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

[Sarah G]

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 he isn't, 48% at Real Clear and that number includes a Rasmussen poll that shows him at 44%.

You and Rasmussen suck.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Obama's ratings grew dramatically in his masterful turning the GOP congress around, bending it over, and having his way with it in the lame duck, and then with the Giffords' tragedy. None of this is giving into the GOP. It is doing the right thing. If the GOP Congress likes servicing the president, OK.

 

[MaggieMae]

Im going to chime in here as a conservative leaning board member:

I don't care.

Obama could have 99% approval level. He could have 0% approval level. It's a poll. What it is today won't effect what is going on in November 2012.

And his approval numbers (or lack thereof) is not going to effect the way I think of him. If he does something I approve of, ill support him in that. If he does something I oppose. I am going to oppose him.

Simple as that. These numbers dont matter a hill of beans.

Whhhooooaaaa, Au contrair, Avatar! They very much matter! Polls effect his political capital to get things done, to sway moderate democrats to stay with him or abandon him, to support his more radical agenda aspects or to vote against them. Everything in politics is driven by polls, like gas in your car. Right now from a political - not numerical - standpoint, Obama is getting near empty, because when you slip into the upper 30's, your political capital is gone completely.

Uh-uh. This is important. There maybe be nothing you can do about it, but as news this is important. The more this fact spreads around the country, the less power Obama will have politically. Any DC politico can tell you that. This is basic - and important. That's why it gets reported.

Presidential polls at this point in time are indeed meaningless. Apart from the known issues, there are bound to be other catastrophic events or other upheavals in foreign countries that will hugely affect the conduct of business in the United States. But I know, I know, it's wishful thinking, so carry on and have fun. Just a reminder that Ronald Reagan's polls were not as high as Obama's are now given the same time period, and Reagan was facing similar deficit/budget/spending at home problems. Hope that doesn't put a damper on your day.

Presidential Job Approval Center

 

[MaggieMae]

Oh Rasmussen! I was confused for a second there - I thought you were going to quote a legitimate poll.

You libs loved it when he was bashing Bush. The Rasmussen site has kudos from every news agency there is, including the very liberal CNN. Get a life.

Rasmussen's methodology is different, but it does usually vary by bigger percentage points on similar questions which has always begged the question "who are they polling." Scott Rasmussen answers that:

Pollster.com - Political Surveys and Election Polls, Trends, Charts and Analysis

So why are the Rasmussen results different? Here are the three possible answers:

1) LIkely voters - Of the twenty or so pollsters that routinely report national presidential job approval ratings, only Rasmussen, Zogby and Democracy Corps routinely report results for a population of "likely voters." Of the pollsters in the chart above, PPP, Quinnipiac University, Fox News/Opinion Dynamics and Diageo/Hotline report results for the population of registered voters. All the rest sample all adults. Not surprisingly, most of the organizations near the bottom the house effect chart -- those showing lower than average job approval percentages for Obama -- report on either likely or registered voters, not adults.

Why does that matter? As Scott Rasmussen explained two weeks ago, likely voters are less likely to include young adults and minority voters who are more supportive of President Obama.

Of course to some people his answer is even more skewed. Why does he assume young adults aren't "likely voters"? And why should it matter, if he's simply a pollster, that some of the people polled would be "more supportive of President Obama"?? Does he mean he doesn't include Obama supporters if at all possible? How can that be considered fair?

 

[MaggieMae]

I'll hold out for the MSNBC poll that will show him at a gazillion percent approval.

Oh dear, even the latest Fox poll has him at 51%. Whatever will you do.

http://pollingreport.com/obama_job.htm

 

[MaggieMae]

I'll hold out for the MSNBC poll that will show him at a gazillion percent approval.

fer sure, and he and the Democrats didn't just get a Historical ass kicking this last election either.

Funny how the liberals, all full of self-righteous superiority forget that just a few short months ago only, they got their collective tails kicked so hard they still haven't hit the ground yet.

The new House majority can run around like chickens with their heads cut off, but they still don't have a majority in the Senate to actually PASS such hogwash as overturning Obamacare, eliminating funding for Planned Parenthood, eliminating all funding for climate studies by NOAA, and all the other horseshit nickle and diming they're doing, because this president still holds the veto pen.

Sorry...

 

[MaggieMae]

Over here In Naples,Fla. Ubama's Approval is around 25%,,,all you have to do is look at what he did to small business here in 2009. We are finally starting to come back to life here as small business owners seem to be moving or coming back here,and Hundreds of new homes are already in the planning,,this is all thanks to the George Bush Tax Cut Extension !!!

