This Week, Obama’s Lucky Number is Not 7
[Guest post by DRJ]
Seven is often considered a lucky number: In gambling, 3 sevens are a winner on old Vegas-style poker machines and they total 21, a winning hand in blackjack. In religion, Hindus have the seven major chakras, Jews and Christians honor the seventh day as God’s day of rest, and Catholics have the seven virtues, deadly sins, and sacraments. Seven is repeated on religious calendars and in history, and Microsoft hopes seven is lucky as it releases its new operating system Windows 7.
But, for now, seven is not Barack Obama’s lucky number. His Daily Presidential Approval Index has been minus 7 for three consecutive days and in negative territory for nine straight days, excluding the July 4th holiday.
Obama is concluding a highly publicized week-long trip to Russia, Italy, and Ghana. In July 2008, as a candidate, Obama also traveled overseas on a highly publicized trip but it didn’t do much for his polls then either. I don’t think many Americans care what the world thinks about our Presidents. As James Carville said during Bill Clinton’s Presidential campaign, it’s the economy, stupid.
— DRJ
The numbers I’ve associated with Obama are the “666” that came up in the Illinois State Lotto the day after he won the election and his originating from the Chicago zip code of 60606. Sticking with the theme, and even more hilariously coincidental, is this.
Mark (411533) — 7/12/2009 @ 4:59 pmCalling that the “Presidential Approval Index” is inaccurate (Rasmussen’s error, not yours). More voters approve of Obama than disapprove.
7% more voters strongly disapprove than strongly approve.
It’s still a very important number, but it doesn’t really gauge approval vs. disapproval. I think HotAir or Ace has been calling it the “Passion Index,” which is more accurate.
Daryl Herbert (a32d30) — 7/12/2009 @ 5:18 pmI’ve seen that, Daryl, and there’s a solid argument for calling it the Passion Index but I don’t agree with that view this far out from the next Presidential election. I could definitely be wrong but I think the people who feel strongly about Presidential performance when there is no imminent election are more likely to get involved in politics and to vote when there is an election.
The middle group of voters, whether they approve or disapprove, probably are not paying as much attention and are less likely to vote in midterm elections and even in some Presidential elections, absent an unusual motivation such as Obama presented in the last election. Thus, while I think the middle group of voters may well be important in the next Presidential election, I don’t think they will help Obama or the Democrats in the midterms. But the neat thing about politics is we’ll know for sure in 17 months.
DRJ (6f3f43) — 7/12/2009 @ 5:43 pmAnd yet with all of his former Clintonites on board, they still haven’t a clue as to how to run the economy.
Dmac (e6d1c2) — 7/12/2009 @ 6:04 pmThe approval index that counts right now is Congress. How’s that doing ?
Not so good.
There’s still plenty of time for the voters to figure Obama out. The only thing that could save him is Republicans taking Congress next year. They saved Clinton in 1994.
Mike K (2cf494) — 7/12/2009 @ 6:10 pmAll those Obama supporters who have seen their investments cut in half must be overjoyed at the brillance of Presidente Zero. Just think what the DOW will be like in a year when the economy is down 5% from what it is today.
No other president could do it. Hats off to Obama. He makes Carter look competent; Clinton look honest; and Wilson look like a realist.
Thomas Jackson (8ffd46) — 7/12/2009 @ 7:03 pmI think that most people in America want the President to be successful and are willing to give him passes on pretty much anything.
After all, he’s our first black president (I’m not quite sure if calling him African-American is exactly correct in the PC language).
I also believe that this will continue with enough carry-over for his re-election in 2012.
However, I also believe that Democrats, as a party, will have a tougher row to hoe. The 2010 elections will be interesting, although I’m sure they will be able to keep control of both houses.
In 2012, though, all bets will be off. To be quite “Frank,” Pelosi and Reid are not very likable people. I’m sure their constituents will re-elect them, but the party as a whole may suffer from their hubris.
Water carriers for the Dems are becoming increasingly unpopular. Plus, there will be the inevitable scandals and and missteps that will erode confidence in the party.
Also, and let there be no doubt, unemployment will continue to increase to levels approaching 12 to 15 percent. Add another stimulus package, as well as crippling energy taxes, and public dissatisfaction with economic policy will increase.
The President is smart in the sense that he knows he only has a short time to remake the United States into the economic model of, say, France Italy, Canada and Great Britain. I believe he will succeed. Time and sentiment are on his side.
He’s already been able to implement policies that the left only imagined that Bush would do in its most fevered nightmares — except now those policies are OK because the one enacting such rule is on their side.
However, when he, and his minions, begin trying to deconstruct the Constitution, most Americans will finally say no.
If you don’t believe me, try this: Keep an eye on the 22nd amendment.
Do you remember that the Kos kids, and pretty much everybody on the left, said Bush and Cheney would somehow circumvent the Constitution and declare an emergency to stay in office. But, that didn’t happen.
However, we already have Democratic Congress members (New York Democrat Congressman José Serrano) floating the idea of repealing the 22nd amendment.
I’m telling you, these people don’t care about Democracy, they care about power.
Ag80 (9b2e8b) — 7/12/2009 @ 7:11 pmAg80 – I hope you are wrong, wrong, damned wrong.
JD (7510a7) — 7/12/2009 @ 7:19 pmAg80 may be right and it’s a worrisome scenario. But Americans like divided government so I’m worried the GOP will regain control of the House and/or Senate in 2010, which IMO will make it more likely Obama will be re-elected in 2012.
DRJ (6f3f43) — 7/12/2009 @ 7:28 pmAnd he was doing that before Bush was even elected, it’s not going anywhere. Just one of those goof ball ideas that congress critters push for whatever mind addled reason is floating around in their fevered brains.
Soronel Haetir (2a5236) — 7/12/2009 @ 7:38 pmSoronel:
You may be right. I have no reason to believe otherwise.
However, as Zimmerman said, you don’t need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.
Ag80 (9b2e8b) — 7/12/2009 @ 7:49 pmIt’s a Hobson’s Choice to have either a Republican-controlled Congress and Obama in the White House a bit before and well after 2012, or a Democrat-controlled legislative and executive branch through 2012, but not after January 2013.
As for the third scenario, if there remains both a liberal-controlled Congress and White House from today and well beyond 2012, we can consider the US becoming this continent’s biggest Banana Republic, or a nation-wide version of self-imploding California.
In the meantime, it will be interesting if voters in portions of America like those in its most populated state allow their “liberal, therefore I am” foolishness of the past to keep bubbling over by extending the status quo of state legislatures currently managed (or mismanaged) by the left.
Mark (411533) — 7/12/2009 @ 8:03 pmIf the democrats win in 2010 and Obama is reelected in 2012, I predict a civil war.
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III (30e8b2) — 7/12/2009 @ 10:23 pmI don’t believe that time or sentiment is on Obama’s side – if it was, why would his administration continue their hysterical ranting about Health Care Crisis – Reform now!; Economic Cisis – Stimulus Package #2 – now!; Environmental Crisis/Cap ‘n Trade – now!
? This connotes extreme desperation on their part, and the growing knowledge that the rubes who elected them are not only growing restless, but agitated. The emperor has no clothes.
Dmac (e6d1c2) — 7/13/2009 @ 9:10 amI question whether the people of NV will re-elect the Dim-bulb of Searchlight. His base is Clark County, which is undergoing a great deal of stress right now what with the horrendous real-estate situation, and the down-turn in visitors (a big shout-out to the Prez for demonizing those business conferences in Las Vegas) with the consequent drop in employment on The Strip.
Pelosi, on the other hand, is in a nice safe seat in her firmly gerrymandered district. Whether she can stay in her present position depends to a great degree on what happens with the Murtha situation. If Murtha, and some of his fellow Congresskritters, get indicted over the ear-marking issue (the same thing that brought down Cunningham – but then, that would require the DoJ during a Dem Admin to treat a Dem Cong in the same manner that they did a GOP Cong during a GOP Admin), it will be time for Steny to “strike at a King” – which I have no doubt he is capable of doing.
Another factor for ’10, and a granite-hard fact for ’12, will be the inflation (hyper-inflation even) that will get underway due to the massive amount of money being injected into the economy with no expansion of the production of goods. The $800B Stimulus Package was mostly back-loaded, with very little of it getting out this year, a large part to be spent in ’10, with an even larger part scheduled for ’11. But, with all of the expected new costs on business in either direct costs such as energy taxes (Cap & Trade) and health-care, or new regulations that will increase indirect costs, there is no incentive in any current or projected governmental plan for business to plan for expansion, which means no expansion of the employment base.
It’s going to be a rough ride, better pull those belts tight!
AD - RtR/OS! (eb7d4e) — 7/13/2009 @ 10:15 amPelosi, on the other hand, is in a nice safe seat in her firmly gerrymandered district.
The only quality and requirement that a large percentage of people in the SF Bay Area have for the politicians they vote into office is that they be of the left. So candidates with a bit of common sense need not apply. Everything else is of secondary importance.
Mark (411533) — 7/13/2009 @ 10:42 amMike K: “They saved Clinton in 1994.”
I think you mean that the election of a Republican congress in ’94 saved Clinton in the ’96 presidential election. I think… I could be wrong as hell!
GM Roper (85dcd7) — 7/13/2009 @ 11:02 am