Originally Posted by tonton
Conservatives love to delude themselves into thinking that Obama's unpopularity is due to his Liberalism. Remember during the election, when they called him "the most Liberal member of the Senate" and look at how many times the morons call him a Socialist.
Yet the real reason he's lost popularity is his betrayal of his base -- the Liberals.
Now this is an interesting narrative to float out there. There are many things I've learned about when posting here over the years. All of the little leftists, you are all sort of my study subjects and while I enjoy feeding you little food pellets and watching you run the maze, the most fun comes from my theories about my pets.
Please understand the tangent up front, the claim is horribly wrong so I have to distract a bit before crushing it outright, just to be kind and all.
Anyway..... one of my pet theories is that liberals LOVE, I mean love like want to hump it, just love a good narrative. I'm not saying conservatives are completely immune to such a thing but no one can love on a good narrative like liberals can. The number one narrative is of course about "the man" and how "the man" keeps everyone and everything down and bad but there are many smaller narratives as well and I've noticed when confronted by information, news or reality that, regardless of team, breaks the narrative, they repeat the good intentions (set back up the pieces for the main character) and then repeat the narrative to themselves in their posting.
This is part of my secondary pet theory about why they go completely ape shit insane and basically start throwing their own feces at folks like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. These folks are narrative guys on the right and they tell some really compelling stories from the tidbits I have seen. They are such powerful story tellers that liberals find they have to watch and listen and then go completely insane over the fact that they had to listen to the story, but hated the story at the same time. It is almost like using their own weakness against them and they get soooooo pissed. Story bad.....story bad.....story very, very, very......bad (/throw poop) Sarah Palin is also exceedingly good at this and as someone with a very good personal narrative that also manages to stand in opposition to their entire worldview (career mom, self-made, mom and daughter chose life no matter how bad the contingencies) they go completely INSANE with regard to her.
The reverse of this is of course while citing expertise or science as their models for thought, they really love their own story tellers. Obama of course was elected due to his profoundly amazing personal narrative. Bill Clinton was just a fantastic story teller, honestly leagues better than Obama. We can't forget the man from Hope, before Hope and Change arrived. John Kerry's military experience wasn't really tarnished by the Swiftboat vets but what they did was just destroy the narrative he had crafted to the point that there wasn't enthusiasm for him to the same degree. Christmas in Cambodia and how he got his purples hearts didn't really alter anything about his presidential platform but they did destroy the "reporting for duty" narrative he had built up. Al Gore was considered to be "wishy-washy" and a bad campaigner not because of any policy he pushed or any platform he endorsed but because he simply couldn't tell a good story about himself. He kept changing the story and that makes those trying to watch the story very upset. Afterwards he learned though and he tells a very good story now involving the planet and trying to save it and so now of course he is REALLY, really loved.
Oh anyway......so once a group of liberals have decided on the narrative, it is the reality regardless of actual reality. If you present facts in opposition to it, they will just repeat the story and I expect that to probably be the case here as well since these are both very enjoyable narratives to read (Tonton and Seg should really be commended for their ability to build rising action especially) but they absolutely fail to match reality. See we have Pollster.com and it gives us some nice line graphs
See Pollster.com has the real story and by that I mean of course the real facts, not a story. It uses all the poll numbers out there and combines them into some nice line graphs and the conclusion they present is simply very very clear.
Democratic support has indeed fallen just a bit. No one gets a honeymoon forever and among Democrats, Obama has fallen about 4 points but still is above 80% approval. Looking at that graph, you wouldn't even see any movement you would call outside of the margin of error for most polls.
Then we move on to the Republican graph.....
Regardless of the claim that he would always be hated or whatever that pretty story was being waved around, Obama ran a pragmatic campaign based around a tax cut, ending many of our Pax America actions, bringing the troops home and using the war savings for domestic concerns. As the poll shows about half of Republicans bought into those claims and as they were proven false, they left him in droves. Still the story calls for a good antagonist to the protagonist and so while Obama ran as post partisan and appeared to achieve and blow that based on these poll numbers, everyone likes a good villain so I'm sure they will be ignored.
Yet we still have independents. They are not antagonists (yet!) and they are not protagonists and while that is important to the story, it isn't at all important to reality but it is reality that they will vote in the midterms.
We see there what you might expect from someone who is neither protagonist nor antagonist. They start off with positive numbers and open minds and then react to the outcomes.
The problem for Democrats is this weakness for narrative and especially now that the media has come off the sidelines with much "analysis" that reinforces the narrative. It basically becomes a self-reinforcing delusion. In 1994 there wasn't a Daily Show and Colbert Report which could repeat the narrative complete with funny jokes and skits so, you know, outside events might have actually caused a reexamination of what was going on and allowed changes to be made. Now that won't happen and the damage from the delusion will likely be greater. Also this fondness for narrative, the protagonist DEMANDS an antagonist. thus all those folks that are independent, they have to become bad guys. You have to demonize them and thus end up driving off their votes. You can't let them float around for a while because that wouldn't be good for the story. If they aren't good, then they must be bad and under Obama that means they are greedy, racist, hateful extremist bastards.
I'll go right out and say it. Obama is more conservative then Bill Clinton (who was very conservative for a Democrat). This is shown again, and again. His foreign policy. His refusal to support a public option on the health care bill. His backflips on banking reform. His delaying the repeal of DADT. His decisions on nuclear energy (which I don't oppose) and on offshore drilling (which I do -- we need to get OFF oil, not localize it).
Yes, the Huffington Post is Liberal. And you can expect followers of the Huffington Post to be Liberal. But I think they are not "fringe far-left" at all. They are pretty much in the middle of the Democratic Party demographic.
And here is what they have to say about the rumors that Obama may replace Stevens with Kagan (all from the first page of comments as of the posting of this thread):http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_532319.htmlThis is a gift, and Obama has to take full advantage of it. He has the majority in the Senate, and the GOP doesn't have the numbers to block the nomination. He needs to get a true LIBERAL, one that is in his mid forties or fifties, fully qualified and able to serve for decades to come, like Stevens did./Anything less would be a huge error in judgement.
Why would Obama pick a Liberal though? Dude is full on center-right. Sorry for voting for him everybody, he fooled me as well.
When does Obama plan on reaching across the aisle to the Democrats?
...because Obama is the most radical president ever .... (sarcasm)
Replacing the most liberal member on the court...WITH A CONSERVATIVE?? This is another outrage in a long line of outrages. Obama has betrayed progressives on drug importation, on the public option, on oil windfall profits tax, on offshore oil drilling, on the public option. How much lo*Baah* er, ok. How much longer are we go*BAAAH*....are we going to*BAAAAH*....excuse me..we can't let ourselves be pushed ov*baaah* baaaah!! baaaaah!! baAAAH!!!! BAAAAAH!!! BAAAAAAH!!!!!
I'd love to see some examples of "Conservatives" or even "Republicans" opposing some of the decisions (or rumored decisions) of Bush with such vehemence. I doubt there are any. Because Conservatives, for the most part, supported Bush out of blind partisanship. Most Liberals have no such flaw, and we are quite open to opposing Obama when he makes bad decisions. This is the major reason for his lost popularity.
As you can see from above there isn't a chance that the sequel that follows from the first story is anywhere near true. I'll toss in a few bits of information you can ignore but then give you a give you a story I like that I know you can't ignore.
Bill Clinton eventually signed on to balancing the budget. He signed DOMA. He created Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The policy of regime change in Iraq was a Clinton policy. Clinton was the leader of the DLC as another example. Those are facts but please feel free to ignore them because in this instance even I like the story better.
Bill Clinton was and is the greatest politician I have still ever witnessed. He knows he would have whipped Obama's ass if he were the candidate rather than his wife. The man's ego is huge and he has easily proven he will wreck the party to save himself. I mean you are the big brother, the second coming of Camelot, the original man from Hope and America's First Black President and you watch this other guy come along and try to grab all that away from you. First you fight it to the best of your ability but while your wife is truly a formidable candidate who would have won any other time, she is still the "B" team and this really shows when you've got a guy basically using your own playbook against you. He isn't the man from Hope, but he is another man who grew up poor, from a single mother of course and he has Hope and CHANGE. Two for one baby! He isn't the second coming of Camelot, he has the first Camelot in his back pocket endorsing him. He isn't America's first black president because he absorbed lots of black culture from the South while being poor and is a mean sax playing machine. He's actually....get this... is half black. The mean left-handed jump shot just adds to the cred here man.
So you're the greatest politician ever and you see someone stealing your mojo. What do you do about that? That asshat Al Gore couldn't cross the finish line and your wife couldn't beat the man running your own playbook against you, so what do you do?
You give him a fatal narrative, a poison pill and then ride in to clean up the results. You float out there the story that 1994 happened because health care wasn't passed. You know midterm losses are the norm and with the economy in the tank, lots of folks simply vote out whoever is in. Even a great shooter can't get a bounce in that instance but the losses would have still have left Dems in control and Obama could still triangulate. So you give them a good story that drives them to the far left and watch the wreckage while clapping with glee. You do this because when Obama goes down after one term you are still the only Democratic two term wonder in the last half century. Better still you still have the wife who wants a couple terms herself and can even steal the "historic" playbook in round two.
It will be glorious and afterwards everyone will know and understand that Bill Clinton is the Michael Jordan of politicians. Obama, he's just Charles Barkley, a pretender who got beat by the master.
Originally Posted by segovius
Conservatives would have hated Obama no matter what - the level of their detestation could not get any higher, it is at 100%. This would be a constant whether he was the most liberal Dem POTUS ever or the most right-wing.
So it follows that - as Obama won with a large amount of Liberal goodwill and hope (hahah) - the mass of unpopularity in relation to his former approval must
be due to Liberal discontent.
It's disturbing that Repubs don't seem to be able to see any nuance in a situation: if a POTUS is a Dem he MUST be extreme-left/Commie and the Left MUST support his every move.
It's quite concerning... especially when you think that such people have been in charge of international diplomacy and policy formation and could well be again quite soon.
See above, the graphs lay this to waste. It is an enjoyable story though and I did find myself craving popcorn.