83 percent of liberal Democrats approve of President Obama's job performance.

[TheWraith]

Among Democrats as a whole, 76% approve of Obama's job performance.

61% of conservative Democrats approve of his job performance.
69% of moderate Democrats approve of his job performance.
83% of liberal Democrats approve of his job performance.

Obama's support among liberal Democrats has not changed significantly for months; despite an ongoing propaganda effort to convince Democrats that he is a failure and that the left is abandoning him.

Just a helpful reminder.

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

[closeupready]

1. Unrecced - link doesn't work, undated poll.

On edit, never mind, I see.

Okay, but "Liberal Democrats", according to some here, number in the dozens.

Or alternatively, do not represent the mainstream; therefore, what they think is only useful if they confirm what we want reality to be.

[TheWraith]

2. It's a brand new poll released October 9th. Did you actually read it?

It displays the last five polls; the most recent is highlighted in gray on the right.

[closeupready]

3. Yes, please see my edit.

Thanks.

[TheWraith]

7. Anything to ignore data which doesn't validate your opinions, I guess. nt

[closeupready]

9. See Post #6.

nt

[TheWraith]

16. So if you believe the stat in post number 6, do you also accept that most liberals support Obama?

And if liberals love him, and conservatives hate him, do you recognize that it follows logically that it's because he governs in a primarily liberal manner?

[Dawgs]

4. What about non-Democratic liberals?

Or those that have left the Democratic party? How do they approve?

[Scurrilous]

5. Thanks.

K & R :thumbsup:

[Coyote_Bandit]

6. The majority of those polled - some 53% - disapprove

of his job performance.

Obama? Yawn.

[TheWraith]

8. So are you suggesting that the Republicans' opinions are entirely valid and rational?

Since they make up most of that 53%. Or are you just saying that what is right is ALWAYS popular?

[closeupready]

10. What does that have to do with anything?

Popularity contests are NEVER fair.

[Coyote_Bandit]

35. Ummmm......No

I'm pointing out that he needs to get the votes of 50% +1 of the voters that bother to show up in order to win the general election. That means he's likely going to have to convince folks that disapprove of his job performance to vote for his re-election.

This time he can't run by selling "hope" and "change." As the incumbent, by definition, he will be running on "more of the same." And that sure as hell isn't going to inspire the same enthusiasm and voter turnout as "hope" and "change." Nevermind that some of the new state voter ID laws will result in some voters being disenfranchised.

The election most likely will not bew decided by the loyalties of liberal Dems. It will be decided by independent voters in a few key states - voters who have seen their buying power continue to decline and their employment fortunes become more tenuous during the Obama administration. These folks are more focused on their survival and financial well-being than the nuances of presidential politics. They don't necessarily know or care who is responsible for their difficulties. They need to see some positive changes and they don't want more of the same.

Obama? Yawn. He has not been my champion. I will vote for him in the general election. But I'll not be donating my time or resources to his campaign and I'll not be needing a bumper sticker or yard sign. My efforts and resources will be focused on electing state and local candidates that will serve to advance and protect my needs and interests. Obama has not done that - and I do not expect that to change if he is re-elected.

[Romulox]

11. Right. But every "third wayer" and "ex-Republican" 'round here calls himself a "liberal"

If "liberals" support various wars of aggression, bankster bailouts, ramping up prosecuting of Medical Marijuana patients, protecting polluters (remember BP and the gulf?), etc. etc., then the word "liberal" means what "conservative" used to mean. :hi:

[TheWraith]

13. He's no true Scotsman!

:eyes:

As always, when confronted by the fact that the overwhelming majority of liberals support President Obama, some people choose to try and redefine "liberal" to mean "people who don't support President Obama." I suggest you look up the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. It might help explain why your views are not definitive of what constitutes liberalism.

[Romulox]

17. Not if his mailing address is (or was until VERY recently) in London, no. nt

[TheWraith]

19. You hear that whooshing sound?

That's the point, sailing past you.

[Romulox]

21. Nonsense. Your point has been rejected, not misunderstood.

Also, you misapplied the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, as I didn't claim that no true "liberal" would do this or that. Nonetheless, if words are to have any objective meaning, "liberals" must tend toward some belief system or the other.

When one's beliefs are substantially the same as George W. Bush on a myriad of topics, for example, invoking the "no true Scotsman" fallacy doesn't save one from an unflattering comparison, simply because one calls oneself liberal; the reality of the matter is that there is an objective basis against which to compare these beliefs.

But I can see why such comparisons, unflattering as they are, rankle. :hi:

[TheWraith]

25. You rejecting my point doesn't make it stop being true.

It just makes you in denial.

Again: you do not define who is and isn't a liberal. Most people who define themselves as liberal support President Obama. The fact that you don't does not make you arbiter of who is liberal and who isn't, it just means that you think you know better than everyone else.

[Romulox]

27. Neither do you (nor Zogby et al.) get to decide who is a "liberal"; if you are

out of step with the traditions of the Left, you are not of the Left. You argue for the war, War on Drugs, and the "rights" of corporate persons if you like, but you can't rewrite history! :hi:

[City Lights]

12. Thank you for providing more than a headline!

This type of OP is usually a one-liner with no information in the message section. I very much appreciate the details and link you provided!

Rec'd.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

14. "I'm shampooing my hair!"

[gratuitous]

15. Gee, they never ask me

I wonder why that is? And what does "approve" mean when talking about the president's job performance? Does that mean as compared to the society as a whole, in which case someone might feel obliged to say "approve" just to avoid giving the nitwits at Fox something to boast about? Or does that mean you approve what the president has done as against some hypothetical McCain administration? Or does that mean approve as in supporting the ongoing prosecution of pointless and expensive wars against people who never did anything to us?

But I'm clearly just the victim of an ongoing propaganda effort, and unable to make decisions for myself based on actual events and facts. It's a good thing I have folks at Democratic Underground around to remind me of what a ninny I am, worrying about the Constitution and stuff as I do.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

18. Ninnies For America!

Bordering on genius.

[leftstreet]

20. What the hell is a 'moderate' Democrat?

:eyes:

[TheWraith]

22. Newsflash: the world doesn't consist entirely of progressives and teabaggers.

That's something people here seem to have a problem with sometimes.

[leftstreet]

23. What the hell is a 'progressive?'

[TheWraith]

26. Good question. Frankly, I have no idea.

Or rather, I have no idea how being a "progressive" is somehow different from being a liberal. I've always vastly preferred the latter, myself. Saying "I'm a progressive" has always seemed to me like a way to weasel out of saying you're a liberal, because "liberal" was made into a bad word. Fuck that.

[dawg]

24. Yeah, but it's kind of "mission accomplished" for us malcontents.

The President was teetering on the edge of proposing an increase in the Medicare age to 67. He was using conservative rhetoric about the government tightening its belt, instead of promoting sound economic policy that calls for counter-cyclical budget deficts when unemployment is high.

Lots of us screamed.

And the President has apparently, for the moment anyway, changed course.

The jobs bill is good legislation. And the President has been making it clear that the Republicans are obstructionists again. Now I can approve.

[truebrit71]

28. Absolute bollocks...

..."liberal" democrats give him higher numbers than "conservative democrats"?

Highly unlikely...100% of liberal democrats I know are highly pissed off at Obama and think his job performance sucks ass...

[racaulk]

29. Only 35% of Independents approve of Obama's job performance.

That number is frightening and points to dim reelection prospects for President Obama next year.

It would be a better use of time to figure out ways we can get the other 65% of Independents on board than to try to browbeat 17% of liberal Democrats into submission.

[bowens43]

30. bullshit. nt

[frylock]

31. define "liberal"

[Romulox]

32. In the Adam Smith sense. nt

[bvar22]

33. Thats WHY we see all those "Obama 2012" signs at the Wall Street Protests!

Oh. My Bad.
There are none.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[WillyT]

34. LOL !!! - "We Are, The 17% !!!"

:evilgrin:

:D

:hi:

[Motown_Johnny]

36. They are trying to stay nonpolitical, THAT is why there are no Obama signs

or Romney signs

or Palin signs


or whatever.....

[TroglodyteScholar]

37. I don't need a poll to tell me how I feel. Thanks anyway. n/t

[LoZoccolo]

38. Kick.

:kick: