What Liberal Revolt?

Full article here:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/mp_20100104_1650.php

outside of certain DUers

Same effect.

like that. Naive idealism is great, but the point of running in an election is to actually win or to even have a slim chance of winning.

It was my very first presidential vote.

for those of us in the working and middle classes? :shrug:

but George McGovern was not that candidate. I'm speaking specifically about 1972. The counterpart today would be to run Dennis Kucinich because that would pretty much be the same outcome as McGovern experienced in '72, but maybe not that good.

Today, particularly after 2008, I am much more cynical and jaded about politics inasmuch as candidates seem to tell you exactly what they believe you want to hear in order to get your vote and then once when they are elected they serve their true masters and do what they were always going to do all along. I don't have trust in words or promises anymore.

I don't think we can elect a president who will truly look out for the interests of the working and middle classes however much we might expect a Democrat to actually do that. Democrats seem big into compromise and bipartisanship and I tend to agree with Grover Norquist that bipartisanship is another name for date rape. Either way, if that is the approach of Republicans to bipartisanship, then it will never work as those naive Democrats believe. The irony is that the working and middle class Republicans work and support the ideals of the Republican party which really benefit the rich. Quite the con job there.

Not all that much different than the way they TRASHED both Gore and Kerry.

If only President Obama had the COURAGE and CONVICTIONS of the 1972 George McGovern we'd STOP occupying ME nations and use all those BILLIONS (700+ for 2010) for domestic programs that Americans so desperately need for increased quality of life.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0106-03.htm

THE DEMOCRATS see a hobgoblin under the bed, and his name is George McGovern. Low-grade panic is beginning to set in as pundits forecast a repeat of 1972: "As Massachusetts goes, so goes the District of Columbia." The prospect of "another McGovern" whets the appetite of Bush partisans while generating gloom and shame among Democrats. Howard Dean, for one, flees the association, while other candidates tar him with it.

Here's the problem: In 1972, McGovern was right. If there is shame attached to that election, it is America's for having so dramatically elected the wrong man. Apart from the rank dishonesty of Richard Nixon and his administration (a pattern of lies that would be exposed in Watergate), there were two world-historic issues that defined that election, and on both Nixon was wrong. 1972 was a fork in the road, and history shows that the United States made a turn into a moral wilderness from which it has yet to emerge.

McGovern was an opponent of the "we/they" vision. A prophet of detente, he has since been vindicated by history. He offered America a way out of the trap that opposes "realist" and "idealist" perspectives. McGovern understood not only that the Vietnam War was wrong but that in the nuclear age, the realist is the one who sees that the structures of war itself must be systematically dismantled. One hears the complaint from today's Democrats that McGovern, a decorated World War II bomber pilot, did not tout his war hero's record, but that entirely misses his most important point -- that fear of war and glorification of war are simply not to be exploited for political purposes, whether at the personal level or the national. What McGovern the candidate refused to do is what American presidents should refuse to do.

IMO, presently BOTH the Democratic and Republican Parties' Congressional "Leadership" primarily SERVES THE RICH.

The only difference between the Democrats and Republicans in the Executive and/or Legislative Branch control is the EXTENT of endless warmongering and whether or not the poor and destitute will rate unemployment insurance and food stamps.

I thought of that after hearing a comment about how your basic poor Confederate soldier in the Civil War really was conned to do the fighting for rich plantation owners.

Our problem now as Democrats is how do we trust candidates who will tell us whatever they believe we want to hear in order to get our vote, then once elected they do what they always intended to do.

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

Skittles saying that no one they know is happy with the bill means about as much as me saying that I can't think of any friends I have who are against gay marriage. But that's not because being pro-gay-marriage is universal, it's because I have friends like me.

What I quoted was a famous comment from somebody in McGovern campaign HQ that election night. Sure, it could be completely true, but unless you know the entire US population it's also not much good to base such things on your friends. I dare say there's a lot of people who are going to be happy to see pre-existing conditions go away, premium increases be regulated, and a dozen other things this bill does.

... and have lots of time on their hands. I say it all the time, "loud" doesn't mean "numerous."

This meme that the only people who have problems with the performance of Obama are crazed obsessed bloggers is pretty lame.

The Internet has opened access to communication and linkage is a good thing. It allows you to express your support, and me to express my frustrations.

It doesn't mean that either of us are not "real people."

And i know a TON of liberals.
The only people i ever hear claim both to be liberals and to dislike Obama are here.

We may be pissed about the bill, but when a pollster calls us up, we give all pro-Obama answers.

.... we know who brought us to the dance (this time anyway.) The last weeks worth of underpants bomber pundit/GOP outrage has been proof of that. Many of the talking heads who were highly pissed a month ago about Afghanistan were even MORE pissed at DeMint and Cheney for bashing the President.

The only people who will benefit are the ultra-wealthy because the LOBBYISTS representing Wall Street and the corporations comprising the MIC ***OWN OUR CONGRESS*** ... it doesn't matter now who or from what party we vote for. Save for "a few" non-leadership small "d" members in Congress, everyone else is bought and paid for by the Political Ruling Elites.

Until we achieve Campaign Finance Reform, those of us in the Working and Middle Classes are SCREWED. The best case scenario for our financial welfare is GRIDLOCK. Therefore, I say, "I hope these CORRUPT legislators keep on fighting each other UNTIL the American People wake-up."

Lower lows...

Maybe its bottoming though.

Is that the good sign?

Look at the graph again.

That is why I said it looks like he bottomed for now.

Among some other groups the trend is down... but not among liberals.


That was the point of the article.

You think Markos would tell a pollster he disapproved of Obama? No matter how mad he is, I doubt it.

try and bring others down to where you are.

No thanks, dkf.

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

MoFo deadenders crying in the whine have no appeal.

But the drop isn't dramatic at all. On inauguration day, Pres. Obama had a 90% approval among liberal Democrats, probably roughly an 87% rating among moderate Democrats and roughly an 80% approval rating among conservative Democrats. Today, it's 89% among liberal Democrats, about 83% among moderate Democrats and maybe 78% among conservative Democrats.

To simplify it, here is the total decrease in an entire year:

Liberal Democrats: -1
Moderate Democrats: -4
Conservative Democrats: -2

That's well within the MOE for the liberal and conservative Democrats and the moderate Democrats drop is hardly anything.

The revolt happens when they are finally told whats in it when it is too late to do anything about it.
From the mandates to the hinted higher premiums for smoking and obesity i am sure our wonderful leaders will have packed it full
of goodies. But hey who cares because our democratic team is going to the playoffs this year and we won the super bowl last year so rah rah rah!

Is everything going to be submitted to Sebelius?

Welcome back.

Hope this stay is shorter than your last one. :eyes:

Bookmarking THIS GEM! When President Obama turns out to be a ONE-TERM President despite all our encouragement for him NOT to follow BushCo's Privatization and Warmongering Agendas, I'm going to bring this back to your attention. You've been way too loud and proud to not have someone in the future not say, "You've been warned." :(

And when he wins in a landslide, will you promise to stop posting your stupid fucking trading cards? :)

We'll have to see how they progress over the next few months. Just looking at the current trend lines, they are down overall and it seems that the greatest upward shift is amongst Conservative Democrats.

...in particular who is definitely revolted.

I'm in the Dylan Ratigan camp of disgust.

And they know another 10, and so on and so forth.

The DLC Screwed the Pooch with this giveaway.

Why are those so eager to dismiss any dissent also the most likely to pretend that the internet isn't populated with "real" people? Get with the fuckin times.

You can't even determine the sex of the person you're talking to over the internet, let alone their party affiliation. What's to stop a bunch of freepers from claiming they're Dems? Ever heard of freeped polls?

And assuming that people who disagree with you online are infiltrators or whatever is an easy, cheap way of dismissing them, like I said.

than asking random people what they think over the phone.

now a lot of young and even middle aged people don't have or at least don't use, land lines. When are they going to figure out how to compensate for that in their numbers or contact people by other means like email?

At least the results on this poll run last week seem to show DU average (I estimated 332/400 using an approximation of taking the overall mean after multiplying the average for each range by the number of votes) is significantly more progressive than the self-described liberals (242.3/400) in national polls.

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7349242

before Reagan (on economic policy especially).

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

(1) I know of people personally that have left the Democratic Party in their verbal statements (reporting what I heard), though I urged them not to leave.
(2) One poll, unfortunately by questionable Rasmussen, a week ago shows a 6 point drop in party identification for Democrats in a short period of time (if interested someone can find that and be more precise)
(3) The only real question is what are the numbers in terms of member loss. I don't think numbers are being added anywhere at the moment and I KNOW members are being lost from personal experience. It's just a question of HOW MANY
(4) In any event, NOT A GOOD IDEA to make whoever IS or may be in "revolt" feel small and insignificant, because it increases the chances they will either leave or be inactive quite a bit.

Beware of drowning the message in the bathtub by being too eager to placate the Propaganda Club that seems to be in the majority at the moment.

Unfortunately cavemen designed it.

and Obama is at historic highs with liberals and historic lows with conservatives.

But the otherworld of DU is in denial.

Hence Nate's rather gloomy description.

I would never tell a pollster how mad I was at Obama. I'm glad he has strong support because the rightwing hate machine is in overdrive. Anything that pisses them off can't be that bad.

I HATE his handling of health care and the financial system but I LOVE his handling of foreign policy and terrorism.

this poll shows me that liberal americans are farther to the right than conservatives here in France....Yes, according to this poll most liberals favor policies that even our president Sarkozy has some opposition to, and he is hard right....I guess I am no longer in touch with most liberals so I will just call myself a socialist now.

basically "centrists" and/or "right leaning" democrats not the "liberal democrats" of the 1970s USA Congress. The TERM itself has been ruined by misuse.

Is how the conservative republican line CRASHES THROUGH THE FLOOR a mere five days after the inauguration, with the course of hte line suggesting their approval might have been as high as 50% in early January.

I can't make sense of that one.

Surely, my rants must change the minds of the thousands/hundreds/family members who read my blog!

K/R.

But keep waving those "Democratic Party Insiders Rule" pom-poms high. :eyes:

:crazy:

Much better to gain insight on public opinion from random postings on a random political blog / discussion forum.

Some folks are stubborn and only learn the hard way- even when the writing's clearly on the wall.

Keep on toting those Gallop polls though!

They reflect American reality don't ya know!

:rofl:

those liberals who are upset with Obama and "in revolt" are an insignificant, useless minority...yet they are somehow single-handedly responsible for anything bad happening because they post mean things on the internet and say mean things to reporters.

How does this work again? I'm confused.

the "left" is simultaneously in lockstep with Obama's "socialist agenda" and revolting against him ...

go figure ...

It would be a hell of a lot more constructive to have a real dialogue about why people express displeasure, instead of trying to dismiss and insult everyone who has some issues with Obama but want him to do well (better) on issues.

...as opposed to his OVERALL job performance.

and i wonder how many of those polled would rather have the bush/cheney crime family running things again.

:cry: :cry: :cry: :boring: :thumbsdown:

(But what do I know, I'm online, not like a real person, lol.)

So much depends upon how the question was asked, how the sample was drawn up, and other factors. Plus what the opinion leaders such as Markos Moulitsas say is important. Usually the most politically involved and the most informed are out front on these issues, then the general public comes along later.

In no way does this poll convince me that Obama is not in trouble with his liberal base, the same base that got him elected. Does that mean that we will vote for a Republican next time? Of course not. But it might mean that we will not work as hard for him next time and in a close election or in another election that the other side tries to steal, our lack of enthusiasm for him might be an important factor.

People readily believe things that support their world view and suspect or dismiss that which doesn't. For those that are unhappy with Obama, the Gallup and Kos polls can't be trusted and to those that support Obama and are pleased with his performance, the polls are valid and accurate.

on here calling for Obama not to run for another term. I'll give 2 to 1 odds to open. Anyone game?

as liberal like they did Clinton. It will depend on how well he can keep the cover in 2010.

Clinton was popular too and he signed NAFTA.

It all starts there. If you try to tell me that i need to take a fresh look at the GOP, then you can forget it.

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