Obama’s Poll Numbers Keep Going Down
[Guest post by DRJ]
As of September 1, 2009, Rasmussen shows 30% of Americans strongly approve of Obama and 41% strongly disapprove, while 45% approve and 53% disapprove. As the chart shows, these are Obama’s lowest levels to date.
And it’s not just Rasmussen. CNN shows Obama is running poorly with Republicans and is also losing Independents:
“A majority of independent voters disapprove of how Barack Obama’s handling his job as president, according to a new national poll.
Fifty-three percent of independents questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Tuesday say they disapprove of how Obama’s handling his duties in the White House, with 43 percent in approval. That result marks the first time in a CNN poll that a majority of independents give the president’s performance a thumbs-down.”
Americans are concerned about more than health care. CNN’s analyst notes Obama’s “standing on some other issues has taken an even bigger tumble”:
“Among all Americans, his rating on health care has dropped 13 points since March. Compare that to his 16 point drop on the deficit and 17 point dip on taxes and it looks like there is growing discontent with Obama’s overall domestic agenda — not just his health care policy.”
In addition, Obama’s rating on the war in Afghanistan reportedly fell 18 points since March. That could explain his advisers’ willingness to consider getting America out of Afghanistan, a war that Obama promised to fight.
— DRJ
I can think of $9 TRILLION reasons why he deserves an even lower approval rating.
Travis Monitor (e991bc) — 9/1/2009 @ 9:35 pmDRJ, be prepared for a whirlwind of troll-posts! But then, they will not be able to let your post stand without insults, changes of subject, “wall o’ text”s, and accusations that sources are biased that they collect from biased sources.
Batten down the hatches!
Eric Blair (a88004) — 9/1/2009 @ 9:37 pmI’ll again point to A Brief Poll Comparison I just pointed to on another thread. Barack, with the aid of the state-run media, maintained a very similar position in the polls as Bush, with the attacks of the state-run media. Until recently, that is. Barack, with the media in his pocket, has separated himself from Bush.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 9/1/2009 @ 9:45 pmI do think it’s interesting that the TEA folks have short circuited the ‘here’s free stuff!’ argument the dems had planned to roll out.
They can keep promising they’ve fixed the economy, but it’s just not happening. They made a bad situation into a crisis. Of course, the GOP has to actually come up with a compelling argument to give them power again. ‘Not as bad as Pelosi’ is enough for my vote, but for a lot of people, it’s enough to just not show up at the polls.
Juan (bd4b30) — 9/1/2009 @ 9:46 pmBut I don’t respect George Will. He’s a geriatric poncey nerd boy with a creepy baseball fetish what plays a geriatric poncey nerd boy with a creepy baseball fetish on the tv precisely because dirty socialists lurv lurv lurv portraying conservatives as geriatric poncey nerd boys with creepy fetishes. Someone should kick his nerd ass I think.
happyfeet (6b707a) — 9/1/2009 @ 9:53 pmsupercache or spam filter? One of them caught my last comment.
[I can’t find your comment in either place, John. — DRJ]
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 9/1/2009 @ 9:58 pmObama White House Has Secret Plan To Harvest Personal Data From Social Networking Websites
http://nlpc.org/stories/2009/08/31/obama-white-house-has-secret-plan-harvest-personal-data-social-networking-website
NLPC ( National Legal and Policy Center) has uncovered a plan by the White House New Media operation to hire a technology vendor to conduct a massive, secret effort to harvest personal information on millions of Americans from social networking websites.
The information to be captured includes comments, tag lines, emails, audio, and video. The targeted sites include Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, YouTube, Flickr and others – any space where the White House “maintains a presence.”
In the course of investigating procurement by the White House New Media office, NLPC discovered a 51-page solicitation of bids that was filed on Friday, August 21, 2009. Filed as Solicitation # WHO-S-09-0003, it is posted at FedBizzOps.com. Click here to download a 51-page pdf of the solicitation.
For the text of this proposal:
http://www.nlpc.org/sites/default/files/RFQ_WHOS090003.pdf
DaveinPhoenix (ceeceb) — 9/1/2009 @ 10:20 pmSomeone should run some 30 second ads on TV talking about how Obama’s poll numbers are falling and how unpopular he is, and then say he’s unpopular because (pick one for each commercial):
– stimulus money orgy passed in “crisis” mode with no oversight
– attempt to ram through cap & trade, a massive new energy tax
– attempt to rush through disastrous health care reform that could mean you lose your current plan
etc.
That would get under Obama’s skin super-fast. It would drive him insane with rage. The ads should be upbeat and happy, poking fun at him in a mischievous way, rather than dour/dark/brooding.
A few 30-second gloat spots would send him and his supporters over the edge. Who knows what kind of garbage they would do?
Daryl Herbert (7116d6) — 9/1/2009 @ 10:38 pmThe thrill is gone – someone needs to let Chris Matthews know.
daleyrocks (718861) — 9/1/2009 @ 10:43 pmDRJ, my comment made it thru. I think it was my sketchy internet connection and maybe firefox threw a cached site on my screen. Sometimes I drop link faster than WJBC dropped trou.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 9/1/2009 @ 10:56 pmI’m gratified that the American public is making up its own mind, despite the frantic barrage of propaganda from Obama’s allies in the MSM. They’ve done their best to discredit opposition to Obama, but are only discrediting themselves. Good.
And I’m also glad David Frum isn’t getting much traction with his appeasement.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (8e52a6) — 9/1/2009 @ 11:07 pmJohn,
That happened to me this morning, only it was a post. No matter how many times I logged on, I couldn’t see the Pentagon/Afghanistan post and I know it wasn’t the SuperCache because it was off. Sometimes the intertubes are weird.
Bradley,
Next week may be a different story. I’m sure Obama is planning his next strategy and he’s very smart.
DRJ (3f5471) — 9/1/2009 @ 11:08 pm[…] Patterico’s Pontifications: apparently, Obama’s approval ratings and Monica Lewinsky have a lot in common. People who were squeamish about the Bush Administration’s actions towards terrorists must be […]
Individualism Round-Up: Liberties, Religiousity, and Molecules at Haemet (3bcabb) — 9/1/2009 @ 11:23 pmDRJ….
Hmmm. I think his advisors are intelligent people. We will quickly see how smart he himself is. The fact he is pretty sensitive about his college grades says a great deal.
“Smart”? “Canny” might be a better word. But he is certainly tone-deaf in dealing with people who don’t think he is gilded in golden light. Bill Clinton had a way of making you think you were really cool, even if you hated him. That made people like him personally.
Though he had quite the thin skin, too. Even if he was yet another Rhodes Scholar.
I suspect the gaffes are the real guy, DRJ. So he might be smart by any traditional measure, but I believe he is surprisingly thoughtless. Especially, again, when considering the percentage of the population who do not approve of his actions.
Which is not particularly small.
Eric Blair (a88004) — 9/1/2009 @ 11:24 pmBarack, with the media in his pocket, has separated himself from Bush.
Comment by John Hitchcock — 9/1/2009 @ 9:45 pm
For those who tend not to click on links, which I’m guilty of on many occasions (because I’m lazy), I’ll post the specifics of what you were referring to above—I was curious enough about the meaning of “separated himself from Bush” to drop by your blog page.
I formerly had the vague impression that the guy now in the Oval Office, on a time-in-office to time-in-office comparison (ie, 2001 vs 2009), still was faring slightly better than Bush in opinion polls. I thought the supposed appeal — the supposed likeability — of Obama was giving him a built-in advantage over the more plain-spoken, non-charismatic George Bush.
Mark (411533) — 9/1/2009 @ 11:50 pm[…] posted here: Obama’s Poll Numbers Keep Going Down Related articles:Obama Approval Numbers Hit A New LowObama’s Support Continues To Decline As […]
Obama’s Poll Numbers Keep Going Down | Presidency News - News, articles and blog posts about The Presidency (7a7279) — 9/2/2009 @ 12:28 amI think Obama’s polls are a symptom of a progressive process. First, he lost his constituency of the dumb, then he lost the dumber, and now he’s working on the dumbest. Note that the population of the dumbest doesn’t include those who would vote for Charles Manson if they thought he was black.
jc (e12740) — 9/2/2009 @ 5:15 am“In the course of investigating procurement by the White House New Media office, NLPC discovered a 51-page solicitation of bids that was filed on Friday, August 21, 2009. Filed as Solicitation # WHO-S-09-0003, it is posted at FedBizzOps.com”
That doesn’t sound like a “secret” plan.
imdw (603c39) — 9/2/2009 @ 5:42 amAccording to Drudge (link to politico link below) this AM he’s officially dropping the public option. But they didn’t make it a headline. Curious.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26672.html
At least Obama (apparently) puts himself even over socialism.
harkin (f92f52) — 9/2/2009 @ 6:06 amharkin,
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 9/2/2009 @ 6:21 amThe Politico story didn’t have anything new that I could find. Obama’s willingness to drop the public option was reported on weeks ago.
I know that the White House is trying to reach out to Americans, but this is distrubing.
The next best thing to “flag” at whitehouse.gov
Neo (7830e6) — 9/2/2009 @ 6:32 amNot only that, but his administration and Congressional allies are still planning on their “camel nose under the tent” strategy, albeit in a different form under the Co – Op option. I used to think this was a feasible idea, until I heard comments from Dems indicating their long – term strategy with that sleight – of – hand.
Next week may be a different story. I’m sure Obama is planning his next strategy and he’s very smart.
I’ve read reports that Obama and the Dems are planning to re – frame the 9/11 annniversary in terms of passing the health care plan. If so, that’s the most outrageous step yet that they’ve taken in their dishonest attempts at obfuscating this issue.
Dmac (a93b13) — 9/2/2009 @ 6:34 amRe-framing 9/11 for ObamaCare invites comparisons with Afghanistan.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 9/2/2009 @ 6:42 amHere’s one of the sources for that rumored strategy:
http://soitgoesinshreveport.blogspot.com/2009/09/reframing-of-911.html
Dmac (a93b13) — 9/2/2009 @ 6:43 amHis falling polls may have negative consequences in the national security realm, as opposed to domestic policy. Unlike Bush who put doing the right thing as he saw it above polls (at least with respect to national security), O will be ready to throw Afghanistan under the bus if he needs to. Probably the same would have been true of any of the other Dem Presidential candidates.
Gerald A (78e08a) — 9/2/2009 @ 6:58 amBB Fikes said:
“The Politico story didn’t have anything new that I could find. Obama’s willingness to drop the public option was reported on weeks ago.”
Was that the report on the Sebelius Sunday talk show comments a couple weeks ago that the White House said was totally wrong and that the public option was still very much a part of Obama’s agenda?
harkin (f92f52) — 9/2/2009 @ 7:02 amharkin,
Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R. (a18ddc) — 9/2/2009 @ 8:07 amYes, that’s what I was thinking about. The Politco story had nothing Sebelius didn’t say. And it’s based on anonymous sources, so it’s even easier to disavow.
Whoever mentioned the fact that Obama is thin-skinned had a good point. He does well with his teleprompter but the resistance to Hope and Change is growing and that will get him irritated. The next month will be very interesting. The lefties at Wash Monthly will insist that public option is not single payer all the while they demand single payer. I don’t believe anything the administration says about what is in the plan because the whole purpose of the “reform” initiative is to get to single payer.
If they decide to go the insurance reform route, it will be a way to poison the private insurance option so that single payer looks better. They are not acting in good faith. They are a bit like the Mass Democrat who voted to raise liquor taxes and was then loading his car with tax-free booze in New Hampshire. Nothing that they say or do can be trusted.
I should add that I support national reform but not the command model that Obama and Hillary want. They don’t believe in markets and markets are the ONLY thing that can allocate resources accurately and fairly.
Mike K (2cf494) — 9/2/2009 @ 8:18 amGreat. What Obama needs now is a major terrorist attack on American soil/interest. And a swift and military response. Or better still, OBL’s head on a platter. That would really help. It helped Bush exactly around this time, eight years ago.
The Emperor (0c8c2c) — 9/2/2009 @ 8:51 amIt sure is helping GWB today with the MSM, The Emperor. And I don’t know long it was after 9/11 before the press and the pundits started sniping away.
Less than a month?
What Obama has is a slavish press. But even without horrible events, those poll numbers tell the tale. And the press will eventually follow suit, because there is nothing, literally nothing, the press doesn’t love more than itself and its self-anointed supposed brilliance.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 9/2/2009 @ 9:33 am30% approve?
I had no idea that many people were employed by the media……..
EricPWJohnson (74c5a9) — 9/2/2009 @ 10:07 amThe Emperor, you show your confusion. Bush’s poll numbers were not aided by the 9/11 attack at all.
Bush’s poll numbers were aided by Bush’s reaction.
Obama’s poll numbers are suffering because of Obama’s reaction to the crisis he has faced.
That you can’t tell the difference is no surprise.
SPQR (8475fc) — 9/2/2009 @ 10:17 amCan you become a lame duck in the first year of your Presidential term? Obama’s big into firsts.
daleyrocks (718861) — 9/2/2009 @ 5:25 pmAs I recall, the post-9/11 public reaction wasn’t as supportive for Bush until his 9/14/01 speech at the WTC site when he took the bullhorn and said:
DRJ (3f5471) — 9/2/2009 @ 5:43 pmComment by DRJ — 9/2/2009 @ 5:43 pm
I agree there was lag-time in GWB support following 9/11. But that was lag-time for GWB polling to hit the 80s. Looking at the conglomerate GWB polling before 9/11, GWB’s numbers stayed near the 55 percent range until 9/11 and then shot through the roof, not falling back to that level until September of 2003. My article in mid-March shows GWB’s conglomerate polling throughout his eight years in office. And BHO has already started a more southerly track in polling, despite BHO’s state-run media working feverishly to keep him as far north as possible and despite MSM working as feverishly from BEFORE GWB’s first election to keep GWB as far south as possible.
I’d like to see the GWB graph make its way here in pictoral form. Maybe it would drive home the point better than the thousand words thingy.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 9/2/2009 @ 9:01 pmThank you DRJ. As always, saying it as it is.
The Emperor (1b037c) — 9/3/2009 @ 4:15 amSPQR, you make me laugh. Bush poll numbers was not affected by the 9/11 attack at all, his reaction to it did. Okay. LOL! Listen to yourself. If there was no terrorist attack, what would he have had to react to? And as far as reaction goes, we didn’t see much more of that in most of his presidency. Katrina? Hello?
Bush intended his presidency to be about domestic issues. He even campaigned against “nation building.” That shows how much control presidents have over the agenda of their term.
Katrina is an example of the press distorting the news very successfully. New Orleans had terrible governance and Bush was blamed. The year before, I flew into NO the day after Hurricane Ivan missed the city by turning east at the last moment. I saw no evidence of any preparations. There were no windows covered with plywood, as you would have seen in Florida.
Mississippi was hit just as hard as NO by Katrina but you saw nothing about it on TV. Instead you heard urban legends about people dying in the Superdome and a lot of stories that were later shown to be false. It was an amazing accomplishment by the press to divert all the blame from the incompetent local officials to Bush. He didn’t help with a few comments like his praise for “Brownie” but the story was totally distorted.
Mike K (2cf494) — 9/3/2009 @ 6:11 amMore SPQR nuggets.
Obama’s poll numbers are suffering because of Obama’s reaction to the crisis he has faced.
That you can’t tell the difference is no surprise.
Comment by SPQR — 9/2/2009 @ 10:17 am
The Emperor (0c8c2c) — 9/3/2009 @ 7:23 amYou agree with me then. Talking about reaction to crisis, are you now saying that Bush’s 28% approval rating was also because of his inept leadership and poor reaction to the crisis he faced? That’s a serious indictment, coming from a devoted Bush supporter like you. And talking about reaction to a terrorist attack on American soil, do you honestly believe that no President worth his salt would have handled that kind of crisis as well as he did. It was a given that Bush or anyone would have reacted the same way. I will judge Bush more on the decisions he took down the road. Invading Iraq on false intelligence quickly comes to mind. A decision that led to a chain of other bad decisions that defined his presidency.
Comment by Mike K — 9/3/2009 @ 6:11 am
The Emperor (0c8c2c) — 9/3/2009 @ 7:28 amYes Dr. I agree with you that the press is to blame for Bush’s failure. Very accurate. So lets also blame the press for Obama’s falling poll numbers? Right? Those evil, satanic pressers!
Yes Dr. I agree with you that the press is to blame for Bush’s failure. Very accurate.
There was no failure at Katrina. That’s the whole point. The federal government’s pace of relief efforts at NO measures up to any previous disaster. There is no objective fact you can cite to the contrary. The idea Bush “failed” is a media/Democrat creation. You had the Democrat mayor and governor trying to deflect attention from their pathetic non-performance by attacking Bush and the media passing it on without ANYTHING to the contrary, with race based attacks blended in, like Kanye West.
What failed was the total lack of any local response. The first responders in any disaster are supposed to be state and local. They were absent. Bush had too much class to respond by pointing out their incompetence – unlike how say Clinton or Obama would have responded.
Gerald A (78e08a) — 9/3/2009 @ 8:09 amDavid Brooks beclowns himself:
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (854e8e) — 9/3/2009 @ 9:46 am“Obama sees himself as a Burkean,” Brooks says. “He sees his view of the world as a view that understands complexity and the organic nature of change.”
@40
The Emperor (0c8c2c) — 9/3/2009 @ 11:30 amThere was no failure at Katrina. That’s the whole point. The federal government’s pace of relief efforts at NO measures up to any previous disaster. There is no objective fact you can cite to the contrary. The idea Bush “failed” is a media/Democrat creation.
What?
://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_W._Bush:_Hurricane_Katrina
I cant believe anyone in all honesty can make that kind of outragious comment. That my friend is complete and total lie. As far as Katrina is concerned, George Bush himself has accepted responsibility for the fiasco. It was a complete failure that had nothing to do with the press. The buck rested with him as President and he dropped the ball.
steve,
I happen to agree with you that disaster relief is and should be a local matter, albeit with federal assistance when needed, but the reality is Hurricane Katrina changed how a lot of Americans expect federal government to act. Read The Emperor’s last comment and explain to me why that isn’t true.
I admit, though, that I don’t really want the already overtaxed Obama Administration to take on one more thing. Who knows what might happen?
DRJ (3f5471) — 9/3/2009 @ 11:37 amLovie – Simply restating your asspulls does not make them any more true.
JD (9e41b2) — 9/3/2009 @ 11:57 am@44
The Emperor (1b037c) — 9/3/2009 @ 12:43 pmAsspulls? I give up. ROTFLMAO!!!!!
Why the Obama Administration Will Implode In Weeks
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/09/01/kevin-mccullough-obama-implode/
Obama’s minions have asked for a new season for Obama. Let’s give him Fall and call it the Fall of Obama starting right now.
AdrianS (05cc1b) — 9/7/2009 @ 4:42 pm