Obama's disapproval rating hits new high

[William769]

Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama's disapproval rating has reached a new high of 55% while the number of Americans who think he is a strong leader has dropped to a new low, 48%, according to a CNN/ORC poll released Tuesday.

And a familiar pattern in public opinion on Obama again asserts itself: Americans don't like his track record on major issues while they continue to like him personally. Nearly eight in 10 respondents say Obama is likeable; large majorities believe he is compassionate, hard-working, and has a vision for the country's future. Three-quarters think he fights for his beliefs.

But only 39% approve of how he is handling unemployment, and just 36% approve of the way he is handling the economy, not surprising when more than eight in 10 think the economy is in poor shape.

Opinion on Obama's economic track record is mixed, however. While fewer than one in 10 (9%) think his policies have made the economy better, about four in 10 (39%) credit them with preventing the economy from being even worse than it is today. On the other side, 37% say Obama has made economic conditions worse. Fifteen percent think his policies have had no effect.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/09/13/cnn.poll.obama/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

[ProSense]

1. "One piece of good news

One piece of good news for Obama is that his standing among the Democratic base has turned the corner after a drop in the wake of the debt ceiling agreement. The number of Democrats who wanted the party to renominate Obama dropped to an all-time low of 70% in early August, but it rose to 72% in the previous poll and 76% in the current survey.

Yay!

[William769]

3. There is an election going on right now that will be very telling.

[geek tragedy]

4. Sure, if opposing a Palestinian state and gay marriage are your

idea of what the Democratic platform should be all about.

NY-09 has the shittiest Democrats in the state.

[TheWraith]

5. I dunno, we've got a lot of shitty ones here in WNY too.

But yeah, I wouldn't exactly look to Archie Bunker in a yarmulke to define the Democratic brand.

[William769]

6. Speaking of shittiest Democrat...

[geek tragedy]

7. Do you think religious fundamentalists and cultural conservatives

who are 95% white are representative of the Democratic base?

[William769]

9. We have rules who can be in the Democratic Party?

Thats news to me.

Why is it now that we may lose this seat and never before?

To be perfectly clear here I do not want this seat lost, unlike the people that don't give a shit about this seat just because they don't like Obama. Heres a news flash this may be a look at what is going to happen in 2012 & holding the White House doesn't mean didly squat if we keep losing seats in Congress.

[geek tragedy]

11. Do you think Weprin's gay marriage vote and the

phony outrage at Obama over Israel are playing any part in this?

If so, to what extent is Obama to blame for people like Ed Koch urging that voters reject Weprin to send a message on Israel?

[William769]

12. Gay marriage there it is.

thats all I needed to hear from you. Get over it. :eyes:

ON EDIT: Next your going to tell me that the Repulicans that voted for this will be thrown out & replaced with Democrats.

[geek tragedy]

13. Do you know anything about this district?

The Orthodox Jews in that district are culturally indistinguishable from Michelle Bachmann on issues like gay marriage. And, the Archie Bunker types aren't the most open minded either.

Yes, Obama's economic policies aren't the best, but this district is significantly to Obama's right. He'd have to shift right to regain their favor.

[trud]

41. geek

Lots of comments on the NYTimes article about the election, from people identifying themselves as Jewish and saying Obama is toast for not being more pro-Israel. So glad to know they put the interests of a foreign state before those of the US. Not that Obama has done anything of significance to help the Palestinians get freedom, now will he with Hillary around.

I'm looking forward to the UN vote, that's for sure.

[golfguru]

61. Israel is paramount to Jewish people

That is the only tiny piece of land where they can
depend on to safely return in case of another holocaust somewhere.

[LiberalFighter]

40. That election means diddly squat for next year.

[Tarheel_Dem]

51. Were you this "concerned" before Clinton's rout in '94? Just askin.....

And it sounds like you have no idea how complex this district is. The pro Israel lobby was able to scare the shit out of this Orthodox community. And yes, Weprin's support for Cuomo & his gay marriage vote were used against him. Turn on NPR sometimes.

Of course, this would all be moot if not for one Anthony Dickhead Weiner. :hi:

[Bake]

65. Why do you always post this statistic like it's earth-shattering news?

What you seem to be saying is that if only Democrats are allowed to vote in the general election, Obama will win in a landslide.

Duh.

I'm not thrilled with Obama. But I will vote for him, like the 76% in your survey - in fact, probably more than that. That's pretty much a no brainer.

What matters is his approval rating (for now, at least) in the general population -- and how many of those people vote for him next November.

Bake

[TheWraith]

2. Count on cable news to cherrypick the worst numbers...

To help push the spin of "nice but incompetent."

[FailureToCommunicate]

8. CNN ?!?

Well that's reliable


:rofl:

[William769]

10. It's as reliable as this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=1764279

Now laugh about that.

[CakeGrrl]

20. DU is NOT the mainstream.

Even if a sizable chunk of DU wants to sit on its ass in protest come 2012 and let the Tea Party rule the roost, there will be more people outside of the bubble who do NOT want that to happen.

[William769]

21. I like your rose colored glasses.

[Inuca]

39. You mean that you REALLY think

that DU IS the mainstream? If that's the case, I don't know what color your glasses are, but they surely do not help you seeing.

[JTFrog]

43. Shit colored glasses.

It's like Skinner said a while back:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6443683">A thought about context and the constructiveness of criticism.

If someone offers criticism of Barack Obama, I find that the criticism is easier to accept if the speaker has already sufficiently demonstrated their support for Senator Obama's candidacy.

Put another way: If you want to be taken seriously, it helps to prove your bona-fides.

To be clear: I'm not speaking as a DU Administrator here. My purpose is merely to offer some helpful insight to those of you who don't seem to understand why you are not showered with rose petals when you offer your special brand of constructive criticism here on DU. Allow me to explain.

If you have spent the last six-to-twelve months trashing Senator Obama here on DU, and since the primaries ended you have not given any credible indication that you are now a supporter of his campaign, then if you post a thread about how you are incredibly disappointed in him because {insert reason here}, people are likely to wonder about your motivations and conclude that you are still trying to derail his campaign.

I'm not saying they're right. I'm not saying it's fair. What I am saying is that it is virtually inevitable.

So, if you want to be taken seriously -- if you want your constructive criticism to be accepted as constructive -- I humbly suggest that you put some effort into demonstrating that you actually want our guy to win this thing.

[Tarheel_Dem]

52. Ah. Those were the days.

:hi:

[Inuca]

54. How right you are :-)

During the height of the primaries, I thought that it cannot get any worse. Thise were the days indeed :-)

[frazzled]

14. But it's stellar compared to the disapproval ratings of Congressional Republicans

Which is between 68% and 75% (only 28% to 24% approving). Ba da bing ba da boom.

http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm

[golfguru]

67. They all hate the congress critters except their own

That 24% to 28% does not apply to their own congress critter, since incumbents get re-elected at a very high rate.

[Sheepshank]

15. CNN.?..this CNN.........

I think they have an agenda.

[Psephos]

16. Their agenda is to avoid going out of business.

Which means whoring is the order of the day.

[William769]

18. We lost two seats tonight.

Wow CNN is way powerfull! :eyes:

[Whats_Happening]

30. I'm sure CNN would be more than happy to present Democratic primary debates right now --

just as much! Of course, we're not having a Presidential primary this year. All the folks in the know tell us we can't have one. :shrug:

[Sheepshank]

48. Who said you "can't" have one?

Go for it.

It's just pretty damn hard without a contender

[The_Casual_Observer]

17. It's no wonder at all. The "news cycle" has been relentless

about what a pud Obama is, it's like settled law across the whole media spectrum.

[Hart2008]

19. Cue Tom Petty: Free Falling! The soundtrack of the Obama presidency...

The soundtrack of the Obama presidency:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gqT6En2O78

It is time for a change at the top of the ticket!

HART 2012!!!

:dem: :dem: :dem: :dem: :dem: :dem: :dem: :dem:

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hart2008]

23. The Hartistas are coming! The Hartistas are coming!

Ron Paul is leading the polls in New Hampshire, and he is over a year older than Gary Hart.

If you want people here to take your posts seriously, I suggest using proper English, and stop the potty mouth.

:hi:

[YellowCosmicSun]

24. He'll be reelected.

[Hart2008]

25. To his old Senate seat maybe, but not POTUS.

Not with these poll numbers:

http://pollingreport.com/obama_job.htm

http://pollingreport.com/wh12gen.htm

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hart2008]

29. Just got your first Thesaurus, did you? Nothing like supercilious sophism!

"to he and his supporters"???

Nothing like supercilious sophism from those who know not the difference between the objective and subjective cases!

Obama is the weakest president since before FDR!

His capitulation on debt ceiling bill sealed the failure of his presidency.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[YellowCosmicSun]

70. Keep heaping derision on the man. Maybe you'll jump through the floor when he wins.

ala Rumplestiltskin

[SidDithers]

57. More comedy gold from the "Hartistas"...

:rofl:

Sid

[blkmusclmachine]

26. We just got wiped out AGAIN in a couple of spec. elections tonight:

This is what happens when you have a LEADERLESS Party. A corrupt Party. A nonresponsive Party. A Party that will not, nay, CAN NOT, distinguish itself from it's so-called "opposition." Tonight was a bad omen for 2012. Looks like everything's going "according to plan." 2012 is going to be a wipe-out. Think 1980 level landslide to the GOP. Welcome Pres. Perry, VP Palin. Your Theocracy is waiting.

[Hart2008]

28. Yup, and 23 Dem caucus to 10 Repuke Senate seats up in 2012.

So with the present 53 to 47 edge means a loss of 4 seats will lose the Senate as well.

It is time for a change at the top in 2012.

HART 2012!!!!

[trud]

42. not Hart

Someone who's a Democrat and has a chance to be elected.

[Hart2008]

50. Yes, Hart indeed is Democrat and can be elected since he is a real democrat. NT

[Inuca]

55. I actualy happen to like Gary Hart a lot

but have him run for the presidency NOW?!?!? Come on... nothing to do with reality.

[Hart2008]

59. So who thought he had a chance in '84 when Mondale had all of the Superdelegates in his pocket?

If the man declares, and I am expecting something any day now from his "just over the horizon" comment on his blog and his escalating criticisms of Obama, he will run an issue oriented campaign AND he will have an audience. From the latest poll, 27% have said they want to see a challenger, that is enough for him to get a forum to be heard on the issues, and then watch out!

This time, the Superdelegates will come to him since Obama looks to be a drag on the Congressional races, and we have to defend 23 Senate seats this election.

If Obama can't function without the House, what will he do when he losses the Senate?

[trud]

60. that photo with the bimbo on his knee puts paid to this idea

If he'd been building some credibility since then, he might have a chance, but he's been invisible. That's the last image most people have of him.

I wish Al Gore would run, but that seems unlikely. He would win, I think.

[Hart2008]

63. So you missed the Hart-Rudman Commission and his visit to Condi on Sept. 6, 2001 to predict 9-11?

Bill Mahr showed the headline from the Montreal Gazette from Sept. 6, 2001 which reads "Terror Risk Real: Hart. Thousands in U.S. will die, ex-presidential hopeful says." That warning was given at at an aviation conference on Sept. 5, 2001 in Montreal:
Bill Maher interviews Gary Hart
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACYq7gWjFFc
Gary Hart was under a media blackout after 1988. This was true even after he had co-chaired the commission which had conducted the first comprehensive review of U.S. security since the end of WWII, and after Canadian newspapers screamed headlines of Hart predicting a terrorist at on America on September 6, 2001:

The Canadian headlines read, "Hart predicts a terrorist attack"–that’s Gary Hart, the former Colorado senator and two-time democratic presidential candidate who co-chaired the U.S. Commission on National Security with former Republican senator Warren Rudman. Hart had given his speech in Montreal. Interestingly enough, he was addressing the Air Transportation Association.

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/3/28/fmr_democratic_se...

I would point out also that the so-called newspaper of record, the New York Times, didn't print one word about that final report. Keep in mind this wasn't just another federal commission. This was the most comprehensive review of U.S. national security since 1947. And so we weren't competing with a thousand other federal commissions. This was groundbreaking stuff, and we had spent two and a half years putting these recommendations and findings together.

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/08/04_hart.html

By the way, when our final report came out in 2001, it did not receive word one in the New York Times. Zero. The Washington Post put it on Page 3 or 4, below the fold...
...I went out on my own throughout the spring and summer of 2001 saying, "The terrorists are coming, the terrorists are coming." One of the speeches I gave was, ironically enough, to the International Air Transportation Association in Montreal. And the Montreal newspapers headlined the story, "Hart predicts terrorist attacks on America."
By pre-arrangement I had gotten an appointment with Condi Rice the following day and had gone straight from Montreal to Washington to meet with her. And my brief message to her was, "Get going on homeland security, you don't have all the time in the world." This was on Sept. 6, 2001.

Condi Rice's other wake-up call
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/04/02/hart...

So the real issue here is why did no one in the U.S. take the terrorist attack warnings seriously?

After all of Clinton's problems with women, I doubt the younger generation will understand what all of the hubbub about Hart was in '87-88. Donna Rice Hughes always denied she had a sexual relationship with Gary Hart, refused a million dollar deal for an INTERVIEW with Playboy in '87-88, and presently works to prevent children from being exposed to pornography on the Internet. If I had to be involved in a "scandal", it would be with a lady like that!

Al Gore gives no indication he will run. I don't believe he is capable of running the kind of issues oriented campaign required in this political environment, since Obama will have sucked out all of the money from the DLC types Gore had been accustomed to receiving.

[jefferson_dem]

33. "We".

Yeah right. :spray:

[Hart2008]

34. So you've left the party now? nt

[jefferson_dem]

35. Don't be silly.

Enough with your "monkey business."

I was replying to the poster who said "our" party is "a LEADERLESS Party. A corrupt Party. A nonresponsive Party". Sounds to me like someone has already left the party is he was actually ever a part of it.

[Hart2008]

36. The real "horsefeathers" here is that you don't care what your candidate does to the party.

You don't care if he loses both the Senate and the House.

That doesn't bother you in the least.

It is just more Boomer indulgence: use the party as a vehicle for personal ambition and then leave it stuck in the ditch.

It's me first and screw the team.

Sorry, but that is unacceptable.

[jefferson_dem]

37. What are you even talking about?

I support Democrats up and down the ballot.

If you think whiny rants such as "ours" is "a LEADERLESS Party. A corrupt Party. A nonresponsive Party" do us any favors, that's a cross you will have to bear. The rest of "us" will be working like hell to beat the sick-fuck GOP/Teabagger scumbaggery in 2012.

[Hart2008]

38. "You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."

The corruption of DLC money and the resulting Repuke Lite (TM) policies, are not the
progressives cross to bear, it is yours.

The whiny rants here are from the Obama supporters who want to make excuses for why he has refused to use the power of the presidency for a progressive agenda.

When we nominate a real progressive Dem, beating the GOP gets a lot easier.


You were the one who objected that "we" did not lose two special congressional elections.

[NorthCarolina]

45. Common sense is wasted

on that one. Why bother?

[Hart2008]

49. Just making addressing the "arguments". NT

[SidDithers]

58. You think "Hart 2012" is the one with common sense?...nt

Sid

[Hart2008]

64. Common sense is wasted on another here too! NT

[Whats_Happening]

31. Disapproval, 55% - Approval, 43% -- Let Me Just Say This About That --

When GW Bush ran for re-election in 2004, his approval numbers were in uncharted territory -- Presidents like Nixon, Reagan and Clinton who WON a second term sailed through their re-election year well ABOVE 50% approval. On the other hand, Carter and GHW Bush - the one-termers -- were well UNDER 50% in that fourth year in office.

GW Bush was in uncharted territory -- throughout 2004, his approval ratings literally bounced around 50%, at times a few points below, at times (more often than not, in fact) a few points over. And so everyone wondered, what was going to happen? GW Bush was able to beat Kerry, by 2.5%.

If Obama continues to bump along in the low 40s (while unemployment continues to bump along around 10%) -- I'm sorry, I don't care how many "keys" he has, I can't see him winning.

[JTFrog]

44. Did you just pull those numbers out of your ass?

In Clinton's third year (this is Obama's third year by the way...), his approval ratings ranged between 42 and 53 percent (per http://www.gallup.com/poll/116584/presidential-approval-ratings-bill-clinton.aspx">Gallup).

Nixon's job approval ratings were not all that high in the year before his re-election bid in 1972, hovering around the 50% level for many months during 1970 and the beginning of 1972. In fact, at the 18-month mark (May 1971) Nixon had a job approval rating of 50%, and a rating of 49% in January 1972. (per http://www.gallup.com/poll/8608/reflections-presidential-job-approval-reelection-odds.aspx">Gallup).

Reagan's job approval ratings were actually worse than Nixon's in the year before his successful re-election bid in November 1984. (per http://www.gallup.com/poll/8608/reflections-presidential-job-approval-reelection-odds.aspx">Gallup).

I can't even begin to take any of your post seriously.

Welcome to ignore.

[Beacool]

46. The difference is the state of the economy.

Reagan's unemployment figure was still high, but the economy was improving. Clinton had a booming economy. Obama won't be so lucky.

His reelection will depend on two factors:

1) The state of the economy by Nov. 2012 (more specifically, the general mood of the electorate).

2) The Republican candidate. If the Republicans are stupid enough to nominate a Tea Partier, they will probably lose just like they did in 2010 in NV and CT.

:shrug:

[JTFrog]

47. Someone who has never shown an inkling of support for the man has zero credibility here.

As posted above.

That analysis reeks of wishful thinking.


:shrug:

[Tarheel_Dem]

53. You have to wonder if the Clintonites were this "concerned" before the '94 massacare?

:shrug:

[Beacool]

62. Oh please!!

It's an analysis from someone who has a degree in Political Science.

Take it or leave it.

:eyes:

[JTFrog]

71. You had me at leave it.

:eyes:

[Whats_Happening]

68. My numbers were for the fourth year of a Presidency, in the run-up to a re-election attempt.

Your numbers are third year approvals. Sure, Obama has time to rise out of the low 40s by the middle of next year, but if he doesn't, he faces the dire precdents I cited.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

56. The media should really just go ahead and call the 2012 Presidential Election for the Republicans

We get the point: Obama sucks! :shrug: We all know it's the Republican Tea Party that the American people really want in charge of everything (not sure if I mean that sarcastically or not)! :banghead: :puke:

[golfguru]

66. His approval rating will be flying high next summer

when economy will be recovering nicely.

[Enthusiast]

69. President Obama

should have rode the massive populist public outrage over anti-collective bargaining efforts in Ohio and Wisconsin.

He should also have abandoned all his wiggle words in regard to social security and medicare -like cutting the payroll tax.

On these two issues alone he could be looking strong for re-election.

Hey, Obama, stop doing the wrong thing!

[CakeGrrl]

72. Some dissenting opinion:

The Liberal Disaffection Myth:
http://theobamadiary.com/2011/09/14/the-liberal-disaffection-myth/