PDA

View Full Version : Gallup Poll: Obama's Approval Plummets



powerman2000
07-21-2009, 02:53 PM
How long will his numbers continue to fall? When will he reach the bottom?



Tuesday, July 21, 2009 7:31 AM


A USA Today/Gallup Poll out Tuesday morning delivers some bad news for Barack Obama.


Here are the key finding of the national poll:




By 49%-47%, those surveyed disapprove of how he is handling the economy, a turnaround from his 55%-42% approval in May. The steepest drop came from conservative and moderate Democrats.


By 50%-44%, they disapprove of how he is handling healthcare policy.


A 59% majority say his proposals call for too much government spending, and 52% say they call for too much expansion of government power.


Expectations of the economy's turnaround are souring a bit. In February, the average prediction for a recovery was 4.1 years; now it's 5.5 years.


The USA Today/Gallup Poll is sure undermine the President's position as he pushes for his ambitious universal healthcare plan.


"His ratings have certainly come back down to Earth in a very short time period," Republican pollster Whit Ayres told USA Today.

ZenBowman
07-21-2009, 02:58 PM
He's way too far to the left. It was obvious that people were tired of partisan politics, and did not want either conservative or liberal philosophy to dominate the discussion, and instead wanted pragmatic decisions to be made independent of ideology. Obama is letting the leftists walk all over him just like Bushie let all the rightwingers do the same during his term.

NJlifter88
07-21-2009, 03:01 PM
He's way too far to the left. It was obvious that people were tired of partisan politics, and did not want either conservative or liberal philosophy to dominate the discussion, and instead wanted pragmatic decisions to be made independent of ideology. Obama is letting the leftists walk all over him just like Bushie let all the rightwingers do the same during his term.

difference is, obama is a legitimate leftist. he never was about bipartisanship, either... he simply said he was to get elected.

ZenBowman
07-21-2009, 03:08 PM
difference is, obama is a legitimate leftist. he never was about bipartisanship, either... he simply said he was to get elected.

I really don't care that he is a legit leftist whereas Bush wasn't a legit rightist. What I care about is action, not belief. In that sense, both of them have done very little to maintain national unity. The only kudos I give to Obama is on his foreign policy, which I am impressed by, and if he manages to deliver on public healthcare as promised.

MISTERDUDE
07-21-2009, 03:11 PM
He's way too far to the left. It was obvious that people were tired of partisan politics, and did not want either conservative or liberal philosophy to dominate the discussion, and instead wanted pragmatic decisions to be made independent of ideology. Obama is letting the leftists walk all over him just like Bushie let all the rightwingers do the same during his term.


I hope that doesn't continue. He certainly is capable of being independent (relative to most politicians) to partisan decision making if he wants to me. I didn't vote for the guy but that is one thing I respect about him.

Vitalshok44
07-21-2009, 03:13 PM
what really sucks is that none of this matters and he will still end up with a second term. :(

NJlifter88
07-21-2009, 03:14 PM
I really don't care that he is a legit leftist whereas Bush wasn't a legit rightist. What I care about is action, not belief. In that sense, both of them have done very little to maintain national unity. The only kudos I give to Obama is on his foreign policy, which I am impressed by, and if he manages to deliver on public healthcare as promised.

im not saying i actually care, i don't think what they believe matters but what they do. what im saying is that we shouldn't have expected barack obama to be bipartisan because hes firmly a leftist. this is exhibited by his voting history in the past as well as his actions as president. bush, on the other hand, was not a true rightist by any means. he was simply a republican tool. and i agree with you about obama, other than the public healthcare part. i think the bill he is trying to rush through congress without any intellectual debate is atrocious. but its all politics as usual with barack. hes gone back on nearly everything he said he was going to change about washington. hes less of a reformer of government than i believe mccain would have been at this point.


misterdude, where is your evidence?

and rocky, what makes you so sure?

MISTERDUDE
07-21-2009, 03:15 PM
what really sucks is that none of this matters and he will still end up with a second term. :(


You don't know that. If people don't see any real 'change' and they perceive the government's fiscal policies as wrong, then a conservative will stand a good chance against him. It will be tough for the reps right now but don't underestimate them - these guys got a frat boy from Texas elected, after all :D

Vitalshok44
07-21-2009, 03:15 PM
I really don't care that he is a legit leftist whereas Bush wasn't a legit rightist. What I care about is action, not belief. In that sense, both of them have done very little to maintain national unity. The only kudos I give to Obama is on his foreign policy, which I am impressed by, and if he manages to deliver on public healthcare as promised.

yes Iran and North Korea have been very well behaved recently thanks to Obama:rolleyes:

As far as health care is concerned, thankfully people still realize that there is no right to enslave for the time being

Vitalshok44
07-21-2009, 03:16 PM
You don't know that. If people don't see any real 'change' and they perceive the government's fiscal policies as wrong, then a conservative will stand a good chance against him. It will be tough for the reps right now but don't underestimate them - these guys got a frat boy from Texas elected, after all :D

I do know that and you know why I know that?


Because there is no legitimate contender, there is no Reagan.

I mean, what do they have Gingrich? palin? Jindal?

None of these people have a shot.

Gingrich claims the contract with America, but we all know good and well was 94 awb That brought the Republicans back to power.

As far as either of the other to go. They are either too soft or too vilified or both

MISTERDUDE
07-21-2009, 03:18 PM
I do know that and you know why I know that?


Because there is no legitimate contender, there is no Reagan.


I can see why you think that (and you're not wrong), but we're not to the next election yet. Everyone thought (by a wide margin) that Hilary was going to be the Dems' candidate if you recall; this stuff isn't an exact science for predicting the future.

Vitalshok44
07-21-2009, 03:47 PM
I can see why you think that (and you're not wrong), but we're not to the next election yet. Everyone thought (by a wide margin) that Hilary was going to be the Dems' candidate if you recall; this stuff isn't an exact science for predicting the future.

true it's not an exact science, but the percentages are fairly consistent.


I'm sure people will roll their eyes and not believe this but as soon as Obama entered the race. I knew that Clinton would not win, mainly because she was the face of the past.

Remember, people like what's new different and exciting, Clinton was none of those things Obama was, who do the Republicans have to fill that gap? nobody.


Add to that. The fact that things will not be bad enough in four years to counteract the pro-Obama propaganda, specially, if Republicans make strides in the House or Senate because then they will just be vilified and used as a stepping stone as to why Obama must get another turn.

The only chance he has of not being re-elected, is if Republicans don't take back the House or Senate.

as far as messages concerned, the air of being identifiable to the common man is still the thing that gets elected,Bush had this( as well as a message that was very similar to Ron Paul's in the beginning, shame he didn't act on it) which is the way to identify with the base and still come across well to the overall populace.

Obama had a feeling of aristocratic beard stroking superiority, which is something that liberals love, however he also came across well to the common man( by appealing to the lowest common denominator of enslaving the productive to promise you things) which made him a cinch for the base and still left them with a way to identify with people.


There is no one will on the Republican side or the conservative libertarian side in general. That has both the message and the demeanor necessary to take him out, Peter Schiff is the only man I can think of that would stand a chance. But I doubt he would make it out of the primaries. :(

now let's look at some of the people that are more likely to make it out of the primaries.

Romney

all but worthless as his economic strategies are similar to Obama as well as his philosophy on health care, in short, not different enough.

Palin

Vilified beyond all recognition, you can exchange her brain with Ron Paul's and people would still not except her just based upon the name recognition.

Gingrich

The best of a bad lot, his contract with America as I've stated before had little to nothing to do with him getting Republican majority, even though he has some good fiscal responsibility. He still managed to get plunked by Clinton in that Clinton now receives complete credit for his supposedly balanced budget.


Jindal

Too much of a wimp, he's like Mr. Rogers and makes people feel like they should be setting up straight, in short, he makes people around him uncomfortable by how uncomfortable he is.
Fiscally sound, but with all the personality of a moist towel.

There you go

leafs43
07-21-2009, 03:50 PM
what really sucks is that none of this matters and he will still end up with a second term. :(

Not necessarily.

Polls suggest Romney is currently tied with Obama if an election were to happen today. I am not saying that it would be an improvement, just stating the current landscape.


But by 2011, the economy is still gonna be experiencing what it is now, Obama's programs are gonna start to bubble into the mainstream and really wreck havoc on trying to jump start the economy. They take so long just because of lag time.


It will be summer 2010 before we really gauge on how Obama is doing according the populous with the congressional elections coming up. And in fact because of the seats up in the senate, we may not see too much of a shift in policies coming out of congress, or at least that portion because they are all dem candidates in strong dem states up for re-election.


Needless to say, Obama is following in the footsteps of Carter who followed the corrupt Nixon administration and still got booted out after 1 term.

Vitalshok44
07-21-2009, 08:33 PM
Not necessarily.

Polls suggest Romney is currently tied with Obama if an election were to happen today. I am not saying that it would be an improvement, just stating the current landscape.


But by 2011, the economy is still gonna be experiencing what it is now, Obama's programs are gonna start to bubble into the mainstream and really wreck havoc on trying to jump start the economy. They take so long just because of lag time.


It will be summer 2010 before we really gauge on how Obama is doing according the populous with the congressional elections coming up. And in fact because of the seats up in the senate, we may not see too much of a shift in policies coming out of congress, or at least that portion because they are all dem candidates in strong dem states up for re-election.


Needless to say, Obama is following in the footsteps of Carter who followed the corrupt Nixon administration and still got booted out after 1 term.


meh,a change to Romney really wouldn't change anything and you have to remember that when your choices are a socialist/authoritarian Marxist, versus a guy that is simply a little less that way most people will go for the non-watered down version, which explains the McCain Obama result, why go with the watered down McCain when you can go with a full load Obama.

Yes, but if Republicans make strides in the House and the Senate it will be blamed upon them "the Republicans" not him "Obama" so the only way that matters is if Republicans take ground.


The house will be what to watch not the Senate as the Senate has almost no flexible elections taking place, but the Senate is really irrelevant to the entire equation. Considering that the House of Representatives is where the new political movement always appears first, however, unlike Jimmy Carter who never had a propaganda machine like this in his corner. It's debatable whether or not, the house going one way or the other will really have much relevance