Obama Poll Numbers

[BillsNYC]

Wow....RealClearPolitics has them averaging out at 48.7 approval, 45.4 disapproval. If the trends continue we could see these numbers swap.

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ot...roval-1044.html

 

Gallup has him at 47% approval, lowest of any president at this point in their term, and doesn't look to be bottoming out.

 

And what does this administration do when it doesn't like news, it shoots the messenger:

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration...pproval-ratings

[DC Tom]

Wow....RealClearPolitics has them averaging out at 48.7 approval, 45.4 disapproval. If the trends continue we could see these numbers swap.

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ot...roval-1044.html

 

Gallup has him at 47% approval, lowest of any president at this point in their term, and doesn't look to be bottoming out.

 

And what does this administration do when it doesn't like news, it shoots the messenger:

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration...pproval-ratings

 

Three points:

 

1) Speaking specifically of the electorate, people are thrilled by "Hope" and "Change", until they realize that it generally involves effort, responsibility, and sacrifice.

 

2) Obama's approval numbers were so high when he was elected, they had nowhere to go but down.

 

3) I would posit that Bush's approval numbers would have been just as low at this point in his fisrt term if it wasn't for 9/11 and the jingoistic reaction to such.

[Lt. Dan's Revenge]

Three points:

 

1) Speaking specifically of the electorate, people are thrilled by "Hope" and "Change", until they realize that it generally involves effort, responsibility, and sacrifice.

 

2) Obama's approval numbers were so high when he was elected, they had nowhere to go but down.

 

3) I would posit that Bush's approval numbers would have been just as low at this point in his fisrt term if it wasn't for 9/11 and the jingoistic reaction to such.

 

1) "Hope" and "Change" are what the people were promised by the Obama camp, not some grassroots campaign that they began themselves.

 

2) Completely irrelevant. Unless your point is that his numbers were that high because of the magnitude of expectations from many a year ago, which he has completely failed to live up to thus far. Then it makes a little more sense to point that out.

 

3) Many of the events that killed Bush's approval ratings happened due in large part to the 9/11 attacks happening (Afghanistan, Iraq, Patriot Act, etc), so that argument doesn't really hold much water. As if GWB's approval ratings are relevant in a discussion about Obama's in the first place. The year is 2009.

[BillsNYC]

Three points:

 

1) Speaking specifically of the electorate, people are thrilled by "Hope" and "Change", until they realize that it generally involves effort, responsibility, and sacrifice.

 

2) Obama's approval numbers were so high when he was elected, they had nowhere to go but down.

 

3) I would posit that Bush's approval numbers would have been just as low at this point in his fisrt term if it wasn't for 9/11 and the jingoistic reaction to such.

 

1) People wanted hope and change, they didn't want trillions of dollars in new spending. They also want jobs, something this administration isn't prioritizing which I feel has a huge impact on his polls. They don't want this healthcare plan. Liberals don't want this war. He also campaigned that he was everything to everyone, which was BS and now people on both sides of the office aren't happy with him.

 

2) That's not true, his poll numbers were average his first month in office, and have actually dropped faster and father than any other president. His "sky high poll numbers" were a media myth. http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/20...s-poll-numbers/

 

3) You don't know that, and it has nothing to do with Obama's numbers tanking.

[IDBillzFan]

3) I would posit that Bush's approval numbers would have been just as low at this point in his fisrt term if it wasn't for 9/11 and the jingoistic reaction to such.

Which is an interesting point, if for no other reason than to speculate further that if the US was attacked right now in anything resembling 9/11 fashion, Obama's remaining popularity would be dead meat.

[DC Tom]

1) "Hope" and "Change" are what the people were promised by the Obama camp, not some grassroots campaign that they began themselves.

 

2) Completely irrelevant. Unless your point is that his numbers were that high because of the magnitude of expectations from many a year ago, which he has completely failed to live up to thus far. Then it makes a little more sense to point that out.

 

3) Many of the events that killed Bush's approval ratings happened due in large part to the 9/11 attacks happening (Afghanistan, Iraq, Patriot Act, etc), so that argument doesn't really hold much water. As if GWB's approval ratings are relevant in a discussion about Obama's in the first place. The year is 2009.

 

1) Doesn't change my point. People approved of "Hope" and "Change", until they realized it wasn't easy. Doesn't matter where they got it from.

 

2) Completely relevant. No president can sustain 70+ point approval ratings for long. His approval rating was going to fall; gloating over it is rather like gloating over the sunset - they're both inevitable.

 

3) "Gallup has him at 47% approval, lowest of any president at this point in their term" makes every other president's approval ratings at this point in their terms relevant, nitwit.

[Lt. Dan's Revenge]

1) Doesn't change my point. People approved of "Hope" and "Change", until they realized it wasn't easy. Doesn't matter where they got it from.

 

2) Completely relevant. No president can sustain 70+ point approval ratings for long. His approval rating was going to fall; gloating over it is rather like gloating over the sunset - they're both inevitable.

 

3) "Gallup has him at 47% approval, lowest of any president at this point in their term" makes every other president's approval ratings at this point in their terms relevant, nitwit.

 

1) Who's making them realize that "Hope" and "Change" aren't easy other than the Obama Administration themselves?

 

2) So, what you're saying is that just because a President comes into office with a high approval rating, there's no way they can actually do their job effectively while in office and keep it around the same average? That is totally out of the realm of possibility to you? Unfortunately, Obama is really helping your cause as far as that's concerned thus far.

 

3) My point there was that everytime something negative is being discussed about the current President, Bush's name is never far behind. That copout is getting quite tiresome. Your Gallup quote doesn't change the fact that, in the grand scheme of things, Bush's approval ratings mean squat when the current discussion is about Obama's, nitwit.

[IDBillzFan]

My point there was that everytime something negative is being discussed about the current President, Bush's name is never far behind. That copout is getting quite tiresome.

Tiresome, yes. But in my opinion it is nothing compared to the ridiculous idiocy of blaming the GOP for stalling health care reform. Someone needs to remind Obama that the Democrats control everything right now. Everything. The only people standing in his way are his own. He has no one to blame but his own side.

[DC Tom]

1) Who's making them realize that "Hope" and "Change" aren't easy other than the Obama Administration themselves?

 

Reality. The administration was never going to effectively implement "Hope" and "Change", because they're not implementable concepts. It's the voters' fault they bought into that line of BS, not the administration's.

 

2) So, what you're saying is that just because a President comes into office with a high approval rating, there's no way they can actually do their job effectively while in office and keep it around the same average? That is totally out of the realm of possibility to you?

 

Actually, I'm saying that when a President comes into office with high approval ratings, those ratings will fall. I didn't say a damn thing about job performance. Basically, approval ratings are a BS measure of performance - they were when Bush was in the 20's, they were when Obama was in the 70's, they are now that he's in the 40's.

 

 

3) My point there was that everytime something negative is being discussed about the current President, Bush's name is never far behind. That copout is getting quite tiresome. Your Gallup quote doesn't change the fact that, in the grand scheme of things, Bush's approval ratings mean squat when the current discussion is about Obama's, nitwit.

 

Your point's the irrelevent one. The Gallup quote made a specific claim, and I quoted a specific example where that claim probably would have been false. It wasn't a "Well, Bush sucked worse!" claim, it was a "Gallup's full of ****" claim.

[Chef Jim]

The reason his numbers are dropping is because people are idiots. It has a lot to do with Afghanistan and he's lost a lot of the lefty peaceniks. Little do they know that he's doing exactly what he said he'd do during the campaign. Here's an example from a letter to the editor of the SF Chronicle a couple of days ago.

 

 

Dear President Obama: During your presidential primary and general campaign in 2008, I was happy to support you by participating in your campaign through phone banking, and I was ecstatic when you won the general election.

 

But by embracing the existing war-think mentality, as you proved in announcing your escalation of the war in Afghanistan, you seem to me to have turned into a different person, and I am sorry to say I can no longer support you.

 

In 2012, I will not campaign for you, and I will not vote for you. If there is not a candidate who holds out greater peace potential, I will vote for no one.

 

I utterly reject and disagree with your stated view that continued prosecution of the war in Afghanistan is vital - or even helpful - to our security.

 

There are so many opportunities to build safety through peaceful measures. To name just one, I believe that ending support for Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine would make America incalculably more secure than the sending of more young Americans to be slaughtered and maimed on foreign battlefields.

 

ROBERT ROSENBAUM

 

San Francisco

[Magox]

Basically, approval ratings are a BS measure of performance - they were when Bush was in the 20's, they were when Obama was in the 70's, they are now that he's in the 40's.

I don't understand why some people come to espouse the notion that approval ratings are meaningless. Now I know that you didn't say that, you said it is "BS measure of performance" but it does lead the impression that you and some others think that they are somewhat meaningless.

 

IF that is the case, then I flatly disagree. Approval ratings are important in the fact that it does gauge public sentiment in how the president is performing his job. Ratings go up as voters believe that things are going in the right direction, the same is to be said if things are turning sour.

 

I also find it to be very telling that his approval ratings have fallen faster than any other president in history within their first year.

 

It just goes to show you that the level of expectations that he instilled in peoples minds were unrealistic, and that the reality is that his vision of "change and hope" when placed into real terms, differs than that of most Americans.

[erynthered]

The reason his numbers are dropping is because people are idiots. It has a lot to do with Afghanistan and he's lost a lot of the lefty peaceniks. Little do they know that he's doing exactly what he said he'd do during the campaign. Here's an example from a letter to the editor of the SF Chronicle a couple of days ago.

 

There are so many opportunities to build safety through peaceful measures. To name just one, I believe that ending support for Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine would make America incalculably more secure than the sending of more young Americans to be slaughtered and maimed on foreign battlefields.

 

ROBERT ROSENBAUM

 

Go Jews!!!

[Magox]

Gallup Poll chief fires back at Gibbs

 

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/12...301bd97a7d.html

 

The editor-in-chief of the Gallup Poll defended the high-profile survey against harsh criticism from White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, who said Tuesday he doesn't “pay attention to the meaninglessness” of Gallup’s daily tracking numbers.

 

“Gibbs said that if Gallup were his EKG, he would visit his doctor. Well, I think the doctor might ask him what’s going on in his life that would cause his EKG to be fluctuating so much. "

 

[PastaJoe]

At this time in their 1st terms Bush 41 was at 71% and lost reelection, and Clinton was at 53% and Reagan was at 49% and both won reelection. People are frustrated that the problems that accumulated over the past decade can't be quickly fixed, but as health insurance reform passes, the economy improves, and progress is made in Afghanistan, his numbers will stabilize and improve. Short term thinking is what got us into many of the problems that are now being solved with long term solutions.

[Chef Jim]

At this time in their 1st terms Bush 41 was at 71% and lost reelection, and Clinton was at 53% and Reagan was at 49% and both won reelection. People are frustrated that the problems that accumulated over the past decade can't be quickly fixed, but as health insurance reform passes, the economy improves, and progress is made in Afghanistan, his numbers will stabilize and improve. Short term thinking is what got us into many of the problems that are now being solved with long term solutions.

 

Those are some big ifs there buddy. Oh wait.......

[DC Tom]

At this time in their 1st terms Bush 41 was at 71% and lost reelection, and Clinton was at 53% and Reagan was at 49% and both won reelection. People are frustrated that the problems that accumulated over the past decade can't be quickly fixed, but as health insurance reform passes, the economy improves, and progress is made in Afghanistan, his numbers will stabilize and improve. Short term thinking is what got us into many of the problems that are now being solved with long term solutions.

 

Do you really believe the bull **** you post?

[Magox]

At this time in their 1st terms Bush 41 was at 71% and lost reelection, and Clinton was at 53% and Reagan was at 49% and both won reelection. People are frustrated that the problems that accumulated over the past decade can't be quickly fixed, but as health insurance reform passes, the economy improves, and progress is made in Afghanistan, his numbers will stabilize and improve. Short term thinking is what got us into many of the problems that are now being solved with long term solutions.

There is truth to what you say, however, the liberals aren't energized about this Health Reform bill because it so watered down, the right predictably hates it and the independents by over a 2 to 1 margin don't want it. So, the health reform bill will serve as negative for him politically speaking.

 

The Afghanistan war is supported by many on the right, but it doesn't matter, they won't vote for him because they dislike him. The liberal left is extremely disappointed with him in regards to this decision, now obviously they won't vote for anyone on the right because of it, but they will be less enthused and energized so I would expect less of a voter turnout from the left because of this.

 

The economy, will most likely be better off 3 years from now than it is today, however, if unemployment is around 8%, which is what Ben Bernanke is forcasting for 2012, then this will be really bad news for BO's campaign.

 

The Deficit will undoubtedly be a major concern for BO, and there is no hope of this situation improving by 2012, and if the opposition were smart, they would hammer this point.

 

Another thing that will not be popular for BO will be the tax increases, which has yet to be realized, but that day will come, I assure you.

[PastaJoe]

Do you really believe the bull **** you post?

 

Just as much as you believe your bull, bub.

 

 

There is truth to what you say, however, the liberals aren't energized about this Health Reform bill because it so watered down, the right predictably hates it and the independents by over a 2 to 1 margin don't want it. So, the health reform bill will serve as negative for him politically speaking.

 

Many of those independents are just Republicans who turned in their cards, given that only 22% of people now identify themselves as Republicans. So I don't worry about those skewed independent numbers. The gain in independents is offset by the loss of Republicans, so in the end they're the same group of voters.

[DC Tom]

Just as much as you believe your bull, bub.

 

Let me rephrase the question: Do you enjoy the bitter almond aftertaste of your kool-aid?

[Magox]

Many of those independents are just Republicans who turned in their cards, given that only 22% of people now identify themselves as Republicans. So I don't worry about those skewed independent numbers. The gain in independents is offset by the loss of Republicans, so in the end they're the same group of voters.

Classify it how you will, the fact of the matter is that those "independents" that you say were republicans "who turned in their cards" voted for BO in the last election and are regretting that decision.

 

Also, you may be right that there are a loss of republicans, but the turnout in voters will be very high from independents and republicans, and it may very well not be so much an endorsement to the republican candidate as it will be as a referendum on BO's policies.

 

There is an old saying

 

"They say people won't walk a mile to vote for you but they'll walk 100 miles to vote against you,"

 

This will be the story of the november 2010 elections and very well may be the case for 2012