Obama Dropping in Polls

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Down to 41%.

Overall, 45% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That?s down a point from yesterday and the lowest level of total approval yet measured for Obama. Fifty-three percent (53%) now disapprove.

If Americans could vote to keep or replace the entire Congress, 57% would throw out all the legislators and start over again. Just 25% would vote to keep the Congress. (LOL! Enjoy your majority while it lasts!)

It was amusing to see all the liberal Democrats acting all arrogant like they were in permanent control of the country, that Republicans and Conservatism were dead, that the country really wanted to go far left, etc. The majority of Americans would vote out Congress if they could (hint: both houses of Congress are Democrat majorities), they are unhappy with the job Congress is doing (Democrat-controlled since 2006), and now they are unhappy with the job the Democrat president is doing.

Meanwhile, those of us with any sense were shaking our heads and trying to remind everyone that politics are cyclical...

:laugh:

Cue "But...but...but Bush!" in 3...2...1...

 

[shiner]

Can we just reboot DC and start over again with everyone new?

* Plus limit them all to no more than 8 years in public office and ban them from working for lobbyist/becoming a lobbyist after their service is over.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Down to 41%.

Overall, 45% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That?s down a point from yesterday and the lowest level of total approval yet measured for Obama. Fifty-three percent (53%) now disapprove.

If Americans could vote to keep or replace the entire Congress, 57% would throw out all the legislators and start over again. Just 25% would vote to keep the Congress. (LOL! Enjoy your majority while it lasts!)

Uhmm, Rasmussen says his 'strongly disapprove' is 41%, not his approval rating. Rasmussen is also a significant outlier from every other scientific poll out there.

As soon as America elects its Congress on a national scale we'll worry about that. What's interesting is that the dip in Democrats' approval hasn't been met by an increase in GOP approval. Everyone still hates the Republicans far more.

 

[paperfist]

Someone wake me up when approval ratings mean something... Like you get fired when your approval ratings are 40%. And every man and woman of voting age who actually voted should be counted, none of this out of 3,000 people crap. For now approval ratings are nothing more then Ford vrs Chevy discussions

 

[paperfist]

Originally posted by: shiner
Can we just reboot DC and start over again with everyone new?

* Plus limit them all to no more than 8 years in public office and ban them from working for lobbyist/becoming a lobbyist after their service is over.

Can I vote you in for NY politics?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: paperfist
Someone wake me up when approval ratings mean something... Like you get fired when your approval ratings are 40%. And every man and woman of voting age who actually voted should be counted, none of this out of 3,000 people crap. For now approval ratings are nothing more then Ford vrs Chevy discussions

3,000 people is more than enough to come up with a result that tells you about the group as a whole. There are mathematical equations that prove this.

You are most definitely right that approval ratings right now don't mean much, but not for the reason that you said.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: shiner
Can we just reboot DC and start over again with everyone new?

* Plus limit them all to no more than 8 years in public office and ban them from working for lobbyist/becoming a lobbyist after their service is over.

Nuke em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: paperfist
Someone wake me up when approval ratings mean something... Like you get fired when your approval ratings are 40%. And every man and woman of voting age who actually voted should be counted, none of this out of 3,000 people crap. For now approval ratings are nothing more then Ford vrs Chevy discussions

3,000 people is more than enough to come up with a result that tells you about the group as a whole. There are mathematical equations that prove this.

You are most definitely right that approval ratings right now don't mean much, but not for the reason that you said.

it will be interesting to see if the off-year elections coming up in November are reflective on the national trend, though.

could be potential bad news for mid-term elections, especially if you see a blue state like NJ electing a republican.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: loki8481


it will be interesting to see if the off-year elections coming up in November are reflective on the national trend, though.

could be potential bad news for mid-term elections, especially if you see a blue state like NJ electing a republican.

The special election for Kennedy's seat will be very telling.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: paperfist
Someone wake me up when approval ratings mean something... Like you get fired when your approval ratings are 40%. And every man and woman of voting age who actually voted should be counted, none of this out of 3,000 people crap. For now approval ratings are nothing more then Ford vrs Chevy discussions

3,000 people is more than enough to come up with a result that tells you about the group as a whole. There are mathematical equations that prove this.