What did he do to small businesses in 2009 other than give them a ton of tax breaks?

 

[MaggieMae]

Over here In Naples,Fla. Ubama's Approval is around 25%,,,all you have to do is look at what he did to small business here in 2009. We are finally starting to come back to life here as small business owners seem to be moving or coming back here,and Hundreds of new homes are already in the planning,,this is all thanks to the George Bush Tax Cut Extension !!!

Yeah, I looked at buying a $400k house in Naples that was sold for $1.5 million in 2006. Well done Bush Tax Cuts. Pump that Bubble!

I was here in 2006/2005 when people actually paid around $350-$450K for an average 2000/2500 sq.foot home. How could of anyone have fallen for that? Now those homes are back around $180,000. That was part of the mess that slowed the city down financially, I cant believe a neighbor actually wanted $300K for a condo in my complex! as far as I know,its still for sale,,,maybe $150K???

Those are reasonable prices for homes in Naples. Are you kidding? We have three BR, one BA 1950's era dumps in Vermont going for $200K today, and the average income isn't as high as Naples.

Naples FLA
The median income for a household in the city was $71,553, and the median income for a family was $102,262. Males had a median income of $86,092 versus $30,948 for females. The per capita income for the city was $61,141. About 3.1% of families and 5.9% of the population were below the poverty line, including 15.1% of those under age 18 and 3.3% of those age 65 or over.

 

[MaggieMae]

Funny how the liberals, all full of self-righteous superiority forget that just a few short months ago only, they got their collective tails kicked so hard they still haven't hit the ground yet.

Well basically that occurred for several reasons. Economy did fire up enough to add any jobs. There was a 500 Billion dollar cut in Medicare. And the Tea Party movement picked up some voters. Add in the Chamber of Commerce doling out the moula on a record level and a good many Democrats trying to make a "point" by staying home or going Republican and you have the makings of the perfect storm.

I don't think it's going to hold. The Republicans ran on cutting the deficit and producing jobs. However, they have come in attacking abortion and unions. That ain't what they ran on..and if they shut down government again..that will be the icing on the cake for 2012.

I think it was great that they won in big numbers in 2010.

Now they share some of the responsibility. They are going after unions and abortions. They campaigned on jobs yet in cutting 200,000 jobs, "so be it." How do we know you care about job creation when you are actually cutting jobs.

I think with the fact they have no legitimate challenger to Obama in 2012, and their lies be exposed, will see them become the minority once again in 2012.

Yup, yup and yup.

 

[MaggieMae]

Its amazing how this thread can argue about nothing.

Hmm, and here I thought it was about current poll numbers for the president and the Republican possibilities for their future. No? Okey-dokey. I must be having a senior lapse in comprehension.

 

[MaggieMae]

Funny how the liberals, all full of self-righteous superiority forget that just a few short months ago only, they got their collective tails kicked so hard they still haven't hit the ground yet.

Well basically that occurred for several reasons. Economy did fire up enough to add any jobs. There was a 500 Billion dollar cut in Medicare. And the Tea Party movement picked up some voters. Add in the Chamber of Commerce doling out the moula on a record level and a good many Democrats trying to make a "point" by staying home or going Republican and you have the makings of the perfect storm.

I don't think it's going to hold. The Republicans ran on cutting the deficit and producing jobs. However, they have come in attacking abortion and unions. That ain't what they ran on..and if they shut down government again..that will be the icing on the cake for 2012.

WAIT A MINUTE! ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!


You're saying there was a confluence of happenstance circumstances that formed a perfect storm for the democrats to lose, not because people thought the democrats sucked? This has all the makings of a joke without a laugh track!

1. Obama's number were - as they are again - in the toilet.
No, they're not.

2. the democrats in congress had the worst approval ratings since congressional approval ratings originated. What is all this, an attempt to keep the liberal base somehow energized?
Congress in general had bad ratings. Pay attention.
Here's the Democrat historicals:
Congress: Democrats
Here's the Republican historicals:
Congress: Republicans

3. Wherever Obama went to help, the candidate almost always wound up with lower ratings.

4. Obama promised jobs through bankruptcy amounts of spending, jobs that never materialized.
Yes, they did.

5. The democrats crafted Obamacare in secret, and passed it on Christmas eve despite 70% of polled American not wanting it.
It took one solid year of floor debates in both houses, and five fucking drafts to debate before it was finally passed. And there was never a time when 70% of polled Americans were against it.

Now you can slide the numbers around a bit, or find some justification for the occasional this or that, but taken together you cannot realistically extrapolate that the result of the November 2010 elections in which democrats lost by historic numbers is not due to the fact that the democrats governed very badly in the eyes of the public and they gave the house back to the republicans, in strong measure to stop Obama from having complete control.
Democrats like it better when there is not a majority of one party controlling everything. We're the only party that recognizes that leads to gridlock.

Every pundit knows this. the guy on the street know it. How on earth can you begin to pretend that the results were some extraordinary alignment of bad circumstances that just happened to make the democrats lose when their poll numbers were already in the bottom of the sewer.
Every pundit knows that is NOT true, pal. You just make it up as your go along. Quite funny.

Take up writing fiction. It's what you're good at.

Even funnier^ -- as the current cliche goes: You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Its amazing how this thread can argue about nothing.

Hmm, and here I thought it was about current poll numbers for the president and the Republican possibilities for their future. No? Okey-dokey. I must be having a senior lapse in comprehension.

You sure are, but I think it's more of a permanent diagnosis for you. ~BH

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

No they're not.
No they're not.
No they're not.
No they're not.

 

[MaggieMae]

Well basically that occurred for several reasons. Economy did fire up enough to add any jobs. There was a 500 Billion dollar cut in Medicare. And the Tea Party movement picked up some voters. Add in the Chamber of Commerce doling out the moula on a record level and a good many Democrats trying to make a "point" by staying home or going Republican and you have the makings of the perfect storm.

I don't think it's going to hold. The Republicans ran on cutting the deficit and producing jobs. However, they have come in attacking abortion and unions. That ain't what they ran on..and if they shut down government again..that will be the icing on the cake for 2012.

I think it was great that they won in big numbers in 2010.

Now they share some of the responsibility. They are going after unions and abortions. They campaigned on jobs yet in cutting 200,000 jobs, "so be it." How do we know you care about job creation when you are actually cutting jobs.

I think with the fact they have no legitimate challenger to Obama in 2012, and their lies be exposed, will see them become the minority once again in 2012.

reality check: Obama won't be in the game. He won;t turn over his long form birth certificate and several states are enacting laws that will require him to do so to be part of the game in 2012. It's now obvious he never will turn over the records and will probably bow out under pressure from the party. Obama's ineligibility is the biggest non-secret in DC. The states are demanding records that don;t exist or Obama is hiding. We don't need to get into a constitutional debate about it, he just won't turn over the records, that's obvious, now. Obama won't be in the game in 2012. rely on it. That's what liberal Mother Jones News thinks, too, in essence, and for the same reason. Obama can't run or won't because he will not turn over his citizenship documents. This is a done deal. cry me a river.

Then you shouldn't act so worried, coming here with your shrieking comments. Just relax and enjoy his downfall since you're so convinced that's going to happen.

 

[GStarz]

Well basically that occurred for several reasons. Economy did fire up enough to add any jobs. There was a 500 Billion dollar cut in Medicare. And the Tea Party movement picked up some voters. Add in the Chamber of Commerce doling out the moula on a record level and a good many Democrats trying to make a "point" by staying home or going Republican and you have the makings of the perfect storm.

I don't think it's going to hold. The Republicans ran on cutting the deficit and producing jobs. However, they have come in attacking abortion and unions. That ain't what they ran on..and if they shut down government again..that will be the icing on the cake for 2012.

WAIT A MINUTE! ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!


You're saying there was a confluence of happenstance circumstances that formed a perfect storm for the democrats to lose, not because people thought the democrats sucked? This has all the makings of a joke without a laugh track!

1. Obama's number were - as they are again - in the toilet.
No, they're not.

2. the democrats in congress had the worst approval ratings since congressional approval ratings originated. What is all this, an attempt to keep the liberal base somehow energized?
Congress in general had bad ratings. Pay attention.
Here's the Democrat historicals:
Congress: Democrats
Here's the Republican historicals:
Congress: Republicans

3. Wherever Obama went to help, the candidate almost always wound up with lower ratings.

4. Obama promised jobs through bankruptcy amounts of spending, jobs that never materialized.
Yes, they did.

5. The democrats crafted Obamacare in secret, and passed it on Christmas eve despite 70% of polled American not wanting it.
It took one solid year of floor debates in both houses, and five fucking drafts to debate before it was finally passed. And there was never a time when 70% of polled Americans were against it.

Now you can slide the numbers around a bit, or find some justification for the occasional this or that, but taken together you cannot realistically extrapolate that the result of the November 2010 elections in which democrats lost by historic numbers is not due to the fact that the democrats governed very badly in the eyes of the public and they gave the house back to the republicans, in strong measure to stop Obama from having complete control.
Democrats like it better when there is not a majority of one party controlling everything. We're the only party that recognizes that leads to gridlock.

Every pundit knows this. the guy on the street know it. How on earth can you begin to pretend that the results were some extraordinary alignment of bad circumstances that just happened to make the democrats lose when their poll numbers were already in the bottom of the sewer.
Every pundit knows that is NOT true, pal. You just make it up as your go along. Quite funny.

Take up writing fiction. It's what you're good at.

Even funnier^ -- as the current cliche goes: You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

Wow, couldn't even quote me without bickering endlessly. Not a single fact sited. Holy shit, i have never seen such a collection of fucked up, defensive, passive-aggressive liberal sociopaths anywhere on the internet except for Media Matters. This thread sets a record. i thought this place was going to be at least somewhat conservative friendly with all the patriotic imagery. This is uber-liberal, piranha shark Trollsville, USA! Look at maggie sucking the air out of a whole page lest the truth get one breath. God damn.

 

[MaggieMae]

The left will always claim that there is no one out there who can beat him,,,DESPITE WHAT HAPPENED IN NOVEMBER 2010! and how would they know? they don't even know who's running! we could make a list of candidates that would beat Obama in a 55/45 landslide! God I Hope John Thune And Huckabee Run,,either one will have Ubama crapping his pants!

John Thune announced a couple of hours ago he's not running, and Huckabee also is leaning against running, saying it's too grueling a process. Sorry, buddy!

 

[Avatar4321]

The left will always claim that there is no one out there who can beat him,,,DESPITE WHAT HAPPENED IN NOVEMBER 2010! and how would they know? they don't even know who's running! we could make a list of candidates that would beat Obama in a 55/45 landslide! God I Hope John Thune And Huckabee Run,,either one will have Ubama crapping his pants!

John Thune announced a couple of hours ago he's not running, and Huckabee also is leaning against running, saying it's too grueling a process. Sorry, buddy!

I pray that Huckabee doesn't run. We dont need him.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Let's for the sake of argument say that Obama's approval numbers today are in the low 40s. How the heck does that matter? Next week they could be higher. Next week could be lower. Heck everything could change tomorrow.

If you don't believe that then you don't remember 9/11

No, things won;t change tomorrow and save Obama miraculously. He's been polling at under 50% for the last year at least, except for one small bump when he reached out to republicans. the fact that he's sinking again shows these centrist moves have no staying power.He has usually been in the mid-40's. this means for his voters the GOP is gone and the independents are essentially gone and now he's shedding the last of the independents and his centrist democrats. He cannot win with poll numbers like this running this steady. The economy will need to improve and that won;t happen fast enough. we're in this depression for the next few years, at least. Even if obama obeyed the states' directives in several and disclosed his citizenship documents that it's clear he has no intention of releasing, he still can't win.

This won't change tomorrow. This has been holding steady for over a year. 2010 is going to repeat itself in 2012. that's why so many congressional dems continue to return to the private sector in a depression - an otherwise unheard-of situation. They know where this is going.

We have a noob prophet!! Yes! Another one!

 

[MaggieMae]

reality check: Obama won't be in the game. He won;t turn over his long form birth certificate and several states are enacting laws that will require him to do so to be part of the game in 2012. It's now obvious he never will turn over the records and will probably bow out under pressure from the party. Obama's ineligibility is the biggest non-secret in DC. The states are demanding records that don;t exist or Obama is hiding. We don't need to get into a constitutional debate about it, he just won't turn over the records, that's obvious, now. Obama won't be in the game in 2012. rely on it. That's what liberal Mother Jones News thinks, too, in essence, and for the same reason. Obama can't run or won't because he will not turn over his citizenship documents. This is a done deal. cry me a river.

I'll bet you $10,000 that Obama won't step aside or be denied the nomination because of his birth certificate.

I don't think they allow anything but small amounts to be exchanged in your sanitarium.

States are demanding his long form birth certificate. What do you think he will do?

States? Plural? Has Texas joined Arizona? Obama would lose those two anyway, but there might be a helluva lot of lawsuits by private citizens who would become disenfranchised from voting if Obama's name is kept off the ballot. Of course clowns like you don't understand that kind of common sense logic.

 

[MaggieMae]

Oh, clarification.

I absolve USMB completely of any wagering that may occur.

This, in fact, is not a wager. It is a hedge, like hedging movements in the stock market, or the weather.

I will take on all comers. $10,000 for anyone who thinks Obama will step aside or be denied the nomination because of his birth certificate. We can set it up as a trust.

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.

Got a link for that?