home

The Unhappy Dem Base

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 10:09:01 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Frank Newport of Gallup:

Americans' approval of the job Congress is doing is at 21% this month, down significantly from last month's 31% and from the recent high of 39% in March. [. . .] Of note is the steep decline in approval among Democrats, who appear to be souring on the job Congress is doing despite the fact that their party controls both the House and the Senate. For the first time since February, Democrats' approval of the job Congress is doing is below 50% -- with only slightly more than a third of Democrats now approving.

(Emphasis supplied.) Now some may think Max Baucus' shenanigans in an attempt to please President Olympia Snowe will energize the Dem base for 2010. I am not one of them.

Speaking for me only

< More Favorable Noises For a Federalist Public Option | Deeds Doomed? Pointing Fingers Before Election Day >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Unhappy Dem Base | 60 comments (60 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I can understand why! (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 10:19:51 AM EST
    My next door neighbor is a 23 yr old woman that went state to state as a volunteer for Obama. I asked her last night how she and her friends feel about Obama's performance so far. Her response was totally negative. It really surprised me because she was such an active participant in the process.

    Dem's had better wake up and get to work. The American people voted for actual change, not just words. The shadow of GWB is gone. They can't use him as the boogey man anymore. They own the government now.

    They can blame the dems if they (none / 0) (#25)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 12:02:07 PM EST
    want but their biggest mistake was trusting the federal form of government.

    It's too big, can't move fast enough and when it does it makes a mess of things.

    The mistake was believing Obama would change the machine.   The machine is chewing up Obama and will spit him out in 2012 or 2016 if he's lucky.

    Parent

    faster than the speed of money (5.00 / 6) (#45)
    by Illiope on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 02:51:27 PM EST
    the federal govt can move snaps fingers like that when it adheres to ruling class interests. see the wall street bailout, tax cuts for the rich, corporate welfare, etc.

    this is not a "federal form of govt" problem, it is a problem of the corruption thereof.

    Parent

    Electing him... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 12:18:27 PM EST
    ...at least prevented the spectre of a GOP thug running things.

    Parent
    How can you tell? (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Spamlet on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 03:34:47 PM EST


    Parent
    And yet Obama's (none / 0) (#33)
    by brodie on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 12:22:10 PM EST
    approval numbers are up significantly, according to the latest Gallup.

    As for this lifelong Dem, I'm going to keep my powder dry on the  Obama bashing until I see what happens on these fronts:  

    1. A major job-creation bill

    2. The HCR effort

    3. O's decision on Afghanistan/Vietnam.

    At this point, I'm more hopeful about something positive and progressive happening on the domestic matters, even a decent HCR bill with good enough public option.

    As for the foreign question, I don't think Obama has quite the courage of a JFK in firmly denying the Pentagon brasshats and the major national security types their plans for a larger US war effort.  Though I don't think he'll pull an LBJ and order up a major escalation, of the type McChrystal envisions.

    Still, I am somewhat comforted by the news that O's nat'l security team has apparently been reading the recent noteworthy book on VN and McGeorge Bundy, Lessons in Disaster by Goldstein.  Highly recommended.  

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#38)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 12:57:29 PM EST
    The Gallup daily tracking poll shows him waffling in the low 50's.

    Link

    Parent

    Saw that on the news this morning (none / 0) (#39)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 01:16:36 PM EST
    and was surprised. Up to 56% according to AP poll.

    I sure do wonder who they are selecting for these polls, and what they're asking.


    Parent

    AP, right. (none / 0) (#42)
    by brodie on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 01:54:19 PM EST
    Rings true though.  

    His speech to Congress and the nation on HCR was well received, and the ugly negativity of the August town halls has passed, and saner pro-reform voices are more often being heard.  

    Meanwhile, some of the smarter Dems are beginning to point out that the Party of No has No Plan for health care.

    The less favorable numbers for O on Afghanistan also ring true.  People are getting impatient with that never-ending involvement, and there are worries about a VN quagmire.

    Parent

    starting to be worried about 2010 (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 10:26:26 AM EST
    actually I started worrying when Obama won with so many first time voters since they are the ones most easily distracted and disillusioned and the ones who expected everything to magically change with the O was sworn in.

    What Gallup says it means re 2010 (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 12:00:33 PM EST
    is this:

    The battle for control of Congress in 2010 is growing more competitive, a new Gallup Poll indicates.

    Roughly a year before the 2010 congressional elections, Republicans and Democrats are nearly tied among registered voters, who were asked which party's candidate they would prefer in their congressional district, Gallup found. Some 46 percent said they would vote Democratic, versus 44 percent who favored a Republican candidate. The Democrats' two-percentage-point lead in October is down from a six-point advantage in July.

    Independents shift to the GOP. . . .



    Parent
    10% unemployment will sink his backside (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 12:19:21 PM EST
    It will sink almost any liberal/left/social dem pol in any nation.

    Parent
    True (none / 0) (#55)
    by sj on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 05:25:07 PM EST
    But it will also sink any radical/right wing/anti-social pol in any nation, as well.

    Parent
    Maybe this is a useful measure (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 10:37:45 AM EST
    of the Dem base's belief in post-partisan unity. Of the Dems who have dropped in their approval, I'd be willing to bet very few think Dems are not reaching out enough to the other side.

    Maybe I'm not the only one who (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 10:40:28 AM EST
    does not like letting Republicans dictate the terms of HCR and other legislation when the Dems control the WH and Congress.

     

    I was on the phone with a DNC fundraiser (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by Faust on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 10:44:57 AM EST
    I told her that I would start sending them money again when they started behaving like democrats and not corporate shills (I actually only donate to targeted candidates now but why not try and send a message). She said, "I've been hearing that a lot today." Who knows maybe they'll figure out that they need to stand for something if they want support from their base.

    Well (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 11:19:29 AM EST
    they heard it from me too. They called and I said call back when the wimpy Obama somehow finds a backbone. Frankly, I think that I don't have to worry about giving them any money anytime soon.

    Parent
    General Party Donations (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 11:45:36 AM EST
    were never my focus. But, my parents certainly supported the Dems. They did not, however, support Obama. After my mom died a few months ago I took over handling my elderly dad's mail. All requests (and there were more than I could believe) from the DNC and DCCC for donations were returned to sender with a note that said, "Rather than continue donating to the party, from now on I will be contributing instead to the Salvation Army, the Mission, and other charitable organizations that are helping the unemployed, under-employed, and uninsured. Please remove me from your mailing list." To my amazement, the phone calls and the mailings have stopped.

    He does, however, contribute to the campaigns for the democrats on his ballot. We are fortunate to have good ones.

    Parent

    Good! Just send to challengers (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by hairspray on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 05:05:11 PM EST
    I responeded to the Senatorial campaign by sending money with Joe Sestak's name on the check.  And I will send to the Leahy challenger in Vt next time they call.   No more party money for these old clubby men.

    Parent
    FWIW I'm pretty unhappy. (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 10:47:57 AM EST
    I am even becoming quite cynical which for a life long participant in this democratic political system and something of a devotee is quite something.  I can't imagine what it is like for some of the people I know who suddenly woke up and got into politics believing that there were people who were going to represent their best interests.

    At least I am sort of used to betrayal in politics - not quite at this scale which is what I think is really bothering me - but for someone who has no experience in watching this stuff and who "believed" enough for the first time in  their lives to participate - the goings on of late, I believe, have real potential to create a fairly epic backlash.

    The really Machiavellian and darkest read on this situtation would be to say that on some level the politicians in power now captured this broad group of people's imagination with the ultimate intention of dumping them almost immediately after they won the power.  Because if you are a politician, why in the hell would you want a the unwashed masses giving you direction on what you're going to do while in office?  I think a lot of these people would be much, much happier if the American public were tuned out - so they could do whatever they want without scrutiny.  That's why so many of them hate the blogs.  All of a sudden they have to answer for their actions all the time rather than during the month before an election.

    No matter how you read it, it seems to me that most of the people in this White House including Obama have basically skipped the notion of governing the country and are thinking about their post Administration book deals and lobbying jobs.

    asdfk (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 10:59:02 AM EST
    No matter how you read it, it seems to me that most of the people in this White House including Obama have basically skipped the notion of governing the country and are thinking about their post Administration book deals and lobbying jobs.

    Well I guess if the country is more screwed up post-Obama than it was pre-Obama, the joy will be in watching the book deals dry up...nobody wants to buy the books of a failed presidency.  Look how hard it was for Cheney to get a book deal.  Did he ever get one?

    Lobbying jobs are another matter.  Those will depend on why the country is screwed up...

    Parent

    The only hope for education policy (none / 0) (#9)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 11:07:09 AM EST
    probably has to do with some of these politicians being bright enough to understand that they need people to be able to read in order to sell their books - or maybe not - probably not even that bright.

    Parent
    Obama's book will be bought by (none / 0) (#34)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 12:25:13 PM EST
    about 90% of the African American book buying public- fail/or nofail.

    Parent
    Nah (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 07:56:17 PM EST
    The Obama machine will be fired up once more and just like Ann Coulter books, the machine will get out and buy them, so it shoots to the top of the best seller list, and we will hear about the wonderfulness of him all over again.  We will hear words like "statesman" and "gravitas" being used...

    Parent
    Don't forget transformational (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 09:57:51 PM EST


    Parent
    You wouldn't be implying that (none / 0) (#43)
    by prittfumes on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 02:22:50 PM EST
    African Americans are not discriminating readers, would you? [smiling broadly and sincerely]

    Parent
    I'm surprised... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 11:02:48 AM EST
    there is still a Dem base to be unhappy...y'all are some gluttons for punishment.

    Could we finally see some I's win some races...have we finally reached the breaking point with the two-party charade?

    We have three parties at the moment. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 11:08:31 AM EST
    We have Republicans, the Center-Right Democrats and we have Liberal Democrats.  We're getting no where fast with this split as it stands now.

    Parent
    And that way, Republicans win. (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 11:18:18 AM EST
    See not 2012 but 1912 -- when the reverse happened, because Republicans then were so split by the Progressive movement . . . back when Progressives were Republicans.  This time, they're splitting Dems.

    Parent
    Never thought it was advantageous (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 11:36:01 AM EST
    for people to stay in abusive relationships. I have had enough "Sister Souljah" moments from this administration and the party to last me a lifetime. If the party wants to continue to flip off a large portion of the people who voted to get them their majority position, then they can expect me to write them off as well.

    Parent
    For 40 years (none / 0) (#28)
    by Steve M on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 12:08:10 PM EST
    the Democrats controlled Congress - and passed some pretty good legislation along the way - with a coalition including liberals as well as some really icky moderates/conservatives...

    Parent
    Yes, more lessons from the past (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 12:30:17 PM EST
    but also ancient history to those who buy into anything that claims to be new and improved, that seems so new and shiny . . . and turns out to only be shiny and not new, not an improvement at all.

    Parent
    No, sorry...nowhere near the (none / 0) (#14)
    by oldpro on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 11:30:49 AM EST
    breaking point partywise.

    Parties are brands.  Independent isn't enough of one in American politics...not even locally.  No platform, no identity.  Independents don't even vote for each other...they vote for the parties' candidates...except for two senators from New England.

    I could build a party ID on Jeffords...but Lieberman?

    Sheesh.  Good luck with that one.

    Parent

    I'm Indy so both parties HAVE to talk to me (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by Ellie on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 11:52:15 AM EST
    I got tired of being used, abused, and having everything that mattered getting back-burnered until it was the "right time" (ie, always in the fuzzy future; never in my lifetime) for a fight.

    Clue: it's always the right time to stand up, whether to move forward or to maintain hard won ground.

    Dem diehards who routinely depict Independent voters as dummies or perpetually on the fence have it laughably wrong.

    Parent

    The "right time" is always (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 03:45:40 PM EST
    after the next election and the next and the next. Meanwhile, please contribute lots of money so that we can accomplish this important issue after the next election. Funny how so many people keep buying into that scheme.

    Parent
    We need three new parties (none / 0) (#22)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 11:57:53 AM EST
    Libertarian, progressive and moderate.

    Dems and repubs have lost their meaning.

    There are those in favor of the status quo, a reduction in federal government and a progressive form of federal government.

    Neither party reflects the actual beliefs of the citizenry anymore.   We're all forced to swallow crap in order to hate the other party more.   Myself included.

    Parent

    We have that aready. (none / 0) (#35)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 12:28:38 PM EST
    We just need a Democratic Party that will go to the mat to get a reform program in place.

    Parent
    Probably right... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 11:35:12 AM EST
    maybe another 50 years or so we'll wise up that we're getting played...big money owns both parties.

    And if by some miracle an I party came together they'd be bought out too before we could whistle "Yankee Doodle Dandy"....not to get too cynical:)

    Parent

    It is what it is. We can deal (none / 0) (#19)
    by oldpro on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 11:50:57 AM EST
    with it or watch from the sidelines.

    Your serve.

    Parent

    It's nice here on the sidelines (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 12:02:43 PM EST
    as an Independent now, after a long lifetime as a Dem.

    Now, for a change, the Dems need me.  Hahahahaha.

    Parent

    We know that (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by oldpro on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 12:14:15 PM EST
    but they don't.  Not yet, anyway.

    My local 'progressive/liberal Dems' think I'm "too critical" of 'our team.'  Loyalty is the password.  Never mind the substance...what counts is the rah rah.

    Mindless.

    Parent

    One almost has to take the Independent (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 12:17:52 PM EST
    position these days. The Dems aren't serving the majority of the people anymore, and if we continue being tied to a party we might miss out on giving the person who is actually willing to fight for the issues that are important to the country a chance to get in there an make a difference.

    Parent
    Same here! (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by hairspray on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 05:09:18 PM EST


    Parent
    I wrote off the party when they crammed Obama (5.00 / 12) (#10)
    by Angel on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 11:07:10 AM EST
    down my throat.  If they had played nice to Hillary it would be a different story.  So, they won't get any of my hard-earned dollars.  We will all suffer as a result, but hey, they should have thought about that before they did it.

    UE = PO'd (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 11:34:57 AM EST
    It ain't HCR.....

    Why are we so concerned with job loss? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 05:19:04 PM EST

    when it is job creation we should be focusing on?  Job creation gets 5 minutes a night on the news and job loss gets 18 of the 24 hours.
    I realize there are multiple facets of this recession but it seems to me that conceding job loss while simultaneously talking bank bailouts and nationalization is counter-intuitive. Lower employment devalues those assets more rapidly and demotivates people to pay their upside down mortgages and creates walk away scenarios no matter how well the foreclosure savior is structured.  
    The majority of americans cannot sustain themselves longer than 6 months on unemployment without something breaking.
    Lots of ink and air about job loss.  If this were an election year we would be seeing a hell of a lot more political capital expended in the interest of flowing capital.

    7 million new jobs in ten years (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 05:05:43 PM EST

    with 10 million people unemploye