You are most definitely right that approval ratings right now don't mean much, but not for the reason that you said.

it will be interesting to see if the off-year elections coming up in November are reflective on the national trend, though.

could be potential bad news for mid-term elections, especially if you see a blue state like NJ electing a republican.

Blue states elect Republican governors more often than you think, and vice versa. Regardless I don't think results a year out mean anything for the midterm elections. In May or June of 2006, who thought the Democrats were going to take back the House, the Senate, or both? Almost nobody. What followed that? An epic ass kicking where they took back both.

People are too fickle, and too much can happen between now and November of 2010. If the economy is still shit then, Obama and the Democrats are in trouble. If the economy is a lot better, the Republicans are in even more trouble than they are now. (of course a major foreign policy event changes all that too)

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: loki8481


it will be interesting to see if the off-year elections coming up in November are reflective on the national trend, though.

could be potential bad news for mid-term elections, especially if you see a blue state like NJ electing a republican.

The special election for Kennedy's seat will be very telling.

No it won't. A Democrat will win it, period.

 

[Underclocked]

I think you are going to see a rejection of most incumbents, regardless of party affiliation. I would also expect (hope) to see a rejection of liberal Democrats in general.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Underclocked
I think you are going to see a rejection of most incumbents, regardless of party affiliation. I would also expect (hope) to see a rejection of liberal Democrats in general.

You won't. Liberal democrats (like conservative Republicans) are in districts that have the largest partisan ID splits. This is how people like Michele Bachmann keep their seats despite being a national embarrassment, or how William Jefferson won re-election after a load of bribe money being found in his freezer.

That's a big reason why the Republican party seems so insane right now, it's because only the crazies are left... every moderate Republican that existed has lost over the last 2 elections.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: paperfist
Someone wake me up when approval ratings mean something... Like you get fired when your approval ratings are 40%. And every man and woman of voting age who actually voted should be counted, none of this out of 3,000 people crap. For now approval ratings are nothing more then Ford vrs Chevy discussions

3,000 people is more than enough to come up with a result that tells you about the group as a whole. There are mathematical equations that prove this.

You are most definitely right that approval ratings right now don't mean much, but not for the reason that you said.

Right. Polls dont matter when they dont say what you want them to say. You are correct.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: paperfist
Someone wake me up when approval ratings mean something... Like you get fired when your approval ratings are 40%. And every man and woman of voting age who actually voted should be counted, none of this out of 3,000 people crap. For now approval ratings are nothing more then Ford vrs Chevy discussions

Riiiight.




No.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

3,000 people is more than enough to come up with a result that tells you about the group as a whole. There are mathematical equations that prove this.

You are most definitely right that approval ratings right now don't mean much, but not for the reason that you said.

Right. Polls dont matter when they dont say what you want them to say. You are correct.

/facepalm

I know you're capable of being smart when you aren't overwhelmed by partisanship, so why are you being so dumb right now?

The poll numbers we have right now mean absolutely nothing as to the electoral outcome in November of 2010. For example why don't you check out George H.W. Bush's approval ratings for September 1st, 1991? They are above 70%... and how did that work out for him? Predicting electoral outcomes six months out is a fools errand, and predicting them 14 months out is twice as dumb.

 

[nageov3t]

I think, though, that poll numbers might matter when it comes to Obama pushing his agenda through congress.

if the members of the House and Senate don't feel like their constituents back home are supporting the president, they're probably a lot less likely to themselves, whether that comes in the form of blue dog democrats not kowtowing to party leadership or the GOP finding its backbone.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

3,000 people is more than enough to come up with a result that tells you about the group as a whole. There are mathematical equations that prove this.

You are most definitely right that approval ratings right now don't mean much, but not for the reason that you said.

Right. Polls dont matter when they dont say what you want them to say. You are correct.

/facepalm

I know you're capable of being smart when you aren't overwhelmed by partisanship, so why are you being so dumb right now?

The poll numbers we have right now mean absolutely nothing as to the electoral outcome in November of 2010. For example why don't you check out George H.W. Bush's approval ratings for September 1st, 1991? They are above 70%... and how did that work out for him? Predicting electoral outcomes six months out is a fools errand, and predicting them 14 months out is twice as dumb.

First of all, Im not sure why you brought the 2010 elections into this...I sure didnt, and couldnt care less. Let me try and explain it a different way since you dont seem to get it. 3 years ago, America was fed up with the GOP, so they elected a majority with Dems. Last year, they were still fed up with the GOP, so cemented the Dem's control with a filibuster-proof majority, and elected a Democrat for POTUS who promised change. Fast forward to today. America is realizing they got taken, they disagree with those they elected, they realize those they elected dont really represent their view, and are disillusioned with....no change.

Get it? Thats the point of the post. Not the 2010 elelections

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: loki8481
I think, though, that poll numbers might matter when it comes to Obama pushing his agenda through congress.

if the members of the House and Senate don't feel like their constituents back home are supporting the president, they're probably a lot less likely to themselves, whether that comes in the form of blue dog democrats not kowtowing to party leadership or the GOP finding its backbone.

You are most certainly right that poll numbers can affect members like that, but that's not what blackangst was talking about. Hence his comment of (enjoy your majority while it lasts!).

I'm not really sure what you mean about the GOP finding its backbone though, they have never lost it. In fact I would say that they are so irrationally fixated upon opposing every single thing that the Democrats try to do that they stand a real risk of screwing themselves on health care after they get a bill rammed down their throats due to their intransigence.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: loki8481
I think, though, that poll numbers might matter when it comes to Obama pushing his agenda through congress.

if the members of the House and Senate don't feel like their constituents back home are supporting the president, they're probably a lot less likely to themselves, whether that comes in the form of blue dog democrats not kowtowing to party leadership or the GOP finding its backbone.

You are most certainly right that poll numbers can affect members like that, but that's not what blackangst was talking about. Hence his comment of (enjoy your majority while it lasts!).

I'm not really sure what you mean about the GOP finding its backbone though, they have never lost it. In fact I would say that they are so irrationally fixated upon opposing every single thing that the Democrats try to do that they stand a real risk of screwing themselves on health care after they get a bill rammed down their throats due to their intransigence.

I disagree. The GOP is a splintered mess. And opposing the Dems is a worthless venture anyhow. The GOP is a paper tank (right now).

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

3,000 people is more than enough to come up with a result that tells you about the group as a whole. There are mathematical equations that prove this.

You are most definitely right that approval ratings right now don't mean much, but not for the reason that you said.

Right. Polls dont matter when they dont say what you want them to say. You are correct.

/facepalm

I know you're capable of being smart when you aren't overwhelmed by partisanship, so why are you being so dumb right now?

The poll numbers we have right now mean absolutely nothing as to the electoral outcome in November of 2010. For example why don't you check out George H.W. Bush's approval ratings for September 1st, 1991? They are above 70%... and how did that work out for him? Predicting electoral outcomes six months out is a fools errand, and predicting them 14 months out is twice as dumb.

First of all, Im not sure why you brought the 2010 elections into this...I sure didnt, and couldnt care less. Let me try and explain it a different way since you dont seem to get it. 3 years ago, America was fed up with the GOP, so they elected a majority with Dems. Last year, they were still fed up with the GOP, so cemented the Dem's control with a filibuster-proof majority, and elected a Democrat for POTUS who promised change. Fast forward to today. America is realizing they got taken, they disagree with those they elected, they realize those they elected dont really represent their view, and are disillusioned with....no change.

Get it? Thats the point of the post. Not the 2010 elelections

Ahhh, so talking about the Democrats losing their majority wasn't bringing the 2010 elections into it. Is there another method by which they will lose their majority that I am unaware of?

Anyways though no, I don't get the point of your post. (or this one for that matter) You referred to the mood of the country at the point of two congressional elections. Then you are attempting to somehow equate it to the mood of the country in an off-year election. Why this matters is beyond me.

Not only that but you somehow think that these approval ratings of Congress translate into electoral power shifts. In 2006 before the Democrats took over, Congress had an approval rating of about 30%. Bad, right? Well the Democrats beat the Republicans down. In 2008 right before the election Congress had an approval rating of... about 19%. Democrats' majority is going down the tubes, right? Oops, the Democrats crushed them again.

Loki is the one who is correct when he mentions that bad poll numbers may influence congerssional behavior, but you never mentioned that. In fact the only thing you mentioned that could even tangently be related to your analysis of the poll numbers was that the Democrats were likely to lose their majority. (in the 2010 elections presumably)

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: loki8481
I think, though, that poll numbers might matter when it comes to Obama pushing his agenda through congress.

if the members of the House and Senate don't feel like their constituents back home are supporting the president, they're probably a lot less likely to themselves, whether that comes in the form of blue dog democrats not kowtowing to party leadership or the GOP finding its backbone.

You are most certainly right that poll numbers can affect members like that, but that's not what blackangst was talking about. Hence his comment of (enjoy your majority while it lasts!).

I'm not really sure what you mean about the GOP finding its backbone though, they have never lost it. In fact I would say that they are so irrationally fixated upon opposing every single thing that the Democrats try to do that they stand a real risk of screwing themselves on health care after they get a bill rammed down their throats due to their intransigence.

I disagree. The GOP is a splintered mess. And opposing the Dems is a worthless venture anyhow. The GOP is a paper tank (right now).

Number of Republican votes for the stimulus: 3 out of 219 (1.3%)
Number of Republican votes likely for health care: 0 out of 218. (0%)

Can you name a contentious piece of legislation that significant numbers of Republicans have 'splintered' on? I didn't think so.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: loki8481
I think, though, that poll numbers might matter when it comes to Obama pushing his agenda through congress.

if the members of the House and Senate don't feel like their constituents back home are supporting the president, they're probably a lot less likely to themselves, whether that comes in the form of blue dog democrats not kowtowing to party leadership or the GOP finding its backbone.

You are most certainly right that poll numbers can affect members like that, but that's not what blackangst was talking about. Hence his comment of (enjoy your majority while it lasts!).

I'm not really sure what you mean about the GOP finding its backbone though, they have never lost it. In fact I would say that they are so irrationally fixated upon opposing every single thing that the Democrats try to do that they stand a real risk of screwing themselves on health care after they get a bill rammed down their throats due to their intransigence.

I disagree. The GOP is a splintered mess. And opposing the Dems is a worthless venture anyhow. The GOP is a paper tank (right now).

Number of Republican votes for the stimulus: 3 out of 219 (1.3%)
Number of Republican votes likely for health care: 0 out of 218. (0%)

Can you name a contentious piece of legislation that significant numbers of Republicans have 'splintered' on? I didn't think so.

Seriously, they are so concerned on making Obama look bad that they don't even consider legislation.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Seriously, they are so concerned on making Obama look bad that they don't even consider legislation.

umm, you do know there are republicans on the various committees, right? They not only consider legislation they do help write it. Not to mention all the proposed legislation repubs have put forward.

-edit-
Ways and means
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/members.asp

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: loki8481
I think, though, that poll numbers might matter when it comes to Obama pushing his agenda through congress.

if the members of the House and Senate don't feel like their constituents back home are supporting the president, they're probably a lot less likely to themselves, whether that comes in the form of blue dog democrats not kowtowing to party leadership or the GOP finding its backbone.

You are most certainly right that poll numbers can affect members like that, but that's not what blackangst was talking about. Hence his comment of (enjoy your majority while it lasts!).

I'm not really sure what you mean about the GOP finding its backbone though, they have never lost it. In fact I would say that they are so irrationally fixated upon opposing every single thing that the Democrats try to do that they stand a real risk of screwing themselves on health care after they get a bill rammed down their throats due to their intransigence.

I disagree. The GOP is a splintered mess. And opposing the Dems is a worthless venture anyhow. The GOP is a paper tank (right now).

Number of Republican votes for the stimulus: 3 out of 219 (1.3%)
Number of Republican votes likely for health care: 0 out of 218. (0%)

Can you name a contentious piece of legislation that significant numbers of Republicans have 'splintered' on? I didn't think so.

Seriously, they are so concerned on making Obama look bad that they don't even consider legislation.

They considered the legislation. And the legislation sucked. Hence, they voted against it.

I know that possibility never entered your mind, however.

Edit: Do we will need to trump out all the times the Dems opposed Bush just to oppose him? "I voted for the war in Iraq before I voted against it!", "The surge has failed!", etc.

Nah, you'll just say the Dems were patriots doing their duty, and that the Republicans are just obstructionists with an agenda. :roll: