Skip to main content

Coming to Daily Kos, I am often amazed by my sense that the President's more ardent supporters are living in their own bubble reality. I have compared this to the early days of the Bush administration because of  the disconnects from the reality of where the president is and the reality of where the nation is.

President's don't need adoration. They need hard cold reality splashed across their face because, if you truly want them to to win, including this one in 2012, reality is how you do it. Yes, messaging and GOTV are important, but they take you only so far.  The thing about his campaign is that he was untested. So, people were willing to give him a chance. Now, he's being tested so they are looking for results that will impact their lives. This is the barometer: Whether their lives will be perceived of as better after 4 years rather than whether he can message them in the right way.

It is with amusement when I read those who discuss "pragmatism" (or as I like to call it "Brand pragmatism" versus "real pragmatism") who do not seem to realize that the most pragmatic way (real pragmatism) to view the president is not through the eyes of DC.

The most pragmatic way to view the president is through the eyes of the American voters. They are the one that can hire you. They are ones who can fire you. That's where I start with not just politicians, but also policies. The voters give me a barometer by which I can test my own assumptions, and not just those of the party or the ideologically driven discussions, but as a general pegging mechanism about my own pragmatism regarding an issue. It tells me "Do we need to convince the American public on this?"  

Looking at the polling data, the numbers are not that good. Gallup has the president's approval at 49 percent. The average is roughly 45.5 percent. These numbers are taken from Pollster.com. You can check the numbers out for yourself.

Why are his numbers hovering in the mid 40s?

That's a good question. I would say its two things. The job situation and the competency factor. Honestly, in the case of the later issue, the issue of competency, I had not thought of this as a factor for the President until the BP situation. Some here have buried their heads in the sand, and denounced anyone pointing out this issue.  I can now say that I have a poll to indicate that my views are indeed reflective of what may be a greater reality. I am once again returning to some sort of attempt at objective analysis rather than just my gut. I advocate others should do the same.

First, as for jobs, the polling data from the NYT/CBS poll finds the following:

"President Obama does not fare well: 54 percent of the public say he does not have a clear plan for creating jobs, while only 34 percent say he does, an ominous sign heading into this fall’s midterm elections."

LINK

This is not surprising. The job situation is bad right now, and its not looking to get better any time soon. As in, some are still a) predicting a second recession and b) that the jobs market will remain not only bad, but potentially create a permanent unemployed class in America.

The jobs economy, given the under currents produced by neo-liberals of the past, was always  the reason why the president needed to have acted boldly in the last year and half. Not just for our sake. But, pragmatically, for his own political survival. I never understood the argument that said we must ignore his neo-liberal policy making as a factor in whether he would succeed or not in the future. To me, this is policy decisions coming home to roost.

On top of that, the other issue facing the president now is the issue of competence over BP. To me, this is danger territory because once again ideological beliefs on the part of his administration are setting him up for harm in an electoral sense because Americans want solutions. Whether you want to call them or I whiners or not- its what they want. And as the people hiring you, that's what you got to deal with.

"They are also impatient with Mr. Obama’s response to the oil disaster in the gulf, by a large margin, and blame the spill on risks taken by BP and its partners in the failed well, according to the poll, which was conducted by telephone from June 16 to 2o with 1,259 adults."

I am certain there will be those who will simply dismiss these warning signs. There has been a great deal of hubris at times over how the American public views the president. I think the danger is starting to become transparent rather than unseen.

There will be some who will dispute the data. My advice is to fight that desire. The truth is that when you keep shooting the messenger, you just end up with less mail. Or, to put it another way, if you keep ignoring the warning signs, you will end up without a job.  That to me is the deepest form of being lacking in pragmatism. I will may be cover this later, but part of the issue is that too many view our times as like those of the 90s when the real concern should be that we are facing a lost decade in jobs and growth.

Originally posted to bruh1 on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 05:14 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  So you think he's incompetant? (5+ / 0-)
  •  They're not that low (18+ / 0-)

    by historical standards. Indeed, I'd say they're stubbornly high, given the circumstances.

    Analysis: Obama Remains More Popular than Reagan

    Harry Reid: Float like Barney Fife, sting like Aunt Bea.

    by MeMeMeMeMe on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 05:21:24 PM PDT

  •  Americans want MAGIC (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    savvyspy, lordcopper, dsmmom, FiredUpInCA

    Total denial on all sides today.

  •  The Man Is Doing A Great Job (6+ / 0-)

    He has two wars, a depression, an environmental disaster, and he is dealing with all this better than I thought he could.  He is making BP pay, pressuring them to plug the leak in record time.  We will be leaving Iraq starting in August and leaving Afghanistan July of next year.  He is on the verge of getting a finance reform bill which hasn't happened under Clinton or Bush.  He is also going to get a climate bill which is amazing.  Democrats should be out their in droves supporting President Obama.

      •  Why does he have 2 wars? (10+ / 0-)

        Escalating in Afghanistan isn't working.

        He should be getting out of the war business and creating good jobs.

        A fortune is being wasted on foreign wars.

        look for my DK Greenroots diary series Thursday evening. "It's the planet, stupid."

        by FishOutofWater on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 05:26:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The President can't create jobs. That's (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FiredUpInCA

          just wishful thinking.

          "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind."

          by lordcopper on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 06:03:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Of course (5+ / 0-)

            he can, or at least set the conditions for job creation.  I'd say Eisenhower and JFK "created" lots of jobs in the sciences and aerospace industry.

            The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. - 9th Amendment

            by TracieLynn on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 06:48:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Please explain how the President can "create (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FiredUpInCA

              jobs".   You say it like it's so easy, but the are many constraints hindering job creation and the President can't remove these obstacles by executive order.

              "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind."

              by lordcopper on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 07:16:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Go study the 40s-60s, grasshopper, and then (5+ / 0-)

                return. Yes -- some of it is by executive order on how budgets get spent. Mostly it's by skillful handling of the legislative branch.

                Bush created many jobs by starting wars, for example; that was primarily by executive order, and kept the economy pumped for an entire term.

                •  In other words, the President can sign a jobs (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  condorcet

                  bill that originated in the house of Representatives, and passes the Senate.  

                  "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind."

                  by lordcopper on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 07:21:35 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  He can make a jobs bill happen. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    neroden, ThAnswr, thethinveil

                    He's not some guy in Albequerque blogging.

                    He not only get to sign the bill -- he gets to use the entire bureaucracy to reward those who vote for the bill, punish those who vote against the bill, give nationally televised speeches about the jobs bill, and redirect budgeting to support and undermine any jobs bill.

                    He's the damn head of the federal bureaucracy, on top of being the head of one of our two parties. So saying he can "sign a bill" is so obtuse to the point of being intentionally disengenuous.

                    Yes, and he also hosts state dinners -- but he's got a few other trick in his bag of diplomacy as well.

                •  Last time I checked (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  FiredUpInCA

                  He's already created a shitload of jobs. I think your point must be he isn't doing the way you prefer or on your timetable.

                  •  What's your damn point, other than to regurgitate (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ThAnswr, thethinveil

                    some talking points? It's irrelevant what my timetable is, or whether he in fact created jobs -- and how many is quite arguable on a historical scale.

                    People ain't feelin' the love, regardless of what you or I think. It's not about my pink pony -- it's about how many pink ponies get passed out across the country, and how many people want pink ponies.

                    He ain't getting credit from anyone I know who actually takes an interest. That's a problem for the party going forward 2, 4 and six years, if it holds up -- whether you give him credit for everything that happens, or I give him credit for nothing.

                    But keep on just accusing people of being naysayers for wanting pink ponies. Repeating talking points have kept the Repubs in office, hasn't it?

              •  He sets (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Lynwaz, neroden, emsprater, FiredUpInCA

                the plan and pushes it to the public who then push their representatives to make it happen.  If Republicans obstruct, the President comes back on tv and explains in detail who and how things are being held up.

                The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. - 9th Amendment

                by TracieLynn on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 07:26:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The public is equally divided. They don't know (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  TracieLynn

                  what to do, or who to believe.  The logic is counter intuitive.  There are simply, points in time where options are limited due to public fears.

                  "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind."

                  by lordcopper on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 07:33:24 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Bullshit. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    TracieLynn, RandomSequence

                    The public wants jobs and there would be a majority for a jobs bill.  Seriously, find me polling which says otherwise.

                    As for deficit polling, it's been proven that it means nothing -- nobody ever knows how big the deficit is, so just claim that your jobs bill will in the long run shrink the deficit and they'll go "Oh, that's OK then".  (It's also probably true that it will.)

                    -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

                    by neroden on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 07:37:27 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Bullshit!! The public want's jobs, but they (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      FiredUpInCA

                      don't see the connection between govt spending a jobs. Show me the poll that says they do.

                      "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind."

                      by lordcopper on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 07:44:38 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  If the gov't spending HIRES PEOPLE NOW (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        TracieLynn

                        They see the connection.

                        That's why a jobs bill needs to be like the Civilian Conservation Corps.  DIRECT EMPLOYMENT.

                        -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

                        by neroden on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 07:47:00 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  And you really believe there are 60 votes in the (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          condorcet, FiredUpInCA

                          Senate to literally transform Obama into FDR?  Please tell me you aren't counting on 100% support from the Democrats.  And please tell me which Republicans are going to vote for it.  Hell, they can't even pass an extension of unemployment benefits through the Senate.  The political system is literally dysfunctional.  Has been for a long time but we had a larger margin for error.

                          "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind."

                          by lordcopper on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 07:53:19 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  He's not going to win them. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            TracieLynn

                            FDR won his seats in 34 -- he came in with a small majority, and gained a large majority.

                            It didn't magically happen -- he made it happen. He took political risks and forged coalitions that made him stronger. The political dysfunction is also in the executive -- we can't seem to produce executives capable of wielding their power, who want to actually win.

                          •  The history of America has never been about (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            condorcet

                            "one indispensable man".  Yes there have been great men, but they were working within a framework that accomodated the talents of many.

                            "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind."

                            by lordcopper on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 08:46:45 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It is about an indispensable team. (0+ / 0-)

                            It's never just one guy alone -- but it is about teams and alliances. There are cusps and critical points, where Hoover managing to pull out an election leads to the Soviets crushed under Germany. It's not all just market forces and structure -- at some point, someone makes a crucial chose that leads us all down a path.

                  •  He's got to tell the public what it should think. (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    TracieLynn, Lynwaz, neroden, ThAnswr

                    He's supposed to be running the propaganda campaign to get what he wants. Folks don't just decide privately and then send a message to DC -- DC pushes ideas into peoples heads and sees if they stick.

                    •  True, but these are not normal times. Hell, (0+ / 0-)

                      you still have a majority on this site railing against the "bailouts".  You can't expect the average voter to delve into Keynesian economic theory, especially when fears are heightened and their survival is at stake.

                      "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind."

                      by lordcopper on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 07:49:24 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Yes -- and the Germans are trying to cut their (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        TracieLynn, thethinveil

                        budgets when they have a tiny debt-load compared to anyone else, as if money didn't literally grow on trees.

                        You have to push projects that people can see, and develop the propaganda to make people understand it. But Obama and his team really are conservative -- it's not a show, I don't think, but a reflection of their thinking, which makes solving these problems difficult.

                        •  Okay, it's all Obama's fault. If only Mr. X, (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          FiredUpInCA

                          or Mrs. Y were President.  They would accomplish everything on the liberal checklist.

                          "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind."

                          by lordcopper on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 07:55:28 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  What does that mean? (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            TracieLynn, ThAnswr, thethinveil

                            Why is it all about hypothetical counterfactuals with you people? Why is it rah-rah-rah?

                            So what if you're right and Obama is the best possible choice we could have had -- that won't change anything down the road if it's just not good enough. And if there isn't discussion about what could be better, were there can be pushback to strengthen his choices, well, we can guarantee his failure. If the far left (which in those days was actually far left) hadn't pushed against FDR, you don't think he would've shifted to the right to the point that the collapse in '37 wouldn't have been far worse?

                          •  I'll go you one better. Maybe the best we can do (0+ / 0-)

                            is another "lost decade".  Maybe our political system can't produce a solution to high unemployment.

                            "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind."

                            by lordcopper on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 08:09:54 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Maybe -- but can our political system withstand (5+ / 0-)

                            it for a decade? You may be right -- but we're not the Japanese. I think a decade of frozen or declining living standards will be cataclysmic for American self-image, and therefore for the political system.

                            What comes out, nobody knows. But getting there could be ugly -- I'd like to see some suggestions on some way to avoid that scenario.

                          •  So would I (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            TracieLynn, RandomSequence

                            What comes out, nobody knows. But getting there could be ugly -- I'd like to see some suggestions on some way to avoid that scenario.

                            "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind."

                            by lordcopper on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 08:26:36 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  Then I guess Obama needs to find ........... (0+ / 0-)

                    .... a new public who appreciates his greatness.  

                    The public is telling this administration what they want.  Obama isn't listening.  

                    I'm not as kind as some here:  I think Obama is a good looking, well spoken committee chairman who's in way over is head.  I have no idea what his ideology is because I don't think he has one.  He's a dealmaker surrounded by other dealmakers.  

                    •  I think the public wants a magician. An old (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      condorcet, ThAnswr

                      coach once told me "you can't make chicken salad from chicken shit".  In life, if you want positive outcomes you have pay a hard price, or be very lucky.  Our luck isn't running so good right now. It's possible we've just hit a bad streak, but it's more likely we've put off the tough decisions and refused to pay the price for success.

                      "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind."

                      by lordcopper on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 08:43:59 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  The public wants what the public wants. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        damfino

                        It doesn't matter if we think it's right or wrong.  In the end, if the public isn't happy, they will look elsewhere when they vote.  

                        Rightly or wrongly, results are all that count.  

                  •  But (0+ / 0-)

                    they will follow a leader who lays out a clear plan and forcefully sells it.  That is what has been missing from Obama.  Voters like a politician who seems to fight for what he or she believes, even if the voter doesn't quite agree with that belief.

                    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. - 9th Amendment

                    by TracieLynn on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 09:06:13 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

  •  His approval ratings can only take so much more (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TracieLynn, gmb, cordobes, ThAnswr, damfino

    I dont think his numbers will improve again until unemployment gets below 8%, which probably wont happen until his second term(2013).

  •  I think we know your bent and tendency (13+ / 0-)

    by now.

    If Obama's numbers were in the high fifties, you'd be despairing right now.

    And knowing him, I think he can get back some decent numbers for his reelection. And you'll be fighting him here and elsewhere every step of the way, letting us know what a failure and sellout and lousy president he is.

    And numbers in the late forties ain't bad actually, especially in this toxic political atmosphere, where he's being slammed by you and your cohorts AND the loony right.  

    •  I think your opinion is based on fantasy (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TracieLynn, slatsg, gmb, neroden

      Bring numbers to the conversation that says 8 percent unemployment is something that a president in modern times can overcome,a nd then let's talk.

    •  The diarist posted numbers (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TracieLynn, gmb

      You've posted beliefs.

      Let's not be faith-based about this. We've seen how well that worked out for the other side.

      •  See my numbers below and stop talking nonsense. (5+ / 0-)

        You have a fantasy too: Obama being utterly defeated and disgraced. I'll work against that while you do otherwise.

        •  Ok, listen. You've drifted off into fantasy land (15+ / 0-)

          I can't speak for the diarist, but as a person who voted for Pres. Obama, I have only the highest hopes for his presidency.

          I am truly offended that I have to defend myself every time I express even the slightest criticism of him.  Isn't it remotely possible that I just want him to do the right thing?

          Look, the diarist posted poll numbers that back up what some of us have been saying.  If you don't want to listen that's your problem but stop with the traitoresque language because it's just BS.

          •  "Traitoresque?" (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            vcmvo2, marabout40, FiredUpInCA

            Jesus, you're over the line.

            Get it again, slick: Ronald Reagan was at THIRTY-FIVE FUCKING PER CENT and came back and won in a landslide.

            I'm assuming that Obama can come back too. ANYBODY CAN, people we like and people we don't like.

            And I'm not for throwing up my hands right now and giving up. What is the point of these comments? Am I supposed to throw in the towel?

            •  I'm not sure you disagree with the diarist then (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              slatsg, emsprater, RandomSequence

              Reagan recovered; Carter never did.

              Obama can come back like Reagan or stay stuck as an unpopular president like Carter. We don't know yet.

              The diarist suggest he won't come back unless the economy changes (more or less drastically). One can disagree with this but to me it seems a sensible projection.

              •  Obama can have his own history, and that's (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Lawrence, vcmvo2, FiredUpInCA

                unwritten yet. He doesn't have to be Carter OR Reagan,
                or Lincoln OR Roosevelt. He will have a unique history, and there are far too many twists and turns that can take yet.

                •  Sure, but he's just another President (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  neroden, emsprater, ThAnswr, damfino

                  who will either be re-elected or not. There isn't a lot of room to creativity here.

                  I admire your optimism, but you need better arguments than "anything is possible" to support it. Like it or not, the combination of poll numbers + economic projections is concerning and I'd rather see it addressed now than ignored.

                  •  How do you address it? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    FiredUpInCA

                    How do you suggest we generate more jobs?

                    And don't you think they're thinking about it all the time?

                    Of course they are. The economy will take some time to recover. This ain't no ordinary recession. This is the worst I've ever seen.

                    •  The question is -- how do YOU address it. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      damfino

                      And saying "they're thinking about it all the time" is just a cry of desperation. Bruh1 wouldn't have posted this if he knew what the answer was -- he would have posted that instead. But he posted a question, and the only worthwhile response isn't to attack the question, but investigate it.

                      •  Who's "investigating" it here? (0+ / 0-)

                        And again, from his history, he's not interested in anything but showing us that Obama has no credibility and is not a good leader. If this were his first diary or first comments I'd have taken him more seriously. But he's "coming from" a very negative place about Obama and anything he does. History is all.

                        Disguise it any way you wish.

                        And what, pray tell, can we do on this blog to generate jobs, and not just struggle with each other or denigrate each other's positions to "prove" "who's right"? Most of it is mutual circle jerk, and I think we all know that. The silliest or most grandiose notion here is that any of this will come to any good, especially since most of it is so mean spirited.

                        Ideally, in a perfect world and a perfect blog, we'd come from a position of being allies, and help one another achieve the most humane and rational society possible. But I think it's too late for this crowd here.

                        •  Then why are you bothering -- and then accusing (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          bruh1, damfino

                          others of being mean spirited? It's so incredibly self-contradictory, and has been for a while.

                          I smell desperation. No one hopes that even floating ideas will do any good anymore -- that even a few years ago, there was hope that some spark might lead to some other spark that would eventually get things working.

                          My sense, my intuition, is that's not true anymore. And I think that's really a great danger for the Dems, that the roots are coming out. The public will follow, cause that's what the uninterested and basically apathetic do. It smells like Bush '04 for the Republicans.

                  •  Thank you for this post. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    emsprater, ThAnswr, damfino

                    I used to love coming to this site because it really was based in factual analysis even if one disagreed with it. Now its just belief 24/7. Its frustrating when facts are seen as a threat.

            •  He's not over the line, you are. (4+ / 0-)

              He didn't call you a traitor. He was referring to your delusions that other people are traitors.

              You have a fantasy too: Obama being utterly defeated and disgraced.

              Am I cynical? Yes I am! - Bob the Builder's lesser known brother Pete the Politician

              by Ezekial 23 20 on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 07:20:40 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  What f****ing delusions that people are (0+ / 0-)

                traitors?

                Get something straight: No one is a traitor here.

                You, him, or anyone else.

                I just think at best we keep missing each other's true intentions, and at worst are engaged in a very unfruitful and sometimes venomous power struggle.

                It's all very frustrating, and unless you belong to some clique with which you feel comfortable and feel you're getting somewhere (which I doubt), most of the time this blog is pretty much a waste of time, and I keep wondering why I spend time here.  

                •  It's not even cliques. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  thethinveil, damfino

                  What would be a productive blog clique, outside of the folks who run the business? I'd say it's just disinfo -- just noise to keep folks from talking to each other.

                  It's what happens every time that people start talking outside of official channels. And, sadly enough, it's mostly done by folks on their own motivation -- it doesn't require any intervention by any authority figure, folks just volunteer to start shouting in the town square.

          •  I just checked your comments history (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            vcmvo2, Wildthumb

            and there are about 11 there and I don't see this:

            I am truly offended that I have to defend myself every time I express even the slightest criticism of him.

            Could you point to where you've had to defend yourself every time you've expressed criticism of the President?

            "The speech was from the Oval Office. And that speech was not fitting for such a setting..." --Sage slinkerwink

            by marabout40 on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 05:53:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I also checked your last diary... (0+ / 0-)

            BREAKING: GetEQUAL disrupts House hearing. Demands markup of ENDA

            and out of the 10 - 12 comments you made in your diary none was a criticism of President Obama, no one attacked you for your opinions and you didn't have to "defend" any of them.

            And, curiously, bruh1 was very active in your diary.

            "The speech was from the Oval Office. And that speech was not fitting for such a setting..." --Sage slinkerwink

            by marabout40 on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 06:02:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Curiously .... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              damfino

              are you making some sort of veiled accusation?

              Gone: other things to do.

              by emsprater on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 07:41:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Probably. One of the other strategies (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                emsprater, damfino

                is attacking the messenger.

                Its weird to predict the behavior and then see them follow through with it.

                My support of gay rights is because I am gay, but in the posters mind it has something to do with something other than gay rights. For example, on ENDA, the bill has been tabled yet again which was the concern at the time, and yet, in reading the cmment without a link one would not know that.

                •  One really has to wonder ... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Lynwaz, damfino

                  why the 'attack' the messenger mentality has 'caught on' in a supposedly progressive, reality based site.

                  There is actual tangible reason for LGBT Americans to be critical of the POTUS at this point in time, yet the folks who simply will not abide any criticism of him for any reason label that criticism as 'whining' or 'wanting a pony'.

                  Frankly, back to the issue of your diary and the slip in Obama's poll numbers, if he were to act more like a 'fierce advocate' as he said he would be, his poll numbers among Democrats would rise: his numbers among independents also most likely would rise, and his numbers among Republicans are never going to be moved by any action he takes anyway.

                  Some here just don't understand that.

                  Gone: other things to do.

                  by emsprater on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 08:48:18 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No, they understand (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    emsprater, damfino

                    they are here to derail. the issues being discussed are irrelevant to their tactical reasons for posting. Look when the guy who does the site moderation basically said discussing how people were coordinating off site to do these things that was a tell that these people are to be accepted no matter how nutty they acted. I don't take it personally because I realize the point is to derail not to debate.

                    •  Yeah, Occam, (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      emsprater

                      After Armando AND Houle I hadda figure that good faith policy discussion just isn't the result they're looking for here. There's good stuff in some of the specialist areas, but if the Apple Machine keeps giving you lemons, maybe it's just because it's a Lemon Machine.

                      Sometimes for fun I ponder what you'd have to do to attract a more passive-aggressive, know-nothing cohort. The "polls are just opinionz!!!" argument is particularly galling.

                      •  I don't know about Dana, but I agree (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        emsprater, damfino

                        about Armando. I think the site is focused on making money. That's my personal view for why they allow some of the obvious liars to just make shit up. Its one thing to argue over opinon, and quite another to out and out lie. The one that was one recommend list yesterday about Jane Hamsher comes to mind. I am not a fan of hers per se - some times I like her and sometimes I don't. BUt lying and it being recommended and the administration of the site just ignoring and out and  out lie - well that just says a lot about the discourse here.

            •  You HAVE NOTICED that the search is Borked (0+ / 0-)

              for time spans over two weeks? At least it was this morning.

    •  No, if he had high approval ratings he'd be (9+ / 0-)

      faulted for not spending enough of his political capital.

      "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

      by Geekesque on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 05:45:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  A couple of things (5+ / 0-)
    1. So what do you suggest he do? Or we do?
    1. I'm not dismissing the poll numbers, certainly the economy is a concern as is the oil spill. I said that his numbers really wont turn around until the oil well is capped, that's, rightfully, the only thing people care about. But you mention his numbers are at 49% in Gallup. In most of the recent non-tracking polling he is in the upper 40s, around 50%. So I dont know if the numbers are really that awful, even though he clearly has some difficult issues to deal with. The pollster average may be pulled down by Rasmussen's daily poll.  
    •  Answers to 1 are easy (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lynwaz

      Start actually trying to fix our problems -- which starts with recognizing that Republicans are not negotiating in good faith (so, generally, ignore them and attempt to convince Blue Dogs that Republicans are trouble); recognizing that the banksters are not ever going to do Obama a favor (so, crucify them every chance you get); recognizing that big oil is pretty much run by irresponsible liars (so crack down on them); recognizing that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are unwinnable (cut our losses and get OUT); recognize that liberal support is key to what got him to the Presidency (and back Pelosi when she's pushing for something liberals want); recognize that Bush moles and holdovers are dangerous and actually try to get rid of them;.....

      That's what he should do.  Apart from telling him what to do, backing progressive candidates, backing Pelosi, telling everyone we know that there is a good faction in the Democratic Party and they should back it regardless of what they think of Obama, and looking for a 2012 Presidential candidate for the likely case where Obama continues to shoot himself in the foot, I don't know what we should do.

      -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

      by neroden on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 07:43:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  When the basic political ... (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TracieLynn, bruh1, Lynwaz, gmb, neroden, milkbone

    philosophy is to reach out to your opposition (who is on record as planning to oppose you at every opportunity to 'break' you) at the expense of the goals of your base, you loose ground.  You are never going to get high marks on one side and you stand to loose support on the other side.

    It's a loosing gamble.

    Gone: other things to do.

    by emsprater on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 05:25:17 PM PDT

  •  I particularly agree with one point you make. (7+ / 0-)

    Simply dismissing critics as whiners ignores the fact that they're unhappy and may not vote for for Dem candidates or vote at all.

    •  The funny thing is that we are discussing polls (0+ / 0-)

      but in your mind you project personal emtions. That's how far down the rabbits hole some of you are. Its sad, but nothing much I can do about it other than the observe the behavior.

  •  To quote a former Canadian PM: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FiredUpInCA, David Kroning II

    "Polls are for dogs.". They're biased, random and more for fun than enlightenment.

    I get "suaviter in modo", Mr President. May we now have some "fortiter in re"?

    by tapu dali on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 05:27:33 PM PDT

  •  Well Crunch Time is November and the Approval (10+ / 0-)

    that matters is among likely voters, and Dems have some real troubles there.

    I see the Admin is finally going to begin acknowledging to voters that the Republicans are a bit problematic for this country. Midterms are for the base but it's really hard to get fired up to turn out when even optimistic scenarios have us losing strength in both chambers, with the prospect of Democrats consequently moving more moderate from now on.

    Woop de doo.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 05:27:37 PM PDT

  •  The President (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TracieLynn, bruh1, gmb, emsprater, FiredUpInCA

    fortunately or unfortunately depending on how things are going, gets the blame for the state the country is in.

    The greatest trick the devil every pulled was convincing half of America the GOP gives a damn about them

    by blingbling65 on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 05:28:38 PM PDT

  •  With approval rating hovering (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FiredUpInCA, David Kroning II

    in the 50% range consistantly I'm not overly concerned. And it would be delusional to believe the job numbers shouldn't be a concern. The Gulf spill is what it is. American's do not like feeling that there is no solution even if is a fact.

    In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof.

    by jsfox on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 05:28:39 PM PDT

    •  Bush's polls at this point where in the 50s. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slatsg, gmb

      I'd be concerned. It's not "the sky is falling" stuff -- but it is "being concerned" stuff.

      •  And Bush Senior was at 70+ (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FiredUpInCA

        I'm not sure what your point is. The question is: Will there be a credible Republican opponent in 2012, because if not, Obama will win. A republican candidate who makes it through the primaries is going to have a HARD time getting through the general election by virtue of having to appeal to the far-right in the primaries. Moderate Republicans like Crist etc., forget it.

        •  I agree -- I think the trouble is more for the (5+ / 0-)

          Dem party in the midterm. I think Obama will win by default in 2012 because the Repubs will push forward some Palin-tainted fool, and that in 2010 and 2012 the Dems will manage to not lose to many Congressional seats for the same reason.

          But "The Repubs are coming! The Repubs are coming!" will only last so long, just as the "The Dems support Jihadis" only worked for 5 years before the Repubs started collapsing in on themselves.

          Will that be enough time for someone more competent to reorganize the Palinite/Teabaggers into a real political force when both parties are in disgrace? I hope not -- but I don't see any push on the Left to do anything that will preempt that. And sooner or later, someone who isn't a complete imbecile will figure out how to harness the teabaggers as a "reasonable" option.

  •  Wow Liberals adopting RW talking points (3+ / 0-)

    Who'd have seen that coming....Just sigh.

    •  3, 2, 1 ..... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slatsg, gmb, neroden, thethinveil

      right on time.

      Gone: other things to do.

      by emsprater on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 05:33:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't respond to branding. You use the word (12+ / 0-)

      Right wing, and people are suppose to believe that you are actually discussing a right wing talking point rather than branding design to manipulate the reader into shutting down basic thinking of what was said.

      I challenge any reasonable person, in other words someone other than you and the roaming band of extremists, to point out a right wing talking point in a) discussing the need for greater government action on the jobs situation or b) greater government action on BP.

      And, yes, I expect you to rebut with some claim that I am a left extremist now that I have called you on the gamesmanship with word branding the diary. In other words, I expect you to double down on the tactical approaches of which you have used for a year and half now.

      Here's the problem for you and the others. I am not your problem. The economy is what it is. The president will either create policy to address it or not. What won't help you is attacking me for pointing out that the problem exists. All your attacking my post as right wing does is to illustrate your own emotional issues.

      Feel free to talkk to yourself now. This will be my last response to you as a poster.

      •  Fascinating discussion. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        thethinveil

        The one's calling themselves realists can't see reality.  

        Fascinating.  

        •  This site stopped being reality based along time (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ThAnswr, thethinveil

          ago.

          The fact that this info is not regularly being discussed about the president should tell you a great deal. They will discuss the Democrats. They will discuss the electoral chances of the party. They will leave out wholesale issues about the president. They are walking a delicate line of access to the party and also not pissing off a sizeable chunk of people who still visit the sites. S I have said, the behavior here makes more sense regarding tolerating some of the nutty people who still post here if you look at the site's decline is traffic.

  •  His approval rating is fine (7+ / 0-)

    I think the substance of your critique is one thing, and that deserves discussion. While I don't agree wholly with your critique, I do think he should be pushing additional stimulus far more forcefully.

    However, on the subject of approval ratings, his numbers are basically in line with recent historical averages. Except for the two George Bush's, whose numbers were artificially boosted by external events,  three of the last five presidents - Clinton, Reagan and Carter - all had approval ratings at this point virtually identical to Obama's. Their differing fortunes tell you that presidential approval ratings at the mid-term mark have nearly no predictive effect on presidential election results two years later.

    The Gallup "historical average" is higher, but it's artificially boosted by the sustained high approval ratings from Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, and Nixon, when partisanship was lower and approval ratings for all presidents was substantially higher.

    •  Reagan and Clinton both saw their (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slatsg, gmb, Jorel

      numbers go up with the economy. Where is that likely with President Obama?

    •  I think logic is beside the point here. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FiredUpInCA

      The diarist's desire is to discourage us, and to strike another blow against the "sycophants" and "Obamabots"
      on this blog. There is is no positive suggestion in this diary. It's just "Obama's losing, and he's not likely to stage a comeback with a lousy economy."
      It's "see, I told you so. I told you to go south on him and work to get rid of him." There are those here who criticize Obama and still want to reelect him. This diarist, NO.

      I can't do anything with that. They keep talking about an "enthusiasm" gap, and discouraging diaries like this keep deflating any "enthusiasm" for supporting Dems or
      Obama here.

      •  You really can't tell the difference (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        emsprater, ThAnswr

        between symptoms and causes can you? I hope you're not an MD. For the record, an aspirin may make that headache go away, but it won't cure the tumor causing the headache.

      •  I recall reading somewhere that the media (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wildthumb

        will manipulate the polls to make them seem lower than they actually are in order to increase ratings. If OBama's poll numbers are too high, that would discourage Republicans, and the media won't have a "story."  Therefore, it's in their best interest to keep the President's numbers at a level "within striking distance" to generate interest in the elections.

        •  dream on... (0+ / 0-)

          maybe they just pull #s out of a paper bag.
          But my guess is - the polls are reasonably accurate, and the general public is not enamored of Obama.

          •  Polls are just snapshots in time. (0+ / 0-)

            The "public" could be "enamored of" Obama in a couple of months time from now.

            And again, 48% is not bad historically for this president in a toxic atmosphere. It seems 48%, almost HALF, are enamored of him.

            Floridians weren't "enamored" of Charlie Crist a while back. Marco Rubio was the big teabagger favorite and was slaughtering Crist the moderate.

            Now Crist is leading. I guess the public isn't enamored anymore with Rubio.

            This "enamoring" thing sure is fluid, ain't it?

    •  How Ron and Bill did in first off-year (0+ / 0-)

      in 1982 Dems won 27 seats in the House and none in the Senate.

      in 1994 R's picked up 54 seats in the House and 8 in the Senate

      if 2010 is like 1982 it won't be so bad.

      An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

      by mightymouse on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 06:17:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Different electoral dynamics (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        slatsg, mightymouse, ThAnswr

        a) in 1982, the economy as I remember was in recession was it not?

        b) In 1994, that was the natural shifting of the demographics that were already building in electoral politics for a generation.

        What dynamic explains a huge change this year, and better yet, what dynamic will produce a win for the president if people still feel like we are in a jobs recession in 2012?

        •  2012 very far off (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          slatsg

          I don't see a huge change this year ... Modest R pickups.

          but even that is depressing, since the D accomplishments limited even with the current majority.

          An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

          by mightymouse on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 06:56:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I only discussed Obama (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mightymouse, Jorel

            because that's all that a sizeable bulk of posters here carea bout at this site.

            I think Obama is mostly going to have the Clinton effect on the party. Depressing outcomes for Democrats. The only difference is that because now is not the 1990s that while the booming economy insulated clinton, the crashing one is going to harm Obama. Thus, my reason for discusisng it is to address the issues of the economy in a way to see how obam people would respond to his chances diminishing. As expected even this approach- of hard core looking at his polling data and considering job weakness on the horrizon, Iw as met with comments like "moron"

      •  Bill Clinton won in 1996 because the economy (0+ / 0-)

        economy was growing rapidly and unemployment was very low(5.4%), with the economy creating jobs like gangbusters.  Unemployment wont be anywhere near that low in 2012.

  •  things are lousy economically (5+ / 0-)

    and not that much excitement from the WH.

    An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

    by mightymouse on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 05:29:32 PM PDT

  •  His numbers go up (11+ / 0-)

    When he fights back against Republicans. The American people still hate the Republicans and want a fighter in the White House.

    As long as he is trying to make deals with them, he just looks weak.

    "One man alone can be pretty dumb sometimes, but for real bona fide stupidity nothing beats teamwork." - Mark Twain

    by greendem on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 05:31:28 PM PDT

    •  Amen. n/t (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greendem, gmb

      Gone: other things to do.

      by emsprater on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 05:33:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, they go up when he announces (6+ / 0-)

      policies that suggest he's moving to the left.

      •  Again, what do you suggest he do? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FiredUpInCA

        He has a screwed up Senate with members who aren't willing to give up their prerogative to conduct a painless filibuster. Regarding jobs, what about this front page article - it's not like the President and Congress aren't trying to do something. Are there some dictatorial powers he has that I'm not aware of?

        "The only thing we have to fear - is fear itself." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

        by orrg1 on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 05:47:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The problem with your argument is that (6+ / 0-)

          while its nice to say that. The truth is far more complicated.

          The problem is that he's actually a neo-liberal in terms of policies, and quite often use the Congressional dynamic as an excuse to avoid getting into any real battles until he's backed against the wall. If you have followed the WHite House moves on the Wall Street bill (even where items had support) or for example the drug re-importation effort, the curtain falls back to see a pattern.

          A great discussion of this was written up in a writer at the Advocate on another topic, gay rights, and the lessons, learned about the president

          "“I find it outrageous to suggest that if, in fact, we insisted that BP demonstrate their preparedness, to put aside billions of dollars—in this case, $20 billion—to take care of the immediate needs of people who are drowning—these guys don’t have deep pockets,” Biden jousted. “The guy who runs the local marina, the guy who has one shrimping boat, the guy who has one small business—he can’t afford to lose $10,000, $12,000, $15,000, $30,000 a month.”

          "Press secretary Robert Gibbs later added his own take on Barton and his cohorts: “It’s hard to know what planet these people live on.”

          The White House was on a roll, trying to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat following another out-of-this-world experience: President Barack Obama’s first Oval Office address.

          The White House clearly wanted the nation to know the administration understood the gravity of the situation in the Gulf, but the president’s dismal performance prompted an immediate and punishing outcry from pundits far and wide.

          “I thought it was a great speech if you had been on another planet for the last 57 days,” said MSNBC’s Chris Matthews.

          Even before the pile-on started, as I watched President Obama and waited and waited for him to offer up something that warranted an Oval Office address—leadership that matched the moment—a pit grew in my stomach. I’m not talking about style here, I’m talking about substance."

          http://www.advocate.com/...

          •  I agree and this is ... (8+ / 0-)

            the one thing that most concerns me about the 'legacy' of this Presidency:

            and quite often use the Congressional dynamic as an excuse to avoid getting into any real battles until he's backed against the wall.

            Great Presidents are able to shape Congress and get at least some of their agenda accomplished.  We got health insurance reform, not health care reform, largely because Obama was 'hands off' the process until it was a watered down tepid muck of nothing.  Had he lead form the onset, we could have had a much better outcome, IMHO.

            Gone: other things to do.

            by emsprater on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 06:10:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Use unspent stimulus funds (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          greendem, gmb

          for the jobs bill.  

        •  He has to figure out how to become FDR. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          greendem, bruh1, gmb

          It may not be fair, but that's reality -- he has FDR scale problems (including a party that is just a coalition of opposing forces, a SCOTUS that wants to destroy him, and "acts of God" arrayed against him) and he has figure out how to become a transformative president, and not just a caretaker president.

          It's not the mid-90s. He has to figure out how to make Congress act if he doesn't want to see a collapse in his support if another failure happens on his watch (regardless of whether it's his "fault" or not).

          He's gotta learn how to be a genius, and he doesn't have a long time to do it.

    •  The White House has set aside money from BP (0+ / 0-)

      for the Gulf and has attacked the GOP and Barton for opposing that and representing Big Oil.

      How is that not opposing Republicans?

      Or is that still "weak"?

      •  When did they do it? (7+ / 0-)

        after how much public pressure did they finally act?

        Better question, is their action sufficient?

        Even better question, when the president was asked about why he acted as he did, the answer amounted to trusting the word of BP. Why would anyone do that given the circumstances?

        There are done of questions that a skeptic asks that many here simply ignore. That in itself is why he finds himself in this danger. Too many people telling him to follow the path he's followed. As I said, the danger to him is over the long term. These are warning signs that can be overcome that I mention above. But he's not going to do it with your kind of thinking.

        •  I'll flatly wager that my help and any (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FiredUpInCA

          "enthusiasm" and fight I can muster for him will help him more than your arguments and discouragement and barbs against him, the latter numerous throughout your comment history. I'd feel better about guys like you if you'd just say you reject him as a leader and want somebody else. All of your comments over time point to that. Where else do they point?

          Again, there are critics on this blog I'll listen to because they have some fresh thinking and still see in some ways that they can be an ally to Obama to help him out or change him in some way. I don't see that in you.

          I just see you giving up on him. I don't and won't.

          And of course you saw him putting aside that 10 bil as a big nothing and something to be ignored. Figures.

      •  I want the "Off Oil by 2030" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        thethinveil

        speech.

        We are hungry for that speech. And how to join the fight.

        I want to hear about the science contests in public schools and the jobs building green energy for my kids.

        I want, um, hope.

        (If Congress can't deliver, who cares, give us a vision of a better future.)

        "One man alone can be pretty dumb sometimes, but for real bona fide stupidity nothing beats teamwork." - Mark Twain

        by greendem on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 07:52:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  We're a closely divided country, Obama's enemies (4+ / 0-)

    hate him, and he presides over an undisciplined coalition (each member with it own goals).  Furthermore, no President could poll well in this environment.

    "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind."

    by lordcopper on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 05:36:16 PM PDT

    •  I think his numbers (5+ / 0-)

      if anything .. have been at the same level for the last year.

      He goes up and down a point or two -- shrugs.

      Cheney is - was and still is one of the most unpopular politicians ever. To the point where only his daughter can speak for him.

      Then of course .. there's W's 2nd term numbers.

      Pollwise -- he's hanging in there ...

    •  unlike any other point in history (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gmb, damfino, FiredUpInCA

      when this wasn't so?

      People panic too much on this site.

      by thematt523 on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 05:44:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, one could make an argument that (0+ / 0-)

        this is the worst time in American history.  I know, some will say "What about the Great Depression, or WW II".  Well at least the issues were within the grasp of the average Amercan during those crises and the country was unified.  There was also a healthy respect for govt and trust that the leaders of the country would do the right thing.  Today, the country's descended into two mobs (each mob comprising 30%, more or less)with countervailing beliefs, and an oblivious plurality in the middle who couldn't give a damn.

        "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind."

        by lordcopper on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 05:53:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  that's not really true (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gmb, damfino

          The country before Pearl Harbor was very, very divided between Democrats and Republicans. There was vicious division. And no, faith in the government was not a complete given. People knew less about the happenings of the government. It took WW2 and a great economy to restore faith in the government and keep down division.

          People panic too much on this site.

          by thematt523 on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 06:16:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Of course there were party differences prior to (0+ / 0-)

            WWII, but the rancor was no where near the level of today (the country had clearly chosen a majority party, but the GOP didn't obfuscate). And while faith in govt wasnt absolute, there was a certain respect for authority.

            "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind."

            by lordcopper on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 06:22:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's ahistorical. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bruh1

              Particularly on the left -- there were strong far left movements, massive divides over immigration (we actually shut-down immigration altogether in the late 20s), even rumblings of coups from the right.

              That's what we learn today -- that's how the past is always taught us. The rancor is buried -- but at every period of crisis there is massive division. There were draft riots during the civil war, for example; there was a large amount of resistance to the Mexican-American war as purely an attempt to expand the slave-holding regions; there were the Alien & Sedition acts; there were uprisings against the Federal government in the 1790s; the Constitution just barely got through with a majority of the population disenfranchised; even the American Revolution saw a divided population, brother against brother, father against son (I believe Ben Franklin never spoke to his son, who moved to Britain for the rest of his life).

        •  i am pretty sure you could not make any (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bruh1

          reasonable argument that this is the worst time in US history.

          civil war: obviously worse.

  •  Messaging (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lynwaz, emsprater

    A large share of Obama's problems stem from the lack of effective messaging and an inability to frame the agenda on his terms.

    •  Yes -- it's only a PR problem. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gmb, WisePiper, aigeanta, ThAnswr

      It's all just a marketing world.

      Why don't we replace elections with some kind of American Idol call in show?

      •  I didn't say it was the only problem, but it's a (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TracieLynn, Lynwaz, emsprater, condorcet

        a major problem. Obama has failed to effectively get out his message on a whole sort of issues.

        •  I disagree because the jobs (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gmb, RandomSequence, damfino, Jorel

          number will remain bad throughout his presidency. That's not a messaging issue. its one of numbers.

          •  Messaging is a major problem (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TracieLynn, condorcet

            That's why the healthcare bill ended up short of what people here wanted. That's why, up until Joe Barton opened his mouth, Obama was losing the PR war in the BP oil spill aftermath.

            •  If you believe that his message is somehow (5+ / 0-)

              different from the message that we're receiving. That may just be your projection.

              It may be that his message is right on target -- until he sees it's failing, when he suddenly has to switch. The BP response hasn't been muscular in the least -- at least not until the negative response got so strong that he was forced to produce a new message, which created a reaction creating the Barton opportunity.

              But I suspect that the "non-muscular" response, the "BP has the expertise to handle this" was the preferred message.

              •  Ideologically, I think you are right (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                RandomSequence

                Many of those posting here certainly seem like conservatives masquerading as something else. I love how one of them even cites a conservative to prove their point while calling me a far right winger for worrying about the high unemployment rate and asking the president to do more with pushing congress to pass a jobs bill and industrial policy because its in his electoral interest to do more.

          •  But if the message was strong enough, defining (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bruh1

            the jobs problem, & what it takes to resolve it - not only would the public appreciate the candid approach (instead of the bullshit) the congress - pushed by THEIR constituents - would break down & go along with a stronger stimulus - & then (perhaps) some of the hope would filter back into the jobs/economy dynamic.

            We can't know if this will work until someone, somewhere in the Obama admin, learns to speak out with clarity and fervor, about the economy.
            I haven't heard that yet - it takes more than one speech to get a message across. The whole darn admin should be on the same page w/this stuff. & they're not.

  •  Pres. Obama 52.92% 365 Sen. McCain 45.66% 173 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mark Warner is God, Jampacked

    Which of two of those numbers are decided who won and by how much?

  •  :-) (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FiredUpInCA

    It's good that you and rightwingnews.com are equally concerned!

    Obama Does Not Care about His Poll Numbers

     (Read WP posts from SusanAnne Hiller) | (Read MT posts from SusanAnne Hiller) | rss

    Barack Obama's poll numbers continue to plummet.  Rasmussen has our president at 42% approval--a record low.  I'd like to point out that he is only 17 months into his term.  If Barack Obama cared about his poll numbers he would have changed course a long, long time ago.  The truth is, he does not care.  At all.  Most dictator/tyrannical heads of government do not care.  Does anyone think Hugo Chavez cares, Fidel Castro, or how about North Korea's Kim Jong Il?  They don't and never will. And before anyone goes nuts, I'm not saying he's another Kim Jong Il, I'm saying he doesn't care. He has his agenda and that's the way it is.

    As I wrote earlier, Obama's policies are starting to [re]shape America--as they were intended--and if this is the start, I don't want to know the final outcome.

    Also, please take to heart that the Democrats are going to abandon this sinking ship as we are seeing in the primaries.  They are distancing themselves from Obama and his socialistic policies and masquerading as conservatives and beginning to blame Bush again.  It's really starting to get predictable.  But, nevertheless, be aware of the wolf in sheep's clothing when it comes to the Democrats.  Because there are no conservative Democrats.  If if there are, we call them Republicans.

    "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

    by Christin on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 06:00:00 PM PDT

  •  There's a new NYT poll. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TracieLynn, gmb, emsprater, thethinveil

    http://www.nytimes.com/...

    The American public did not like Obama's speech. I guess that they will now be declared the public enemies of the Obama faithful.

    •  who cares? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lookit, FiredUpInCA

      the speech is over.
      and is almost forgotten.
      and soon will be.

      honestly.
      find something else to bitch about.

      "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

      by Christin on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 06:09:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  wow, thanks for that link (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      thethinveil, damfino

      very interesting poll.

      1. Who do you trust more to handle the clean up of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico - BP or the federal government?

      BP 27
      Federal govt 56
      Both equal 5
      Neither 9
      DK/NA 4

      I didn't see a question about whether they liked the speech, though.

      the people are not happy campers here.

      An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

      by mightymouse on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 06:28:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is from the article: (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mightymouse, emsprater, damfino

        Yet they also think the Obama administration could be doing more to fix the damage from the leak. Fifty-nine percent said Mr. Obama did not have a clear plan for dealing with the spill.

        The speech didn't work for its intended purpose.

        •  I will tell you what bothers me (5+ / 0-)

          That  some unrecommended diary by me is the only place on this site truly discussing the polling data.

          I am a no body at this site. I am fine with that. But when the rest o the site is just ignoring this shit, there's a problem here. This site is solely becoming driven by faith and partisanship at this point.

          •  sort of (0+ / 0-)

            if this info was picked up by slinkerwink or another successful diarist it would make it. also if a good writer (you could do it) made the NYT poll into a diary it would have a chance.

            it is a VERY interesting poll and I hope people look it at. It would make for interesting conversation.

            An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

            by mightymouse on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 06:54:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Nah, it would be trashed (0+ / 0-)

              no matter who did. This is a repeated pattern here.

              •  it's not as bad as you think (0+ / 0-)

                it's annoying but not totally one-sided here.

                An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

                by mightymouse on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 07:02:05 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I would be inclined to agree (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mightymouse, thethinveil

                  a) if people were reading the entire diary rather than selectively answering parts that they think make the title wrong or b) avoiding questions like how are the ratings going to improve i the jobs market remains so bad? When you continually get essentially responses that amount to "I have faith" or "Well I am too busy to explain it now that you have cornered me with the question I have been trying to avoid"then it becomes apparent that only a few are interested in the actual issues being discussed.

                  •  it is a drag (0+ / 0-)

                    by "here" I meant dailykos as a whole, not just this diary.

                    An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

                    by mightymouse on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 07:10:40 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Yup -- you're getting (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    bruh1, emsprater, thethinveil

                    a) You're a right-wing troll.
                    b) Some off-topic joke, like a neurotic twitch.
                    c) It'll get better in some unspecified way, because it's imaginable.
                    d) You're just wrong and I know it.
                    e) You're sowing dissension and not putting up putty-tat pictures to make me feel all warm inside.

                    With a smattering of substantive commentary, but it's quite far and in between.

                    That's actually quite worrisome -- that the folks who most strongly support Obama in particular can't come up with a decent argument for how his poll numbers will hold up. I expect that the incumbent advantage should be enough to hold him through 2012, but that 2014 will be a bloodbath for the Dems. What's even more worrisome is that since the Repubs have been through a bloodbath, I don't have a clue what will be the replacement -- if the Rs are felt to have failed, and the Ds are felt to have failed, where do people go? The only folks I see organizing an alternate are on the edge of fascism.

                    •  Another bloodbath in 2014? (0+ / 0-)

                      If this election is as bad as everyone is saying, there wont be any more Democrats for Republicans to pick off by 2014.

                      •  How bad could it be? How many options (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        mightymouse, ThAnswr, thethinveil

                        are there now? The Repubs are still hated, the teabaggers are new to the vast majority of the population, and the disenchantment in the Dems and Obama is still primarily among "chatterers".

                        But give it a few years to bubble down, give the teabaggers some time to really get their hooks in the apolitical, give that unhappy feeling time to get down to folks who rarely talk about politics -- it's going to be really, really ugly.

                        Imagine 2006+1994 in the same year.

                        •  I don't see that happening (0+ / 0-)

                          the demographics are not there for picking up that many seats

                          •  I'm not sure the demographics will count (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            ThAnswr, thethinveil

                            if there is a systematic disenchantment. New alliances will appear if both parties are discredited.

                            I'd prefer if the Dems (or someone on the left) can take advantage of demographics shift, rather than letting the right figure some new combination. But they had better start thinking about it now, rather than assuming that hispanics will "naturally" join the left. We're just as capable of joining the right if someone smarter than that Palinites manages to come up on the right.

                          •  That's just the point (0+ / 0-)

                            The right can not come up with a configuration that would not move to them to the left. Its just in the nature of the demographics and what is i mportant to them.

                            What we really have here, in my opinion, is a zombie ideology , neo-liberalism, holding on for dear life through status quo figures and processes, but its days are numbered.

                          •  Why would it be a "move to the left"? (0+ / 0-)

                            Demographics isn't ethnicity -- it's easy enough to distract from the immigration issue (a foolish one for the right, given the demographics), and find some other scapegoat as the Bushies did for 8 years.

                          •  Part of demographics that's a factor (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            ThAnswr

                            is ethnicity shifts in the country that do not favor the GOP. Bush was an aberration. 2008 was actually the norm of the next few decades IF the status quo weren't fighting so hard in the form of the other right wing party, the Democrats, to maintain power. see books like emerging democratic majorities. Also check out sites like 538 and open left that get into the deeper demographic numbers. One example, the mistake the president is making with LGBT is huge because LGBT (self identified ones) are an emerging democratic voting block that will go from 5 percent of the population now to 7 percent in a decade and half. That means LGBT will be up there with African Americans and Jews in terms of ability to sway especially in some geographic locations like DC and NYC where the impact is already being felt. This is early on in the process. I am not even getting into demographic shifts regarding race. There's  a reason why they say white people need to have more children. Its because the demographics are against reagan democrats remaining in power. They are again only lasting this long due to the intertia of the democratic party's last power structure, which grew out of the take over of the party of the DLC/neo liberals as an accomodation tot he rise of the emerging conservative majority that became reaganism.

                          •  That analysis is true, as long as Hispanics (0+ / 0-)

                            are the scapegoats -- as long as they can't be pulled to the right. But hispanics are religious and attracted to pentecostal religion. That's an emerging demographic that could be either left or right, depending on how the left and right handle it.

                            We have plenty of racism and homophobia within the Hispanic community, if someone were to harness it. The Palinites are fortunately too stupid to do so -- but it's not an impossible nightmare. And someone on the right, sooner or later, will come up who isn't a complete idiot trying to save a dying block, but will instead try to create a new block.

                            The populism could go either way.

                          •  You also have another generation coming of ...... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            bruh1, RandomSequence

                            ..... age that are significantly leftist.  The generation that's really getting screwed by "the free market" is looking for other solutions.  

                            I honestly think the "Obama Democrats" are the last gasp of the old order.  

                            The new generation wants change and not the status quo.  

                          •  That's what folks thought back in the 60s --- (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            thethinveil

                            but when the Dems sold out the youth with the right, they became the "Reagan Democrats".

                            Same thing happened back in the 30s as well -- the left got sold out by the unions and enough of the Dems to crush them for a generation. Someone's got to break the cycle.

                          •  this isn't the 60s (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            RandomSequence

                            this is not about idealistic belief but what the numbers are suggesting.

                          •  But it was about numbers in the past too -- (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            thethinveil

                            the massive increase in Italian, Jewish, etc, immigrants dominating the voting age blocs in much of the country.

                            But they were co-opted and turned into honorary white people, if you recall.

                          •  Different economic times than the 60's. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            bruh1, thethinveil

                            That's the key.  

                      •  this election may be modest R pickups (0+ / 0-)

                        the R's don't appear as well-organized as in 1994.

                        An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

                        by mightymouse on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 07:55:05 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  Well, tactically its a smart move (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      RandomSequence

                      because the site administration has been allowing them to get away with the derailing moves for over a year now. It just that now they don't even try not so sound nonsensical. Part o the reason I suspect derives from the fact that Obama supporters represent a large portion of the site's traffic these days since the site's traffic has been gradually decreasing when you look the numbers up.

            •  I may write something about it (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mightymouse

              from the energy angle. I've been doing diaries about the psychotic American energy culture.

  •  Uhhhhh.. Because Everything is Soooo (6+ / 0-)

    shitty right now?

    Massive bailout for the banksters.. pennies for Main St?

    Endless unnecessary war?

    etc...

    "Hate Arizona's new law? Ask Washington to do it's job". Ross Douthat

    by Superpole on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 06:03:44 PM PDT

  •  Presidents rarely get more popular in their (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    condorcet, mirandasright

    second year.

    We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn't want to meet. -Stephen Hawking

    by satanicpanic on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 06:07:36 PM PDT

  •  Actually considering the situation they are (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    condorcet, FiredUpInCA

    pretty good.

    We have 10% unemployment, a bp oil disaster, and 2 wars yet Obama's Gallup approval rating today is 49% which is HIGHER then Reagan's at this point of his presidency.

    Surprisingly Obama is holding up.

    Jim Manley: "Republicans are making love to Wall Street, while the people on Main Street are getting screwed."

    by Drdemocrat on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 06:08:54 PM PDT

  •  49% Gallup is low? I think (4+ / 0-)

    people are living in the bubble that fits how they feel.

  •  OBAMA IS DOOOOOOOMED. (6+ / 0-)

    "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

    by Christin on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 06:10:04 PM PDT

    •  IT'S OVER!!!! (0+ / 0-)

      look what happened to G!
      dammit it all.  
      god help us.

      May
      May 24, 2004, CBS News: 41% approval rating; "more than six in ten say the country is heading in the wrong direction."

      May 20, 2004, Zogby International: 42% job approval rating; "also the lowest of his presidency. Not since Harry S Truman in 1948 has a president won a second term with an approval rating below 50 percent."

      February
      February 18, 2004, USA Today: "Just 42% said the president has a clear plan for solving the country's problems
      ."

      "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

      by Christin on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 06:11:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Gallup 49% approval with 10% (10+ / 0-)

    unemployment, a BP oil gulf disaster, and Afghanistan war sucking big time is actually PRETTY DAMN GOOD.

    It is better than Reagan's was at this point of his presidency.

    Jim Manley: "Republicans are making love to Wall Street, while the people on Main Street are getting screwed."

    by Drdemocrat on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 06:10:27 PM PDT

    •  does not matter. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kalmoth, edwardssl

      and this only 3 years after 9/11.

      G.W. Bush
      May 24, 2004, CBS News: 41% approval rating; "more than six in ten say the country is heading in the wrong direction."

      May 20, 2004, Zogby International: 42% job approval rating; "also the lowest of his presidency. Not since Harry S Truman in 1948 has a president won a second term with an approval rating below 50 percent."

      February
      February 18, 2004, USA Today: "Just 42% said the president has a clear plan for solving the country's problems."

      "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

      by Christin on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 06:12:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  They have a narative and they are sticking to it. (5+ / 0-)
      •  Voice of Reason and Sanity. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        vcmvo2, Drdemocrat, Jampacked, JordanRules

        Thank God for Andrew Sullivan

        What are the odds that Obama's huge success yesterday in getting BP to pledge a cool $20 billion to recompense the "small people" in the Gulf will get the same attention as his allegedly dismal speech on Tuesday night? If you take Memeorandum as an indicator, it really is no contest. The speech is still being dissected by language experts, but the $20 billion that is the front page news in the NYT today? Barely anywhere on the blogs.

        This is just a glimpse into the distortion inherent in our current political and media culture. It's way easier to comment on a speech - his hands were moving too much! - than to note the truly substantive victory, apparently personally nailed down by Obama, in the White House yesterday. If leftwing populism in America were anything like as potent as right-wing populism - Matt Bai has a superb analysis of this in the NYT today - there would be cheering in the streets. But there's nada, but more leftist utopianism and outrage on MSNBC. And since there's no end to this spill without relief wells, this is about as much as Obama can do, short of monitoring clean-up efforts, or rather ongoing management of the ecological nightmare of an unstopped and unstoppable wound in the ocean floor.

        I sure understand why people feel powerless and angry about the vast forces that control our lives and over which we seem to have only fitful control - big government and big business. But it seems to me vital to keep our heads and remain focused on what substantively can be done to address real problems, and judge Obama on those terms. When you do, you realize that the left's "disgruntleist" faction needs to take a chill pill.

        Take Iran. Everyone - part from still-delusional neocons - accepts that this is a hugely difficult issue. To read the neocon right, you'd think all our problems would be solved by the president declaring the regime "evil" and launching military strikes all over the country. Sound familiar? In the real world, most of us understand that the military option is madness, that the machinery of repression is strong enough for the  coup regime to survive - but only just. Since Obama was elected, the legitimacy of the Tehran regime has been shredded - and I'd argue that removing America from the equation helped Iran's opposition, rather than stymying it. Most of us knew, moreover, that Russia and China would oppose any and all sanctions.

        But in fact, after a painstaking process in which Khamenei and Ahmadinejad have been successfully cornered in world opinion as the transgressors, sanctions, with Russia's and China's support, have passed the UN Security Council. More focused sanctions are in force against the financial interests of the Revolutionary Guards, and will soon come from the US Congress and European capitals. The price of Ahmadi's paranoia will be high, which may explain his recent fulminations. Will this pragmatic step resolve the situation immediately? Of course not. Does it make a lot of pragmatic sense? Yes it does. Is it the best we can truly do? I suspect so. In other words: Obama and Clinton got difficult shit done. I think part of the message of "Goodbye To All That" as a core rationale for the Obama presidency is acknowledging when a president does difficult, messy but necessary things.

        My own provisional judgment is the same on the economy, where Obama's actions helped prevent what could have been a Second Great Depression. Historians will fight over this, but it seems pretty clear to me right now that Obama picked most of the least worst options and is prepared, unlike the GOP, to speak honestly about the deficit in the next two years. In the bank bailouts (much more successful than we first thought), the stimulus (still working), the health insurance reform (a real start on a deep and vexing problem across the developed world), and even the swarm of issues around Gitmo (torture has ended, while necessary, lawful military detentions and renditions continue), you see the same pattern of emotionally unsatisfying but structurally deep changes in the orientation of the ship of state. This is very gradual change we can believe in.

        In other words, while I haven't scanted on occasional criticism, I remain an enthusiast for this presidency's competence and long-term direction. Even on gay rights, where I have whined the loudest, we have achieved an end to the HIV travel ban, and the legislative end of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, with a buy-in from the top brass. Broader progress is coming, as it should, not by presidential diktat but by the decisions and actions of those in the trenches, most notably the current work of Ted Olson and David Boies in grasping the core matter at hand: unconstitutional, arbitrary, animus-based, government-imposed discrimination against a minority. In less than two years, on another obvious policy of irrationality - the war on marijuana - the Obama years have also seen a deeper sea change than any of us expected.

        I don't see all this as ideologically liberal or leftist - which is where I agree with some of Obama's sternest critics. But I never saw Obama as such and never supported him as such. He may, however, end up a liberal hero. To see why check out Michael Tomasky's sharp essay in Democracy Journal.

        The changes we want to see won’t happen in 18 months, or in two years, or four, or probably even eight. Indeed, the entire Obama era, if it lasts eight years, is best thought of not as a culmination, or a self-contained time frame that should be judged a failure if X, Y, and Z don’t happen. It’s the start of a process that may take 16 years, or 24; that may be along the way interrupted or undone; that will be fought tooth and nail, as we’ve plainly seen these recent months, by others whose idea of America is incomprehensible to us but who are citizens too, with the same rights we have. They (and by the way: no despair on their side! There is rage, to be sure, but judging from the Tea Party events I’ve been to and watched, it is a joyful rage) and the corporate interests and the elected representatives on their side have a lot of power. Liberal despair only reinforces their power and helps to ensure that whatever gains are made during the Obama term could quickly be rolled back. And if that happens, we are back, ten years from now, to fighting the usual rearguard battles.

        And that's why Obama's incrementalism, his refusal to pose as a presidential magician, and his resistance to taking the bait of the fetid right (he's president - not a cable news host) seems to me to show not weakness, but a lethal and patient strength. And a resilient ambition.

        Know hope.

        (

        "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

        by Christin on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 06:18:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Way better. (5+ / 0-)

      Reagan went down to 35%.

      Wake me if Barack's go down into the low forties.

  •  And at the same point in time (5+ / 0-)

    in Bush's second term, Bush's approval rating was 37%. And, just prior to his reelection, in the summer of 2004, he had trouble staying above 50%.

    YAWN

    •  Second term seems irrelevant. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fcvaguy, bruh1

      If you want to compare them, compare based on same point in first term.

      So he's running somewhere around where Bush was in first term at this point?  Bush managed to pull a second term.

      Am I cynical? Yes I am! - Bob the Builder's lesser known brother Pete the Politician

      by Ezekial 23 20 on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 07:26:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And bush more importantly wasn't (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ezekial 23 20

        facing a structurally high unemployment rate. That's part of the problem with the reading o the diary. They read the polling number and stopped their rather than reading the number in the context of answering how will he pull down the unemployment numbers.

  •  154 comments and 10 recs (8+ / 0-)

    Hmmmmm

    Never underestimate the power of the stupid - my son

    by edwardssl on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 06:14:11 PM PDT

  •  Numbers are subject to poll questions. (7+ / 0-)

    If I was asked, "Are you satisfied with the job Obama is doing?" I'd have to answer, "HELL NO!!!" and his approval numbers take a hit.

    Does that mean Sarah Palin's numbers just went up? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

    Phew! Let me catch my breath for a second.....

    The point is, polls don't measure the temperature, they create the temperature. The purpose of polls like these is to shake your confidence in Obama, not measure your confidence in Obama. Polls are just another political tool no different from a RW Hate Jock on radio giving you a "fair assessment" of Obama's job performance to date.

    Fuck the polls. Just make sure you vote. Vote for anybody, I don't care who you vote for, but make sure you vote. That is the only say you'll ever have in your government so make sure you vote.

  •  Presidential approval ratings, historically (5+ / 0-)

    this early in a presidency have almost always been LOWER than this.

    It is more important to see how the opposition party is doing, and in this case they are totally incapable of fielding a candidate who will get more than maybe 220 EVs.  At this point in time, I'd have to say the odds of Obama losing are in the 1-in-10 range, and historically unless the president has a strong primary opponent it has been almost impossible to unseat him for about the last century.

    •  Provide a link to prove your claim. (0+ / 0-)
      •  History is the link (0+ / 0-)

        Shit, without a link nothing can possibly ever be right?

        Bush 41, Carter, Johnson are about the only 1 term presidents since Hoover.  All had primary challenges- even Bush 43 and Nixon somehow survived, along with Truman and the real reason was party unity and cash, all due to their having no primary opponents.  Take away Hoover, who was dead meat because of the Depression and no president has failed to be re-elected if they didn't have a challenger from their own party, for nearly 20 presidencies.

        •  Providee the l ink to your claim (0+ / 0-)

          or leave me a lone. And be specific with the links such that they demonstrate botht he circumstances of the presidencies in  such a way to demonstrate an understanding of the polling numbers through analysis of what was happening at the time as I have done above. Otherwise, stop wasting my time because you aren't very interesting in terms of providing real analysis versus platitudes.

          •  Why don't you crack open a real book? (0+ / 0-)

            And learn that the real world isn't always on the web.  Because there are literally millions of reference books you can find that have all of the information you need.  Books, you know paper with ink on it?

            BTW I saw that diary didn't really go well- people sort of understood your pointless ideas, and shot them down pretty easily.  That's perhaps because when you were young, you never cracked open any books.  

            Polling numbers are almost always worthless this early in a presidency- remember Ronnie's numbers were in the toilet, and he had a near unanimous EV victory.  43's numbers were on the other hand (due to 9/11) absolutely outstanding, and he won by a hair.

            You could easily look them up, if you really cared instead of simply being a polemic.

  •  You are a moron.. (0+ / 0-)

    I just logged on to say that. Hate morons like you.

  •  asdf (7+ / 0-)

    When it comes to Democrats, criticize, don't demonize.

    by Dragon5616 on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 06:29:38 PM PDT

  •  Yes, we have real problems (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    emsprater, thethinveil

    not PR problems.

    Obama should act accordingly.

    In this age of falseness, only howls of agony ring true.

    by Paul Goodman on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 06:41:12 PM PDT

  •  Pres not having a plan for jobs may not be so bad (0+ / 0-)

    "President Obama does not fare well: 54 percent of the public say he does not have a clear plan for creating jobs, while only 34 percent say he does, an ominous sign heading into this fall’s midterm elections."

    Most people don't necessarily expect the President to create jobs.

    Administrations will suffer during economic down turns but Americans still won't necessarily hold the Pres accountable for unemployment rates.

    Congress is far more likely to be held accountable for lack of unemployment subsidies.

  •  Pres is more likely to he held accountable (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    neroden, RandomSequence

    ...for further economic collapse (e.g., expanding state bankruptcies, public and private debt peaks, pension crisis, cuts to Social Security) than not having a plan to create jobs.

    I suspect the President's fate is in the hands of the Fed - if inflation happens, or severely higher interest rates, causing another market drop, the Pres will be toast.

    If the DOW stays above 10,000 poverty can grow and unemployment can remain double digits and Obama will be re-elected.

    Then he'll cut Social Security and the Dems will lose Congress and the Presidency.

    As a terrible prognosticator, that's my useless and undocumented prediction.  

  •  Ah, another "Obama's numbers are low because" (3+ / 0-)

    "he's not doing what I want him to do". They usually pop up when the polls move within the margin of error.

    •  What do you want to bet (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      amk for obama

      Ah, another "Obama's numbers are low because" (2+ / 0-)

      "he's not doing what I want him to do". They usually pop up when the polls move within the margin of error.

      That when his numbers go up, and he's not doing what he wants them to do, it'll be "of course, his numbers are up, because he's doing the bidding of the Rahm Industrial Corporate complex."

      The great thing about Obama derangement syndrome is that you can always make your narrative jump the shark of the facts.

    •  No. His numbers are low because he's ......... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bruh1, CapeTown96

      ..... not doing what the public elected him to do.  

      If the public approved of the job Obama was doing, his numbers would go up.  

      Jesus Christ on a cracker, is it really that difficult a concept to understand?  

  •  I actually got to meet with someone from (7+ / 0-)

    the Obama administration DOL the other day, and I asked her what the plan was around job creation. She really didn't seem to have any idea. She was really articulate and focused on the micro-details of the particular items that she was dealing with (job training), but when pressed as to where that fit into the bigger picture and what that bigger picture was, there wasn't much "there" there.

    I don't see that Obama does have a plan for job creation, at least on the scale that's needed. There are a few bucks floating around for "green jobs", but there aren't that many green jobs, at the end of the day. We need 20 million jobs, like yesterday. What's he planning to do about that?

    The BP thing I just don't understand what he's doing. From that NYT poll, it says that a clear majority of the American people think that the federal government is better equipped to deal with this crisis than BP, as do I. It's a perfect opportunity to demonstrate the utility and power of the federal government; nobody would cry a tear if Obama just told all BP executives, lawyers and PR hacks to get lost (freakin' Tony Hayward didn't even need to be asked), put Gen. Honore in charge of the whole situation, and then sent BP the bill once the damn thing is taken care of. Why he doesn't do that, I have no idea.

    •  I think the BP thing is one of the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pragprogress

      moments when the curtain is pulled back on just how rigid his ideological perspective is. He really on some level believes in the ideological right leaning policies of neo-liberalism. Thus, it doesn't even occur to him to realize how screwed up that is under the circumstances. Even my conservative moderate friends are saying "We need the government" and yet he and supporters here don't seem to get how of touch they seem. Not sure what to do about it.

      •  Yup -- he didn't see an opportunity when it came (0+ / 0-)

        and bit him on the ass.

        To go to his counter-image -- I realized that Bush wasn't as dangerous as I thought back during the immigration protests. His neo-liberal backing was stronger than his Palinite ambition -- he had a perfect opportunity to scapegoat a still-in-it's-infancy demographic for short and medium term gain. He could have pitted almost the entire Anglo & AA population before the Hispanic population had felt their political oats -- but he failed to do so.

        It was too costly, businesswise (plus a few of his guys wanted to have careers in 10 years). But I think it was primarily the former -- neo-liberals aren't "ambitious" in a change the world way, they are risk-managers.

      •  There's nothing that can be done about it (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, FiredUpInCA

        My theory is that it does come back to "experience" ultimately. I've worked with a fair number of politicians pretty closely, and I'm increasingly convinced that you really have to take a look at what they do in an executive position, versus a legislative one. A lot of progressive legislative know how to say all the right things, and be for all the right positions, and make all of the right deals, and sell the whole package in the right way, but put them in charge of actually making things happen in the real world, and they're just lost.

        Obama had never held an executive position of any kind before his campaign. The best that could be said was that he ran a phenomenally well-oiled campaign machinery. He definitely projected an image of being the kind of guy that you want in charge of things, "no drama Obama". But I think what we're seeing is that when it comes time to actually put policies on the ground and into action, he's just lost. He doesn't know how to convert something from words on paper into reality in action. Believe me, it's not easy -- few do. But it's critical for success as a political executive.

        •  I actually not ready to make that pronouncement (0+ / 0-)

          I will admit that BP came as a shock to me with regards to his leadership. I am assuming that its just his ideological rigidity. Certainly, the other  more scary possibility is that you are right, and I am wrong.

          •  Well, you see it in the other areas as well (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bruh1, VClib

            He makes noises about stopping foreclosures, and he puts in place a program to do that, but foreclosures are still at a record. He talks about putting people back to work in the green economy, but hardly anyone is getting jobs. He wants to do this surge in Afghanistan, but violence is through the roof and now we hear that he's not even on the same page with his top commander there.

            His biggest "achievements", i.e. health care reform, financial reform, are in fact legislative, not executive, and the jury is still out on whether or not people will see their health care costs go down.

            I actually agree with you that part of it is that he's too ideological, in the sense that the ideologue is always focused on the words on the page and not the results on the ground.

            But we don't have to be completely despondent about it. Leadership is a learned quality, as well as a talent. He's obviously a smart guy and there's still time to learn, if he's open to it.

  •  Well, democrats alone can not re-elect him. We (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    emsprater, condorcet, ThAnswr, FiredUpInCA

    know that so the important thing to focus on right now are the Independents.

    Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves. Henry David Thoreau

    by Sydserious on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 07:23:51 PM PDT

    •  And independents hate him (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      neroden, ThAnswr

      and Democrats.  They see him as weak.  

      •  Really? I was hoping they hated republicans (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        thethinveil, FiredUpInCA

        more.  If that is true, we are truly screwed.

        Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves. Henry David Thoreau

        by Sydserious on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 07:38:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  A lot of independents go for "strength" (5+ / 0-)

          or perceived strength.  These hopeless, worthless attempts at "bipartisanship" with Republicans who won't play -- weakness.

          A lot of independents go for the appearance of honesty or integrity.  The Big Pharma deal hurt that, the civil liberties trashings hurt that, but most of all the kid-glove treatment of the banksters hurt that and letting BP run the cleanup of BP's disaster hurt that.

          What ticks me off is that these perception problems were really really easy to avoid.  Obama just had to actually govern with some respect for the facts of reality, which include "Republican politicans in this day and age will never play fair, as all they care about is destroying Democrats" and "Big oil companies are run by liars".

          -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

          by neroden on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 07:52:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  So you're telling us stuff. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lazybum

    What's your plan?

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White

    by zenbassoon on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 07:30:13 PM PDT

  •  Vision (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tmo, neroden, RandomSequence

    Its simple. President Obama has failed to capture the imagination of the American people with good common sense ideas and a clear vision of the future.

    Americans don't mind sacrificing in order to achieve a better tomorrow-- if there is a clear plan how to get there. Unfortunately, President Obama hasn't shown the courage or the insight to devise such a plan.

    In fact, the Obama administration seems to have a rather cynical view of America's future that seems to suggest that:

    1. We really can't move from a fossil fuel economy to a carbon neutral economy so we have to keep using coal and keep drilling off-shore and importing it from fascist states.
    1. We really can't have a public health care option to lower cost
    1. We really can't get completely out of Iraq
    1. We really can't remain the richest country on Earth that's why we have to appease China
    1. We can't even return to the Moon (turning his back on one of the most glorious legacies of John F. Kennedy)

    Maybe President Obama is just trying to be realistic about the decline and fall of America.

    But I believe that the US is a sleeping giant, just as we were during the Great Depression just before Word War Two.

    Americans are just waiting for a leader, or leaders, with good ideas and common sense who actually believe in the future and in a better tomorrow and who have the courage to help take us there!

    Marcel F. Williams

    •  I agree that both the administration (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RandomSequence

      and quite a bit of the underlying support seems to be based on cynicism about the country's potential. Its interesting how people when speak of him often mean the opposite of what they say. For example, those who talk about change and hope means lowering your expectations.  Those who speak of pragmatism often aren't all that interested in pragmatic questions like will the policy work or what consequences will this have on how the public views the democrats?  Those are deeply pragmatic question and yet one can feel the absence from the ardent supporters discussion of the topic of pragmatic. They mostly seem to be talking again about cynicism related to DC.

  •  His numbers are fine (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mll, lazybum, condorcet, dsmmom

    Only 52% of people voted for him, you know.  And that's with John Crazypants McCain as the other candidate.  It's way easier to disapprove of him when he doesn't have an actual opponent.

  •  It's the econonomy, uh (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lazybum, condorcet, FiredUpInCA

    stupid. I'm not calling anybody stupid. It's just a saying, you know.

    Presidential approval ratings are primarily determined by the state of the economy. It's pretty impressive that Obama's are as high as they are, considering the economic disaster he was handed.

    •  he's a new president (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mll

      as time goes on, which is the main thrust of my diary, that will change and not for the better.

      •  You may be right. (0+ / 0-)

        Depends what happens to the economy. If it doesn't recover, his approval rating will decline.

        BP and "competence" is irrelevant. It's the economy. And there's not that much more Obama can do about it. Call that pragmatism if you like.

        •  Bp is short term- I agree (0+ / 0-)

          however there is more that the president can do with the bully pulpit. YOu underestimate the power of his position. He can change his situation right now if he started to fight for different things, but he won't so in the context of his self created straight jacket, there's not much he can do. A straight jacket he's willing to take off when its in pursuit of  neoliberalism.

  •  Why? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    damfino, congenitalefty

    Why are his numbers hovering in the mid 40s?

    Simple:  Because the citizens don't approve of the way he's doing his job.  

    That's what gets me about all these "pragmatists".  Nothing succeeds like success.  Their way is failing.  But, according to the "pragmatists", they're right and everybody else is wrong.  

    So if they're right and the rest of us are wrong, why isn't that being reflected in the poll numbers?  
     
    Hmmmm ............

    •  Pragamatist is just a label they slap (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ThAnswr, thethinveil, damfino

      on themselves rather than something they actually believe i n.

      Ia m actually a pragmatist so I can see the difference in how they think. Its mostly "let me come up with a justification after the fact" rather than "okay here's the situation now how to I win for the future by keeping my eye on the ball."

      I will tell you when I knew President Obama wasn't a pragmatist.

      its when he said he would rather get less than he wants with 80 votes than get all of what he wants with 51.

      No one pragmatic says that. You just don't. You realize for various  reason you just screwed yourself by saying something like that.

      •  I'm a pragmatist too. (4+ / 0-)

        No pragmatist continues doing what they're doing if it isn't succeeding.  

        Case in point to back up what you said about Obama not being a pragmatist:  Obama believes in "bipartisanship"

        Since just about the minute Obama took the oath of office, the GOP has kicked him in the grapes.  They haven't stopped in 16 months. They have supported him on nothing.  

        Obama still gave a nod to "bipartisanship" last Tuesday during his speech.  

        At some point, you either have to question the sanity or the rigidness.  Or, and this is my opinion, his incredibly high opinion of himself and his judgment.  Nevermind the facts.  

        •  Mostly right, but one correction (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ThAnswr, thethinveil, damfino

          it began with Luntz in Dec 2008 who basically said the GOP had to kill public health care because it would deliver the Democrats a majority for a generation. Obama came out with the idiotic comment that he would rather have 80 than 51 soon after that and I went from defending him (which i did at open left for about a month after the election) to debating with his protect the president all cost brigade. I can put up with a lot of shit, but not a lack of pragmatism. You just don't do the shit he's doing if you are pragmatic. You only do it if you are ideologue or I suppose a person with a big ego, but I can't imagine anyone with such a huge ego so I assume its ideology.

          •  I can see ego. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            thethinveil

            You saw it when he was asked to grade his administration early on and he gave it a B+. At that point, he hadn't done a damned thing.  At best, he deserved an incomplete.  

            I have to admit.  I held on to my support for Obama up until he reaffirmed the Hyde Amendment.  At that point, I knew there was no "there there" and everything was on the table.  

            Sorry, I don't trust people who don't seem to have a guiding light.  It doesn't matter if I agree with the philosophy, but I only trust those who have one.  

            I can honestly say, I have no idea what this president believes in.  I don't believe he has a "guiding light".  

            Obama is a dealmaker surrounded by other dealmakers.  Everything is "the deal" and not the results.  

  •  When he brings (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wildthumb, thethinveil, FiredUpInCA

    the last of our troops out of Iraq in December,2011, that will boost his numbers.

    If we capture or kill Bin Laden, that would help his numbers.

    6 months is a lifetime in politics.
    30 months is many lifetimes.

    There could be many events that shape the 2012 election that we have zero inkling of right now.

  •  Because he pissed me off!! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ThAnswr, thethinveil, damfino
    I wanted change.

    I wanted health care reform that AT LEAST had public option. Obama ran on it but never even tried to deliver on it.

    I wanted Wall Street reform and that's not going to happen.

    I wanted US to get oil use by 50% in 10 years, no more Middle East oil wars, no more Gulf oil disasters.

    I wanted equal rights for US soldiers.

    I wanted a balanced budget with new taxes.

    I wanted him to make Gulf oil disaster US "oil 911" but Obama failed that test also, not to mention his NOAA low ball blowout numbers and dispersant disaster and that, shudder, speech.

    Obama bailed on all his campaign promises. He never tried to fulfill them. He never proposed them. He never fought for them when others did.

    I really think he will be a one term president if GOP is smart and runs someone like Jeb Bush or Romney.  I'll vote for Obama but he will not have the "Fired up, ready to go" base. He abandoned that base and they returned the favor as we saw in MA with Obama voters electing GOP.

    Obama's only hope and it's scary for US is GOP runs someone so odious that Obama wins by reluctant default.

    •  The only thing that will save the sorry ......... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      thethinveil, CapeTown96

      .... asses of the Democrats will be the Republicans.  

      The way the GOP primaries are structured with "winner take all", I could see the GOP being stupid enough to nominate Palin.  

      Primaries are all about turnout.  It can happen.

  •  Does anyone actually believe (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lazybum, amk for obama

    that if the President had skyhigh polling but was not doing what the diarist wants, that the diarist would give a shit about "Why are President Obama's Approval Numbers Low?"

    I am unconcerned by your concern. You want the President to do your bidding.

    Save some pixels and entitle all your diaries thusly.

    •  I think you are right (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lazybum, amk for obama, FiredUpInCA

      Many on the so-called left are perpetual whiners. Clinton left with 66% approval ratings and they don't like him much either. It's the nature of the ideologically "pure". They are never happy because nobody as rigid in ideology as they are can get elected president so they always have something to complain about. It's true with right wingers as well. It's not the ideology, it's the rigidity of that ideology. Personally, I'm finding out that you can agree with people on almost everything and still come to the conclusion that you don't really like them. If they left had it's own version of the teabaggers, the public wouldn't like them much either. They are WATBs and Americans don't like the WATBs of either party.

      Things fall apart; the center cannot hold-Yeats Grab a mop- President Barack Obama

      by TexasMango on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 09:13:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I believe it may be an attempt to (0+ / 0-)

      start a conversation. I believe if Obama was working on a green WPA that involved building new green infrastructure and cleaning up the environmental waste that the Bush administration left behind, we would see higher poll numbers.

      As Bruh states up-thread, it was Obama fealty to bipartisanship over accomplishing wins on health care (for me, the banking reform and bailout) - which would have decimated the Republicans for a generation while fixing American's many problems -  was what really turned bruh1 from a supporter of the president to a defender of the grassroots against him.

      It is too easy that many democrats, or anyone involved in politics only cares about votes, and too easy to say they only care about the issues. Both are important, issues and support, and hardly ever do they exist separately. It is all a matter of priorities, and timing.

      If you are going to criticize criticize him there, not on his lack of authenticity. Or you could try to actually prove it, rather than just throwing accusations around.

      "What is the robbing of a Bank compared to the FOUNDING of a Bank?" Bertolt Brecht

      by thethinveil on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 11:43:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  So I guess we have decided it's all over then? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    amk for obama, Theston

    Obama=Carter and he hasn't even finished half a term. Glad that's settled. I guess I'll go ahead and get my Palin/Bachmann 2012 bumper sticker ready. No need to care anymore right? It's all over so says the perpetual losers on the "left".

    Things fall apart; the center cannot hold-Yeats Grab a mop- President Barack Obama

    by TexasMango on Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 09:07:20 PM PDT

    •  Actually, what I decided is what is written in (0+ / 0-)

      the diaary.

      Your issue is that you project a lot. The projection being that if we talk about these things- one must want the president to lose like Carter. That's your baggage. Not mines. I actually think were you to ask rather than project that he can still win. But it will require a lot more than he's doing right now. You think- that by burying your head in the sand and praising him-- you are doing him a favor. that's why Is say many of yo uare neither pragmatic or remotely intrested in politics. I am not sure why you are hear other than some odd need for emotional validation.

  •  It's remarkably true (0+ / 0-)
    how consistently un-pragmatic much of what tries to pass itself off as "pragmatism" is.  Glad to see you've picked up on this too.

    What it does do is provide new clothes for old vices, ranging from petty careerism to serving  corporate hegemony.

    We who have been nothing shall be all. This is the final struggle. ~E. Pottier

    by ActivistGuy on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 12:33:58 AM PDT

    •  Prime example of how much "brand pragmatism" (0+ / 0-)

      as infected this site and thinking- below where the comment complains about the number of comments and whether it helps because its about polling data. The polling data is about, and you wouldn't get that reading their comment, what the American people (you know the pesky voters) think of the president who claims to be acting as a pragmatist regarding why he is doing what he is doing. You get the feeling that the poster doesn't care about pragmatism as they would probably claim in another diary where they probably would be attacking others as purist in that context. The point I am making is that they don't care about whether policies work or whether the voters want them. The two things that would be a sign of true pragmatism is were one to take anything that pols and their supporters say seriously. That tells me that they are not discussing real pragmatism. They are discussing what you mention, but I would add that careerism is how they are perceived in DC. Not how they are perceived in the public. We just don't matter. That much is clear of both the supporters thoughts here where they clearly don't give a shit what the voters think anymore. Its all fantasy world masquerading as "serious" thought although its not very serious at all.

  •  Over 400 posts over some pollster's numbers (0+ / 0-)

    that keep changing every other day and over whose accuracy the pollsters themselves seem to be having a PIE fight ?

    This helps.

    BP - Proving Oil and Water do mix.
    A Presidency Among the Vuvuzelas.
    Left's "disgruntleist" faction needs to take a chill pill.

    by amk for obama on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 02:44:51 AM PDT

    •  You are right. What the voters think doesn't (0+ / 0-)

      matter at all. The most important thing is that you sit in your little bubble assured that everything is okay. Why don't you go back to it rather than worrying over such silly pie fights like whether the president's polling with the voters is good or bad when it comes to his decision making. I am sure other diaries i n which you comment are also changing the world rather than as is the case here involving a discussion with other people interested in politics.

  •  Over 400 comments. 32 tips. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MKSinSA

    In a site that 'progressives' rule.

    If that doesn't tell you something about your bubble, nothing will. Have a good day.

    BP - Proving Oil and Water do mix.
    A Presidency Among the Vuvuzelas.
    Left's "disgruntleist" faction needs to take a chill pill.

    by amk for obama on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 05:35:00 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site