant share of our current problems.

And Obama's decision to address the emergency more like Reagan would have than like FDR would have sure didn't help increase the demand for labor over the excess supply.

Labor has little enough bargaining power as it is. When the only available choice is paycut or nothing, labor loses all of its leverage, which is exactly what serves the plutonomy best, well, second best. (Slavery was their ideal.)

[underpants]

15. Some of that is people, like us, not that thinking that he has done enough

lack of support does NOT mean that they suddenly went to the other side.

[defendandprotect]

16. When Carter was desperately unpopular -- "ABC" ... the party wasn't in danger ....

If Obama keeps on as he has been doing, he could take the party with him -- imo!!

[DLnyc]

19. Rule of thumb: 47% or below, will not be re-elected

Second rule of thumb: If economy sucks, then voters will go for the new face.

These are not ideological statements or spin, these are observed facts.

Unless Obama and/or the economy change A LOT before then, it is not very reasonable to think he can get re-elected in 2012.

Very much wanting him to be re-elected doesn't have a very large effect on this reality.

Sorry.

[alp227]

28. then how did Reagan get re-elected after having a 35% approval in Jan. 1983?

see the Gallup.com link in my OP, and Bill Clinton had a 37% approval his first summer in office but won re-election in 1996.

[humbled_opinion]

42. Yea but the Clinton 96 race

Still had a Perot third party... I know it is argued that Perot didn't hurt Dole and that Clinton would have won anyway but who knows if there is no third party its tough to say

[No Elephants]

122. I believe Perot hurt both Clinton and Poppy Bush. The analyses on that point are divided, though

Experts cannot agree. So, I can only go by my personal knowledge of how Democrats I know voted and some did vote for Perot.

And, yes, revelations about Clinton's dalliance with Genifer Flower contributed to the decision some of them made to vote for Perot.

We can say all we want that adultery behind the back of a spouse should form no part of a political decision, but many feel it is a strong indicator that you cannot trust that candidate to keep his or her promises.

[DLnyc]

59. Reagan Oct 26-29 1984: 58%

Clinton Oct 26-29 1996: 54%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/presidential-approval-center.aspx

Presidents have been consistently re-elected when their approval rating is above 47 AT THE TIME OF THE ELECTION and when the economy is not in trouble.

I said his numbers would have to change by the time of the election. If he can do that, great. I think it would require a change in strategy, though. More of the same would most likely give more of the same results, as far as I can see.

Also, I don't see current economic policies leading to much improvement before Nov. 2012.

[Middle finga]

21. His strategy of chasing independent voters is just not working

Obama, Plouffe and Axelrod are stuck in a bubble. Do they really think they can win without grass root support from the left?

[alp227]

31. Do you know much about how Bush won in 2004 (Ohio notwithstanding)?

I recall it was because Bush appealed to evangelical Christian voters by supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment (would have amended the constitution to ban gay marriage) and some other things that I can't think about at the moment. Also he campaigned for the Iraq War and other conservative causes celebre didn't he? Basically history reveals that appealing to the party base means winning elections.

[humbled_opinion]

46. He was trying some failed crap

called Ownership society where he wanted to Privatize Social Security. Certainly his election win was not because of that, it was almost entirely because he used a Fear campaign to convince his base that "PACIFIST" Kerry would bring terror to the streets of America.

But his appeal wasn't strictly to just hardcore conservatives, his Liberatarian flank was already supporting the Anti-war campaign by this time as the Ron Paul club got vocal.

[EFerrari]

94. Bush did not win 2004 which is why Karl Rove had to make up

ten false stories about why he did.

But ignoring your base is just stupid. Bragging about how made you make them is self destructive. And allowing your staff to ridicule them shows contempt for the electorate.

[No Elephants]

123. I don't believe that Bush won because of his fundie stance in 2004. I beleive that

alienated as many voters (or more) than it won over to the Republican side.

The DLC and Kerry's campaign advisors, many of whom were either always center right or converts to the center right, pushed the idea that he lost because he did not pander to religious nutters. (Check the DLC website for statements that Democrats make a mistake on the subject of religion--and it was one of the first thing Clinton said about why Obama had won his senate race--that he had opened his campaigned for it in a church, with his pastor at his side. This, I heard in response to a question to Clinton about why Kerry had lost in '04, given the '06 success of Democrats.)

Same pastor, btw, that Obama threw under the bus and he won in 2008 anyway. Like W, Obama has not attended church much while actually in office, though, and no one seemed to care whether either one of them attended. Obama did attend a few weeks ago, but, when media resported that, they all also mentioned he had not been attending. Don't know what he's done since then.

I think most voters like separation of church and state. At least the ones who voted for Kennedy sure did. Kennedy sold separation of church and state, though. Instead, Democratic think tanks today are selling the idea that the only way Democrats can win elections is to become as much like Republicans as they dare and urging Democrats to include religion more.

As far as the Iraq War, remember, "He was for it before he was against it" and the flip flops given out at the Republican National Convention as souvenirs? Republicans went out of their way to show that Kerry was not all that different on the Iraq War than they were, only pandering to the left for purposes of getting elected.

And indeed, Kerry had voted for it. then voted to cut off funding--worst possible combo. (Lincoln did the exact opposite--voted against a war, but, after that position lost the day, he voted to fund it. It's the other political side you want to defeat, not your own military!)

Again, though, DLC co-founder Marshall even signed the 2003 PNAC memo.

[No Elephants]

121. Yes. they do. If Obama raises enough money, he can hire people to replace volunteers.

All he really needs the average Democrat is is votes. As to that, their belief is "The Left has nowhere else to go."

So, yes, they do believe they can pretty much ignore the left and chase the indies and Republicans. And whose fault is that? Republicans don't seem to feel they can safely ignore the right--and that was so before the Tea Party formally formed, too.

[redraider1974]

22. So, the republicans' playing chicken with the debt ceiling worked

The republicans have learned that the American people are so stupid that if republicans crater the economy, Obama will be blamed. Whenever there is a Democratic president in office, the Republican strategy is to continually poke the Democratic president with a stick so that he cannot do his job. With Clinton it was oral sex and what do we tell the children. Issa is part of that strategy. What was Obama's numbers before the debt ceiling debate? If the republicans had just let Obama raise the debt ceiling would his poll numbers be this bad now? No. The republicans don't know how to govern, they just know how to gain power.

[Little Star]

44. The Republicans were not playing in that game alone and

everybody knows it!

[A Simple Game]

47. During the debt ceiling negotiations the Republicans held their ground.

Obama caved in and caved in and caved in until he eventually put peoples lives in jeopardy when he placed Social Security and Medicare on the table. the Republicans looked good when the turned it down.

The Republicans looked good because they stood upon their principles, Obama looked weak because he tried to sell us down the river.

[No Elephants]

125. Obama was not caving when he put cuts to Social Security and Medicare on the table.

He had campaigned against Hillary on no cuts plus raising the wage cap to preserve Social Security. However, before he was even inaugurated, he promised to cut Social Security and Medicare. And, once elected, appointed the Cat Food Commission and appointed a Republican to head it in the hopes that the Commission would give him at least some political cover for the cuts.

See also Reply 124.

[No Elephants]

124. If the republicans had just let Obama raise the debt ceiling"

Republicans were going to vote to raise the debt ceiling on August 2, no matter what. If Obama had either called their bluff or used the 14th amendment, or both, his numbers would be higher.

You cannot expect Republicans to "let" Obama do anything that will keep up his numbers. It's part of their job to do just the opposite and they perform that part of their job very well. It's his job to foil them and he does not perform that part of his job very well.

Besides, Republicans did not force Obama to put cuts to social security and medicare on the table in the debt ceiling negotiations. They did not even ask for that, That was something he wanted and hoped to be able to blame on Republicans, much like the Obama tax cuts.

This strategy backfired, either because people either knew Obama has wanted those cuts and saw through that strategy, or because they believe Obama does not want those tax cuts and was weak.

Senator Sanders: "After the debt ceiling negotiations, Boehner said he got 98% of what he wanted and Ryan said he got 75% of what he wanted. Democrats got nothing."

[lib2DaBone]

24. and The best part of the "Super Congress"....

Not only can they do the peoples business behind closed doors...

They no longer have to buy off 435 Member of Congress...

They only have to pay off 12 members to get what they want.

[99th_Monkey]

57. Well I'm sure the MegaCorps & Banksters will pass on the savings

to We The People, no?

:sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[ramapo]

27. Obama lost his mojo

I think he used it all up during the campaign. Might he have been overwhelmed by the challenges of the job or simply told by the real powers that be what to do? He lost touch with the people early on and never once drew a definite line in the sand that didn't get washed away by the tides.

He has become an ineffectual communicator. I used to love listening to him speak but now I can barely stand to hear him talk. It is almost like Bush. It is nothing but the same tired, hackneyed phrases spun out over and over again.

He got rolled early on by his own Congress and never stood up to the bullshit. He did a great job countering the opposition during the campaign but just seemed to lose it once in office.

Perhaps he had to pay off his campaign debts to the Goldman guys, etc.

I don't know that Hillary would have been any more effective. She certainly had plenty of baggage and being SoS has not been kind to her. She looks pretty worn down.

Who knows what happens in 2012. No way the economy is going to turn around. Congress will still suck.

I have pretty much come to conclusion that no matter who runs the country, we get screwed.

[wundermaus]

32. When Voting between rat poison and a bullet through the head...

I choose the bullet.

[99th_Monkey]

35. This is SO SAD. Hell he could be over 60% if he acted more like a real Democrat. damn. nt

[Little Star]

48. That is so true. It would have to be not just an act though...

he would have to be a actual Dem using Democratic policy and principles!

This bipartisan-shit has turned our party into Republican-Lite.

[tjwash]

36. Meh...O is just the latest jockey on the same sway backed nag

The scariest day in DC, will be if people on both sides of the ideological spectrum, ever get a clue that they are being jobbed by the system, and that their surface differences are just being used to divide and conquer the masses while the owners of this place keep to get hoarding all of the wealth.

That will be an extremely long wait.

[otohara]

45. Yeah, One Termer

can't wait for President Perry and Vice President Rubio.

Ted Nugent will be the entertainment on inauguration night.

They will save us. :headbang:

[ProDem4]

52. What will surely do Obama in is the fact that.

He won with a ton of non traditional voters (urban youth) and they will not be motivated

to go to the polls this time. And that will really hurt him in states like

Penn., Ohio, Florida, Indiana

[d_b]

50. good for him

[lovuian]

53. it is very sad but we are still in wars

we still have patriot act

he bailed out the corporations

he never prosecuted the torture group and then tortured Manning

etc...etc...

I hope Dems have another candidate in the wings

[customerserviceguy]

55. Wait until the President signs whatever comes out of the supercommittee

We ain't seen nothin' yet.

[No Elephants]

127. Harry Reid has been trying to disassociate Obama from the Super Committee.

[customerserviceguy]

136. Harry Reid tries a lot of things that he cannot pull off. n/t

[TrollBuster9090]

165. Both chambers of Congress have to vote on and pass anything that comes out of the super committee

before Obama can sign it. This thing is no different from a regular Select Committee except that once proposals are presented for an up or down vote, the House and Senate cannot offer amendments. They have to be voted up or down as is.

Nothing goes straight from the committee to Obama for a signature.

[grahamhgreen]

56. There will come a point where Obama can NOT get back the progressive vote no matter what he does. He

needs to change before that happens.

[TomCADem]

62. Except, There Is That Thing With A Republican Dominated House

Of course, we have to give those crazy Republicans a free pass.

[No Elephants]

128. Ah, yes, saying we don't want Obama or our Party to implement Republican policies

is giving Republicans a free pass.

I call bullshit, yet again.

[grahamhgreen]

159. Right. And when he had the house he did what? Passed tax cuts for the rich and expanded the wars

[civilisation]

58. and they should keep dropping,.

as he keeps selling out to corporate interests,. what a wast. If he does not have a 180 degree wake-up moment,. and START being a human instead of a corporate drone,. he will continue to fail.

[blkmusclmachine]

60. But you'll get a Pres. Scary Perry (!):

Or my favorite: The Professional Left/Progressive/Lib DEM is simultaneously a miniscule fragment of the Base, AND the sole cause of the DEM undoing in 2010 (and probably 2012, too..). :eyes:

[Born Free]

115. lets not forget what happened last election...

Even though approval numbers were dropping, many democrats suggested it would not matter because democrats would vote the democrats back in and yet election day the right wing republicans were the ones winning the races. If Obama doesn't soon start showing some backbone he will be another Jimmy Carter - yeah - I voted for Jimmy Carter and still believe the country would be better off today had he won, but the fact is he lost. Obama is going down, and he will continue to go down because he is more interested in appeasing the right wing republicans than fighting for America. I am one of those that believe we should have a primary challenger to excite the base. I just can not believe we do not have a democratic leader out there, maybe democrats need to draft some successful businessman like Bill Gates, I would like to see the right wing claim they did not know how to do well in business.

[No Elephants]

129. Is Bill Gates supposed to be a Democrat? If so, is he supposed to be a populist Democrat?

[AmericaIsGreat]

61. Hyper-centrist approach/attempts at compromise with Repubs at inopportune times

Could not bring himself to end the wars.

He really missed a chance on the stimulus and ending the wars. He missed a chance on many things.

Hope he turns it around soon. We cannot afford a Republican so soon.

[No Elephants]

130. ? Could not bring himself? Compromise? He campaigned on surging in Afghanistan.

Ok, he did not use the word "surge." I remember that because I believed him AND did not believe it was something he was saying just to win the primary or the general. (That was the excuse I gave myself for other things he said.)

That was really the one thing I consciously bit the bullet on and decided to go all out for him anyway.

[blkmusclmachine]

63. .

((Shrug))

[certainot]

64. and that citizens united money is paying for a lot of trolls and radio callers

maybe some whistleblower rewards money would be a good idea

[ClarkUSA]

67. "a lot of trolls"

Indeed.

[Maat]

70. This is not surprising.

I was a dedicated Democrat until shortly after Obama assumed office. I watched him standing up, at his podium, justifying "prolonged detention," or denial of habeas-corpus-related rights. In my humble opinion, there is no justification for that EVER. A detainee either falls under the U.S. Consitution's protections or falls under the Geneva Convention. In either case, there is NO justification for holding someone for years, or indefinitely, without a hearing and without proper treatment. After I saw him doing that, I walked out and disenrolled from the Democratic Party.

Subsequently, I watched him state that he had the right to assassinate a U.S. citizen under certain circumstances, denying that citizen due process. I was, again, stunned. This was the man I voted for?

The practice of rendition continues, per his own admission (it's just not called "extraordinary rendition"). There is no excuse for this practice.

The number of defense contractors and their employees has gone up since he took office. The net number of those people, along with miliary personnel, has increased, not decreased in terms of countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

U.S. citizens' 1st-, 2nd-, 4th-, 5th-, 6th- and 8th-amendment-related rights have not been buttressed, but have actually been gutted even more. Obama signed an extension of the notorious Patriot Act.

Obama's been the best corporate tool even seen. Look at the taxpayer that has directed to the coffers of the multinational banking institutions. This was done at the same time my neighbor lost his home to foreclosure. Nothing substantial has been done to help people in my neighbor's situation.

Look at how he mandated that a citizen into a contract with a private insurance company, and argued that bill's constitutionality. That was shameful, particularly for a former constitutional law instructor.

The U.S. military is engaged in bombing all over the world, including in such spots as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Libya. This has been done under Obama. Many innocent civilians have been killed.

I used to be part of his base. I am no longer. No wonder his approval ratings are so low.

How could I ever vote for such a candidate again? I cannot in good conscience do so.

We, the American people, need to legally and respectfully demand an FDR-style recovery program and the candidate who WILL get that program pushed through the System and enacted.

[indurancevile]

99. +1

[No Elephants]

132. Only responding to one point of your post.

Clause 2 of Section 9 of Article One of the Constitution of the United States provides: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."

I say this only to defend Abraham Lincoln's suspension of the writ during the rebellion against the government of the United States by the Confederacy and, in general, to keep tethered to the actual language of the Constitution, which I believe is always critically important.

As to the invasion part of that Clause, I am not going to debate that right now, one way or another.

Peace.

[Maat]

146. Well, there's no rebellion in the United States ...

nor is there any invasion of it; so, this Clause is not applicable here.

I do recognize your mention of the technicality, which has not occurred.

Moreover, we know that public safety, within the U.S. (which is what they meant) does NOT require it.

So, as you say, it is historically valid, I suppose, but not applicable to today's conditions within the U.S.

I'd argue that it's never necessary. It's certainly reprehensible in these circumstances (the ones in which Obama and Bush did it).

Anyway ... peace.

[coalition_unwilling]

153. Well put. I think you have captured much of my own thinking here. I also did

not appreciate Obama on "60 Minutes" saying that those of us who questioned the legality of Osama bin Laden's extra-judicial execution should "have our heads examined."

[Maat]

158. You are quite correct.

That WAS vile.

[Doctor_J]

156. You sound like Hartmann's caller Friday

Only he's a conservative who voted for Obama. He said he voted D because he thought torture, wars, indefinite detention would end. He won't be voting for re-election.

[VPStoltz]

75. He has only himself to blame.

[still_one]

76. Based on the current crop of republican nominees, I see even less support for their policies. The

only way things may be different is if Democrats regain control of Congress. It would be the last chance we would have for the Supreme Court

The question is, will Obama change to a more progressive course if he wins re-election?

One would like to think that if he wins a second term he would

[No Elephants]

134. Why would he be more progressive during a second term than he was 2009-2011?

This is not only about his re-election.

It is also about the direction of the Party and the DLC/New Democrat/Third Way/No Labels policies now espoused by those running the Party as the only way Democrats can win elections anymore.

Do you really think Obama will ever stab in the back the Party chieftains who put him and his family in the White House?

And if he did not keep those of his promises that were more to the liberal side, during his first time, why would we assume he would keep them during his second term, when he will have less to gain personally from keeping them?

"The only way things may be different is if Democrats regain control of Congress."

Disagree that is the only way things may be different. For one thing, Obama could stop nominating Republicans.

As to the Supreme Court, the House has zero to say about Obama's nominees to any office. Only the Senate confirms nominees; and we have a majority in the Senate now, as we have had since before Obama was elected.

We are NEVER going to get enough in the Democratic Caucus to yield 60 Senators, exclusive of conseradems, especially if the DNC retains its current love of DLC policies.

So, if that is truly the only way for Obama and any Democratic President to get his or her nominees approved anymore, Democrats at all levels better start re-thinking a lot of things pretty damned fast, like maybe twenty-five years ago.

Finally, if Republicans were to filibuster Supreme Court nominees and leave a vacancy on the SCOTUS for very long, the public will turn against them, PROVIDED, Democrats do their job of publicizing how unconstitutional that is. That would be more serious, IMO, than the debt ceiling standoff.

[myrna minx]

155. Uh oh - I bet he'll track even further to the right.

*sigh*.

[AtomicKitten]

157. Pfft. It's just a flesh wound.

[Dragonfli]

161. ...