TPMDC

Obama's Rating Falls To 50% In Tracking Polls


President Barack Obama

Read More

Barack Obama

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

President Obama's approval rating has reached a new low in the Gallup daily tracking poll, with an even 50% approving of his performance as of yesterday, and 43% disapproving.

This actually brings Gallup into convergence with Rasmussen, which has tended to skew more negative, and has also put Obama at around 50% in recent weeks.

Gallup's Jeffrey M. Jones. pointed out two days ago that presidents inevitably fall to 50%, with the only real question being how long it takes to get there. However, Obama seems to have gotten there sooner than most, due to the controversial debates that have marked his term so far. "The recent further erosion in his public support -- perhaps a result of the push for healthcare reform and concern over the growth in government spending -- may result in one of the faster slides below majority approval for modern presidents."

Comments (109) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (1)

August 28, 2009 9:37 AM   

Given the relentless crazy hate from the right and the constant whining from the left, both magnified by the media 24/7, I am surprised his number is that high.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:28 AM    in reply to oskieoskie

Sounds about right. I still wonder how many people disapprove of his hands-off approach to health care reform legislation. There has to be a happy medium between that and micromanagement, and I don't think BHO is there yet.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:47 AM    in reply to oskieoskie

Given the relentless refusal of the Democrats to grow a set of balls, combined with Obama's willingness to piss it all away to the rethugs, it's only a surprise that it took this long. The Chump-In-Chief is simply proving that the Hilary supporters were right in the first place.

Congratulations, kiddies. You're reaping what you sowed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:51 AM    in reply to EastWest

We shall see who laughs last, dittohead.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:56 AM    in reply to oskieoskie

I am saving this thread so we can all have some laugh next year.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:56 AM    in reply to oskieoskie

Nice. The rhetorical equivalent of "Oh yeah? Well, you're one too!" The only people laughing are than the wing-nuts your Precious is empowering by his weakness.


Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:54 AM    in reply to EastWest

Another reasonable, "progressive" thinker.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

CN

user-pic

August 28, 2009 12:24 PM    in reply to EastWest

Oh, please: the #1 premise of Hillary supporters was that Obama couldn't win the general election. Oops. You were wrong, and you will never be proven right.

Just as conservatives have constructed an imaginary Reaganland where taxes were always cut, government always shrank, and all Americans prospered, the pantsuit brigade has constructed a Hillaryland where Hillary's actions as president would always be more effective than Obama's -- where in her first 100 days she turns around the economy, passes universal healthcare, and personally drives a stake through Rush Limbaugh's heart.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 12:43 PM    in reply to EastWest

Clinton had six years to prove she would be a better president than Obama, and she sat on her ass. She sat on her ass as the Bush Administration sent us into two wars. She sat on her ass as the Bush admin. raised the deficit. She sat on her ass as the Bush admin. waged a war against the middle class with laws like bankruptcy reform. And she sat on her ass while the Bush admin broke the law.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 12:46 PM    in reply to EastWest

Yes. Of course. This is IT. This is the big thing you've been waiting for, the thing that will undo his upstart candidacy and cause people to turn aside from his pretty speechifying and turn to Hillary.

Oh, wait, sorry, all the times you guys predicted that turned out to completely wrong and he won.

So, of course, since that won't happen, this is IT. This is the big thing you were waiting for, the beginning of the terrible end that will prove, positively proves! that you were right all along because you have magic psychic powers that allow you to see how things would have turned out had she somehow won the nomination and the election. Sweet, sweet vindication at last. Mmmm, taste the vindication. Yummy. Yes, it's inevitable now. His presidency will turn out to be a complete unmitigated disaster that leaves the country, and indeed, the entire world, utterly devestated three and a half years hence. Most likely, the entire country will be a nuclear wasteland or occupied by Iranians or Martians or something, to boot. That will truly be a wonderful day because your emotional investement in his failure will totally have paid off. It will be a wonderful thing to be you on that day.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 6:51 PM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

This is first-class, Grade A, premium snark. Pitch perfect. I stand (sit, whatever) in awe.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 12:37 PM    in reply to oskieoskie

Yep. I don't understand why the left is all of a sudden surprised that his numbers are slipping. What did they think those 24/7 BashObamathons would do?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 9:40 AM   

Excellent work, Democrats in Congress! Your unwillingness to break free from your abusive partners in Congress has had an excellent impact!

I can hear it now: "Democrats, concerned that the Obama Administration might prove to be a drag in next year's elections, consider shelving healthcare reform."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 9:42 AM   

He's getting hit from both the left and the right, and this is having a negative impact on his numbers. His base is divided while the GOP base is united. Health care reform is an incredibly complex issue to tackle, but if Obama can get a strong bill passed this Fall, history will be kind to his legacy.

Another factor is that the GOP reign of 30 years in this town has hard-wired the American people to reflexively buy into GOP talking points and frames. It will take a decade or more of Democrats in power to swing the pendulum of sanity back to equilibrium.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 9:43 AM   

Hmm. Gee, possibly couldn't have anything to do with, say, the fact that we're still in a recession could it?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 10:09 AM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

I'm sure it doesn't help. The fact that the collective memory of the American people is so damn short that they don't remember that six months ago, we were honestly worried that this recession would turn into a second Great Depression doesn't help, either. If this recession doesn't end right now - and by "end" I mean the economy returns to where it was at the height of the Boom - then he's failed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:31 AM    in reply to Seraph

I'll settle for the state the economy was in around this time last year. That's already a tough enough climb.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 9:46 AM   

This is a manifestation that the left is not impressed with his centrist policies and almost complete lack of "Leadership" on Health Insurance reform.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 10:07 AM    in reply to Avvocato

Well gee, that's a very fulfilling theory for "progressives" on blogs who are upset that he hasn't nationalized the banks, liquidated the Kulaks and used his sword and magic helmet to deliver us unto the glorious worker's paradise he promised them in the secret conversations they had with him in their heads last fall. But, as it happens, it's a theory that's completely at odds with the crosstabs:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/politics.aspx?CSTS=pollnav&to=POLL-Politics-News

The internals show rock-steady support among Democrats and even a bit of a rebound in support from independents.

Instead, Gallup's partisan breakdown shows most of his decline is due to a steady fall in support for him among self-identified Republicans since January.

Boy howdy, there's a shocker.

There was a slow slippage in support among indendepents from May to the start of August, but that seems to have stablized. Those people are the ones most likely to associate the economy with presidential approval precisely because partisan issues mean the least to them. The real leakage has been among Republicans. And, again, given that they're the ones most susceptable to the kooky-talk and the most likely to be alarmed when Democrats run deficits (because, as they know well, only Republicans know how to run up a big deficit responsibly), that's not really surprising.

Not that such "subtle" facts are going to make a goddamned bit of difference to the the MSM conniption fit this number will set off.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 10:12 AM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Well said ... At the very least, you cannot deny that Obama has stuck his neck out there and put his political capital on the line with closing Gitmo, aggressive action against the recession with the stimulus, reforming health care and the CIA investigation.

I fully understand the Righties HATING the guy and the Independents not being sure.

But Lefties attacking him blows my friggin' mind.

I've waited & waited my ENTIRE LIFE for a progressive-minded Prez. We should do all we can to continue to campaign in support of O and these policies.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 10:51 AM    in reply to mk3872

Your wait ain't over, pal. You're still waiting.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 12:29 PM    in reply to mk3872

Obama is showing himself to be another corporatist. Forget left-right, politicians with certain limited exceptions are corporatists.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 10:20 AM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Boy howdy, there's a shocker

You kill me. You really do.

Thanks for the discussion of the crosstabs. However, I don't think it's going to have much impact, since the conventional wisdom seems to be "DEMOCRATS ARE PISSED OFF".

The uptick in support from Independents is encouraging.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 10:20 AM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Sorry NCSteve, the secret poll internals kept in a vault beneath Jane Hamsher's house clearly show that Obama's drop comes from independents who suddenly decided to get really passionate about Cheney prosecutions over the summer.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 12:42 PM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Another possible explanation for the slow fall of Independent support (though there is an uptick in this poll) is the trend for some Republicans to now self-identify as Independents but they still do not support Obama.

Also, according their numbers, Clinton was already down to 44% approval at this time in his first term. And we all know what a devastating defeat he suffered in his reelection.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 9:49 AM   

I think a significant portion of the decline reflects the dissatifaction of his most ardent supporters during the campaign. Taking on difficult policy issues unavoidably will cause some alienation, but Obama hasn't done a good job in articulating the need for a progressive health care reform plan.

Obama doesn't get nearly enough crediting for ending or at least signfiicantly ameliorating the financial and economic cliffdiving that was taking place when he took office.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 9:51 AM   

A lot of the erosion is from Democrats upset that he hasn't pushed harder for healthcare.

Once healthcare reform passes this fall (and it will) that will change.

Once the economic recovery reaches main street next spring (and it will) independents will come back.

The mid-terms won't be a repeat of 1994; It will be a repeat of 1934, when Republicans lost 9 senate seats and 14 house seats.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 10:11 AM    in reply to FreeRider

And, again, a theory totally at odds with with the partisan breakdown in the Gallup approval numbers. We'll see this theory a lot today, but it's more the result of "progressives" projecting their importance in their own minds, and their belief that the people like them, really, really like them, and empirical evidence be damned.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 10:40 AM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Should I be insulted? Please let me know because I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 10:47 AM    in reply to FreeRider

He's referring to this: A lot of the erosion is from Democrats upset that he hasn't pushed harder for healthcare.

And the fact that Democrats' support hasn't changed at all from the previous poll (click on the crosstabs link from above).

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 10:59 AM    in reply to FreeRider

The partisan breakout shows there's been no statistically significant erosion among Democrats since he was inaugurarated in the Gallup poll (granted I'm SWAGging the MOE for the Democrat subsample is 4 - 4.5%). Period.

I do apologize for my my unnecessarily acerbic way of making the point, partly because you didn't deserve it, but not least because it increases resistance to my real point.

And my real point would be that although I'm not happy to see his support hit this number, the partisan breakout shows that it really doesn't indicate a need for any significant policy changes either leftward or rightward. Nothing he can do will get the Republicans back, though some of them will come back when the economy improves. As for the GDI's, well just presidential approval is a laging indicator for consumer confidence and the indies are the reason why.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 9:52 AM   

Gee, if there were a Presidential election this year, this might be important.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:17 AM    in reply to Dorn76

There isn't a Presidential Election this year. But there is a midterm election next year where the Dems stand to suffer massive losses in the House and Senate due to diminished enthusiasm (and willingness to do whatever it takes to vote) among their base and disenchantment among independents and undecideds. It's not out of the question that the Dems could lose control of the House and Senate. next year.

Even if next year's losses aren't quite that severe, they'll likely be heavy enough to embolden Republicans and make moderate Dems not in safe districts (PVI > D+10) even more jittery and afraid of supporting a progressive agenda. Next thing you know, a Presidential Election rolls around again and we have a repeat of 1980.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:25 AM    in reply to jdb316

Congressional Dems need to color over the yellow in their spines, says their base.

The Democratic Party has had universal healthcare on the party platform since Truman. It's time to deliver.

And I certainly don't connect the GD failure of Congressional Democrats to deliver on this with Obama. He stands ready to sign the GD bill.

So, yes, Democrats will lose seats in 2010 if they don't deliver on healthcare. Their activists--like me--will GD guarantee it! It has nothing to do with Obama.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:25 AM    in reply to jdb316

Yes! The president's approval ratings in August, 2009 are devastaing to Congressional Dems for November, 2010.

I do declare! What on earth could happen in the next 14 months?

A healthcare reform bill perhaps? Or maybe an economic recovery?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:49 AM    in reply to jdb316

Democrats in Congress would love to have Obama's 50% approval rating.

My point is that he is still by far the most popular Democrat on this planet, and with a little help from his colleagues in Congress and a little less whining from the liberal "base" we can achieve the things we all want....

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 5:26 PM    in reply to jdb316

1980 is not coming back. No matter how bad it gets, Democrats will still pick up seats in the next two elections. Once the balance gets to about 75-80 percent Democrats the Republicans can think about picking up seats. Until then, they can suck t.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:24 AM    in reply to Dorn76

Coat tails are important in midterm elections. Also see this comment for a more immediate, cogent reason to pay attention to the polls.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:28 AM    in reply to Schmed

Results are also important. Congressional democrats who fail to deliver on healthcare--part of their GD party platform since Truman--put themselves at risk.

There are plenty of Democratic activists and voters who will turn out for Democrats who supported this policy with their votes.

Standing still is not an option if Congressional Democrats want to keep their jobs. For any who lose in deep red areas because of this, there are always jobs for talented folks with political connections--especially to the party in power.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 9:52 AM   

Oskeleoskie,

I don't think the president's decline in support is that simple? President Obama bares some responsibility for his declining numbers. The erosion of support is not coming from the right, its from coming Democrats, liberals and left leaning Independents who sees a great leader compromising core principles for bipartisanship.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 9:57 AM    in reply to ru4862

I'm STILL waiting for one person to tell exactly what principle Obama has compromised for bipartisanship. Just one.

I know that's easy to say because Obama talks about bipartisanship and invites Republicans over for drinks. But what has he actually given up to get republicans? What has he backed away from to satisfy the right?

He passed a really liberal budget, a huge stimulus and insisted on doing healthcare this year when even Democrats advised against it.

I simply don't see this "compromising" people keep talking about. Help me out here.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 10:06 AM    in reply to FreeRider

I don't get it either. Barack Obama is the same guy I worked for and voted for and in whose election I rejoiced. I don't see him backing off of anything.

As to health insurance reform, Barack is working to pass meaningful reform, not tout the liberals' perfect dream and watch it go down in defeat. He knows the perfect should not be the enemy of the good.

Lefties seem to think his job is easy. It's not.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 10:08 AM    in reply to FreeRider

Oh, how about insisting that advocates of Single Payer sit at the bargaining table? Or prosecuting Cheney/Bush? Or having healthcare discussions aired on CSPAN? Or torture photos....

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 10:18 AM    in reply to Texar

With the exception of the CSPAN'd health care negotiations, you haven't mentioned a single promise or principle he's violated.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 10:26 AM    in reply to Texar

You are aware, I hope, that the President does not set the programming on CSPAN.

This debate is going on in a thousand places all at once. It is idiotic to think we could all sit down on the sofa with a diet soda and watch it on TV.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:05 AM    in reply to oskieoskie

Nor does he control who get's prosecuted. Or at least, that's the way we insisted it damn well better work back when Rove was trying to manipulate the DOJ into prosecuting "voter fraud" and "corrupt Democrat politicians."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 10:43 AM    in reply to Texar

Still waiting for you to explain how he has caved to appease republicans. What PRINCIPLE has he abandoned because he wanted the Republicans to like him?

He never advocated for single payer. He never wanted Bush/Cheney prosecutions. If you think he's not releasing those photos because he's afraid of republican, you're totally out to lunch.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 10:55 AM    in reply to FreeRider

What do you think? 40% tax cuts in the 700 billion dollar stimulus ... a policy SOOO FRIGG'N successful during the Shrub years. And for what, 3 Pube votes?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:09 AM    in reply to CranialRectalLoopback

Yeah, because without those "3 PUBE votes" he could have had 100% of NOTHING!

I guess he should have stood on his principles and we'd have no extension of food stamps and unemployment benefits, no help with COBRA payments, no funding to states to save jobs of teachers and cops and firefightrs, no construction projects to put people back to work!

Dems compromised with republicans because there was no other way to pass the stimulus. Not because they were looking for Republican love!!

Geez! What total bullshit!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:03 AM    in reply to ru4862

For God's sake is it just too much work for you people to go look at the goddamned internals before spouting off your data-free theories?

Granted, Gallup's lousy website design makes them harder to find than truth in a Republican press release, but still . . .

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 9:53 AM   

Could not possibly be anything close to unrealistic expectations coming back to earth, now could it?

On the part of the public, that is, who thought that simply replacing one President with another would change everything instantaneously, conveniently forgetting that Congress has become the place where ideas go to die horrible deaths.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 9:53 AM   

This administration will be marked by extremes. The highs of the early days, the dog day lows once folks see that miracles aren't going to happen overnight, back up to highs when there are more tangible, dramatic results.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 9:54 AM   

I hope the progressives stay away and don't hold their nose and vote for him or any other Democrat with a bi-partisanship at all cost bent in the future.

Come 2010 when Dems lose House and Senate seats, the GOP will be further emboldened (yes it is possible) and will claim Obama's mandate is dead. We'll get a crummy watered down "reform" bill and will run out of time before immigration, energy or EFCA can be tackled before 2010 elections. But keep letting them drag their feet and delay in your quixotic quest for Bipartisanship. Keep telling yourself that the GOP really is bargaining in good faith, keep telling yourself that Grassley and Enzi's partisan claims of obstruction is just hometown politicking but they are really being earnest in negotiations.

Obama probably likes the 50% because I have to imagine his Dem numbers are lower, meaning he's getting stronger support from independants and some centrist Republicans. Obama, axelrod and Rahm likely take the progressive vote for granted and feel it will be there come any election, and that their claims in these polls are harmless temper tantrums.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 10:04 AM    in reply to Walter Mitty

Your imagination doesn't match reality. The frustration comes from independents buying into the "big government liberal" frame. Obama's support among Democrats and liberals remains strong.

But, by all means, continue to encourage progressives to betray the best ally they've had in four decades.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 9:55 AM   

Ugh. Did I accidently stumble onto the Drudge Report?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 10:00 AM   

Brilliant campaigner. Terrible president so far.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 10:02 AM    in reply to tenaciousd

Terrible, really? It's been 9 months.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:47 AM    in reply to kelliemb1521

He was a terrible president before he even entered office. That's how it's always worked for these fools. Nothing's changed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 12:01 PM    in reply to lyleleander

I'm pissed I didn't get my pony on Inauguration Day. Whatta loser that Obama is.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 10:11 AM    in reply to tenaciousd

Keeping us from going into a second Great Depression.

Making more progress on healthcare reform than anyone in 50 years.

Passing the most liberal budget since LBJ.

Yeah, he's been a terrible president.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 10:45 AM    in reply to FreeRider

Yeah, well,...I'm still waiting for my damn pony!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:22 AM    in reply to SchrodingersCat

Still hasn't turned water to wine, or raised the dead, or walked on water...

What a loser.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 10:00 AM   

Maybe it is because Obama is creating an "Oligarhy" [sic].

You must watch this video of Glenn Beck. It won't disappoint.

http://progressnotcongress.org/?p=2714

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:11 AM    in reply to atticus1104

Glenn Beck? The "Obama has a deep seated hatred of white people" Glenn Beck? Get a life.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:25 AM    in reply to garp

Watch the video before you get pissed off; it shows what an illiterate Beck really is.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 10:07 AM   

So, during these trying times, who would you want running the country? McCain/Palin, Mitt, Huckabee, Rudy? Do you realize what kind of an economic, diplomatic, and ethical quagmire we would be in. The GOP party of NO and no new ideas would be wringing its hands saying let the free market save us.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 10:09 AM   

An August 16-19 2001 Gallup poll showed Bush's approval rating at 57% -- and he had just passed a tax cut (gave money away). Only 7% higher than Obama's is now and Obama has faced the worse economy since the great depression, had two wars to contend with and he's battling the nation over reforming health care - very personal and effects ALL Americans.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/4813/Bush-Job-Approval-Rating-Unchanged-57.aspx

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 10:14 AM   

While this is good gristle for the chatter mill, Gallup's historical data shows there's little correlation between the speed at which a president hits 49 and the overall success of their presidency. If Obama falls below 50 tomorrow, he would still be nestled between Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, hardly models of presidential failure.

The rapidity of the drop, rather, seems to correlate with presidents who are risk takers as well as presidents who came into office during a recession. Clinton and Reagan, like Obama, both sought ambitious institutional changes amidst a recession.

It should be no surprise that two of the most "successful" president by this metric are George H.W. Bush and Dwight Eisenhower, both presidents who resolutely declined to rock the boat.

The two exceptions to this rule are George W. Bush and Lyndon Johnson, both presidents who were initially or quickly buoyed by major national tragedies.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 10:14 AM   

So let me see if I have this correct.

The nation is in the midst of a recession that is only just now seeing small, tiny glimmers of recovery that have no real impact as yet, and unemployment figures stand higher than they have since the Great Depression, with hundreds of thousands have been out of work for more than six months. The Congress passed an unprecedented stimulus package requiring nearly $800 billion, which is seen as largely unpopular in many quarters.

The automotive industry collapsed, requiring a huge and unpopular infusion of federal funds. The banks were on the brink of seizure, requiring billions of dollars of huge and unpopular federal funds.

The President has taken on tackling a problem that has no GOP support whatsoever, and has resulted in conservative and progressive Democrats in Congress at loggerheads in a highly visible and highly complex legislative effort that scares the ever-living shit out of the elderly.

There have been a series of highly publicized and highly negative Town hall meetings, resulting in weeks-long images of the President of the United States being compared to Hitler, weeks-long stories about teabaggers screaming socialism, communism, fascism, and weeks-long media coverage of the President being attended to at rallies by people, no kidding, carrying firearms and calling for the President's mortal demise.

The President's own citizenship has been repeatedly challenged in sensational stories peddled by national voices who broadcast their messages of complete and utter opposition to the President on 24 hour news channels day in and day out.

The President is a black man in a nation where elements of bigotry are all too visible. He is named "Hussein" in a country on its teeth with xenophobia over all things Muslim. And he has been on vacation for a few days and out of the public spotlight.

And he still has 50% approval?

Stunning that it's not much lower in this environment.

Chill, my friends. This too shall pass.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 10:23 AM    in reply to LarsThorwald

Stop making sense. It hurts.

And cats get cranky when things hurt.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:29 AM    in reply to CT Voter

True dat. Got some cats entering their golden years and they're totally not going gracefully into that good night.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 10:34 AM    in reply to LarsThorwald

Lars, I have always loved that screenname, and even more do I appreciate this comment.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 10:28 AM   

**When decisions were being made in the last presidential election, one factor weighed heavily in many voters' minds: the truth factor. Bush et al had lied repeatedly on issue after issue; people had become exhausted simply trying untangle the lies and discover something approximating the truth. Obama benefited - many people believed he could be trusted, he would tell them the truth.
**The truth is the truth has been obscured in the health care 'debate', and Obama has done his part to obscure it.
**More and more, it appears that the 'change we can believe in' is simply more of the same - special 'deals' with Big Pharma, nods to the insurance industry (we wont really change anything -wink, wink), dropping and watering down the public option by substituting 'coops' (with the 'public option' already acknowledged to be an inadequate vehicle to create change). etc. etc. etc.
**Credibility is critical in the face of the opposition's continuing lies, but Obama has not come forward with the real truth about (1) the lack of competition currently (e.g, big market monopolies by hospitals and insurance companies), (2) the cost of not negotiating prescription drug prices, (3) the rationing of health care based on income, employment and previous condition, (4) the huge non-health care related expenditures by insurance companies - 'administration', 'profits', enormous salaries. It's not talked about; it's like all this doesnt exist.
**The realization that we are not going to get the truth (i.e. the facts) from Obama has been a sever loss for Obama, for health care reform and for the country. The loss of approval, I believe, stems from the disappointment that truth - i.e. facts - are not going to be a hallmark of Obama's administration; folks believed, but were not treated like adults (i.e. told the truth) and were not trusted to respond rationally to the facts. Because neither side spoke the truth, the side with the most experience and best techniques won - the Republican Noise Machine beat the Democrats halting and stumbling, waffling and dissimulating efforts to do something - what ever it was.
** Until Obama is willing and finds advisors who can help him 'change the terms of the debate' - i.e. talk openly and candidly about the facts - Obama's approval ratings will continue to decline, 'health care reform' and his diminishing credibility will contribute to significant democratic loses in the next elections.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:40 AM    in reply to bill

And, once again, where, exactly, in the internals of the poll do you find support for this fascinating theory?

You know, long ago, back in my political science days, they had a highly technical term for papers that spouted "theories" that were, in fact, pet opinions of the author that were unsupported by, or even contrary to, any empirical data whatsoever. We called them "bullshit." And the technical term for the authors as "some crank talking out his ass."

Then, unfortunately, during the 80s, the Republicans set up all their think tanks and infiltrated the formerly respectable ones like the AEI with neocon nutters and what was once derided as "some crank talking out his ass" turned into "scholarship" and thence became "seriousness."

Glad to see we're trying to catch up with them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:50 AM    in reply to bill

You make statements here, but provide absolutely no source/proof to substantiate your claims. Please provide links and viable resources instead of hyperbole.

Thanks.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Dan

user-pic

August 28, 2009 10:35 AM   

The problem with this news is that it is coupled with all the crazy town hall meetings where there is an appearance of mass opposition to the health care reform. One must remember that Obama was elected on several promises, one of which was to reform health care. As this goal appears to become unreachable, people who supported him will turn against him for squandering the popularity he had at the beginning of his term because he wanted to make nice by chasing the nebulous goal of bipartisanship.

I hope that Obama realizes that bipartisanship is dead, and that he needs to ignore those who are against health care reform and pass the bill without the Republicans and Conservative Democrats. Once he annihilates the opposition to Health Care reform, his numbers will go back up and he will be admired for the iron fist that he showed he could wield.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 10:39 AM   

Despite declining poll numbers, Obama still obliterates potential 2012 challengers.

Obama 47%, Romney 38%
Obama 53%, Palin 34%
Obama 52%, Gingrich 34%
Obama 48%, Huckabee 38%

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 10:40 AM   

Freerider/Oksleoskie,

Obama Compromise: Climate change, Single Payer, Public option, Iraqi withdrawal, Bush/Cheney prosecutions, Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 10:49 AM    in reply to ru4862

He didn't want Bush/Cheney prosecutions from the beginning, he didn't advocate for Single Payer, he hasn't compromised on the public option yet, and the beginning of an Iraqi withdrawal is in place.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 10:59 AM    in reply to CT Voter

There are many similarities between some so called progressives on this board, and the dining room table Barney Frank declined to engage. Don't know why you even bother.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:22 AM    in reply to Dorn76

You're totally right! They blame Obama for not keeping promises he never made.

They also equate strength and leadership with vitrol and heated rhetoric. Obama has won every single battle with Congress but, because he did it without making threats and demands and foaming at the mouth, they call him weak.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:00 AM    in reply to ru4862

1. Climate change? You're kidding, right? That has NOTHING to do with Republicans! He insisted Congress take up a bill and he could barely get enough Democrats in the House to vote for it and it has virtually no support in the Senate.

2. Single Payer? Obama was NEVER for single payer so how could he compromise on it? FAIL.

3. Public Option? What does that have to do with Republicans? He's in a battle with members of his own party, trying to get 50 votes so that it can pass through ronciliation. He has stated repeatedly that he wants a public option. If he were trying to please republicans, he would not have tackled healthcare this year at all.

4. Iraq withdrawal? Again, how is he appeasing republicans? He's still moving ahead with the withdrawal but it will be 20 months instead of 16 months. Did it ever occur to you that he believes this is a better course for withdrawal.

5. Bush/Cheney prosecutions? Puhleeze. He never promised to prosecute them. And it has nothing to do with Republicans and everything to do with not wanting to get bogged down in a show trial that won't send a single person to jail.

6. DADT. Show me one time where Obama said WHEN he would repeal DADT. He never promised to repeal it during his first 6-12 months in office. He just said he would and he says the same thing today. You can't say he caved simply because he hasn't done it when he continues to say he will.

Your list of caving to republicans is total bullshit. It's your whiny "he's not doing what I want him to do when I want him to do it fast enough" list!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:05 AM    in reply to ru4862

Obama has been in office for seven months. I won't pass judgment on his record until he has completed his term(s).

Thanks for demonstrating how wildly unrealistic are the lefties' expectations for this president.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:15 AM    in reply to oskieoskie

Amen to that.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:23 AM    in reply to ru4862

RU, Nothing you mentioned has even been settled yet. No climate change bill has been signed into law. No health reform bill has been signed into law. Obama is doing exactly what he said he was going to do in Iraq. In case you missed the news this week, the Justice Department has started an investigation into detainee torture (and BTW, Obama never said he wanted to prosecute Bush/Cheney). And, while I realize that DADT is bad policy, I'm sorry, but there are more pressing matters to settle right now, and again, this issue has not been settled. The man has been in office for a little over 7 months for christsakes; he's allowed more than that to get through his agenda.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 10:46 AM   

Two things about Obama so far.

1. Too wishy-washy

2. No Fight

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:18 AM    in reply to jbentley4

3. Faithless, spineless non-loyal pseudo-democrats who bail when the going gets tough

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 10:50 AM   

Wow! Really? You mean perpetuating Bush's policies and playing kissy-face with Bush's base is resulting in a slide towards Bush's approval ratings? Who would have thunk it?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:05 AM   

Umm, just why are these approval numbers important?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:11 AM   

Is this the Drudge Report? Who cares.

What is important for Obama is if the economy turns around and he passes a good health care reform bill. If these things happent then his poll numbers will increase.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:11 AM   

when did the media start paying attention to approval ratings again? Oh, when the status quo began to be challenged.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:16 AM   

This game that we're playing right now is a game that most people DON'T play. Most people are sitting around asking "what's in it for me?" Same as all the fascist megacorporations (energy, insurance, etc). That's why Dem pols are having trouble, the waters are muddied and people are having trouble separating the two. The meme: "Coming down hard on industry? That means more trouble for the little guy."

The kicker that the Right intentionally mis-characterizes INVESTMENT as SPENDING.

That is why you hear a lot about the $1T price tag, but you never hear that the public option creates OVER $1T in savings.

We ARE turning this thing around. The more people understand the concept of investment and ROI, the more people will support the Prez on HCR, and thus, the more people will support the Prez. Good examples of ROI are Clunkers and Stim monies that have been disseminated (there have been a few awesome articles about the success of those progs recently, if anyone's interested, I'll try to find em and post links... the clunkers article was newsweek).

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:17 AM   

Shd be: "The kicker is that..."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:18 AM   

Freerider/Oksleoskie/ CT,

Let me be clear. I support this president. But i also threw my heart behind Obama candidacy because i for some odd reason i though he was sincere. I honestly thought he wanted 'change' as much as i do. A clean break from the Bush regime. But so far the president has been consistent with inconsistencies. Jbentiey4, is absolutely correct. Obama is too wish washy and has no fight in him.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:25 AM    in reply to ru4862

I know you're an Obama supporter--I remember you from the election. My point is that you're disappointed in him because he's not doing what you'd like him to do, and less so because he's not doing what he said he'd do. There's a difference between those two, and I remind myself of that whenever I think he's moving too slowly, or is too conciliatory or whatever. He was always more centrist than HRC, but has also always been perceived as being more progressive, ironically enough.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:42 AM    in reply to CT Voter

Another valiant effort to clarify the image Obama created in the hearts and minds of Progressives, and the actual Obama.

Part of the problem is that he didn't discourage this sort of projection, and he might have even encouraged it to help him win. But to go nuts 6 months in to his Presidency and call him a wishy washy failure is yet another example of the Democrats doing the GOP's work for them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:31 AM    in reply to ru4862

What exactly does "fight" mean to you? Pounding the table? Making threats? Making demands? Calling the Republicans names? Denouncing people who disagree with him?

If that's what you mean by "fight", then you're right. Obama has none of that in him.

But he has gotten results on a number of things that I care about. Personally, I'd rather have results than rhetoric.

Obama HAS broken with the Bush regime in many, many ways--closing Gitmo, ending torture, stopped dissing our allies. But if you think he would do EVERYTHING different, you're going to be disappointed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:37 AM    in reply to ru4862

What should he do? Take an AR-15 to the next town hall meeting? Wear cammo?

Obama is showing real courage by maintaining his cool amid the chaos of the times and working relentlessly to improve the country.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:22 AM   

Spin, spin, spin.

I'm not sure why "tracking polls" matter when we are this far from an election.

I mean, both parties dismiss making policy based on daily polling. It's stupid on the face of it. If HCR passes, his numbers will go up. As the economy recovers, his numbers will go up.

The poll that mattered was in November, and if I recall correctly, the guy promising HCR won, and the guy opposed lost. 53% of Americans voted for HCR, as far as I'm concerned.

The MSM/GOP/Industry huffing and puffing about tracking polls after you lost an election on the same exact issue? = Pure spin.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:26 AM   

Coddling banksters and war criminals and pissing on his base will do that to your poll numbers.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:28 AM    in reply to par4

Why don't you check out the internals of the poll before you declare that the "base" is disenchanted?

Never mind. It would obliterate that fairy tale many seem to be telling themselves.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 12:53 PM    in reply to par4

Yeah! He totally should have let the banks fail! His support would have soard if only he'd had the balls to initiate the complete collapse of the financial system.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:27 AM   

If the next NBC or Research 2K poll released shows numbers significantly higher, will that be a headline?

Didn't think so.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:35 AM   

Here is the problem he is facing; and is at the core of the decline; especially among independents (I keep saying this, but it never seems to REALLY get through).

The American People fired the Republicans.

We have had two WAVE elections in the last two cycles and now have:

1. A left of center Democratic President

2. 257 Democrats in the House

3. 60 (59 now but you get it) Democrats in the Senate

They were ALL elected, to get results and get things done for the American People. Healthcare, Economy, Iraq, Environment, etc. etc.

Instead, anything they do seems like pulling teeth. And seems to take forever. The normal person is thinking "How can this be? Didn't we give them enough for all the fighting to stop? And get things done? We're tierd of the fighting. Just get it done."

People are naturally upset about that.

And the Democrats in general, and Obama specifically, are losing support among many independents because of it.

Unless the Democrats can come together and get things done as a unit, they won't last long.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 11:38 AM   

Let's face it... whether we like it or not, stuff like the Birther conspiracy and the Deather hoax has taken its toll, and it's reflecting in this. As others have pointed it, it's fun to think this is a result of liberals holding Obama's feet to the fire on health care reform, but the polls simply don't reflect that. This is independents drinking the Kool-aid that they were inevitably going to drink at some point, with an intellectual, black, liberal President and all.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 1:52 PM    in reply to lyleleander

As others have pointed it, it's fun to think this is a result of liberals holding Obama's feet to the fire on health care reform, but the polls simply don't reflect that.

I don't think that's an established fact by any means. Multiple polls have been showing Obama's support, while still high, down several points among both Democrats and independents (and remember, there are LEFT-leaning independents as well as right-leaning ones). And a relatively small decline in these categories can mask a significant decline in volunteer and donor motivation, and in turnout, in Nov. 2010. That's more or less what happened in 1994.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 12:07 PM   

This is what happens when the economy continues in the deepest tank in 50 years+ and a 60% President tackles a huge issue like Health Care Reform letting the 25% Congress play with his political capital

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 12:32 PM    in reply to JohnMcCSF

Agreed.

Plus, not having read the 98 comments above, if it hasn't been said already:

Who really gives a shit how he is polling right this second?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 1:56 PM   

obama just needs to start being a leader and stop being negotiator in chief. also, he needs to add better political thinkers to his strategy team, and i do not mean more clintonites. but most of all he needs to walk america thru on how he would like to transform the healthcare system - from where currently are as a country to the system he would like in place. i am sorry, i do not know what type of system he wants - i know what some of the components are but i do not have a vision of where he would like to take the country and i think its important. lastly, i do not think the deal with the pharmaceutical industry helps

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on