home

The Reagan Problem: Obama's Inroads With Liberals Could Erode

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:23:02 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

In the new Pew poll, while still trailing Hillary Clinton nationally 46-31, BarackObama has made significant inroads among self described liberals, and African Americans. Ronald Reagan is not well loved by these groups. Obama's praise, and yes I understand it was not praise of his policies per se, could haunt him with these groups. Here are the numbers:

Obama went from 27-49 down among liberals to 35-37, up 10 while Hillary was down 12. Among African Americans, Obama went from up 47-45 to up 52-33, from up 2 to up 19.

I suspect you will be hearing the Clinton campaign bring up Obama's admiration for Reagan in an attempt to erode Obama's inroads with these two groups.

< Charges of Union Intimidation in Nevada | Those Uncontrollable Campaign Surrogates: Lowery Cites "Slave Mentality" >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Reagan Problem: Obama's Inroads With Liberals Could Erode | 39 comments (39 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I wonder... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by cowboyneok on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:36:04 PM EST
    I wonder how much the latest news about the former Reagan Republican congressman from Michigan, Mark Deli Siljander will erode the "Reagan good ol' days" narrative.

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/16/former.congressman.indicted.ap/index.html

    Doesn't this indictment shred that whole "Republicans are better fighters of terrorism" sloganeering we've been hearing for eight years?!!?

    I do believe Obama's Reagan praise will hurt him with many progressive groups.  This latest P.R. catastrophe for Republicans couldn't happen at a more exploitable time!  Reminds me of how much of a goofball ol' Ronnie really was, and had the judgment of a gnat.  Imagine appointing a man who funds Al-Qaida to such important positions!  Reagan is still a dirty word to me.

    From lurking elsewhere in the blogosphere... (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by rhbrandon on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:10:16 AM EST
    Folks who are old enough (us babyboomers) to remember the follies and lies of the Reagan Administration are troubled by Obama's remarks. The campaign seems to have a problem with U.S. history.

    The most recent highlight a "lightweight" image of the candidate; an image already damaged by the forced pseudo-controvery over race aggravated by his supporters especially after his surprise in New Hampshire.

    Parent

    Any connection between Obama's (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:12:18 AM EST
    citation of Reagan and Obama's teaching con law at University of Chicago?

    Parent
    Megalomaniac (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by koshembos on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:49:14 PM EST
    Obama has done nothing so far, very much like Bush, and he already sees himself JFK or Reagan. Obama clearly is a megalomaniac. Never mind that he is no progressive. God help us.

    Might I take a moment... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by andreww on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:00:02 PM EST
    To defend Obama here.  I'm not neutral in the matter, but I feel my points are still valid.  One of the main criticisms of Obama is that he's "done nothing" as you mention above.  I really strongly object to this.  I agree that Obama has done less on the national political scene, but he certainly hasn't "done nothing".  Being a community organizer directly affects peoples lives, it does tell us something about who he is and what his beliefs are, and it is doing something.  He later became a civil rights attorney - again, not nothing.  Then of course he went on to the state legislature, and he also taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago.  One of the wonderful things about our country is that when selecting our president, we the voters determine the criteria.  Don't underestimate that the founders intentionally left the "qualifications" for president an extremely small list.  They knew that in order for a government to be run "by the people" putting in requirements would be harmul to achieving this end.  There are few people running for the presidency that have worked on behalf of others as much as Obama has.  If you disagree with his policies, personality, or whatever - that's fine.  But please, recognize that is entirely inaccurate that he's "done nothing"

    Parent
    II suppose Barack Obama does not (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:45:17 PM EST
    mention the ocmmunity organizing and civil rights attorney phases of his history so as not to emphasize his liberal credentials at the risk of turning away more middle-of-the roaders.  

    Parent
    Actually, he mentions them in his stump speech n/t (none / 0) (#12)
    by Geekesque on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 12:37:06 AM EST


    Parent
    Which I haven't heard, so thanks (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 12:51:33 AM EST
    for the information.

    Parent
    You forgot Abe Lincoln! (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:42:01 PM EST


    Parent
    That is demonstrably false. He specifically said (none / 0) (#10)
    by bronte17 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:56:53 PM EST
    I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure... Part of what's different is the times.

    He is attempting to harness the mood in this country for change... and make that change become a reality.


    Parent

    Big Tent (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:54:32 PM EST
    just want to say that your posts today where terrific and I enjoyed the dicussions I read.  Have to go - but wanted to say thanks.
    Bye

    A Couple Of Thoughts (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:11:24 PM EST
    From what I've seen in the demographics of Obama's support with white liberals, it is in the 18 - 25 age group. Reagan's history has been rewritten so much, I wonder how many understand how really bad Reagan was for our country.

