The Obama limbo: How low can he go? President's approval to disapproval ratings now 38% to 54%.

[Hart2008]

President Obama's approval rating has now returned to its record low of 38%, while his disapproval rating is one point off its record high of 55% from August 25th-29th:
http://pollingreport.com/obama_job1.htm

How much lower can he go before the party loses faith in his ability to recapture the House and retain the Senate, where Dems must defend 23 of the 33 Senate seats up for election in 2012?

:think:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. The Prospects For Our Party Are Inextricably Linked To The Prospects For The Economy

And Gallup is an outlier. Most other polls have him in the low to mid forties.

[Hart2008]

3. Do you think that more outsourcing from new "free trade" deals helps the economy on election day?

There was a reason that so many Repukes voted for those recent "free trade" deals with Columbia, Panama, and South Korea, right?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. Their Impact On The Economy Will Be Negligble

.

[Hart2008]

8. However negligible, their effect will not be positive in the short term for election day.

And this economy is on life support now.

It needs all of the help it can get.

Obama shot himself in the foot again politically.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. "Make no mistake: I just need to be less awful than the Republicans

then you'll have no choice but to vote for me, suckers! The 1% get what they pay me for, and I still get re-elected."*

*Note to the parody-challenged - that's not an actual quote.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. What Would You Have Him Do To Magically Turn This Economy Around

That can magically pass the Republican House and surive a Republican filibuster in the Senate?

[izquierdista]

7. Fire Eric Holder

Replace him with William K. Black and tell him to hire, hire, hire. Econ majors who can't find a job, out of work attorneys, laid off accountants, forensic IT types, and outsourced bank examiners. Tell them to get busy and let Wall Street know they will stay busy until jobs in the regular economy open up for them. I will bet that the criminals let loose of some of their loot pretty quick if that happens.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. That Would Probably Bring The Unemployment Rate Down By A Couple Of Tenth Of Percent Or So

.

[3waygeek]

10. It won't do much for unemployment, but

it could build evidence for criminal prosecution of the banksters, which would go a long way to fixing our broken economy.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. The "scary" Thing Is How Much Of The "Theft" On Wall Street Is "Technically Legal".

.

[izquierdista]

45. Fraud is never legal

That's why the fraud statutes contain an element of vagueness, so they can prosecute each new twist on an old con game. Nothing is "technically legal" if it can be shown to be done with deception.

[Honeycombe8]

42. That would've been the thing to do last year. But NOW, with Holder being targeted

by the Republicans in Congress, with subpoenas and such, it'd look like Obama was trying to distance himself from wrongdoing, and it would bolster the Republicans' witch hunt, and encourage them to do more of that, like they did to the Clintons.

It's too late, now. It should've been done before now, though.

[izquierdista]

44. Yea, I had misgivings

Each time President-Elect Obama announced a new Cabinet pick. :puke: :puke: :puke:

[Hart2008]

78. +1

I wasn't expecting much from the man, but his cabinet picks were extremely disappointing.

Keeping Gates in there sent the message that there would be no real change.

It was just a campaign slogan.

[bornskeptic]

113. Senate Republicans would filibuster any AG nominee not worse than Holder

[JVS]

133. LOL! They really do run the whole show, eh?

[Supersedeas]

146. You may be right. The President is stuck with the AG under the investigation runs

its course.

[red dog 1]

47. If Holder lied to Congress, Obama won't HAVE to fire him!

[Bake]

139. If we saw some handcuffs on Wall Street every damn day, it would be a start.

But that will never happen.

Bake

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

13. Good

"Yes, but even if that works against Mitt the Twitt, how does he regain the House and wn the Senate?"

...thing you're not part of implementing strategy because it seems you're betting against Democrats, which translates into putting a lot of confidence in Republicans.

Schumer: Senate Democrats could 'pick up a seat or two' in 2012

[Hart2008]

21. Losing the House and Senate to the Repukes is not good. We've seen this before in 1980.

In 1980 Dems lost the Senate 12 Senate seats, which was very disappointing for Dems.

The 1980 U.S. Senate elections coincided with Ronald Reagan's election to the Presidency. Reagan's large margin of victory over incumbent Jimmy Carter pulled in many Democratic voters and gave a huge boost to Republican senate candidates.

The Republicans gained a net of twelve seats from the Democrats, the largest swing since 1958, and gained control of the Senate, 53-46. Majority and minority leaders Robert Byrd and Howard Baker exchanged places. This marked the first time since 1954 that the Republican Party controlled one of the Houses of Congress.

Without losing any seats, the Republicans took open seats in Alabama, Alaska, and Florida, and defeated nine incumbents: Herman Talmadge (D-GA), Frank Church (D-ID), Birch E. Bayh II (D-IN), John Culver (D-IA), John A. Durkin (D-NH), Robert Morgan (D-NC), 1972 presidential nominee George S. McGovern (D-SD), Warren Magnuson (D-WA), and Gaylord Nelson (D-WI) (see Reagan's coattails).

United States Senate elections, 1980:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elect...

[truedelphi]

59. Yep that was the deal that was made, the day after he

was elected.

He'd lick the boots of the top one percent, and in exchange, they would make sure a looney tunes character runs against him.

However now that the slumbering masses of people have awoken, it might not all go according to plan.

Unless of course, the Top One Percent can get us involved in some nasty horrid little war against Iran.

[ProSense]

12. What

"The Obama limbo: How low can he go? President's approval to disapproval ratings now 38% to 54%."

...are you going to do when it goes back above 40 percent?

it was 39-54 from 8/11-13/11
then 44-50 from 9/4-7/11
it dropped to 39-53 from 9/21-23/11
then climbed to 43-49 from 9/30 - 10/2/11
it was 41-51 from 10/9-11/11
now it's 38-54 for 10/11-13/11

Seems pretty desperate to be hanging one's wishful thinking on a poll that keeps swinging back and forth.

"Would you like the Democratic Party to nominate Barack Obama again in 2012"

[Hart2008]

15. Seems pretty desperate to be hanging onto Obama in the hopes that he can stay above 40% approval. NT

[ProSense]

20. Well

"Seems pretty desperate to be hanging onto Obama in the hopes that he can stay above 40% approval. "

...Clinton and Reagan got re-elected even though their numbers for much of the year prior to the eleciton hovered in the 40s.

Fairly certain if the this forum had been around in the mid 1990s, you'd have been pushing Gary Hart to run against Clinton.

:rofl:

[Hart2008]

22. Did Clinton and Reagan have approval ratiings dip into the 30's?

Was the economy as bad for Clinton as it is now?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. At One Time They Both Did

But the economy and their approval rating had substantially improved for both men by the time they were on the ballot again.

[Hart2008]

28. They didn't in the year before election day. NT

[ProSense]

29. Hmmm?

"Was the economy as bad for Clinton as it is now?"

Flawed logic to match wishful thinking.

Did Clinton inherit the worse economy since the Depression?

There is a reason that most people still blame the state of the economy on Bush.

<...>

Still, most don't blame the administration for the state of the economy. Asked who was most to blame, Americans cited the Bush administration (22 percent), followed by Wall Street (16 percent), Congress (15 percent) and then the Obama administration (12 percent.) One in 10 said "all of the above."

<...>

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. Clinton Inherited An Economy That Was Coming Out Of Recession

I just don't think a majority or plurality of Americans will give much weight to who killed the economy come election day.

[ProSense]

34. So

"Clinton Inherited An Economy That Was Coming Out Of Recession"

...you're equating the meltdown of the financial sector, the worse economi crisis in more than 70 years, to the recession Clinton inherited?

Given the protests building around the country, it's likely that most people see and feel the difference.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. You Misunderstand Me

President Clinton was dealt a great hand. President Obama was dealt a crappy hand. I didn't think the suggestion could be more clear.

However, all that doesn't matter. There's a lot of real pain in the land and it's the man or woman in charge who usually gets the blame.

It's just the way things are...

[SwampG8r]

130. he understands you perfectly

the mindset you face is that ANY critical analysis which does not end with "and Obama is wonderful" is invalid and until you agree with it in toto you will have no credibility.i saw enough of this kind of thinking 2000-2008.my patience is gone for "the we did it so its ok" crowd

[Hart2008]

35. It's wishful thinking to beleive that enough voters will blame Bush for this economy.

Especially since after four years of Obama, things are getting worse:

In a grim sign of the enduring nature of the economic slump, household income declined more in the two years after the recession ended than it did during the recession itself, new research has found.

Between June 2009, when the recession officially ended, and June 2011, inflation-adjusted median household income fell 6.7 percent, to $49,909, according to a study by two former Census Bureau officials. During the recession — from December 2007 to June 2009 — household income fell 3.2 percent.

The finding helps explain why Americans’ attitudes toward the economy, the country’s direction and its political leaders have continued to sour even as the economy has been growing. Unhappiness and anger have come to dominate the political scene, including the early stages of the 2012 presidential campaign.

Recession Officially Over, U.S. Incomes Kept Falling
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: October 9, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/us/recession-officially-over-us-incomes-kept-falling.html

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. We Are Making This More Complex Than It Needs To Be

President Obama, for better or worse, and like almost every other incumbent running for reelection will end up with roughly the same share of the popular vote as his approval rating come election day. Thus as it was George W. Bush*, Bill Clinton, George Herbert Walker Bush, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, and Dwight Eisenhower.

This iron law of politics does not discriminate or deifferentiate between parties and candidates.

[newblewtoo]

106. Could you provide a link?

I don't doubt what you are saying, I would love to be able have a table with that information available. Thanks.

[Arkana]

62. Considering that poll after poll of voters

shows that a sizable majority still blame Bush for the economy, I'd say we have less to worry about on that front than you perhaps wish we did.

Also, Gary Hart is eight million years old and will never be President.

[golfguru]

67. In 1984 the economy was in strong uptrend and in 1996

the country was at peace, no wars, unemployment much lower than now. In 1984, the inflation had dropped from double digits to mid single digits.

[Hart2008]

85. Today, the economy is anemic and we are still occupying Iraq and Afghanistan.

I think people need to look hard to see the change that was promised.

I am still waiting to hear Obama's response when Mitt the Twitt, or whoever imitates Reagan and asks the question before election day, "Are you better off than you where four years ago?"

The lack of a good answer to that question will result in loss of the White House and Senate, and the failure to regain the House.

[AlinPA]

104. Who are you supporting to run against the president?

[elocs]

14. The House is a long shot, the Senate will likely be lost.

Our hope will have to be reelecting Obama and hope that Reid and the other Democrats in the Senate will have the resolve to stand up to the Republicans and use every method available to them.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. Things Could Change But Right Now The Odds Favor The Pubs Controlling All Three Levers Of Government

The bright side is America's problems in the short term are unsolvable and they will be booted out in 014. The sad thing is all the pain those intervening years will bring.

[elocs]

40. Living in Wisconsin I know firsthand what happens when Republicans control everything.

To have this happen on a federal level will be hell, a hell from which it will be hard to recover.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. I Was In College In 1980 When The Pubs Wrested All Three Levels Of Government

My poli sci professor joked in private that it was like Nazi Germany 1933.

Like I said, I think with my head and vote with my heart. If you go to intrade or any betting site the president is a slight underdog to even money (a bad place for an incumbent) but the odds of a Republican Senate and House are better than 2-1.

I am very thankful for the social progress we made under President Obama but if McCain was elected in 08 the economy would still suck but the Repubs would be blamed and we would be looking at seventy or so Democratic senators, three hundred plus Democratic House members, and a Democratic president in 012.

[elocs]

46. I would strongly bet the House will remain Republican and they will take the Senate.

Demographically, the Republicans know their time is short and so they are now in a frenzy to consolidate their power and to gain control in whatever way possible. They know that by the middle of this century when the collective minorities will outnumber whites in this country that they will have to govern this nation like an apartheid South Africa. Bit by bit, step by step they will do what they need to do to make this happen.

[JVS]

138. People have been singing that song for a long time. It's bullshit.

All that happens is ethnicity X moves on to become half conservative republicans when they used to be solid democrats. It was Irish and Italians over the last 30 years. Hispanics are next. As each group assimilates to the US, they all split about 50-50 for the parties.

[JVS]

137. We kept the house in 1980

[Hart2008]

142. Yes, but the "Boll Weevil" Dems like Phil Gramm gave Reagan a working majority.

Phil Gramm was once a Dem congressman before the caucus kicked him out for working for Reagan.

[RBInMaine]

74. I thought Occupy Wall Street was going to wake up Americans and make them revolt against the right?

[Hart2008]

95. Should they not also revolt against the DLC third way types in the Dem Party?

Years ago we only had one Repuke Party.

I welcome efforts to return the Dems to being the party of ordinary working Americans. The reality is that Obama has been far to interested in collecting the checks from the Wall Street banks for my taste and others.

The Occupy Wall Street protests will mean little if not translated into political action against those accepting political contributions from Wall Street. Maybe we can start by demanding that Obama refunds the money that he has accepted from Goldman Sachs and others?

[RBInMaine]

75. Polls mean NOTHING now. NOTHING. So take an upper and given the downers a rest.

[Hart2008]

79. Registration for the New Hampshire Primary starts tomorrow. NT

[quiller4]

131. The professionals give Obama the odds for retaining the White House

and the betting like for the Senate favors Ds too. At this point in the campaign the professional gamblers are better predictors than polls.

[Hart2008]

17. And you want to renominate Obama, knowing that? NT

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. If The Past Is Prologue

If the past is prologue President Obama will end up with roughly the same share of the pop vote as his apporoval rating on election day.

[Hart2008]

19. But should we renominate Obama knowing his electoral limitations? NT

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. I'm A Stone Cold Realist

I did a thread on this months ago. My thesis was that just because you see something coming doesan't mean you can prevent it.

Maybe there will be a discovery about Romney's past that makes him unelectable or the Pubs will nominate somebody unacceptable to a plurality or majority of Americans. But electiions are always referendums on the incumbent.

[Hart2008]

26. Exactly, "electiions are always referendums on the incumbent."

We can't always stop what we can foresee, but does that mean that we should not even try?

Really, we have to go all the way back to 1964 to see the Repukes nominate someone who was completely unelectable. Yes, it could happen, but the electoral college has favored the Repukes, i.e., they win more states. Even if Obama squeaks out a win, it looks like he loses the Senate and can't regain the House with his present numbers.

Change needs to come from another candidate in the Dem primary.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. There Were A Lot Of Factors Besides Goldwater's Extremism

The economy was hummingv and Americans weren't about to have three presidents in the space of little more than a year.

I don't see President Obama or any incumbent president winning a percentage of the populatr vote that is substantially greater than his or her approval rating at the time of reelection.

Given all that the proverbial "cake is baked" and replacing Barack Obama will do more harm than good. I am afraid 2012 will look more like 1980 than 1996.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

25. who would be a better choice? n/t

[BlueIris]

30. I'm for Anyone Else. With these numbers, the question isn't IF there's a "better" choice.

Anyone stands a better chance.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

37. other democratic candidates dosn't seem to agree with you considering their absence

If anybody stood a better chance we would have seen a good field of credible challengers by now.

[Hart2008]

39. Registration for the New Hampshire Primary hasn't even started yet.

The window is from October 17th to the 28th to register.

Someone of note will file.

[jefferson_dem]

86. "Someone of note will file."

Really? Care to wager (with the loser making a donation to DU). As long as we set reality-based paramters on what we mean by "someone of note"...

[SidDithers]

147. So, has anyone "of note" filed yet?...nt

Sid

[Tesha]

57. I think many Democrats are beginning to believe that 2012 is a certain loser for us.

*THAT* is why they're not interested in being
our standard-bearer. Let Obama be the one who
is tarnished;they can look forward to 2016.

Tesha

[Aerows]

69. Republicans have to have a candidate first

And they don't. A pile of dog crap could run against the Republicans and still win. Not insinuating that Obama is anything more than top quality, and I'm not. The best Republicans have are running dog shit against a tried and true leader. They are pissed about having nothing but Tea Party insipid/idiot/panderers.

Sucks to be a Republican :)

[Tesha]

71. Mitt Romney will eventually emerge as their candidate.

They will realize that they'd rather win than worry
about holding to the last 2% of their ideology.

And once they unite behind Romney, he will easily
win the General Election; Obama has deliberately
pushed away far too many of the factions that
supported him in 2008.

Tesha

[golfguru]

91. lol

Mitt will move to the center after nomination.
Obama will also move towards center.
It may not matter who wins the general.

[ProSense]

96. Interesting

"It may not matter who wins the general."

Right, and Herman Cain's plan helps the middle class.

Seriously, you're echoing Nader (and clearly from the right): Bush = Gore and Bush = Kerry.

Obviously, patent bullshit!

[golfguru]

101. I am seeing more

of that sentiment here than opposite. Did Obama approve
of the new trade pact with 3 countries? Is that moving left or towards center?

[Hart2008]

98. Which is all the more reason that any serious challenge to Obama must come from within the party. NT

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[JVS]

134. We need a new nominee because Obama is already in the lame duck era of his presidency.

[Hart2008]

135. He can only run a negative campaign. The Repukes have no fear of him.

For all intents and purposes, he is already a lame duck.

All Obama wants to do is split the difference and give pretty speeches.

[BlueIris]

27. I have a hard time believing it's even that high. nt

[indepat]

32. When most of the worst of junior's disastrous policies and actions are ratified/continued,

why would not your approval ratings tend to follow his? :shrug: :patriot:

[red dog 1]

48. One thing he could do right now to increase his approval rating is to stop Pot raids

New York Times, March 18, 2009

"Attorney General Eric Holder ..outlined a shift in the enforcement of drug laws, saying the administration would effectively end the Bush administration's frequent raids on distributors of medical marijuana"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19us/19holder.html/

Doesn't Obama have any idea how unpopular this particular broken promise is?

Doesn't he realize that the American people overwhelmingly support the use of medical marijuana?

Can he afford to lose the millions of votes this broken promise will cost him?

[Tarheel_Dem]

49. Apparently, not as low as you & Gary Hart.

;)

[jefferson_dem]

50. Gary! Gary! Gary!

D'oh. Obama +4 on Gallup today.

[Hutzpa]

53. Ain't that the truth

but this is worse than mama drama, neither Jerry or Maury can handle this crap.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

55. You Have To Look At His Polling Average And Not One Cherrypicked Poll

And Gallup is a bit of an outlier on the low side.

That being said it's a pretty sure thing, not a certain thing, but a pretty sure thing, that he ends up with the same percentage of the pop vote as his approval rating come election day. It's been so for every incumbent since they started scientific polling.*




I know Truman had allegedly poor poll ratings but I would like to see how he was polling in the Fall of 48.

[jefferson_dem]

56. Totally agree. Truman in 1947...

was in worse shape than Obama is today. Check out the graph (and the website) below.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/popularity.php?pres=33&sort=time&direct=DESC&Submit=DISPLAY

I'm thinking the 2012 contest will be a battle of the narratives. Obama is hoping to channel Harry Truman's (circa 1948) populism, when he effectively ran against the "Do Nothing Congress" and the "special privilege and greed" promoted by the GOP.

The Republicans, on the other hand, will strive to morph Obama into Jimmy Carter (circa 1980), pointing to economic "malaise" and mounting policy failures of the incumbent.

My money is on Obama. :)

[Hart2008]

77. After 992 days in office Truman's approval rating was 53% vs Obama's 40%.

At this point in 1947, Truman was at 54-55% approval.
You could look it up:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Job-Approval-Center.aspx

Obama may want to portray himself as Harry S., but Truman had a brass pair while Obama tries hard to remain above the fray. Truman worked hard to defend FDR's New Deal, while Obama has retained too much of Junior's policies and even people.

President Truman would have used the Constitutional option with the debt limit. Obama didn't have the balls to do it.

Comparing the two men shows great contrasts.

Harry S. would not have played golf with Boehner. He would have cursed him out.

[jefferson_dem]

82. Spring/Summer 1948, Truman was at 36-38%.

Sorry. Look it up.

It would be easy to refute your blanket dismissal of President Obama's accomplishments and his commitment to progressive social policy. But I won't waste my time as you've clearly made up your mind and are relegated to rooting for ... and promoting ... Democratic failure.

Surely, Truman himself would have been impressed with your directing trumped up criticisms at this Democratic president while deflecting blame from the "Do Nothing GOP Congress." Shame...

[Hart2008]

87. No Truman dipped in April and May 1948 before rebounding in June.

He continued to go up until inauguration day.

I did look it up, and I even posted the link.

Oh yes, and Truman had Strom Thurmund and Henry Wallace in the race to dilute some of the anti-Truman vote that might have otherwise gone to Dewey. So far, no sign of a serious independent/third party challenger to help with that in 2012.

Truman himself would have gone apoplectic when Obama capitulated to the Repukes on the Debt ceiling fiasco.

Truman had a brass pair and Obama wants to split the difference.

Truman wouldn't be playing golf with Boehner.

[AverageJoe90]

150. And yet he won in '48. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

112. I Am Beginning To Think That

I am beginning to think that Truman won because he ran against a do nothing Congress is so much apocrypha. He won because unemployment was 3.8% in November of 1948. Let me put my vulgar Marxist hat on for awhile; economics shape history and not great men.

[Hart2008]

117. Ultimately, most voters vote their pocket books. And under Obama things got worse. NT

[jefferson_dem]

120. Untrue.

We lost over 2M jobs in the three months prior to Obama's inauguration. Beginning with the fall of Lehman Bros in September 2008 until the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, we were literally on the precipice of full scale economic collapse. Granted, we still have work to do, but nobody living in a fact-based universe would say the economy has truly gotten *worse* during the Obama administration.

But we all know that.

The bigger question is... why do you insist on parroting bogus right wing talking points?

[Hart2008]

128. Uh, true. Sadly, after four years of Obama, things are getting worse..

To paraphrase Mark Twain, it is not what you don't know that bothers me. It's what you are so sure about that just isn't so.

After four years of Obama, things are getting worse:

In a grim sign of the enduring nature of the economic slump, household income declined more in the two years after the recession ended than it did during the recession itself, new research has found.

Between June 2009, when the recession officially ended, and June 2011, inflation-adjusted median household income fell 6.7 percent, to $49,909, according to a study by two former Census Bureau officials. During the recession — from December 2007 to June 2009 — household income fell 3.2 percent.

The finding helps explain why Americans’ attitudes toward the economy, the country’s direction and its political leaders have continued to sour even as the economy has been growing. Unhappiness and anger have come to dominate the political scene, including the early stages of the 2012 presidential campaign.

Recession Officially Over, U.S. Incomes Kept Falling
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: October 9, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/us/recession-officially-over-us-incomes-kept-falling.html?_r=1

Please explain how these facts, and they are facts, are RW talking points.

Or is that your standard response to anything with which you disagree and can't rebut?

[jefferson_dem]

132. "After four years of Obama"?

What are you talking about? He was inaugurated in January 2009. He hasn't even been in office for three years...though it probably feels like a lifetime to you.

Whatever. Your goal here is obvious. Enjoy your stay.

[Hart2008]

143. I keep forgeting that because he voted for the TARP plan in the Senate, then continued it in office.

I was expecting some real change from our party and president.

So, now we need a new nominee for the party.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[jefferson_dem]

83. Hart could have been a contender too.

I wonder if the poster has been bitter since 1987.

[Hutzpa]

52. yikes

we have Manny part deux.

:hide:

:yoiks:

[Hart2008]

80. There are more people who think like Manny than you think. NT

[Hutzpa]

90. oh ok

well thank you for that extremely important info, I didn't know that.

[Hart2008]

92. You are quite welcome! NT

[jenmito]

54. Today he's at 40%/52%:

http://www.gallup.com/home.aspx

[Hart2008]

65. And you think that is good?

:crazy:

[jenmito]

66. It's 4 better than yesterday.

You sure seemed excited about his worst numbers yet in your OP. Do you want him to lose?
:crazy:

[totodeinhere]

70. We should be able to report any polling results that we want to without being accused of wanting him

to lose. Knowledge is power. I want to hear all of his polling results, good and bad.

[jenmito]

72. The way the OP was written made it pretty clear that s/he was happy to "report" the polling results.

And why the negative comment from the poster to the "knowledge" I gave? You want to hear another polling result? Yesterday, Rasmussen had him at 47% approval. Knowledge is power.

[totodeinhere]

73. Thank you. As I said I am interested in all polls. However I don't think that any poll

is very significant at this point. When people post a bad poll to try to knock him down or when they post a good poll to try to build him up, and I see both here, I am interested but I don't draw any definitive conclusions one way or the other. Let's wait until we get a GOP nominee and then see how the polls look.

And one more thing. Not everyone who is happy with Obama's low numbers is a closet Republican. Some are good progressives who for one reason or another believe that Obama has let them down and they might be hoping against hope for a progressive primary challenger.

And the OP's concern about the possibility that Obama might have reverse coattails and drag down other Dems is a legitimate one. It's too early to draw that conclusion yet, but this type of discussion always comes up during presidential campaigns.

[Hart2008]

89. 38% to 40% is a 2% improvement and within the 3% margin of error.

I want to see a Democratic nominee who ends the foreign military adventurism and refuses to take money from Wall Street Banks, lobbyists, and PACs.

[jenmito]

103. His disapproval also went down 2%, thus a 4 point swing.

Obama is withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. He already withdrew all combat troops from Iraq as promised and is on track to keep his other withdrawal promises, too. Obama is hated by Wall St. Banks, etc. Their money is going to Romney.

[Hart2008]

116. It's the same 2% and not a 4% swing. NT

[jefferson_dem]

121. It's not the same swing.

He went from 38/54 (-16) to 40/52 (-12). You do realize this is not a binary value set - there's an unsure/no opinon category - right?

[jenmito]

123. Wow. Now I understand why you're so sure Obama will be primaried.

You're not too, ummm, bright. Jefferson_dem explained why you're wrong.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[Capn Sunshine]

61. WTF is the point of such posts?

seriously? If the OP got his (apparent) wish and Obama lost the primary to some unnamed DEmocrat? What then? I was part of the McGovern insurgency in 72. The results (Nixon's 2nd Term----> Ford) and subsequent (mainly economic) damage to our country were something I'll have to live with: we seriously fucked things up. Handed to the Reaganites. Who more seriously fucked things up. Fuck.

[Hart2008]

81. To make you think. Remember losing the Senate in 1980? NT

[BklnDem75]

63. I'm starting to think this really is Gary

Sorry Gary. Even 38% is higher than your .0001% chance of ever becoming a contender, let alone President.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[jefferson_dem]

84. The real Gary Hart would...

not think too highly of this poster. The real Gary Hart is a proud Democrat.

[Hart2008]

88. The real Gary Hart posts on his own blog and even answers others' comments sometimes.

He is very capable of speaking for himself.
www.mattersofprinciple.com

:hi:

[Proud Liberal Dem]

68. As bad as things seem to be for President Obama

things are WORSE for the Republicans or haven't you noticed? I believe that there was a poll out recently indicating that people trust President Obama and the Democrats on the economy moreso than the Republicans and more people STILL believe that Bush is responsible for the economic mess we're in. If he continues to push jobs legislation and the Republicans continue to resist/obstruct, I imagine those numbers for the Republicans will sink lower. Add to that the GOP's obvious lack of enthusiasm for Romney (the likely nominee at this point) and I'm not seeing where we're necessarily in the danger zone at this point-certainly not to where we need to replace President Obama as the nominee next year. I would also add that if the Republicans keep monkeying around for the next year and fail to produce any real jobs legislation, there's a good chance we could clean the teabaggers out of the House and maintain the Senate. Keep the glass half full, folks! :hi:

[Sheepshank]

76. oh really?

[JoePhilly]

93. tick, tick, tick ... time is all most up for the mythical primary challanger

to emerge.

[Hart2008]

94. The window opens in New Hampshire tomorrow.

When does Andy Reid get fired for the poor results of his team?

Do you really want to live in a country where we have higher standards for a football coach than we do for the President of the United States?

:popcorn:

[bornskeptic]

114. And it closes a week from Friday, so after that all the primary-mongers

will have to find another silly recreation.

[JoePhilly]

125. What does Andy Reid have to do with your mythical Obama Primary challenger??

Andy won't be trying to primary Obama.

But given that Andy is a REAL person, I suppose that while he would get crushed by Obama, Andy would still do better than your mythical Obama challenger.

[wiggs]

97. Three years of constant smearing, delegitimization, lies, fear,

teleprompter scandals, birtherism, 'apology tour' nonsense, lapel pins, 'vacation' scandals every time he sits down, etc etc on 90% of talk radio, Fox, and much of MSM will have an effect eventually.

For those who disagree, scan the radio stations in rural areas or watch Fox for a period of time. It is relentless and without shame and regard for the truth.

[Hart2008]

99. Smearing leading Dems didn't start three years ago.

That stuff has been going on for a long time.

Muskie beats Nixon without the dirty tricks.

Hart beats Bush without the dirty tricks.

No reason that a Dem challenger can't run a serious issues based campaign based on the military adventurism and neoliberal economic policies of the Obama administration. In my opinion, Obama has been too afraid of the right, which is why he will face a primary challenge from the left. The country has moved to the left and Obama is still triangulating instead of standing up for principle.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

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

[Hart2008]

118. What I write is sourced. I could ask you the same question.

I don't see any sources for your accusations.

[blogslut]

102. Gary Hart isn't going to run for president

[Tarheel_Dem]

105. It's not Gary Hart he's concerned with. Trust me.

;)

[Hart2008]

107. He won't if we don't ask him to do so. NT

[blogslut]

110. Tell him to get a professional to design his website

It's horrid.

[Hart2008]

115. Tell him yourself. He reads the comments. NT

[ClarkUSA]

108. Thanks for the chuckle. Keep trying.

[JNelson6563]

109. No matter how low he goes, he'll always out-poll Hart.

Time to let go friend.

Julie

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

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

[ClarkUSA]

119. He'll never go as low as Perry's I.Q. or Romney's charisma quotient.

I can't wait until the GOP nominee is chosen. :)

[Tx4obama]

122. Obama's up to 45% today

President Obama Job Approval
Rasmussen Reports
Approve 45, Disapprove 54

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

The election is over ONE YEAR away.
The 2011 polls will mean nothing.

[Hart2008]

129. Apples and oranges. Todays Gallup tracking numbers haven't been released yet. NT

[onenote]

141. Now they have

42/50

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx

[Marnie]

124. If he bombs, invades or even drones Iraq he will become the

first POTUS to disappear into a Black Hole.

That is not a reference to half his racial heritage but to a destruction of his presidency.

The individual Dems, city to national, need to cut themselves loose from Obama, and coalesce as a group to help one another get elected and reelected. As a corporate group they hold more power than the WH, just as the Rethugs do now.

[SidDithers]

126. Save us Gary Hart. You're our only hope...

:rofl:

Sid

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

127. You sound very happy about this. Unrec!!

[dionysus]

136. we need gary hart to save us.

:spray:

[jefferson_dem]

140. 42 / 50 today.

Another (+4) day. Sorry.

[Hart2008]

144. Back to 38/54 today...The man is stuck in the mud of his bad free trade deal. NT

[SidDithers]

148. So, has anyone "of note" filed in New Hampshire yet?...

After all, the filing period opened yesterday, right?

Sid

[WI_DEM]

145. Well he was at 46% in another poll released on 10/18, but I'm sure you want to select the poorest

polls. daily tracking polls are worthless because they fluctuate on almost a daily basis. I see you cited Truman polls earlier. Of course Gallup didn't do the daily tracking back then.

[blm]

149. Hart, old pal, enough is enough.

No one is jumping in to primary Obama, so it's time to stop pushing corporate media's spin against him and all Dems. Gary Hart is staying on Obama's side.