U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
December 07, 2010 09:36 PM UTC

Obama's "Liberal Problem" Overstated?

  • 60 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

UPDATE: Today’s press conference defending the compromise, via MSNBC:

From our friends at “The Fix“:

The rising din of criticism from the left raises an obvious question: Does Obama have a liberal problem?

The answer, polling suggests, is not really.

In the latest  Associated Press survey, which was conducted Nov. 18-22, Obama’s standing quite strong among liberals.

While just 48 percent of the overall sample approve of the job Obama is doing, 80 percent of self-identified liberals feel the same — a stratospherically high number.

The story is much the same on Obama’s personal favorability ratings. An AP poll in the field just after the 2010 election showed that 90 percent of liberals felt favorably inclined to Obama as compared to 55 percent overall.

While polling may suggest that Obama doesn’t really have a “liberal problem” with voters, it will be interesting to watch over the next 2 years to see if he does have “liberal problem” with volunteers and small donors–where the base dissatisfaction we’ve been talking about would manifest.

Tweet
Share

Comments

60 thoughts on “Obama’s “Liberal Problem” Overstated?”

  3. Ive been thinking about the whole Bush tax cut extension issue, and I’m increasing thinking that Obama got everything he wanted really.  Basically, the administration has approached the economic situation with classic Keynesian philosophy every chance they get.  That is, low taxes, high spending, more or less. This of course increases the deficit, but that is the role of the federal government during a recession. (Countercyclical financing)

    With this deal, he got Republicans to vote for Keynesian economics, large increases in spending (extension of unemployment benefits, which are classic Keynes economic tool) and continued lowered taxes.  Though he extended rich people’s tax breaks as well, that should still help the economy.  No deal would have resulted in Hoover economics – higher taxes and lowered spending to balance lower the deficit.

    And the extension is only for 2 years (hopefully) and  then the economy will have recovered a bit(hopefully). Then we can kill those tax cuts for the fat cats.(hopefully)

    This may all work for Obama cause his primary goal is certainly to get the economy chugging again before the 2012 election.

    3. how do tax breaks for the rich help the economy ?  We are just continuing the breaks for the rich that we have already had for years, and unemployment is at 9.8 percent right now.

      Plus we take in less, which adds to the deficit, increases our overall percentage of budgetary spending on debt, and weakens our economy.

      Finally, we are increasing the gap again between the uber rich and the rest of us.  When the top 1 % own 99 % of the economy we become no different than any other run of the mill banana republic.  Is that we want ?

      How does this help the economy at all ?  

      1. According to Keynes, government should provide countercyclical financing, and it appears that the entire administration is in this boat.  Basically, during a recession you push money into the economy by raising the deficit and even create money.  You do this by tax cuts or increased spending.  See FDR or the ARRA (stimulus act).  The idea is that the economy needs an external stimulus to get going again.  Without a doubt, the stimulus act and the TARP funds served this purpose and saved the US and global economy from a depression.

        So the idea is that by keeping tax rates low, you keep that money in the economy.  Of course it raises the deficit and is unfunded, but that is the whole point.  I do sincerely believe that Obama would have liked to raise taxes on the rich, but this isn’t that bad of a compromise.

        Especially considering that there’s no way another stimulus act could get through congress (though its probably needed) and being a deficit hawk is super cool these day, this looks awfully successful for Obama.  It will basically be like a second stimulus act, but it is being pushed by the Republicans (maybe they aren’t deficit hawks after all)

        Specifically to your point on tax cuts for the rich, most progressive economists do not think its the best way to stimulate the economy.  A better way would be food stamps, or unemployment benefits, cause that money is spent immediately.  However, it is a compromise after all.  

        1. The payroll tax holiday will be used as a bludgeon by Republicans railing against Social Security.

          While I might even agree that a payroll tax holiday is a Good Thing in normal circumstances, it doesn’t take a genius to take a leap from the fact that Republicans proposed it to the fact that they’ll use it to their own advantage, and probably in ways we really, REALLY don’t want.

          1. will come when it is about time to expire, and then responsible politicians (Ok, I’m an admitted dreamer) will have to explain to the general electorate why it is in their best interest to have their paychecks get smaller.  

            The timing on this expiration and then the tax cut extension expiration will be a double whammy for voters.

        2. its a capitulation.  Tax cuts for the rich raise the deficit with nothing to show for it, as opposed to at least a stimulus or infrastructure spending.

          Its a crappy theory, buying into some trickle down idea that if the rich don’t pay their fair share somehow that will help the economy.  If you are an employer you take that tax break and it may help your bottom line, and it has absolutely zero correlation to hiring decisions, or what you purchase as a company.  Congratulations, your company has just become more efficient – put up good numbers, pocket the money and move on.  It hasn’t helped the economy recently, and it won’t this time.

    4. Basically, the administration has approached the economic situation with classic Keynesian philosophy every chance they get.

       

      The problem is that Obama has been a very, very light version of classic Keynesian and too little agressive neo Keynesian (or Paul Krugman type Keynesian–these labels keep changing). There are those like Krugman who have refined Keynesian models that are based on the facts that fit past data and experience, that deal with problems like the zero lower bound, and that predicted future events and future problems and who showed that we needed much, much more.

      The Obama team’s light version of classical Keynesianism was not enough, and is still not enough. They did not take “every chance they g[o]t.” They did not do enough, big enough, soon enough, and lost the chance for a quicker recovery.

      Obama got everything he wanted really

      Unfortunately, you may be right about that, but if so, he didn’t want enough and he didn’t want what he (we) needed.

      Certainly there is more needed economic stimulation in this proposed deal than it seemed we might get just a few days ago, and it’s a hell of a lot better than “perfect market” philosophy that got us into the ditch. But it is not yet enough to get us out.

      1. No doubt he hasn’t gotten as much as some, or probably he even wanted.  But he had to compromise to get it through. With the stimulus he had to compromise down its full size.  With this one, he compromised up the size of the package.  

  4. The problem is the liberals, not Obama. That may be little comfort for Obama who will need the liberals working on his campaign, but seriously, why do liberals constantly act like the political situation is completely different than it actually is?

  5. At least, until it comes time to vote, he does. He said after the election he wanted his base to pressure him and keep him honest. As the President, he has to lean a little with the wind. If it seems like it’s blowing exclusively from the right, he bends with it. From my assumptions about Obama (which, granted, may come from a place of denial based solely on how much I love his writing) I believe him to be a genuine Progressive at heart and a wise constitutional scholar. I suspect he would breathe a sigh of relief if a Liberal movement as loudmouthed and successful (in getting media coverage) as the Tea Party formed.

    People seem to forget that the President can’t just do whatever the fuck he wants. The harder people push for a more progressive POTUS, the harder he’ll be able to argue for progressive policies. He has to be able to convince the legislative branch that his proposals are what voters want.

    In short, squeaky wheels and all that.

    1. When the fringe on the right gets feisty, Republicans fall all over themselves in an effort to placate.

      When the fringe on the left gets feisty, no one pays them any attention.

      You seem to think that the corporate media covers the two groups equally.  A review of the Iraq anti-war coverage should dispel any notion that the left gets any where near enough coverage to pressure a corporate centrist who can’t be believed that he will change anything regarding the rich no matter how much he gnashes his teeth.

      1. The media likes money. Viewership gets them money. If the viewers want stories about a liberal insurgency, the media will provide them. This year viewers wanted to hear about someone sticking it to the people in power, so we got the Tea Party.

        Obama is just a president who set up expectations the president doesn’t have enough power to meet. He’s not the messiah or the antichrist. Like any president, he can only do so much, and he’s not willing (unlike the other side) to let the country flounder to score a political point. Frankly, I hate the compromise but I understand (and disagree with) his reasons for making it.  

        1. a lot of people who once bled blue and now don’t know what to do.

          He can’t be trusted in my opinion to champion progressive causes.  On every issue, he hews to Republican demands and backs down at every encounter with his tail between his legs claiming he can’t do anything else.

          It sucks right now to be a Democrat.  No guts and no glory.  A pacifier of the rich and the bankers.

  6. the “liberals” really have no place to go. Obama knows this, that’s why he can pull off the deal with the Republicans and take the heat. It also guarantees him access to corporatist money, which with the Citizen ruling is going to be an even bigger factor.

    Name me a “liberal” with the name recognition and fund raising clout to successfully challenge a sitting president. I can give you one who failed – Ted Kennedy.

    1. Even Mary Landrieu and Mark Udall appear to be lining up against this cut.  Add to that George Voinovich and Bernie Sanders, and a Harry Reid who says it’s doubtful the votes exist for this deal…

      It appears that there is indeed a deal with the devil that some elected officials aren’t willing to take.

    2. and spending personal time to work for his election might not be the same thing.

      From Guantanamo to the public option, Obama always seems to choose the anti-progressive position.  The little people who believed that change was possible won’t spend time on a Josh McDaniels of politics who can’t be trusted to live up to his promises.  It is going to be a long time before the Democratic Party is going to be able to overcome this embrace of Republicans leading him around by the nose.

  7. I think that this is a reasonable compromise, and the most important deal (unemp benefits) passes. And then I think, “Ballshit!  Tax cuts for millionaires?!!”

    I worry that my reasonableness silences my justified outrage.  And then I’m reasonable again and I understand the political realities.  But it’s still bs.

    It would be easier to be an TeaPottier and just buy the FauxNews/Koch Bros line.

    1. You are getting sleepy.

      You are getting sleepy.

      You will support wealthy welfare

      It is in you best interests to support wealthy welfare.

      There are no alternatives to wealthy welfare.

      Embrace wealthy welfare.

      1. only the rich can make jobs, so I have to keep giving them money, the wealthy need this money more than I do, now isn’t it time for O’Reilly?

  8. We can deficit spend, but not without limit. Tax cuts, especially for the wealthy, don’t stimulate much of anything other than financial fees. But if those cuts end, then some of that money can be targeted at effective stimulus.

    1. Side note:  we are talking about tax rates that have a scheduled ending date.  Not saying you said it, but sometimes the conversation sounds like Congress is deliberately pulling a plug. Really, this would be a NEW tax cut that looks just like the old, recently deceased one.  Or maybe it’s more like a heart transplant in a terminal patient.  Anyway, no plugs pulled.

      1. instead of the Dems we have, they would have been pointing out for the past two years that the “Bush tax plan” was to have taxes go up in 2011. That is what the plan said. But Dems just can’t get out any coherent message.

  9. This is the greatest day I’ve had, politics-wise, since Obama’s inauguration.

    To say that I’m happy watching the President get ripped apart by people that elected him that have no grasp on basic economics would be a huge understatement.

    Just checking in from vacation – carry on.  

        1. The real engine of the economy is start-ups. And there is a lot of venture and angel money available. More never hurts but there isn’t a shortage. And large companies are sitting on trillions of cash.

          What is holding everyone back is a lack of customers. And the rich are not a large market – there’s too few of them. The business community needs one thing – more customers.

          Tax cuts instead of stimulus (tax cuts are a very weak stimulus) hurt us all – even the rich as their holdings are dependent on the health of the economy long-term.

            1. Keep talking about Bush – please. I want the Senate and the Presidency along with the House in two years.

              You know what has to sting? Its the fact that Bush is going to be viewed favorably in the history books, while Obama is now going to be lumped in with Carter when they talk about the demise of the “Progressive” movement in modern American politics.

                1.  You must be missing the part where the government pressured lenders to go under the redline, and then guaranteed it.

                  If not for that, we are put of the woods.  

              2. What is going to stand out is the loss of trust by the people who helped get him elected who see his Republican Lite agenda.  This is a guy who is willingly being defined by the Republicans who tell him what he can’t do.

                The first sign that progressives were getting screwed was when he chose not to include Howard Dean as part of his administration.

                Bush will be remembered for his ignorance.  Obama with be remembered for continuing Republican policies which for people who really thought there was going to be a change in direction in our country it is a disheartening result.

                This guy could be to the right of you LB when it comes to implementing conservative policies.  To add insult to the situation, people like you still believe he is some kind commie pinko.  You should be loving him and what he is doing to gut the promotion or implementation of progressive solutions.

                  1. When you compound his Republican policies with Palin policies to be then you are going to see some real damage.

                    Too bad they didn’t try any progressive solutions to get us out of this deep hole that the country is in from following phony pro-life Republican policies.  We’re fucked again.

                    1. two years out before the 2010 election but the incompetent Republicans nominated as their standard bearer Dan Maes.  Dan Maes?  Really?

                      Somehow I think your enthusiasm for kicking out Obama isn’t going to go according to plan.

    4. for enjoying the plight of unemployed people, who were laid off by your rich buddies so they could hire illegals at a cheaper rate and pocket the difference, being tied to the extension of wealthy welfare to those who already own 87% of the country.

      Such a compassionate conservative to blame the unemployed for not be illegal and wanting to work for less.  It must be a happy day for you to know that the lazy laid off unemployed are helpless in the face our your rich buddies’ greed.  “Give us our tax cuts or the children of the unemployed will go to bed cold and starving and we could care less.  We want our tax cuts or they will suffer more malnutrition in the greatest country in the world and it is our doing and we’re proud of our blackmail strategy”.

    5. seeing supporters of a party actually able to critically evaluate the actions within their party?  It’s that kind of self-reflection that’s never seen, and sorely missing, among Republicans.  Enjoy.  (and, enjoy the rest of the vacation too LB.)

    6. You are not a pro-life person.

      A pro-life person cares about hungry children more than they care about greedy rich Republicans.

      You’re not pro-life by any stretch of the imagination.

      1. …what you are talking about.  You don’t know me, or what I do in my life.

        Someday I’ll out myself, and then you can apologize for that one.  For now, though, fire away.

        1. more than you value helping the poor.

          If you are representative of a pro-life person then the entire movement if a hypocritical bunch of callous assholes who have no real intention of helping those human beings who breath air and struggle for existence.  Your pro-life positions are twisted perversions that Jesus has condemned.

          Matthew 7:21-23

          “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!‘

           

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

207 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!