    Also, it seems that for supporters, Obama's words always mean something else than what he actually says.

    I'd rather hear from the African American community, what they think about this rather than try to guess.

    Well, I'm a 40 year old liberal (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by DA in LA on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 12:51:25 AM EST
    I don't support Obama or Clinton.  And I would say this is a completely ridiculous and manufactured attack on Obama.

    He is not praising Reagan, but stating a fact.  I do seem to recall a massive landslide.  One could assume that he tapped into something, unless one wants to be so partisan they deny reality.

    Reagan changed our country far more than any politician in my lifetime.  Not for the better, for the worse.  And Obama does not state whether the change was for the better or worse, just that it occurred.  You could remove Reagan's name and put Hitler's name in his place and it would make sense.  Obama has in the past said he completely disagreed with Reagan's policies.  But to deny he was a successful politician is willful ignorance.

    So, I would guess we crazy liberals will take a pass on this attack.

    Parent

    Maybe It Has As Much To Do With What He Didn't Say (none / 0) (#18)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 02:00:02 AM EST
    and where he left the statement. Here's my best attempt at at what he said:

    He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. Excess of sixties and the seventies and government had grown and grown but there wasn't sense of accountability .  He tapped into what people were already feeling. We want clarity. We want optimism. We want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship  that had been missing.

    Reagan also tapped into white people still angry over the passage of the Civil Rights Act after 16 years. But this was left out of Obama's description of why Reagan had such a great mandate.

    But when the former California governor ran for the presidency again in 1980, he began his campaign with a controversial appearance in Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers had been brutally killed. It was at that sore spot on the racial map that Reagan revived talk about states' rights and curbing the power of the federal government.
    To many it sounded like code for announcing himself as the candidate for white segregationists.NPR

    By leaving his comments at clarity, optimist, dynamism and entrepreneurship, it could be interpreted that that was the path that Reagan actually put the country on and vague enough so that it could be defended.

    Also included In the same video Obama stated:

    I think its fair to say the republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10-15 years in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom.

    It should be near the 20:17 mark in the video h/t standingup

    Parent

    Okay, so you told me a bunch of stuff (none / 0) (#19)
    by DA in LA on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 02:16:57 AM EST
    I already know.

    Does not change my opinion of that tape and what people on this site are attempting to do with it.

    Parent

    I Guess We Have Agreed To Disagree n/t (none / 0) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 03:06:53 AM EST


    Parent
    And the words of his competitors for the... (none / 0) (#23)
    by rhbrandon on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:18:50 AM EST
    nomination also always mean something different to his supporters than what they actually say.

    Parent
    Ugh (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by tnthorpe on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:46:43 PM EST
    Having listened to Obama's video, which recapitulates a basically rightwing narrative of big gov't, national malaise, and Reagan as the bearer of a new promise for America, I'm frankly stunned. It's not that it's revisionist history, it's not even real history. Reagan ran on the politics of fear, of innuendo, race baiting, union breaking, wedge issues, the whole barrage of straight, white, suburban family values and to pose his presidency in the neutral terms Obama does is simply grotesquely self-serving. Maybe Obama thinks he's neutralizing the horrible legacy of corruption and broken gov't bequeathed to posterity by the defunct cold warrior, but to ignore the malicious manichean nature of Reagan's administration and the way in which it served as a model for subsequent warpublicans, which reached an appalling nadir with W's maladministration, is irresponsible.

    Obama is no progressive, he's no liberal, he's just more Republican lite. Ugh...Great Communicator lite, just what we don't need.

    LBJ gave us both "guns and butter" (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by bronte17 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:44:08 PM EST
    His "Great Society" and "War on Poverty" instituted vast new social programs as he simultaneously escalated the Vietnam conflict. The prolonged war, of course, led to rampant inflation and the world had been undergoing a paradigm shift from colonialism to the non-alignment movement and sovereignty. The oil shocks/embargoes of the 70's caused disruption and unease in this country... Iranian Revolution/overthrow of the Shah/hostage crisis... all led to an unhappy reality for Americans that was incongruent with their preconceived notions of themselves. This is why Reagan's "Shining City on a Hill" reverberated amongst Americans.

    Interest rates actually hit 21-24% during the early 80's... try buying a house with that kind of interest rate.

    We aren't quite there again... not yet... but we will be.  

