Support for Obama Dropping Among Democrats

So says two new polls. First, here are numbers from Gallup showing demographic shifts in support for President Obama on a week-by-week basis. Four weeks ago, 53 percent of the nation approved of the job Barack Obama was doing as President. Today that number stands at 50 percent. One of the biggest movers in the poll? Democrats, whose support for the President fell 6 percentage points, from 88 percent to 82 percent (at a time support from Independents fell just 2 points and backing from Republicans remained flat). Marist caught a similar trend, finding Barack Obama's approval rating has dropped 7 percentage points among Democratic voters, from 84 percent to 77 percent.

While President Obama can't turn around his political fortunes merely by winning back the Democratic base, it is becoming clear that he has some work to do before his party loyalists come home in 2010 and 2012.

Tags: Approval Rating, Barack Obama (all tags)

Comments

78 Comments

Re: Support for Obama Dropping Among Democrats

One of the first things he may want to do, just on a stylistic level, is to stop attacking the base.

It will probably not be enough considering the policy mistakes (the jobs market being huge, and I am not sure if what is being proposed will be enough either in 2010 or by 2012), but definitely he's hurting himself with the move right.  His supporters online do him no favor advocating that every right ward move is a good one or that anyone who disagrees with him is wrong to do so.

Nate Silver posted this regarding the health care bill. Many would like to think the support is being denied because of right wingers, but as it turns out- a great chunk of the lack of support is coming from the left:

"In Polls, Much Opposition to Health Care Plan Is From Left"

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/i n-polls-much-opposition-to-health-care.h tml

In recent articles in places like the NY Times, they point out that Obama was convinced early on by his advisors that he needed to go right of center and avoid the mistakes of the 90s.

Part of the problem with surrounding yourself with former Clintonites like Rahm is that  they confuse the old battles of the 90s (which was about the ascendency of Reaganism) with the battle to today (the death of Reaganism at a stage where no one quite knows what will come next).

It would be like putting an old cold warrior in charge after the fall of the Berlin Wall. You are just not going to get the right policies for the times.

You can not win today on strategies that worked in the 90s.  Just ask Baucus, who saw his approvals plummet after his rightward handling of the health care legislation. Neoliberalism is dying. The sooner the administration accepts this, the better chance the president will have at addressing his issues with the base (and frankly beyond when you look at the numbers for the public option and key economic populist legislation like cram down and protecting American jobs).

by bruh3 2009-12-08 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Support for Obama Dropping Among Democrats

Do you think it has more to do with "attacking the base" or more to do with decisions that the base simply dislikes, such as Afghanistan?

Obama was certainly prone to attacking the base as a campaigner ("I reject the views of both the extreme left and the extreme right") but he doesn't seem to do it that often in practice.  I mean, sure the White House has been lukewarm on the public option, but (1) I don't think the average voter is likely to know that sort of inside-baseball stuff and (2) it's not as though he's going around calling the public option a socialist solution or anything.

by Steve M 2009-12-08 01:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Support for Obama Dropping Among Democrats

It's complicated. I hope the following answers your question.

I think what we are seeing is a combination of different things working together rather than any one thing like perception. My point about perception is only that it is one thing that adds another straw on the back of the camel.

That's the problem. It is not just perception, policies, bad times, etc. It is the combo of all of the above that I think will work overtime to harm him and the leadership with the party base.

There are issue about which I do not personally care such as the Stupak amendment that I thought at the time was stupid politics perceptionally.

Forget whether it will actually pass in the Congress (it won't because the Senate just defeated its version of the Stupak amendment). It was just dumb politics. I said so at the time to only be attacked here for pointing out what I thought was plainly obvious. I don't care if President Obama said he would strip it out later. It just made it seem like he was willing to play with the issue. Now, I was happy he said that, but it was bad politics to even go there.

I don't think Afghanistan is the issue of the times. I think its another straw that is breaking the camel's back just like the others. The polling says most voters are at best tepid about it, but amongst the Democratic base I am guessing the numbers go down from there.

But saying all of this, the 800 pound guerilla in the room is the economy. On this front, he has been at best lackluster. It is not that he has been horrible. It is that compared to what people are going through what he is saying and doing is not enough. When the CBC complains about the economy, for example, it is because African Americans are faced with a depression level job situation. When you are in those circumstances, you need to be on Tv everyday with fireside chats convincing voters you got their backs rather than expecting them to have yours.

I really think he came into the fall of last year with one campaign that he stuck with, and that he has not moved on. I feel that Reaganism ended in the fall of 2008. Not because of his election. It ended before with the near collapse of Wall Street. To me, that was the Berlin Wall moment for a failed theory of economics.

I don't think the average voters needs to know all the details to know that something is wrong with what he is doing.

by bruh3 2009-12-08 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Support for Obama Dropping Among Democrats

By the way- saying all of this- I think they are willing to give him a chance like all presidents, but that chance normally is about 2 years. He has already used up 1. These issues that I am describing, that will break the camels back are percolating  behind the scenes.

by bruh3 2009-12-08 01:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Support for Obama Dropping Among Democrats

Nate Silver is a self described "not a public option purist".

I suspect the democratic left-left is not a big fan of his either.

by vecky 2009-12-08 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Support for Obama Dropping Among Democrats

Why is your comment relevant to my argument?

by bruh3 2009-12-08 01:29PM | 0 recs
oh boy, bruh is back

must be some reason to bash everybody.

by ND22 2009-12-08 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Support for Obama Dropping Among Democrats


One of the first things he may want to do, just on a stylistic level, is to stop attacking the base.

Could you provide a specific example of this?

It will probably not be enough considering the policy mistakes (the jobs market being huge

Which policy mistake regarding the jobs market?

by lojasmo 2009-12-08 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Support for Obama Dropping Among Democrats

That last one's easy. Bowing to taxcuts to try and get republican support for the bill. I'm not saying some tax cuts wouldn't have been enough for the traitorous scum that are the blue dog types, but he put in a lot more than he needed to. Better to spend that money elsewhere even direct aid to states to produce more economic growth.

by MNPundit 2009-12-08 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Support for Obama Dropping Among Democrats

a) Amongst other actions spending too much timing wooing the right, but ignoring the leftward flank when it comes to legislation. I think the recent blow up between President Obama and Representative Conyers (who supported the President early on in the primary) is representative of how much of a bubble President Obama is in regarding disaffection on the level. Certainly, the position of the CBC is yet another canary in the coal mine.

Of course, this was more than obvious when Rahm this summer referred to disagreement over including of the public option as coming from the "left of the left." Only someone supremely out of touch with polling reality could say that. There is a lot more if you care to actually listen, but I doubt you will. I expect denial or distraction.

There is a lot more out there, but it would require you to listen to people and where they are coming from rather than attacking them for it because you think the criticism harms President Obama.

b) There are a number of points on the jobs front. The policy speech today was okay, but I question if it is sufficient. Over at open left, I mentioned that I thought the cap gains a good idea. I also think the lending to small business a good idea. But he does not go far enough in the areas of creating an industrial policy, addressing the forces that push jobs abroad, the need to regulate to push for private sector lending to resume (this remains a HUGE problem and the SBA loan situation is only a small part of it) or addressing underemployment issues.

Then, of course, as has been mentioned, half of the first stimulus was crap due to his appeasement of the far right.

On top of that the slowness to realize that this was an issue that needed to be addressed. Some of these issues- including lending to businesses have been appearing in financial newspapers all year. They are just now getting around to it.

Then there is the underfunding of the states. Regardless of what you may think- they are a a huge employer, and if they are placing people on furlough, not paying vendor services, etc, then you harming the economy.

However, the biggest jobs market issue is rethinking neoliberal economic policy- but that would require firing Geithner and Summers, and hiring someone like Elizabeth Warren- who gets it:

"America without a middle class"

"Today, one in five Americans is unemployed, underemployed or just plain out of work. One in nine families can't make the minimum payment on their credit cards. One in eight mortgages is in default or foreclosure. One in eight Americans is on food stamps. More than 120,000 families are filing for bankruptcy every month. The economic crisis has wiped more than $5 trillion from pensions and savings, has left family balance sheets upside down, and threatens to put ten million homeowners out on the street."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth- warren/america-without-a-middle_b_377829 .html

There is no deficit reduction program on the planet that will address our declining society if we do not rebuild the American middle class that is slowly being killed off by policies that have the wrong focus.

by bruh3 2009-12-08 12:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Support for Obama Dropping Among Democrats

you addressed neither of my questions.

You referenced Conyer's public offer of a pissing match when Obama asked him to sit down and have a one on one discussion.

And you referenced a statement by Rahm.  Neither supports your initial claim.

As far as Geithner and Summers, I agree.  However, the average American (I'd say a vast majority of Americans) and even the average member of "the base" don't give a flying fuck about Geithner or Summers. So you really didn't address either question.

by lojasmo 2009-12-08 02:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Support for Obama Dropping Among Democrats

Good l uck.

by bruh3 2009-12-08 02:48PM | 0 recs
Obama's fortunes will be all about jobs

If the jobs market turns around in 2012 then Obama will just be fine.

by puma 2009-12-08 12:03PM | 0 recs
That would be horrible

Obama does not deserve to be rewarded for pissing on the Democratic party and getting almost nothing done.  I would rather see him lose in 2012 than win at this point.  He is not one of us.  

by Kent 2009-12-08 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: That would be horrible

Yes yes.

Can you tell me one president from your lifetime who was "one of us"?

by lojasmo 2009-12-08 02:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Support for Obama

I've got war fatigue and alot of democrats do have the same.  If the conditions are right for an anti-war candidate like a Howard Dean to come in I will support him instead of Obama.

The same Clinton economic and national security Madeline Albright are back.

Jobs have to significantly turnaround as well.

by olawakandi 2009-12-08 12:14PM | 0 recs
there won't be an anti-war Democrat

running against Obama, but I agree with you that war fatigue is going to reduce the number of Democrats who are willing to pound the pavement for Obama during his re-election campaign, even if the jobs numbers improve. That will be a rude awakening for Organizing for America.

by desmoinesdem 2009-12-08 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Support for Obama

Dean is not an anti-war candidate...

"HOWARD DEAN: I'm not so sure I'm the liberal wing, but... I've supported the president on this one. I think this is different than Iraq. I think there are people who mean the United States harm over there...  I was very pleased to say the -- hear the president a few months ago say, "Look, we can't win this war militarily." He gets what we have to do here. And it is true that American public opinion is not supportive of the war effort anymore. I think this does have something to do with security to the United States. I do believe it has something to do with the role of women in these kinds of societies. I think we ought to be supportive of the role of women and their ability to get an education and things like that. I don't think that's the only reason we're there. But I'm supportive of the president, and I'm going to continue to be supportive of the president on Afghanistan."

by vecky 2009-12-08 01:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Support for Obama

I assume he meant someone who played a role akin to Howard Dean's run in 2004, not literally a run by Howard Dean himself.

by Steve M 2009-12-08 01:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Support for Obama

ah-OK...

by vecky 2009-12-08 01:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Support for Obama

Still, the analogy is false.

by lojasmo 2009-12-08 02:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Support for Obama

I'm not sure what you mean.  To the best of my recollection, Howard Dean provided an outlet in 2004 for a lot of anti-war Democrats who felt abandoned by the party establishment that had voted for the war and was sponsoring pro-war candidates.

by Steve M 2009-12-08 03:11PM | 0 recs
So did Barack Obama

and SURPRISE!, they actually support wars sometimes.

by ND22 2009-12-08 07:44PM | 0 recs
Re: So did Barack Obama

You missed the point by like a million miles.

by Steve M 2009-12-08 08:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Support for Obama Dropping Among Democrats

spending , deficits and jobs....

by lori 2009-12-08 12:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Support for Obama Dropping Among Democrats

If no one is working, how are you going to cut the deficits when the the tax base is dwindling? Jingos are great things. But reality is far better.

by bruh3 2009-12-08 12:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Support for Obama Dropping Among Democrats

Jobs are number one priority , but spending and deficits are a close second.

I would be surprised if he is losing much support from liberal democrats , most of the support he is losing seems likey to be from conservative and centrist democrats and deficits , spending are probably driving the loss of support.

by lori 2009-12-08 12:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Support for Obama Dropping Among Democrats

Your views would be wrong. Take for example the polling data provided by Nate Silver about the health care debate. He's losing a large chunk from liberals. Indeed, Chris Bowers recently wrote on the issue- an while he is losing something like I believe 7 percent conservatives- he is losing 12 percent liberals when it comes to his policies (if I remember correctly). Add to this the other polling data coming from Research 2000 etc that is showing a  huge disaffection for voting next year amongst liberals, the low turn out in 2009 amongst traditionally liberal voters, etc. and it adds up to the real problem being the base not showing up.

You can not address the deficit without addressing the jobs issues, and the jobs issue is a long term systemic one. You must invest in rebuilding the jobs market before you can even have shot at producing enough tax revenue to cut the deficit. THere is too much of the budget caught up in things like off the book wars to solve the problem otherwise. And then of course ther eis all the wasted GDP issue like energy costs and healthcare.  

by bruh3 2009-12-08 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Support for Obama Dropping Among Democrats

I won't dispute there maybe polls out there showing loss of support from liberals on the health care issue ( although I haven't seen any ) , If you look at the Gallup poll his loss of support is coming more from conservative democrats than liberal democrats.....Overall , his loss of support from independents is being influenced by spending and deficits ( as well as jobs )in my view.

I agree with you , it is tough to handle the three issues at the same time...

by lori 2009-12-08 01:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Support for Obama Dropping Among Democrats

that's why you prioritize the one that is most likely to determine votes. For the American public, they may talk about deficits, but they vote on jobs.

by bruh3 2009-12-08 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Support for Obama Dropping Among Democrats

That's true to a point. However Perot revived considerable support largely from the deficit/spending crowd. And for all the job creation during the Clinton years, Bill never cracked 50% and the GOP retained control of the House and Senate.

by vecky 2009-12-08 07:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Support for Obama Dropping Among Democrats

Look at it this way-

If Obama lost in 2008, he'd still be immensely popular while everyone would be talking about why John McCain's poll numbers were in the tank (and, I presume, what shoes Sarah Palin was deciding to wear that day).  But the country would be far worse off.  I'll take a middling Obama approval with Obama as President any day of the week.

by the mollusk 2009-12-08 12:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Support for Obama Dropping Among Democrats

"Thus, in lieu of any substantive engagement of these critiques are a slew of moronic Broderian cliches ("If Obama catches heat from the left and right but maintains the middle, he is doing what I hoped he would do (and what he said he would do) when I voted for him"), cringe-inducing proclamations of faith in his greatness ("I am willing to continue to trust his instinct, his grace, his patience and his measured hand"), and emotional contempt for his critics more extreme than one would expect from his own family members.  In other words, the Leave-Obama-Alone protestations posted by Sullivan are fairly representative of the genre. "

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_ greenwald/2009/12/08/obama/index.html

Add to that list: He's better than McCain.

by bruh3 2009-12-08 12:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Support for Obama Dropping Among Democrats

Of course, you could also add "I voted for Obama, contributed to his campaign, and canvassed for him last fall.  So far, I think he's doing a great job.  I've been disappointed a few times, but overall I think he's taking the country in a better direction than we've had for a long time.  You can't change something as large as America overnight."

by the mollusk 2009-12-08 01:07PM | 0 recs
Not allowed

True progressives realize that Obama is worse than Satan.  And they have an army of blog comments to prove it!

by JJE 2009-12-08 01:24PM | 0 recs
well, what is one to do?

Certainly that's not true here at MyDD. Open Left is probably the most critical followed by FDL but TPM is largely supportive as is Talk Left. I really don't ever look at DailyKos so I don't know there.

Here, Jonathan is openly effusive in his praise of Obama and Nathan is tepidly pro-war. Jerome and I are against the war but at the same time, I think I take an issue by issue position.

There's no way when push comes to shove that I won't rally around this President or any Democrat because the alternative is frankly a non-starter. But one cannot be expected just to set aside long-standing goals for the sake of unanimity at this time.  By nature, Democrats are a fractious lot but I think it is healthy that we don't march in lock step, or goose step, a la GOP.

It's only people like Tom Hayden, Chris Hedges and Bob Dreyfuss who think Obama is akin to the devil. The crowd that publishes in The Nation is just out of touch. It is a peace at all costs crowd. Even on the left, people don't take them seriously. Chris Hedges? I may agree with every part of his argument but then we arrive at conclusions that are completely disparate.

by Charles Lemos 2009-12-08 02:04PM | 0 recs
There is a lot to criticize about Obama

but there also seems to be a somewhat forced attempt to try to tie Obama's falling popularity to whatever a person's particular policy beef with him is, when it's probably largely a product of unrealistic expectations (for which Obama and his campaign are largely responsible) coupled with a weak economy.  

I can't wait until the 2009 bank bonuses come out.

by JJE 2009-12-08 04:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Support for Obama Dropping Among Democrats

The thesis is simple- slogans are not going to save you. Saying "At  least he's not McCain" is not an argument.

by bruh3 2009-12-08 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Support for Obama Dropping Among Democrats

I agree. "At  least he's not Sarah Palin" is a better one.

by vecky 2009-12-08 08:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Support for Obama Dropping Among Democrats

I don't recall saying "at least he's not McCain".  What I said was that Obama's popularity takes a hit simply due to the fact that he's in charge and has to make difficult decisions in a largely divided country with ~10% unemployment and mired in two wars.  In effect, the Obama brand (TM) has lost some of its value because it has been, in effect, spent on governing.  I'll take that trade any day.  Use Al Gore as the counter example.  I'd take an unpopular Gore President any day over a popular Al Gore movie director.

by the mollusk 2009-12-09 06:28AM | 0 recs
Because Glenn Greenwald is representative

of all Democrats?

by ND22 2009-12-08 01:51PM | 0 recs
the health care bill will be key

If the final health care bill has an individual mandate to buy private insurance, and Obama hails that as comprehensive reform, it will be hard to get back the enthusiasm of the Democratic base. People will vote for him in 2012 but won't be as engaged as volunteers as they were in 2008. Don't take my word for it; look at how betrayed this early Obama supporter feels (also here).

by desmoinesdem 2009-12-08 12:54PM | 0 recs
Re: the health care bill will be key

If there is a mandate to buy private insurance, the Democrats will have no defense from being slaughtered at the polls next year, and the next, and the next, until it is repealed.

by Jerome Armstrong 2009-12-08 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: the health care bill will be key

THANK YOU!. I have been saying this for days. People keep rationalizing this. It is 100 percent grade A nuts.

by bruh3 2009-12-08 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re: the health care bill will be key

No one has yet to provide a rationalization for removing the mandate but keeping restrictions on discrimination and pre-existing conditions.

Maybe you could start...

by vecky 2009-12-08 01:54PM | 0 recs
Re: the health care bill will be key

Do you get that what you just said will not matter to voters?

by bruh3 2009-12-08 02:05PM | 0 recs
Re: the health care bill will be key

The Q is, does it matter to you? (I assume you are a voter)

by vecky 2009-12-08 02:18PM | 0 recs
Re: the health care bill will be key

Your argument is nonsensical.

by bruh3 2009-12-08 02:21PM | 0 recs
Re: the health care bill will be key

one person at a time.

I'm starting with you.

So what's your view now?

by vecky 2009-12-08 02:29PM | 0 recs
Re: the health care bill will be key

My view is what I said: mandates are toxic without cost containment.

by bruh3 2009-12-08 02:51PM | 0 recs
Re: the health care bill will be key

Well the bill does contain costs, while expanding access and providing subsidies.

by vecky 2009-12-08 03:22PM | 0 recs
Re: the health care bill will be key

You need to piss down someone else's leg and tell them its sunshine. I've  been following this issue since 2004. There are no cost containment measures of any weight left in the bill.

by bruh3 2009-12-08 03:35PM | 0 recs
Re: the health care bill will be key

If your talking about the PO I agree with you. The PO in both the House and Senate bills is not about cost-containment, but a dumping ground for folk private insurance companies don't want to cover.

Most of the other stuff is still in the bill however.

But you've gone off the subject of mandates. Cost containment and the mandate aren't mutually dependent. Indeed one more way to bring down costs in the bill would be to remove the requirements to provide insurance regardless of pre-existing conditions. But you keep dancing around...

by vecky 2009-12-08 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: the health care bill will be key

I think you are mangling the figure of speech.  You cannot piss down someone else's leg, only your own.

by Steve M 2009-12-08 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: the health care bill will be key

"piss on" is that better?

by bruh3 2009-12-08 07:14PM | 0 recs
Re: the health care bill will be key

I believe the expression is- don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.  Bruh got it right.  Perhaps it's regional, but that's the expression I've heard.

by orestes 2009-12-09 06:05AM | 0 recs
Re: the health care bill will be key

on and down are different words!

by Steve M 2009-12-09 02:03PM | 0 recs
Re: the health care bill will be key

Ooh- you're a stickler.  (I mean that with a touch of approval.)

by orestes 2009-12-09 02:56PM | 0 recs
Details

true genius need not concern itself with such details.

by JJE 2009-12-08 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: the health care bill will be key

The mandate can be removed, just remove the part where insurance companies can't discriminate against pre-existing conditions, recession, etc...

I don't think there is much support for that.

by vecky 2009-12-08 01:09PM | 0 recs
Re: the health care bill will be key

The problem is that without a mandate, then too many people will not carry insurance until they are already sick (or until they are over 50). That's not a workable situation either.

That whole scenario is one reason why a single-payer system is so much better. Without that, mandates can work with a sufficiently robust public option, or a sufficiently regulated insurance industry (as in Switzerland), but I'm afraid we're not likely to get either of those.

by fsm 2009-12-08 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: the health care bill will be key

True enough, but the point that people miss is that the mandate is not there to force people to buy health insurance, it's to prevent health insurance companies discriminating and dropping people when they get sick.

by vecky 2009-12-08 01:52PM | 0 recs
Re: the health care bill will be key

That point is even missed by many posters here at mydd :-)

by fsm 2009-12-08 03:13PM | 0 recs
Re: the health care bill will be key

That's simply not true.  The mandate is a giveaway to the insurance companies.  In addition, the truly needy will become the expense of the taxpayers.  The nature of insurance is to insure against medical needs.  The congress can simply prevent them from dropping pre-existing conditions.  Let them carry that burden as a cost of doing business.  We don't need to give them anything (mandates) to compel them.  It's only if you embrace the corporatist culture that you would see it otherwise.

by orestes 2009-12-08 08:46PM | 0 recs
Re: the health care bill will be key

If insurance has to cover pre-existing conditions why would anyone get insurance until they get sick?

by vecky 2009-12-08 10:00PM | 0 recs
Re: the health care bill will be key

Most people get insurance through their employer.  When they change jobs, they typically get new insurance.  Their insurance company presently will refuse to treat a condition that existed prior to their addition to the employer's plan.  In this circumstance, pre-existing conditions should not be a bar.  This should simply be a cost of doing insurance business.  Your problem could arise with regard to people who buy insurance on their own, that is true.  But there are other ways to deal with this problem.  Furthermore, mandates do not guarantee that everyone will get good insurance (and some will get none at all).  Mandates and pre-existing conditions are not inextricably tied to one another.  A choice was made to add millions of new captured customers to the insurance market.  And that was the wrong- and unnecessary- choice.

by orestes 2009-12-09 06:11AM | 0 recs
oh boo freaking hoo

some blogger will be upset.

by ND22 2009-12-08 01:48PM | 0 recs
Here at MyDD they're happy

every time another Democrat joins the anti-Obama ranks.

by cmpnwtr 2009-12-08 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Support for Obama Dropping Among Democrats

the election is over, so we shouldn't be comparing to McCain. he's the president, and the buck stops there.

people keep saying jobs will save obama in 2012, but have they realized the stock market kept going up and the job-loss rate slowed, and yet obama's approval rate keeps going down.

people want to see results. if you tackle all the issues and can't create a meaningful solution to any of them, then people will see through it. you can't just keep having these "historic" speeches every other month.

on healthcare - are you going to compromise ideology purity in order to pass something, or practically be held lock-step by bloggers at DailyKos and screw up a chance at real reform?

on copenhagen - same as asian trip : would it be just a whole bunch of photo ops and speeches, or an "understanding" like Kyoto, or something even more concrete ?

on afghanistan - the most wishy-washy speech i've heard. trying to satisfy all sides and ended up pleasing no one. are you for or against karzai? are you serious about july 2011 or it's just empty promises you can weasel out with "subject to ground conditions" (which, incidentally, is a date after the midterm elections, so technically he could've done nothing and still counts as "upholding a promise"). what's your reasoning and evidence that 30K surge is sufficient when McChrystal asked for 40K?

on LGBT equality - are you signing a bunch of tiny nondiscriminatory laws just to pay lip service but refuse to endorse and act upon nation-wide equality fearing that will anger your african-american base?

on the asian trip - we already knew nothing solid and concrete would come out, but does obama have to bow THAT low? heck, you should have some self respect being that you're also a head of state

on smaller scandals - really doesn't help when you can't up on the correct side during harvard professor incident and the Roland Burris fiasco

i can go on and on and on, but in the end, it's too much talk and we haven't seen results. just because the other side doesn't have a strong candidate doesn't mean you can sit around and hope for 271 EV come 2012 by recycling the same slogans.

by TDZ 2009-12-08 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Support for Obama Dropping Among Democrats

> on healthcare - are you going to compromise ideology purity in order to pass something, or practically be held lock-step by bloggers at DailyKos and screw up a chance at real reform?

oh yea, and don't blame the republicans, cuz chances are, the final few votes that defeats cloture are Democrats.

by TDZ 2009-12-08 02:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Support for Obama Dropping Among Democrats

Right, if 40 Republicans and 2 Democrats vote against something, clearly it would be freakin' idiotic to blame the Republicans.

by Steve M 2009-12-08 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Support for Obama Dropping Among Democrats

Actually, he's making a different point. That the Republicans are only relevant due to the two Democrats. It is easy to go after the GOP since they are the "other team" but the real problem seems to be going after a Lieberman. No one expects perfect party discipline, but on issues like health care reform, the idea that 4 Democratic Senators would tie the process  up with Republican like lies and arguments is not something that is the GOP's fault.

by bruh3 2009-12-08 02:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Support for Obama Dropping Among Democrats

I think it's more a sense that democrats are incompetent and can't rule without tons of drama that will hurt them come election time.

And mid-terms are all about base turn-out. In '94 only 45% of the country voted, but a majority of those were Republicans, while Democrats stayed at home mostly.

by vecky 2009-12-08 02:22PM | 0 recs
Both are to blame

Why can't Republicans meet us halfway? They always had before (see civil rights, Medicare) when there were Democrats opposed to everything.

What everyone seems to be forgetting is that we're treading in uncharted waters in a political environment that even FDR and LBJ would find incredibly difficult to get through the stuff they got through, and the stuff they got through was pretty damned compromised as it is.

by ND22 2009-12-08 02:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Both are to blame

Republicans now realize that they have a better chance at winning elections by compromosing on nothing and simply blocking everything Demoocrats propose.  

Democrats need to learn to play the same way when Republicans get back in power.  

by Kent 2009-12-08 02:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Both are to blame

That's just a recipe for destroying the country. I'd rather lose an election than destroy the country.

Where are failing is fully explaining to the electorate that the GOP's path will ultimately not just bankrupt the country but likely lead to its breakup.

by Charles Lemos 2009-12-08 03:37PM | 0 recs
I wouldn't take the troll seriously

by ND22 2009-12-08 06:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Both are to blame

I don't understand your argument.

by bruh3 2009-12-08 07:16PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads