From the post-State of the Union discussion on the Charlie Rose Show (1/25/11):
CHARLIE ROSE: With respect to his base, where are they tonight? They listened to him move to the center–
JOHN SUNUNU: On the Upper West Side.
JOHN HEILEMANN: Drinking heavily on the Upper West Side.
(LAUGHTER)
The discussion went on to explain how the progressive base either really likes Obama, or won’t have anyone else to vote for so it won’t matter what they think. Such discussions are a lot easier to have when you don’t invite any actual progressives who might disagree with the Upper West side jokes.
“The discussion went on to explain how the progressive base either really likes Obama, or won’t have anyone else to vote for so it won’t matter what they think.”
Sadly, this part is true. 99% of the people on, say, Daily Kos who are today posturing about how horrible Obama is will be voting for him in two years. They may not work for him quite as hard, but they’ll definitely be voting for him.
Sadly, the truth is, as bad as Obama may seem, he’s infinitely better than any republican candidate could be at this point. He’s as far left as you can go these days, so we’ll take what we can get.
It seems that the “rich liberal” meme is alive and well, with no need for any facts to sustain it. This short comment by Paul Krugman is worth revisiting:
krugman.blogs.nytimes.com /2007 /10 /22 /income-and-voting/
I would, of course, be most interested in an update on the correlation between income and voting â┚¬“ that is, between higher incomes and Republican voting habits â┚¬“ which according to Krugman (2007) has persisted without interruption since 1972. Can anybody find one?
@Matt Powers
You’re advocating voting for a black (excuse me, BIRACIAL) Dubya.
Yeah, he’s a real liberal. My favorite argument: lesser of two evils, right? He’s still evil.
Fuck democracy and this fake system.
Mises.org
@ eric
this study is from 2007 but you might find it of interest
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/rb_qjps.pdf
“Income matters more in red America than in blue America. In poor states, rich people are much more likely than poor people to vote for the Republican presidential candidate, but in rich states (such as Connecticut), income has a very low correlation with vote preference.
@ eric
here’s a response to gelman
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/20/why_voting_is_linked_to_income/
“in the late 1950s and early 1960s voters in the highest income quintile were no more likely to identify with or vote for the Republican party than those in the bottom quintile. But by the 1990s, the top quintile was twice as Republican as the bottom.”
There’s no significant difference between Dubya and Obummer. Both are puppets of the super-rich, both are war criminals, and both have proven themselves to be indifferent to human rights, habeas corpus, global warming, environmental depletion, Wall Street looting, poverty, lax governmental regulation, etc., etc., etc. You people who think that in 2012 progressives will come swarming back to the second-worst president in American history, when measured by his effect on all mankind, may have another think coming.
What Roger Bloyce said.
The same people who mindlessly love Obama would be hating Obama’s policies if they were enacted by Bush. Open up the east coast to offshore drilling 3 weeks before a major spill? If W did that, they’d scream bloody murder and rip him a new one, but when Obama does it they twist themselves into pretzels to rationalize it’s brilliance. Same thing on Afghanistan, corporate finance “reform”, health care “reform”, extending tax breaks for the rich, etc. W would have been pilloried for the same things Obama gets praised for. I swear the ‘Obama-progressives’ are even dumber than the lower and middle class Republicans who constantly vote against their own self-interests.
Obama will be like Clinton (so far so good). He will retire after 8 years and become obscenely rich selling high level government access, and doing books, speeches, and tv. And, of course, high-profile “humanitarian” work to keep his image squeaky clean.
Most progressives I know understand that all presidents work for the wealthy first and foremost.
And that all governments lie,no matter who is actually running them.
Blind adulation of ANY politician or party is idiotic,no matter what your personal politics or beliefs may be.
I see Obama for who he really is,just like I saw Bush for who he was while in office.
Obama is still the better of the two choices.
He is continuing wars,but he didn’t START the wars.
He is continuing tax cuts,but he didn’t CREATE the tax cuts.
Pointless bickering is just pointless bickering.
McCain would have been much worse,and Palin would be one step from the PRESIDENCY.