Obama's approval numbers slip back to the low 40's

[007]

He was born in Hawaii. Thats a fact. He released his birth certificate certified by Hawaii.

That is an outright, unmitigated, blatant, bold faced LIE.

YOU are a LIAR!

 

[GStarz]

Oh gosh..it be a birther!

Alinski's tactic of demeaning the opposition without addressing the facts has played out on this one.

Damn right I'm a "Birther", and firmly ensconced amongst the liberals like Chris Matthews, the Huffington Post and Mother Jones News, among others. Oh, yes, not to mention about 45% - 60% of polled Americans, depending on the poll, as well as the legislators and governors of several states who together are enacting new laws demanding that all candidates for president in 2012 show their long form birth certificates - those new laws are not an accident. they're being enacted because of we 'crazy tinfoil hat birthers".

That puts you, my friend, not only a probable national minority, but a severe tactical disadvantage, because those states are demanding a long form and Obama has made it clear he won't release his. There will be no stand-off on this, and if Obama doesn't disclose his records, he's going to look like the ass of all time no matter what, and so will his vocal supporters. What will he do? Does he have a long form? will he turn it over? if not, as seems the case, will he challenge the laws in court? (LOL!) Will he ask for people to write him in? Drop out citing "health concerns' or "love for his family"?

So I ask you, then. What will he do? This isn't theoretical - the laws are going to be passed in at least half a dozen states for sure, and all it takes is one to screw him up royally. So you tell me, since "Skippy' refuses to answer: what will he do?

He was born in Hawaii. Thats a fact. He released his birth certificate certified by Hawaii. But don't let facts get in the way of your racism.

If a majority you mean 25% then yeah. Otherwise you're a crazy minority.

This response by you sounds astoundingly identical to the liberal ("Hawaiian Governor Bear") in this animated video

 

[007]

This response by you sounds astoundingly identical to the liberal ("Hawaiian Governor Bear") in this animated video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fK2PQIoDPJo

........... .......... ......... ........... ..........

 

[GStarz]

Thank you, Pale Rider!

*Takes bow* as liberals go insane.

It always is the same response by liberals: lie or severely distort the facts and then call the objector a racist. The same slimy, disgusting, dishonest tactics every time.

I can hear him now, with that same phony, mock authority rise-and-fall delivery, reading from his teleprompter: "I need you all to write my name in the ballots in those states, because the leaders there seem to have some trouble with my color and funny name...." while brain-numbed Obots bused in from union organizing stations applaud madly and everyone else says "fuck you".

Obama will virtually certainly not run - or not be able to run - again because he'll never disclose those records without a court order or congressional subpoena.

Of course, the SCOTUS has just recently agreed to have a conference on a "birther" lawsuit, also, so Barry might not even have the chance to make up his own mind about 2012 and the states - it may be made up for him well before that. Remember, those state laws demand the long form and other records Obama is hiding, not the short form he issued - the language is quite explicit.

I wonder what Obama's approval ratings will be when he starts making up excuses about not being eligible in those states?

 

[KissMy]

As usual we see liberal democrats doing what they always do when faced with bad news about their party: claim the source is unreliable, make comparisons to Bush who has been gone for 2 years, or change the subject, in this case the Florida housing market.

Obama's approval numbers are in the low 40's.
Obama's approval numbers are in the low 40's.
Obama's approval numbers are in the low 40's.
Obama's approval numbers are in the low 40's.
Obama's approval numbers are in the low 40's.

Live in the real world. It's a fact. Deal with it.

They will be much lower in 2012 as Obama's chickens come home to roost. The TEA party will gain more seats in 2012 & Ron Paul's popularity will rise.

 

[Sallow]

very cute.

I'll try this again (this is like rainbow Glitter bear debating a liberal - exactly the same!); Obama cannot run without showing at least a few states his long form birth certificate. Stop acting like some uber-cool riviera gambler, because i don't think you've saved enough from mowing lawns to cover the wager, so answer the question instead : Obama needs to show his long form birth certificate to run in all the states in 2012. what will obama do?

answer or lose by default. Your play money is of no value to me.

Oh gosh..it be a birther!

Alinski's tactic of demeaning the opposition without addressing the facts has played out on this one.

Damn right I'm a "Birther", and firmly ensconced amongst the liberals like Chris Matthews, the Huffington Post and Mother Jones News, among others. Oh, yes, not to mention about 45% - 60% of polled Americans, depending on the poll, as well as the legislators and governors of several states who together are enacting new laws demanding that all candidates for president in 2012 show their long form birth certificates - those new laws are not an accident. they're being enacted because of we 'crazy tinfoil hat birthers".

That puts you, my friend, not only a probable national minority, but a severe tactical disadvantage, because those states are demanding a long form and Obama has made it clear he won't release his. There will be no stand-off on this, and if Obama doesn't disclose his records, he's going to look like the ass of all time no matter what, and so will his vocal supporters. What will he do? Does he have a long form? will he turn it over? if not, as seems the case, will he challenge the laws in court? (LOL!) Will he ask for people to write him in? Drop out citing "health concerns' or "love for his family"?

So I ask you, then. What will he do? This isn't theoretical - the laws are going to be passed in at least half a dozen states for sure, and all it takes is one to screw him up royally. So you tell me, since "Skippy' refuses to answer: what will he do?

First off..it's not "states" demanding this birth certificate bullshit..it's batshit crazy Republican politicians. And it's a well worn tactic. You can't win an election, find something, anything, to make the opponent ineligible or dry up the support..by blocking the vote. Of course it won't work. President Obama is running in 2012 and will likely win. The state of Hawaii, the Federal Government and the state media of Hawaii have all certified he was born there. It's also interesting to note that in 2008, Republicans had no trouble running a foreign born candidate.

In other words. You birthers are a lousy bunch of hypocrites.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The OP is a liar.

Obama's poll numbers are not in the low 40's.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Barack Obama aka Barry S (2 different last names beginning with S!)The Little Prince is back to where he was for most of last year, in the low 40's approval rating. Maybe this would be different if he didn't freak normal people out - his diehard supporters don't qualify - by bowing to Saudi princes, demanding that NASA's(!) first priority be to "reach out to Muslims" and continue to hide his citizenship records (don't debate why he's doing it, he's just doing it, and that could mean anything from sadism to paranoia to holding the office illegally - ya gotta know if that had been about George Bush the NY Times would have it on the front page every day, like they did Bush's ultimately phony military records created by liberals to embarrass Bush.)

This from Rasmussen Reports, the polling agency that liberals loved when they said Bush's poll numbers were low, but now they hate because they're saying Obama's are poor!

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 23% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -18 (see trends).

Yesterday and today mark the president’s lowest ratings since mid-December. It remains to be seen whether this is merely the result of statistical noise or a change in perceptions of President Obama. For most of 2010, more than 40% of voters voiced Strong Disapproval of the president. However, following his December agreement with Senate Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts, the level of Strong Disapproval had declined.


HERE'S the complete story

No liberals said they loved Rasmussen when Bush was president.

You're stupid.

 

[GStarz]

The OP is a liar.

Obama's poll numbers are not in the low 40's.

I gave you a link. I guess Rasmussen is a liar. I guess anyone with bad news for liberals is a liar. that's what libs always say. That worked great for you last November, when your side lost to Republicans by the biggest margin in 70 years. I guess that's a lie, too.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's always funny when some wet behind the ears rightwing noob prances in and posts a Rasmussen poll and expects to be taken seriously.

 

[Binky]

So his approval rate is dropping. Comes as no surprise. When you start messing with things trying to change the country for the worse, why wouldn't people get pissed and change the way they were thinking? The more he dips into our pockets the lower his rates will fall. Just like hoof and mouth desease. Insert hoof into mouth sending out crapola and all hell breaks loose.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The OP is a liar.

Obama's poll numbers are not in the low 40's.

I gave you a link. I guess Rasmussen is a liar. I guess anyone with bad news for liberals is a liar. that's what libs always say. That worked great for you last November, when your side lost to Republicans by the biggest margin in 70 years. I guess that's a lie, too.

If Obama is in the low forties, why does the last Foxnews poll have him at 51%?

Liberal bias? lololol

 

[GStarz]

Oh gosh..it be a birther!

Alinski's tactic of demeaning the opposition without addressing the facts has played out on this one.

Damn right I'm a "Birther", and firmly ensconced amongst the liberals like Chris Matthews, the Huffington Post and Mother Jones News, among others. Oh, yes, not to mention about 45% - 60% of polled Americans, depending on the poll, as well as the legislators and governors of several states who together are enacting new laws demanding that all candidates for president in 2012 show their long form birth certificates - those new laws are not an accident. they're being enacted because of we 'crazy tinfoil hat birthers".

That puts you, my friend, not only a probable national minority, but a severe tactical disadvantage, because those states are demanding a long form and Obama has made it clear he won't release his. There will be no stand-off on this, and if Obama doesn't disclose his records, he's going to look like the ass of all time no matter what, and so will his vocal supporters. What will he do? Does he have a long form? will he turn it over? if not, as seems the case, will he challenge the laws in court? (LOL!) Will he ask for people to write him in? Drop out citing "health concerns' or "love for his family"?

So I ask you, then. What will he do? This isn't theoretical - the laws are going to be passed in at least half a dozen states for sure, and all it takes is one to screw him up royally. So you tell me, since "Skippy' refuses to answer: what will he do?

First off..it's not "states" demanding this birth certificate bullshit..it's batshit crazy Republican politicians. And it's a well worn tactic. You can't win an election, find something, anything, to make the opponent ineligible or dry up the support..by blocking the vote. Of course it won't work. President Obama is running in 2012 and will likely win. The state of Hawaii, the Federal Government and the state media of Hawaii have all certified he was born there. It's also interesting to note that in 2008, Republicans had no trouble running a foreign born candidate.

In other words. You birthers are a lousy bunch of hypocrites.

ROTFLMFAO!

Oh, it isn't the states that are demanding his citizenship records, it's the evil republicans who were voted into office in those states by, um, other evil republicans who were the majority who are keeping Obama from running because he, um probably doesn't have the records to qualify him for office, therefore he probably doesn't....um... actually... quali- evil hypocritical republicans!!!!

LOL! God this is funny! I MUST use that in a Rainbow Glitter Bear episode! Priceless! Thank you for the inspiration! Absolutely hilarious!

 

[GStarz]

It's always funny when some wet behind the ears rightwing noob prances in and posts a Rasmussen poll and expects to be taken seriously.

Well, I guess you're more highly placed in the political world than these folks who made the following assessments about Rasmussen Reports:

Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen, pollsters for Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, say that Rasmussen Reports has “an unchallenged record for both integrity and accuracy.”

From rasmussen:

In 2010, Rasmussen Reports was the first to show Republican Scott Brown had a chance to defeat Democrat Martha Coakley in the special Massachusetts Senate race to fill the late Ted Kennedy's seat. Just after Brown's upset win, the influential Washington publication The Politico said of our polling, “The overwhelming conventional wisdom in both parties … was that Martha Coakley was a lock. It's hard to recall a single poll changing the mood of a race quite that dramatically." A study by Boston University and the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism about how the Massachusetts Senate race was covered in the media concluded that the “(Rasmussen) poll, perhaps more than anything else, signaled that a possible upset was brewing and galvanized both the media and political worlds” and “in the two weeks after the Rasmussen poll, media coverage (of the race) picked up frantically.” The New York Times Magazine opened a March 14 cover story with a scene highlighting the impact of that poll in an internal White House meeting involving President Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

In 2009, while most firms showed New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine with a modest lead in his reelection bid, Rasmussen Reports consistently showed challenger Chris Christie ahead and eventually matched his margin of victory. That New Jersey race, combined with our earlier track record, led liberal columnist Mickey Kaus to declare, “If you have a choice between Rasmussen and, say, the prestigious N.Y. Times, go with Rasmussen!”

There are other testimonials scattered about the website, including from CNN.


BREAKING AS OF 21 MINUTES AGO RASMUSSEN HAS OBAMA DROPPING. DOWN TO 41%!!!! THE LINK IS HERE.


FROM RASMUSSEN

***************************************
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 21% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20 That’s the lowest level of Strong Approval yet recorded for President Obama and the lowest Approval Index rating since November.

Republicans have a nine-point advantage over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot.

****************************************

 

[GStarz]

BREAKING NEWS AS OF 21 MINUTES AGO (AS OF THIS WRITING)

OBAMA IS DOWN TO 41% APPROVAL OVERALL, WITH HIS LOWEST STRONG APPROVAL RATING YET, GIVING HIM AN ALL-TIME LOW OF A -20 APPROVAL RATING INDEX!!!!!


FROM RASMUSSEN

LINK HERE

***************************************
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 21% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20 That’s the lowest level of Strong Approval yet recorded for President Obama and the lowest Approval Index rating since November.

Republicans have a nine-point advantage over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot.

****************************************

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's always funny when some wet behind the ears rightwing noob prances in and posts a Rasmussen poll and expects to be taken seriously.

Well, I guess you're more highly placed in the political world than these folks who made the following assessments about Rasmussen Reports:

Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen, pollsters for Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, say that Rasmussen Reports has “an unchallenged record for both integrity and accuracy.”

From rasmussen:

In 2010, Rasmussen Reports was the first to show Republican Scott Brown had a chance to defeat Democrat Martha Coakley in the special Massachusetts Senate race to fill the late Ted Kennedy's seat. Just after Brown's upset win, the influential Washington publication The Politico said of our polling, “The overwhelming conventional wisdom in both parties … was that Martha Coakley was a lock. It's hard to recall a single poll changing the mood of a race quite that dramatically." A study by Boston University and the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism about how the Massachusetts Senate race was covered in the media concluded that the “(Rasmussen) poll, perhaps more than anything else, signaled that a possible upset was brewing and galvanized both the media and political worlds” and “in the two weeks after the Rasmussen poll, media coverage (of the race) picked up frantically.” The New York Times Magazine opened a March 14 cover story with a scene highlighting the impact of that poll in an internal White House meeting involving President Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

In 2009, while most firms showed New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine with a modest lead in his reelection bid, Rasmussen Reports consistently showed challenger Chris Christie ahead and eventually matched his margin of victory. That New Jersey race, combined with our earlier track record, led liberal columnist Mickey Kaus to declare, “If you have a choice between Rasmussen and, say, the prestigious N.Y. Times, go with Rasmussen!”

There are other testimonials scattered about the website, including from CNN.


BREAKING AS OF 21 MINUTES AGO RASMUSSEN HAS OBAMA DROPPING. DOWN TO 41%!!!! THE LINK IS HERE.


FROM RASMUSSEN

***************************************
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 21% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20 That’s the lowest level of Strong Approval yet recorded for President Obama and the lowest Approval Index rating since November.

Republicans have a nine-point advantage over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot.

****************************************

You didn't answer my question. Why does Foxnews have Obama's approval at 51%?

Why are they wrong and Rasmussen is right?

 

[GStarz]

It's always funny when some wet behind the ears rightwing noob prances in and posts a Rasmussen poll and expects to be taken seriously.

Well, I guess you're more highly placed in the political world than these folks who made the following assessments about Rasmussen Reports:

Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen, pollsters for Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, say that Rasmussen Reports has “an unchallenged record for both integrity and accuracy.”

From rasmussen:

In 2010, Rasmussen Reports was the first to show Republican Scott Brown had a chance to defeat Democrat Martha Coakley in the special Massachusetts Senate race to fill the late Ted Kennedy's seat. Just after Brown's upset win, the influential Washington publication The Politico said of our polling, “The overwhelming conventional wisdom in both parties … was that Martha Coakley was a lock. It's hard to recall a single poll changing the mood of a race quite that dramatically." A study by Boston University and the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism about how the Massachusetts Senate race was covered in the media concluded that the “(Rasmussen) poll, perhaps more than anything else, signaled that a possible upset was brewing and galvanized both the media and political worlds” and “in the two weeks after the Rasmussen poll, media coverage (of the race) picked up frantically.” The New York Times Magazine opened a March 14 cover story with a scene highlighting the impact of that poll in an internal White House meeting involving President Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

In 2009, while most firms showed New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine with a modest lead in his reelection bid, Rasmussen Reports consistently showed challenger Chris Christie ahead and eventually matched his margin of victory. That New Jersey race, combined with our earlier track record, led liberal columnist Mickey Kaus to declare, “If you have a choice between Rasmussen and, say, the prestigious N.Y. Times, go with Rasmussen!”

There are other testimonials scattered about the website, including from CNN.


BREAKING AS OF 21 MINUTES AGO RASMUSSEN HAS OBAMA DROPPING. DOWN TO 41%!!!! THE LINK IS HERE.


FROM RASMUSSEN

***************************************
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 21% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20 That’s the lowest level of Strong Approval yet recorded for President Obama and the lowest Approval Index rating since November.

Republicans have a nine-point advantage over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot.

****************************************

You didn't answer my question. Why does Foxnews have Obama's approval at 51%?

Why are they wrong and Rasmussen is right?

Rasmussen is more highly regarded than Fox on polling and rightfully so. read the quotes about what LIBERAL experts think (honest ones, anyway). Rasmussen has earned a reputation for coming closest to election results than anyone else. They use the same methodology here (more frequent and more targeted polling, etc)

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's always funny when some wet behind the ears rightwing noob prances in and posts a Rasmussen poll and expects to be taken seriously.

Well, I guess you're more highly placed in the political world than these folks who made the following assessments about Rasmussen Reports:

Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen, pollsters for Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, say that Rasmussen Reports has “an unchallenged record for both integrity and accuracy.”

Poor choice, rookie.

In 1988, Caddell left the Democratic Party after an acrimonious lawsuit with a Democratic consulting firm. Republicans would often cite Caddell's tirades against the Democratic Party on the floor of the House and the Senate.[3][4][5]

According to researchers, Caddell had wide influence in the Carter White House, and was the chief advocate of what later became known as Carter's "malaise speech".[6]

His analysis on polls and campaign issues often puts him at odds with the current leadership of the Democratic Party. He has been criticized for predicting the downfall of the Democratic party.[7][8] Critics point out that he has defended the Bush administration by claiming that Republicans did not exploit the issue of gay marriage in the presidential election of 2004.[citation needed] He also denounced Democrats in the House who voted against the Palm Sunday Compromise, which sought to reinstate Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, as "cold blooded,"[citation needed] and called environmentalism "a conspiracy 'to basically deconstruct capitalism.'"[1] Caddell is a regular guest on FOX News, listed as a Fox News Contributor. This has earned him the label of "Fox News Democrat."



Patrick Caddell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[GStarz]

That makes caddel dishonest, i suppose, and so we forget all the other liberal media pro-Rasmussen kudos, assume Fox is corrupt consequently we dismiss the poll results, right? What about the others?

Obama sucks, Rasmussen has the highest accuracy rating and you aren't coming close to winning this argument.

Since you like smilies:

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, I guess you're more highly placed in the political world than these folks who made the following assessments about Rasmussen Reports:

Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen, pollsters for Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, say that Rasmussen Reports has “an unchallenged record for both integrity and accuracy.”

From rasmussen:

In 2010, Rasmussen Reports was the first to show Republican Scott Brown had a chance to defeat Democrat Martha Coakley in the special Massachusetts Senate race to fill the late Ted Kennedy's seat. Just after Brown's upset win, the influential Washington publication The Politico said of our polling, “The overwhelming conventional wisdom in both parties … was that Martha Coakley was a lock. It's hard to recall a single poll changing the mood of a race quite that dramatically." A study by Boston University and the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism about how the Massachusetts Senate race was covered in the media concluded that the “(Rasmussen) poll, perhaps more than anything else, signaled that a possible upset was brewing and galvanized both the media and political worlds” and “in the two weeks after the Rasmussen poll, media coverage (of the race) picked up frantically.” The New York Times Magazine opened a March 14 cover story with a scene highlighting the impact of that poll in an internal White House meeting involving President Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

In 2009, while most firms showed New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine with a modest lead in his reelection bid, Rasmussen Reports consistently showed challenger Chris Christie ahead and eventually matched his margin of victory. That New Jersey race, combined with our earlier track record, led liberal columnist Mickey Kaus to declare, “If you have a choice between Rasmussen and, say, the prestigious N.Y. Times, go with Rasmussen!”

There are other testimonials scattered about the website, including from CNN.


BREAKING AS OF 21 MINUTES AGO RASMUSSEN HAS OBAMA DROPPING. DOWN TO 41%!!!! THE LINK IS HERE.


FROM RASMUSSEN

***************************************
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 21% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20 That’s the lowest level of Strong Approval yet recorded for President Obama and the lowest Approval Index rating since November.

Republicans have a nine-point advantage over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot.

****************************************

You didn't answer my question. Why does Foxnews have Obama's approval at 51%?

Why are they wrong and Rasmussen is right?

Rasmussen is more highly regarded than Fox on polling and rightfully so. read the quotes about what LIBERAL experts think (honest ones, anyway). Rasmussen has earned a reputation for coming closest to election results than anyone else. They use the same methodology here (more frequent and more targeted polling, etc)

An approval poll is not an election poll.

Foxnews called the 2008 election for Obama by 7 points. The actual margin was 7.3 pts.