    Parent

    This seems right (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jgarza on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:05:16 PM EST
    in line with the other criticisms that Obama isn't partisan enough(or doesnt understand the partisan war or however it is expressed, i don't buy it so those that do, please give me the word for criticism), that have been rampant in the blogosphere, it has yet to picked off liberals.

    My general feeling is that liberals like myself, and bloggers are talking past each other.

    I don't think Clinton wants to bring the subject (none / 0) (#13)
    by Geekesque on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 12:38:20 AM EST
    of tone-deaf statements about dead Presidents up again.

    Oh I think she does (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:36:04 AM EST


    Parent
    And she will (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:56:48 AM EST
    It was a horribly stupid thing to say and if he really believes it I'm soooooo not impressed!  Growing up with Ronald Reagan made growing up very difficult when unfortunate enough to be middle class.  And when Nancy told us to just say no we all said yes because at least for a moment we could forget about how poor our prospects in life were ;)  Growing up hopeless, it shouldn't happen to anyone ;)

    Parent
    Well, then her comments about LBJ/MLK (none / 0) (#29)
    by Geekesque on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:48:46 AM EST
    would be fair game again.

    Note that MLK's son and confidantes are still weighing in against Clinton on that one.

    Parent

    dude - we moved on (none / 0) (#31)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:31:17 AM EST
    from that old garbage on this site. Let it go already.

    Parent
    Fair game as what? (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 04:41:56 PM EST


    Parent
    Clinton has talked herself in enough circles... (none / 0) (#16)
    by ConcordiaDem on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 01:43:37 AM EST
    And Obama's staff, taking a page out of the ol' Karl rove text book, has made her pay for it. I think its time Clinton did the same. She needs to make sure people don't forget his admiration for a wannabe tyrant. If Obama gets elected I think he just might continue down a similar rode that his "cousin" is taking us...

    Obama is confused (none / 0) (#17)
    by talkingpoint on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 01:46:52 AM EST
       How can an African American like Obama praise Reagan. When Reagan introduced his war on drugs, the only individuals that were going to prisons were the small time pencil pushers Black Youths on the street corners, while the real dope dealers was having a good old time in the suburbs. Reagan disenfranchised more Blacks than people speak about today. Reagan created the prison building booms in the eithies, and lets not forget that incarceration among Black Youths went up over a 100% in many major cities. Obama praising of Reagan illustrates that he is a baby politician and is clearly not ready or even qualified to be president. Let's stop sympathizing with Obama and start speaking the facts.

    Of a piece with Bill's (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 03:49:59 AM EST
    "era of big government is over"?

    Good to see TalkLeft focusing on the important, (none / 0) (#26)
    by mike in dc on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:49:04 AM EST
    ...substantive issues like whether qualified admiration for the effectiveness of an opposition politician disqualifies a candidate from becoming the standard-bearer for our party.
    I see we are now fully immersed in "silly season".

    I'd try to add something substantive, but I don't want to rock the boat.

    This matters (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 04:41:13 PM EST
    It is telling that you do not think so.

    Means you do not get it.

    Parent

    Ezra Klein disagrees (none / 0) (#27)
    by mike in dc on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:45:18 AM EST
    http://blog.prospect.org/mt-tb.cgi/67068

    Yglesias and others don't see it this way, either.  When it gets to a point where the usual suspects line up in their usual positions, I think it's fair to say the exercise has become meaningless.

    Klein nailed it. (none / 0) (#32)
    by DA in LA on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:57:44 AM EST
    BTD, not so much.

    Parent
    Responded in my subsequent posts (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 04:40:33 PM EST
    Shorter version - Ezra knows not of what he is talking about.

    Parent
    wow... (none / 0) (#30)
    by almondwine on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:52:22 AM EST
    BTD:

    You really don't get it, do you.  The only people in this country who don't remember Reagan fondly are upper-middle class or upper class, educated, ultra-liberals like myself.  That entire demographic breaks for Obama almost 2 to 1.

    Everybody else liked Reagan.  Everybody else agrees with what Obama said about Reagan.  So I sure hope Clinton brings it up - it'll help get her out of the race and the Democrats back in the White House.

    your post is illogical (none / 0) (#33)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 12:03:54 PM EST


    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#34)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 03:36:10 PM EST
    With 40% of country even bothering to vote, you know about this imagined monumental pro-Reagan consensus how?

    The fact that regular time periods are set up for Reagan worship on talk radio and Fox news dosnt count as verification.

    Parent

    This is a Pew poll. See Kohut! (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:44:54 PM EST


    Parent
    Um (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 04:39:40 PM EST
    What?

    Parent
    The Reagan Problem: Obama's Inroads With Liberals Could Erode | 39 comments (39 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment