home

Obama's Approval Rating Dips Below 40%

By Jeralyn, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 05:08:31 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Obama's approval rating is tanking -- it's now below 40%, the lowest of his Presidency.

Congress is faring even worse. More than 80% of Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing, and plenty don't plan to vote for incumbents:

Just 18% of registered voters in a Washington Post survey said they were inclined to vote to re-elect their representative in Congress -- the lowest number in more than two decades (only once before had it ever dipped below 30%).

Obama and the Democrats should promise a lock box on the Medicare eligibility age and on social security benefits. And warn the Republicans that tax hikes for the rich are coming whether they like it or not. (Someone has to pay for the wars Republicans got us into.) Seniors vote in huge numbers and Medicare and Social Security are major issues for them. As for Republicans and the Tea Party: all wind but no sail. I'm not even paying attention to them. As bad as our incumbents are, they are worse. And most people know it. People may be amused by crackpots, but they don't vote for them.

< Do "Adults" Fight? | Sunday Night TV and Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama's Approval Rating Dips Below 40% | 71 comments (71 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    It is not the tea party that is (5.00 / 11) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 05:35:31 PM EST
    going to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. It is Obama and members of the Democratic Party. Obama is sitting in the Oval Office with veto power and the Dems still have a majority in the Senate. No cuts can occur without the consent of Obama and the Democratic Party.

    Obama has been pursuing cuts to the safety net programs since 2007. As John Conyers said

    The Republicans, Speaker Boehner or Majority Leader Cantor DID NOT call for Social Security cuts in the budget deal. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES CALLED FOR THAT," declared US Representative John Conyers in a press conference held by members of the House "Out of Poverty' Caucus on 07/27/11." link
    sorry jeralyn, but you're wrong. (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by cpinva on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 05:46:51 PM EST
    people may be amused by crackpots, but they also vote for them. this would explain the tea party brigade in the house, people actually voted for them. same thing with rick scott in fl, and every other tea partier now holding office. they didn't just complete a 500 word essay, people voted for them.

    people voted for george bush, twice. so please, don't delude yourself into giving voters way more credit than they're due, they also voted for rick santorum.

    It's not so much that they'll vote for crackpots (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by BDB on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 06:48:28 PM EST
    as that they'll vote against people who are screwing them over.  They voted out the Rs in 2006 and 2008 for pursuing favoring unending war, Wall Street over Main Street, etc.  And what did they get?  The Ds doing the exact same thing.  So they voted out the Ds in 2010.  

    Big business is clearly on Obama's side, so that has to weigh in his favor in 2012 (and is what makes Jeralyn's list of what the Ds "should do" a pipe dream - never gonna happen).  But if he goes down it will, IMO, be because there will be yet another wave election where the voters throw incumbents out, as they have the past 3 election cycles.  That's what happens when you have a two-party system - the only other choice is the other party.  And given that both parties essentially are pursuing the same policies (despite what the partisans on each side will tell you - there isn't a dime's worth of difference, Obama is Bush's third term) and that voters hate those policies, they just keep throwing out whoever is in office in the useless hope that the new people will be an improvement.  And, of course, they never are.  

    Obama is actually worse than Bush on a lot of areas.  The next president will be as bad or worse than Obama.  Although I will note that as Governor of Massachusetts, Romney governed to Obama's left, I don't expect that to be the case if he's elected President.  Why should he?  He's a Republican and Obama has already staked out the "left" as just slightly to the right of George W. Bush on most issues.  And you can tell Obama represents the left by so many progressives endorsing him.

    You know, I can hardly wait for 2020 when I'm told I have to vote for the Santorum/Bachmann equivalent (D).  Because that's where this is headed.  No matter how far to the right the Ds move, you still must support them because the "Republicans are worse."  There is apparently no end in sight to this given that Obama has repudiated the left in every possible way and still it doesn't matter.  And, yet, the "left" will continue to wonder why the Ds treat them as if they don't matter.

    Parent

    The best scenario (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 08:29:17 PM EST
    to make the pendulum swing back toward the left is if Obama is defeated and the narrative is that the reason is the unemployment rate and putting Social Security/Medicare on the table.

    Whatever Republican (Romney?) would be forced to do something about unemployment, keep SS/M off the table or also lose their job?  

    Sounds like a pipe dream, I guess.

    We're so screwed.

    Parent

    The core question of the coming election (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by scribe on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 06:55:32 PM EST
    remains (like I've been saying for months):

    Does a President who presided over unemployment at an official rate of 9 percent and an actual rate closer to 20 percent and did nothing to create jobs deserve re-election?

    If you say yes, i.e., re-elect Obama, then no politician will ever have to pay attention to unemployment ever again.

    If you say no, i.e., elect any of the Republicans, then we will get more politicians who will do nothing about unemployment (except make it worse so they can push more crypto-fascism - or plain old fascism - to the hungry and broke).

    In either instance, corporate America and the rich benefit.  They get the policies and free money they desire and have to pay nothing for it.

    The ideal situation would be a real Democrat to primary Obama, which is precisely why John Edwards is being prosecuted.  Obama and his subordinates know real Democrats and the populist base would quickly coalesce around Edwards (or someone like him) and have spared no effort (remember Rahm killing the 50 state strategy before the confetti had settled on election night?  He did.) to cripple the ability of Democrats to organize around anything but Obama's corporatist policies.

    And if I hear about how Republicans would be "worse on the Supreme Court" one more time, I'm going to scream.  If Obama or the Democrats were serious about the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas would be under indictment right now.  Thomas gave Obama his seat, for the taking - a political gift possibly unprecedented (at least since Fortas) - and Obama did nothing.  

    N.O.T.H.I.N.G.

    Obama needs to go home simply because he has done nothing on unemployment.

    The "worse on the Supreme Court" (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by KeysDan on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 07:39:15 PM EST
    rattles the talking points cage.  It is the last refuge- if you disagree with everything else, you must remember the Supreme Court appointments.   But, in my view, the appointments of Justices Sotomayor and Kagan are not necessarily what we could expect should future nominations arise.  

    Especially, if the 5/4 conservative voting  could invert to 5/4 progressive, as would be the case if, say,  the Scalia position should, for one reason or another, become vacant.   That appointment would involve a battle royal and it is hard to envision Obama falling on his sword or even his butter knife to appoint a Sotomayor or Kagan.   He would,  in my view, be more likely under such conditions, to seek a compromise nominee and support continued ideologic balance.  

    Parent

    What you, and anyone else who doesn't (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by scribe on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 08:11:41 AM EST
    acknowledge the force of my point, fail to see is that Thomas' "misstatements" and "forgetfulness" about over a half million dollars received by/through his wife from Wingnut Welfare gave Obama the opportunity to turn that 5/4 hard conservative court into a 4/5 not-so-conservative court.

    Thomas could have, and should have (especially if one is to expect consistency in charging decisions) been indicted for his statements.  (If you want to elide addressing the Edwards case, ask Bernie Kerik about false statements and omitting or forgetting money received from people.)

    Thomas gave Obama the opportunity to reshape the court.  Obama blew off that opportunity - political malpractice of the highest order (and misprision of felony, a separate crime, by Obama himself).  Logic compels two conclusions:  

    1.  Obama does not want to reshape the court.*  (I.e., his corporate masters are quite happy with the results they're getting and don't want that to change.)
    2.  Any appointments in a putative Obama second term will similarly not reshape the court.  (Leopards don't change their spots.)

    The talking heads who rattle the cage with worries about the Supreme Court falling further into Rethuglican hands have to overlook and bury this, because it vitiates their whole last-ditch argument why you must vote for Obama.

    *  His lassitude in stocking the vacancies on the Courts of Appeals with Democrats confirms this.

    Remember, too, that Padilla is still the law for the Fourth Circuit, which means that the government can take you, move you across the country into a military brig (in the Fourth Circuit) and leave you there incommunicado until the end of time and there is not a damn thing the courts will do about it.  Obama has done nothing to change that, and that was all done on the circuit court level.

    Parent

    My comment was intended as an (none / 0) (#32)
    by KeysDan on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 10:07:45 AM EST
    addition to, not a subtraction from,  your cogent comment.

    Parent
    Obama's Reticence (none / 0) (#67)
    by norris morris on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 01:35:01 PM EST
    Whether the issue of  Supreme Court nominations or the mess Obama  created with his dithering  opaque manner of dealing with the Debt Ceiling,  we've been subjected to a faltering and inept administration.

    His advisors are pedestrian MIA's and have placed him in the position of playing it safe and then blaming the GOP. Politically this is a total loser.

    Obama has had many opportunities to prevail and lead on all of the issues he has had to abandon. He calls this compromise?  What rubbish. He has behaved like a lightweight and  a narcissist encouraged by his tight circle of Chicago strokers. Yes, all Pols are narcissists but it's not all they are if they can lead effectively.

    There is absolutely no excuse for any of this as we all know up front that the GOP presents a united front of confrontation and know how as to controlling and framing the issues.  They always fight hard and play ruthless. What else is new?

    Obama has literally pandered to the GOP and floundered time and again. He has refused to be confrontational and  saddest  of all is that neither he nor any of his team possesses a
    basic understanding of DC and DC politics.They are in a time warp.

    Invoking Ronald Reagan repeatedly is as foolish as his recent remarks on his bus tour in the midwest. Maureen Dowd's article in NYTimes nails him on Obama speaking to workers and saying 'When Michelle wants 90%, I have to take 10%'.  I'm paraphrasing but can you imagine Obama talking down to citizens who are economically bereft?

    Instead of staying in DC and coming up with a concrete,detailed, and specifically explained Jobs Program, Obama thinks we don't know he's campaigning for 2012 as he flies to his bus stops and just talks,talks.

    His is a failed presidency and unless a 360 turn occurs I don't believe he's electable. The Democratic party has not held him to his word or demanded he perform and they'll pay for this.

    It may be that his inner circle knows he just can't deliver and are protecting him.  It certainly seems this way.

    Meh.

    Parent

    Of course, (none / 0) (#14)
    by NYShooter on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 08:19:33 PM EST
    he would offer to nominate Pat Robertson in exchange for a 20 to 1, cuts to revenues, in reducing our deficits.

    Parent
    There's an article (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by Madeline on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 08:11:02 PM EST
    worth reading in the NYT magazine about the Supreme Court and complimentary about Kagan and Sotomayer. What it did acknowledge is Obama's lack of momvement in appointing to the Federal Appeals Court where many supremes come from:

    Because the president once taught constitutional law, some liberals thought he would shower the lower courts with attention, realizing that these judges turn the Supreme Court's vague decrees into actual marching orders for the country. Instead, Obama and the Democratic-controlled Senate have -- surprise -- shied away from confirmation fights and left the federal bench with more than 80 vacancies for more than two years, a historical record.

    If Obama doesn't make a big push soon to confirm many more judges, especially young ones, his failure will come back to haunt him and his party. Or here's the positive spin: all those openings are a giant Democratic opportunity. Even if the next few years on the high court prove difficult for liberals, at least they can fight back against conservative dominance from the federal bench.

    If they are not there,  they cannot fight.
       

    Parent

    what makes you think they will (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 07:11:24 AM EST
    suddenly fight for liberal or even progressive candidates to the courts?  When is that supposed to happen?  I don't see it.  We would be better off with a republican president and a democratic majority in congress.  The democratic congress would at least fight a republican president's right wing policies.  They have not fought Obama's right wing policies very effectively.

    Parent
    Obama's Lack Of Appointments (none / 0) (#68)
    by norris morris on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 01:40:00 PM EST
    Obama hasn't delivered on appointments to the Federal Bench, and he's way behind any Republican or Democratic president in recent history.

    Cabinet and other key appointments haven't been made.  He just won't fight for them and  has underperfomed spectacularly.

    He actually hasn't delivered on anything.

    Parent

    A Better Democrat (none / 0) (#11)
    by koshembos on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 07:57:02 PM EST
    There still are a few Democrats that are to the left of all Republicans. Russ Feingold, Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, Jessie Jackson Sr. and, yes, Hillary. One of them should challenge Obama in the Democratic primaries. This is our only hope and it is a must. A Latino or an African American challenger stands a real chance.

    Parent
    Obama Won't Be Challenged (none / 0) (#69)
    by norris morris on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 01:41:26 PM EST
    Simply stated. Any Democrat running against Obama will lose the black vote.  End of story.

    Parent
    agreed ...except Edwards (none / 0) (#22)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 07:03:16 AM EST
    Doesn't it bother you that Edwards ran as a conservative Democrat who was pro-war, in 2004 and then the opposite in 2008?  Go watch his address to the Senate regarding the AUMF vote and then look at Clinton's.  He was clearly to the right of her.  Have you not figured out yet that Edwards is as phony as a three dollar bill?

    Parent
    Edwards? (none / 0) (#70)
    by norris morris on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 01:44:42 PM EST
    Why are we wasting time talking about this loser who is morally unfit and corrupt.

    He and Elizabeth both torched Hillary thinking he'd be rewarded as vice president.  This guy is over.

    Parent

    Awaiting ABG.... (none / 0) (#31)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 09:36:12 AM EST


    Parent
    So, Jeralyn, if the Dems were to decide (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 07:58:58 PM EST
    to do as you suggest, what should their new motto be, then - "Nevermind?"  "Nevermind" that we've supported raising the eligibility age for both Medicare and Social Security?  "Nevermind" that we support changing the way SS benefits are calculated, so that benefits will be reduced?"  "Nevermind" that we support "everything" being on the table where the social safety net is concerned, but not where single-payer health insurance is concerned?

    Seriously, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but is it possible you just don't realize that where these particular Democrats are is light-years away from anything that even resembles the traditional Democratic philosophy/ideology?

    How do we stand a chance to move to the left with Obama in the WH for another four years?  We have to move about ten miles to the left just to get to where we were - and where we wanted to go - in 2008.  Maybe Dems would be more energized to remember why they are Democrats if they have to deal with a Republican WH - I don't know.

    What I do know is that the less ideological tension there is, the more conservative the policy is going to get; while Obama is busy trying to be the reasonable adult in the room, the nutcases that are the GOP are taking that and running with it.  All the way to Crazy Town.

    Defeatist Thinking (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by norris morris on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 01:59:23 PM EST
    Voting for a candidate who has betrayed us is not the solution. There can be no social change without action from  people demanding better.  They can only be mobilized to do this when the lines are drawn.

    Obama for four more sluggish opaque years with a ragtag Democratic Party isn't anything. Especially if a lame duck president who couldn't do anything when he had the majority is around to give in even more to the GOP.

    This is not a good option. We'd be better off fighting hard for our rights and reorganizing a Democratic Party that is mean and lean and knows how to win and go forward. The Party right now is  splintered with spineless pols who aren't very different from the GOP.  They say they're different but they've  caved on everything from women's right to choose to draconian cuts.

     And most of all Democratic leaders in Congress have not confronted and demanded action from Obama.  He left it all to Congress to decide, and they did a lousy job.  They had absolutely no leadership or pressures from within.

    I can't vote for this and I'm a lifelong Democrat.  I do not trust this Party or the President anymore.

    Parent

    asdf (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 08:42:51 PM EST
    The wolf who will win in the battle for you is the one you feed....

    ...that, my friends, is the sad state of politics.

    Obama will never agree to a lock box on (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Bornagaindem on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 12:29:52 PM EST
    SS and Medicare because he wants to reduce them substantially. No Republican president can do this only a democrat and if you vote him back in that will happen. After all that is what his corporate backers and money men have always wanted - to roll back the new deal.

    Who Thinks Obama is Doing a Good Job ? (none / 0) (#1)
    by ScottW714 on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 05:29:40 PM EST
    It's like Bush, no matter how incompetent then man has become, someone will approve, and in Obama's case, 2 of 5 people approved of his performance.

    There just aren't enough Bankers to make that approval rating seem valid.

    Perish the thought (none / 0) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 05:47:23 PM EST
    Obama is set to launch something of a counter-offensive on Monday with a three-day bus tour of the Midwest, a trip that includes two stops in Iowa. The White House denied that the itinerary was politically motivated, however.
    that is because (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 07:22:19 AM EST
    the president's campaign committee is not paying for the bus trip, the tax payers are.  

    Parent
    Tell me it isn't so :-( (none / 0) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 07:39:54 AM EST
    Surely Obama, the ferrous deficit hawk, who wants to cut needed domestic and safety net programs would not use tax payer money to actually fund his campaign trips.

    Parent
    Obama still can't find his comfy shoes (none / 0) (#37)
    by Towanda on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 01:17:48 PM EST
    huh?  Coming to the Midwest anyway, if he came to Wisconsin today, to the two recall districts with elections tomorrow, he could finally keep his promise to stand with workers.

    And then, if Dems do hold those two seats tomorrow, he could claim a role in winning most of the recalls.  (Tomorrow could make 5 of 9.)

    But nope.  He must be feeling the pinch of those fancy banker's wingtips that he prefers now.  

    Parent

    breaking (none / 0) (#39)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 01:39:03 PM EST
    Obama has found his comfy shoes - if the Dems win in Wisconsin tomorrow, he can hit the ground running . . . even farther away from Wisconsin

    Parent
    candidate Bachmann (none / 0) (#5)
    by observed on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 06:26:11 PM EST
    would  be supported by brownshirts and vote fraud.
    and what is the difference (none / 0) (#25)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 07:28:37 AM EST
    between her brown shirts and Obama's brown shirts and vote fraud in the 2008 primary?  Either you believe in fair elections or you do not. Bachmann, no matter how much most of us might disagree with her, she is less scary than a democratic President who wants to destroy SS and Medicare.

    Parent
    The evangelical primary (none / 0) (#6)
    by Politalkix on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 06:40:37 PM EST
    link

    Great (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by BDB on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 06:50:16 PM EST
    I suppose it will be time for Obama to trot out Rick Warren again.  I hate all of these people.

    Parent
    don't forget the homophobic gospel (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 07:30:43 AM EST
    tour Obama's campaign ran in 2008 with Donnie McBiggot and his pray away the gay choir.

    Parent
    What's the Mendoza line in politics? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Dadler on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 08:21:10 PM EST
    Seriously, anyone, toss out a number.  It's obviously more than baseball's .200 (even though Mendoza's lifetime average was .215), but Obama is just about there.

    Even worse in some ways (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by brodie on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 09:13:20 PM EST
    Unlike the always light hitting Mendoza, O came to the Big Leagues touted as at least a talented extra-base hitter a la Tony Gwinn.  Yet he's been hitting like Mendoza, with a play-nice soft attitude reminiscent of Jackie Robinson's rookie year (if the other team played him rough, Jackie was instructed to say nothing and just walk away).

    JR of course had a natural fire and fight within that he had to suppress -- but only for a season or so.  BHO doesn't seem to have those same feisty natural tendencies -- more the milquetoast conciliator kind which are badly in need of being suppressed.

    Well, I console myself, he still has some time to show whatever small fighting spirit he has within.  I just hope it's at least as feisty as what he showed in the primaries and maybe a little more.

    Parent

    But he IS fighting (5.00 / 8) (#20)
    by sj on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 10:00:16 PM EST
    He has fought consistently to keep "entitlement" cuts on the table. And he has been successful.  This is what he wants.

    He's not a milquetoast conciliator.  He's tough as nails.  The Republicans make demands and he offers them even more.  He may not be "feisty" but he doesn't need to be.  He's been far more successful by being passive/aggressive.  He only gets tough when he is acting against the positions of his own party (and he's only a Democrat because he's from Chicago.  He can't even bring himself to call himself a Democrat)

    This is clear as glass to me.  I don't understand why so many people cannot see that.

    Parent

    Democrat (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Madeline on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 11:49:23 PM EST
    Never uttered the word until the Convention speech.

    Parent
    You don't describe a fighter but (none / 0) (#30)
    by brodie on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 09:25:33 AM EST
    Obama as a capitulator.  He's just been negotiating how much of tomorrow's lunch money he will gladly give over to the bully.  That's a serious personality issue, not a matter of ideology.  If the bully boy Repubs were asking instead for trial lawyers to have a firm ceiling on their annual incomes,  O would likely leave entitlements alone and be eagerly looking for the right amount of lawyer income to fully satisfy the Repubs.

    In any case, I was responding above to a poster's baseball analogy and intended to comment in the same spirit without getting into some deep, serious analysis.

    Parent

    O will NEVER leave (none / 0) (#63)
    by sj on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 11:29:12 PM EST
    ..."entitlements" alone.  This is his goal not a negotiating tool.  

    How many times does he have to put them back on the table before people accept that?

    Parent

    It depends. (none / 0) (#18)
    by lentinel on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 08:53:50 PM EST
    People may be amused by crackpots, but they don't vote for them.

    However, if the choice is between two crackpots....

    Which is why (none / 0) (#27)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 07:31:32 AM EST
    People may be amused by crackpots, but they don't vote for them.

    Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell, and lefty bloggers trying to scare you with "Ooh!  Sarah Palin!  Ooh!  Michelle Bachmann! Look out - scary stuff ahead!"  is plain silly.  They may be making the headlines, but they will never be president.

    Meanwhile, the serious candidates like Romney are quietly amassing a war chest to compete with Obama's projected $1 billion. (And let's be frank - if you are doing such a great job, do you really need to spend $1 billion as the incumbent -especially against a field of mostly crackpots??)

    Elite indifference (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by waldenpond on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 10:23:43 AM EST
    It's all theater to most of them as they are rarely impacted by the legislation.  They play parts on teebee.  

    The blogs are entertaining.  You can get whiplash with some of these blogs switching their positions.  They may be in an income bracket that is effected by policy but they can't put down their team letter jackets.  They don't want to hurt their team chances but they lose hits now.  Oh no, I may lose access!  What to do, what to do?  
    Dangle a shiny object and ask for money!! haha!

    Parent

    Polls Matter (none / 0) (#34)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 10:43:11 AM EST
    Unfortunate that this happened, but I sugar coat nothing.  Tough time for Obama given all that has occurred.  Unlike others, I think polls matter and if I have demanded that people at least acknowledge them when polls disagreed with their idea of what "real liberals" or "real americans" were thinking, then I have to acknowledge that a poll slump by Obama matters.

    However (because I am good at howevers):

    Look at the poll numbers for congress and in particular the Tea Party.  People are pretty much mad at everyone and they are less mad at Obama than anyone.

    Combine that with the fact that we are going to enjoy months of illuminating craziness from the intellectual powerhouses of Perry, Bachmann and Romney and I think America will come to see the choices in front of them clearly.

    Obama's record is actually very good when you put it all together and he will compare favorably to the GOP.

    It seems fairly obvious to me that Obama's low point (which this likely is) comes more than a year before the election.  I think his numbers start to climb again shortly.

    But yep, because I value intellectual honesty, I have to concede that those poll numbers matter and reflect real discontent.

    When they rise, I will be equally honest about what that means.  Hopefully others will as well.

    Congress (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 11:25:06 AM EST
    always polls badly - heck they were around the 12% approval a few years ago. So saying, "Hey, Congress is worse!" means nothing - especially when most people, if you asked them about their own specific representative will say that their rep is doing a good job. That's why something like 90% of incumbents get re-eelcted. That, and the fact that reps have more face time in communities and talk about more local issues than someone in a national campaign.

    Parent
    Congress often polls badly (none / 0) (#40)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 02:29:47 PM EST
    But never this badly.  Ever, ever.

    No political figure is polling well. People hate everyone. The question is, in that environment, how well the candidates are doing.

    Parent

    Once again, as ever, and (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 08:47:08 AM EST
    as constant and predictable as the rising and setting of the sun, is the focus on the electoral fortunes of members of Congress, with no apparent regard for the quality of the job they were sent there to do.

    Yes, I'm aware that typically, Congress doesn't rank too high on anyone's list, but that more and more people like them less and less tells me that we are seeing what happens when the primary metric for determining who to vote for is "not as bad as the other guy."

    We're just accepting that "people" hate everyone, that it's the people who have made the environment toxic, absolving the politicians from any responsibility for why it is their constiuents have such a low opinion of them.  They become free to worry only about keeping their own jobs - not how they're doing their jobs, just hoping they can overcome the people's irrational dislike so they can stay.

    Talk about the shallow end of the pool.

    Parent

    Apparently (none / 0) (#43)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 02:52:54 PM EST
    everyone inthe media forgot about this (Just one poll, of course):

    Barely one in 10 Americans approve of how Congress is handling its job, according to a Gallup poll released today. Just 13% of those surveyed said they approved of the current Congress, the lowest approval rating Gallup has ever recorded. Additionally, 83% percent of those surveyed assessed Congress negatively, also a Gallup poll record.

    Wait - what's the date on that?  December 2010.

    Congress ALWAYS polls badly.


    Parent

    Correct - Or back to 2008 (none / 0) (#44)
    by BTAL on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 03:18:01 PM EST
    Approval of Congress has dipped below 20% for only the fourth time in the 34 years Gallup has asked Americans to rate the job Congress is doing. Today's 18% score, based on a May 8-11 Gallup Poll, matches the record lows Gallup recorded in August 2007 and March 1992.

    Or 2007, or 1992, or 1980.

    Parent

    But, but (none / 0) (#46)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 03:23:52 PM EST
    Congress has never polled this badly - EVER!

    <snark>

    Parent

    Snark Deflector Screens UP! (none / 0) (#48)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 03:37:43 PM EST
    "PRINCETON, NJ -- About one in five U.S. registered voters (21%) say most members of Congress deserve re-election, the lowest percentage Gallup has found in the 20-year history of asking this question. The prior lows of 28% were recorded in 2010 and earlier this year."

    The truth will set you freed.*

    *and defend against people constantly questioning your statements.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/148904/Record-Low-Say-Congress-Deserve-Election.aspx

    C'mon kiddies. I don't say it here unless I know I can back it up because the only thing more scrutinized than a pro-Obama guy on TL, is a Lindsay Lohan drug test.

    Parent

    Did you not read? (none / 0) (#49)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 03:44:36 PM EST
    Link

    December 15, 2010

    Congress' Job Approval Rating Worst in Gallup History

    Thirteen percent approve of the way Congress is handling its job by Jeffrey M. Jones

    PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans' assessment of Congress has hit a new low, with 13% saying they approve of the way Congress is handling its job. The 83% disapproval rating is also the worst Gallup has measured in more than 30 years of tracking congressional job performance.

    The prior low approval rating for Congress was 14% in July 2008 when the United States was dealing with record-high gas prices and the economy was in recession.

    Now, maybe Gallup is lying about what they previously posted on their own site, but more likely, the media (once again) has run with a fun statistic that is completely wrong.

    Parent

    Couple of Things (none / 0) (#50)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 03:56:43 PM EST
    The following common sense points, which I am happy to be a bit snarky about because you went with the "did you not read!" ridiculous retort:

    1. December 2010 is before August 2011, so the fact that congressional approval was lowest in December 2010 (at that time!) does not mean that it may not be even lower later.

    2. The source of my quote was a different metric which measured "likelihood of a voter voting for the same representative again", which is why there is a bit of a disconnect between us.  The congressional measurement I gave is indeed historic as my quote provides.

    3. I do not believe we have the latest congressional poll for the same period in which Obama received his 39%. If I were a betting man i say that it end up being between 10% and 13% let's say.  Given the standard deviation, the same point can be made.

    Congress is at or extremely near historic lows.  Obama is in the same boat.  No one is happy.

    Except for folks whose goal is to pick minor battles over 2% points to avoid engaging in the actual point at hand.

    Parent

    Again (none / 0) (#53)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 04:15:13 PM EST
    Your comment:

    Congress often polls badly
    But never this badly.  Ever, ever.

    I point out to you, once again, that you are wrong. See Gallup's own link for the times (even recently) where Congress' approval has been as low or lower than it is now.

    The likelihood of a voter voting for the same candidate again, is a crap statistic because while people will say that now - 15 months out, they actually WILL vote for the incumbents, as they always do.

    But I know, Obama can't get Congress to play ball, so it's not his fault that things aren't getting done, but wait until his second term, because then he'll show us what a true liberal lion he really is.  Yadda yadda yadda....

    Parent

    What is congress's (none / 0) (#54)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 04:18:32 PM EST
    approval rating this week.

    If you can find that, I will concede that you are right.

    Otherwise, I think the latest gallup poll that asked a question about congress is a decent proxy.

    Parent

    Congressional approvals over time (none / 0) (#64)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 07:54:38 AM EST
    Since they don't do polls every week - doesn't look like there's been big changes.

    Parent
    And (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 03:21:54 PM EST
    what happened? Lots of people lost their jobs like they are probably going to lose their jobs in '12.

    Parent
    The same thing (none / 0) (#51)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 03:59:46 PM EST
    that happened in other jurisidictions regardless of the remedies that their governments used to address economic problems:

    the global economy had a horrible first two quarters.

    How about someone find me a country that poured massive stimulus into their economy and didn't lose jobs recently.

    Take your time.  I'll wait.  

    I know they have to be out there because you wouldn't make the statements you do unless you knew for a fact that the recent downturn wasn't mirrored in other economies that took the steps you advocate.

    Parent

    Germany's unemployment rate (none / 0) (#55)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 04:33:32 PM EST
    fell from 8.7% in 2007 to 6.6% in June 2011.*

    Unemployment rates unadjusted by BLS to U.S. concepts.

     

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#58)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 08:14:49 PM EST
    Challenge accepted. Good show.

    Did Germany experience a slow down in the last two quarters?

    Did Germany experience population stagnation which would skew their numbers over the time period you suggest?

    What policies did Germany take that impact employment that you think gave them one of the only recession proof economies during that period?

    I dont think the answers to those questions will tell us what you want them to.

    Parent

    Hint (none / 0) (#59)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 08:17:59 PM EST
    They went through many of the structural changes we are facing a decade ago.

    Parent
    Germany raised their retirement age (none / 0) (#60)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 08:41:08 PM EST
    not to 70 but to 67. Something that the U.S. has begun phasing in in 2000.

    It also began trying to move the long-term unemployed into the labor force.

    Specifically, the government took a fresh look at people who had not worked in years to determine who could and couldn't work. The able and healthy were matched with potential employers. If they took a low-paying job, which was often the case, they would still receive a small portion of their benefits for a time. If they refused to work, their benefits were reduced anyway.

    "The incentives to take up work were strengthened," says Felix Hüfner of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, "and also the sanctions were strengthened." Sure enough, the reforms have nudged more people back into the labor force -- and work tends to beget more work, as people develop skills and have more money to spend.
    ...
    But the German story is not merely about making government more efficient. It's also about understanding the unique role that government must play in a market economy.
    ...
    Unlike what happened here, German laws and regulators have also prevented the decimation of their labor unions. The clout of German unions, at individual companies and in the political system, is one reason the middle class there has fared decently in recent decades. In fact, middle-class pay has risen at roughly the same rate as top incomes.
    ...
    Finally, there are taxes. Germany does not have a smaller budget deficit because it spends less. Germany, you'll recall, is the original welfare state. It has a smaller deficit because it is more willing to match the benefits it wants with the needed taxes.



    Parent
    Forgot this (none / 0) (#61)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 08:51:48 PM EST
    The top 1 percent of German households earns about 11 percent of all income, virtually unchanged relative to 1970, according to recent estimates. In the United States, the top 1 percent makes more than 20 percent of all income, up from 9 percent in 1970. That's right: only 40 years ago, Germany was more unequal than this country.

    There legislation was not geared to welfare problems for the top 1 percent. They actually developed policies for all of their citizens.  

    The German's came up with government solutions for their problems. They did not wait around for private industry to decide to act, they did not throw up their hands and claim that they were helpless and they have used taxation and real regulations to provide for the needs of their citizens.

    Parent

    More on Germany (none / 0) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 09:03:05 PM EST
    The government had made cuts, Mr. Ponick said, but they had been "cleverly chosen" to spare the public pain. "The effects of this crisis are imperceptible here," he said.

    Here the cuts are structured to inflict public pain on those who already have little or nothing.

    A recent report in the daily newspaper Bild said that government experts expect the job boom to continue for another four years. In a survey of 1,800 Germans prepared for the business magazine WirtschaftsWoche by the Allensbach Institute for Public Opinion Research, a majority spoke of an era of increased insecurity, but a full 53 percent said they were optimistic about the next 12 months. Only 12 percent were pessimistic.  


    Parent
    I'm talking (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 08:02:39 AM EST
    about elected officials losing their jobs not the general public.

    This whole "there's nothing we can do" and "it's a global problem" just reinforces the belief that there's not a reason in the world to vote for Obama.

    Parent

    What is "unfortunate" for Dems (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Towanda on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 01:21:47 PM EST
    and for the middle class and poor is that Obama happened.

    But again, for you, it's all about a "tough time for Obama."

    Parent

    Towanda (none / 0) (#41)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 02:32:43 PM EST
    You're just being silly.  Nowhere did I say that this is all about Obama.

    Let me give you another option:

    I believe that Obama being elected is best for the middle class and poor and believe that his election has left them in far better shape than would have otherwise been the case.

    Consider your mind blown by this startling concept.

    And save the "Obama and his supporters hate the poor and cute puppies" horse sh*t for someone it works on.

    I get that you don't like him as much as others, but keep this in perspective.  He's not the antichrist.

    Parent

    How high will the poverty rate go and (none / 0) (#47)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 03:31:38 PM EST
    how much more will Obama cut from domestic and safety net programs that people need to survive?

    1) Some 43.6 million people were living in poverty last year - the highest number since 1959, five years before President Lyndon Johnson declared his War on Poverty. The poverty rate was 14.3 percent, up from 13.2 percent in 2008 and the highest level since 1994. Hispanic households took the hardest hit: Their poverty rate rose 2.1 percent from 2008's level, compared with a 1.1 percent jump in the rate for blacks and whites. (The US government considers an annual income of $21,756 to be the poverty line for a family of four.)
    ...
    * The poverty rate is likely to rise further, predicts Isabel Sawhill, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, in a new analysis. The rate will approach 16 percent and stay high for most of this decade, she says. The recession will add some 10 million people, including 6 million children, to the poverty rolls. link

    Obama's answer to the increase in the poverty rate is pursue cuts to domestic programs such as food stamps, emergency heating assistance, WIC and by increasing taxes for people making $20,000 a year when he increased the tax breaks for the uber-wealthy all in his push for deficit reduction. Obama is also working extremely hard to make sure that the poor and the middle class are going to be stripped of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits which will further reduce their standard of living and force even more people into  poverty.

    So please save the "Obama is the savior of the poor and the middle class" for people who are not aware of the policies he is pursuing.

    Parent

    MO Blue (none / 0) (#52)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 04:08:09 PM EST

    The overwhelming majority of budgetary cuts Obama has agreed to (1) do not take effect for years and (2) do not impact any of the things you are talking about.

    So let me go right at you:

    Food stamp cuts. You say: "Obama's answer to the increase in the poverty rate is pursue cuts to domestic programs such as food stamps"

    Well what did Obama agree to. Why on earth did he cut "food stamps"????

    Answer:

    1. $12 billion was taken from the food stamp program . . and was used to fund $10+ billion in pay to help teachers keep their jobs . . . oh the horror!!!!!!!

    2. Why would Obama agree to cuts in that way? Answer: Because the cash to teachers was distributed immediately and (wait for it) . . .

    the cuts to food stamps won't happen until 2014, and the hope is that we can reverse them then.  However, even if they don't . . .

    3. The cuts aren't draconian.  They simply take us back to where things were pre-stimulus. In other words, they provide food stamp assistance at the levels they were before Obama took office.

    Now, I could dive into your other claims, but why? You have the notion in your head (Obama hates the poor) and no reality will change that.

    Believing it gives you a scapegoat to kick and why screw that up?  We all find our relief somehow in this economy.  Obama is your huckleberry.  More power to you.


    Parent

    There were two sets of cuts to the (none / 0) (#56)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 05:39:15 PM EST
    SNAP program. One to pay for the teachers and one to pay for the overhaul to the school lunch program. The additional cuts to the SNAP program moved the reduction of benefits up to 2013.

    "The growth of the food stamp program has been dramatic since the financial crisis," said Colas. While many economists say the recession has ended, he says, "for a lot of people the recession has not ended. It's no longer a program that has 5 to 10 percent we're talking about 20 percent of all households now."

    With no real job program in sight, new jobs falling below what is needed to keep up with new people entering the job market, the reduction of jobs at the state and federal level, the majority of new jobs being created being low wage jobs with forecasts that the poverty level will increase to 16% lowering the SNAP budget is insane. In one comment you state Congress is preventing Obama from doing anything positive and now you claim that Obama will be able to reinstate the SNAP budget. And yes, reducing the amount spent on this programs to the Bush level is draconian when the demand for the benefits has increased 10 - 15% since that time. Cuts to the reserve fund are also being proposed.  

    The President's reported proposal to drastically slash LIHEAP funds by more than half and the American Gas Association predicts that 3 million Americans eligible for the program won't be able to receive it unless LIHEAP funding stays at its current level.

    Women, Infants and Children: $504 million cut from current funding, to $6.7 billion

    Women, Infants and Children, otherwise known as WIC, is a program that provides food for poor women and children up to the age of five. It also provides information on healthy foods and referrals for medical care, according to the program's Web site.

    The WIC program gave out about $7 billion in food grants to states in 2010.

    The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that the funding cut force WIC to turn away between 200,000 and 350,000 eligible low-income women and young children next year.

    Also proposed to satisfy the debt ceiling cuts to domestic programs Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), by 22 percent below this year's funding level. CSFP is an agricultural commodity program that provides nutritious food packages to about 604,000 low-income people each month, 96 percent of whom are senior citizens who earn less than 130 percent of the federal poverty level.


    Parent

    what's also unfortunate (none / 0) (#42)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 02:37:42 PM EST
    is that it costs $500 mil to run for president these days, and the established channels for procuring it lead to and from the very people who trashed the economy for the middle class and poor in the first place.

    Parent
    It seems to me that this is not the (none / 0) (#57)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 05:40:17 PM EST
    first time you've predicted Obama had reached his low point, and his numbers would move up from there, so I fully expect you will hang onto that talking point until the last dog dies.

    The craziness is everywhere; it's not just limited to Republicans.  Moving to an austerity program, buying into all the debt and deficit hysteria, wanting to cut the social safety net, doing nothing about jobs except talking about them, that has nothing to do with what the GOP will or won't allow, and everything to do with what this president wants to do.  Let me repeat that: what this president wants to do.

    Do you get that?  Do you get that he could have taken an opposing position, instead of trying to go the GOP one better?  That he could have refrained from talking about the safety net, let Paul Ryan and the GOP own the Medicare craziness, and been able to argue for the inegrity of the system from a position of strength, not weakness?

    Whatever intransigence the GOP presents, it simply cannot be denied that this president made choices that he is going to have to own.  Too bad he's not the only one affected.  Real shame, that.  But gosh, at least he's having the sensitivity to delay the pain - what a guy!

    Poor Obama - what a tough time he's having.  And they're working so, so hard on the messaging, the packaging, the optics - not, mind you, any actual action, just talk.  What a shame that people don't appreciate him enough, huh?

    No worries - I'm sure the "Hey!  I'm not as crazy as those other guys" approach will probably get him another 4 years, and won't we all be so, so glad!

    Parent

    Obama's Approval Rating Dips Below 40% | 71 comments (71 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment