Despite all the tea parties, fox news inspired protests, Glenn Beck, Joe Wilson, and the health care debate, the numbers haven’t moved…
According to Public Policy Polling, Barack Obama’s approval is exactly the same as election day. You can read their analysis here.
Reply to eburger–
Obama’s Approval Numbers Exactly The Same As Election Day…
Written by eburger on September 23rd, 2009 Despite all the tea parties, fox news inspired protests, Glenn Beck, Joe Wilson, and the health care debate, the numbers haven’t moved…According to Public Policy Polling, Barack Obama’s approval is exactly the same as election day. You can read their analysis here.
***thanks for the update and I’m sure that’s encouraging for the anti-Glenn Beck-Tea Party-Health Care Concerns crowd…but it really doesn’t tell the entire story does it? What was the president’s high water mark of approval? Mid 60’s? Even though his current numbers may be essentially the same as on election day, what direction do the trends show now? At this number, at this stage of the presidency, how does he compare to past presidents in the last 50 years…second lowest?
The results of a Zogby Interactive survey taken from Sept. 15-17 found that 49% approve of Obama’s job performance, and 50% disapprove. A similar poll conducted on Sept. 10-14 found the same results.
***going back a bit to March of this year http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690358175013837.html
Polling data show that Mr. Obama’s approval rating is dropping and is below where George W. Bush was in an analogous period in 2001. Rasmussen Reports data shows that Mr. Obama’s net presidential approval rating — which is calculated by subtracting the number who strongly disapprove from the number who strongly approve — is just six, his lowest rating to date.
This is a substantial degree of polarization so early in the administration. Mr. Obama has lost virtually all of his Republican support and a good part of his Independent support, and the trend is decidedly negative.
A detailed examination of presidential popularity after 50 days on the job similarly demonstrates a substantial drop in presidential approval relative to other elected presidents in the 20th and 21st centuries. The reason for this decline most likely has to do with doubts about the administration’s policies and their impact on peoples’ lives.
While voters blame Republicans for the lack of bipartisanship in Washington, the fact is that they do not believe Mr. Obama has made any progress in improving the impulse towards cooperation between the two parties.
Further, nearly half of voters say that politics in Washington will be more partisan over the next year.
****in truth Eburger, is not your post is akin to saying “look, he’s still standing tall at the starting line…when in fact the “race” has been underway for 9 months? Please clarify. Thanks.
Geez, Dave, since when is the WSJ not the bully pulpit of the cons? Comparing the challenges facing Obama in the first 8 months in office (inaugurated on Jan 2oth) to what was going on when Bush took office is just plain silly and should need no explanation. But in case you do, Bush had a booming economy, budget surpluses and peace time. Obama inherited a severe financial meltdown, a slumping economy and two wars. At no time has Obama promised a quick fix and has always been realistic in telling Americans that it will be a long haul before we get back on our feet. Considering the increasing job loss and bankruptcy filings, it is logical that ratings should be slipping a lot more than they are. I find the fact that he is holding his own quite remarkable. The practice of constant polling, in my opinion, actually creates public opinion rather than reflecting it. Regarding bipartisanship, Obama has continued his invitation for bipartisan involvement, but the cons just won’t play. They care more about trying to gain seats in 2010 than trying to find solutions for us ordinary folks.
If the cons really think all of this should have been fixed in the last eight months, why didn’t they make any attempts to do so in eight years. They know it’s a colossal mess, they know their greed and ambivalence created it, and now they plan on capitalizing on it by sitting back and watching the Obama administration struggle with it. It’s why they are not cooperating on issues like health care reform or the economy. And it’s why the cons are continually pushing their fear agenda, through their very effective media outlet.
reply to seagal
—“Geez, Dave, since when is the WSJ not the bully pulpit of the cons?”— *** I know that questioning the source plays big around here as a distraction from the issue but let us not do that… The question is- do the numbers/facts hold up– yes or no….and they do…and they are available in a multitude of locations.
So what is the next question to ask? That goes back to the original post. What was Eburger trying to say when he wrote “despite all the tea parties, fox news inspired protests, Glenn Beck, Joe Wilson, and the health care debate, the numbers haven’t moved” ? I’m not a mind reader but given the lay of the land around here I interpret that to mean he is saying …”despite all the negative attacks, the president hasn’t lost a step and remains as strong as ever in the minds of the general public.” Fair enough?
My post was NOT about the challenges facing Obama and whether it’s reasonable or not for him to have more accomplishments at this stage of his presidency…it was about the misleading nature of the post itself.
The post claims “the numbers haven’t moved” but they have…they rose and they fell…Obama’s approval level was mid 60’s shortly after the election and it has been falling ever since…Why? Based on the laundry list that Eburger provides and more…it’s dropped to the point of near record low comparative numbers with other presidents back to Eisenhower. Make for him what excuses or present what reasons that you will for his approval level in his first 9 months…but don’t say the numbers haven’t moved because they have and don’t say the issues that triggered the tea party protests, the characters revealed by Beck’s investigations, and health care aren’t among the reasons….and they are HIS responsibility.
—“ Considering the increasing job loss and bankruptcy filings, it is logical that ratings should be slipping a lot more than they are. I find the fact that he is holding his own quite remarkable”— ***That’s your personal opinion and that’s just fine, but that’s not what eburger wrote and that’s not what my response was about.
Feel free to write a post retelling all the problems and challenges Obama has faced and feel free to give him credit for not being worse off and you will get no response from me…but write a simplistic and misleading post such as eburger and I am inclined to want to provide some fairness and balance.
—“The practice of constant polling, in my opinion, actually creates public opinion rather than reflecting it.”—*** Interesting, it’s the “bandwagon” effect but to what degree might it be in play? 63 points down to 50 points ? Doesn’t seem likely….but we’ll file it away in case you feel the need to use polls in the future.
—-“Regarding bipartisanship , Obama has continued his invitation for bipartisan involvement, but the cons just won’t play. They care more about trying to gain seats in 2010 than trying to find solutions for us ordinary folks.”— ****I don’t recall anything about bipartisanship being part of the original post…so for this discussion, it’s a bit of a red herring…however as usual, all isn’t as its presented in the mainstream press…
Boehner: GOP leaders haven’t met Obama for health talks since April By Molly K. Hooper – 09/09/09 11:09 AM ET The ball is in President Obama’s court to reach out to Republicans if he wants a bipartisan bill on healthcare reform, House GOP Leader John Boehner (Ohio) said Monday morning. Boehner told reporters that the president has not invited House GOP leaders to the White House for meetings on healthcare reform since the end of April. Earlier this year, GOP leaders sent a letter to the president in May stating that they would like to work with the administration to find “common ground” on healthcare reform. But the administration responded with a tersely worded letter indicating that they had healthcare reform under control.
Bottom line…don’t mislead, tell the truth to move the discussion forward. Thanks.
Are you accusing me of lying, BigDave????? I guess only you determine the truth based on the conservative sources you listen to. Why don’t you try listening to the other side once in awhile and you may find another version of the truth!
Don’t remember bipartisanship in your original post? Check out your third paragraph from the bottom -really simple to scroll up.
Since when does behaving in a bipartisan manner depend on an invite to the White House? The cons should be working with their peers in their congressional committees and listening to their constituents, the majority of whom support not only reform, but a public option. Instead they prefer to listen to their campaign contributors – big health care companies. They have publicly declared their intention to kill health care reform on their blogs, campaign solicitation letters, town halls, etc and they are intent on trying to slow down the committee process in that effort. Say it ain’t so, Dave.
And BTW, if you get on the city council, Dave, the meetings will be agonizingly long if you feel the need to repeat everything said by others before making a comment.
Ya hafta wonder what Dave’s emails must look like…it would take investigators months to pour over them.
*****
*****
*****
and how long did it take us to teach Davey how to unlock that damn “caps lock” button?
I DONT KNOW. I CARRIED THE GUN INTO THE AIRPORT LIKE ALWAYS.END AS GOD IS MY WITNESS, I DIDN’T KNOW GUNS IN AIRPORTS WERE ILLEGAL IN 1998.END MY RADIO TELEPROMPTER WAS TO BLAME.END
R O T F L M A O
Reply to seagal——“Are you accusing me of lying, BigDave”— ***If you are talking to me, I’m not BigDave. Why do you say I am accusing you of lying? Are you lying? I just replied to the points in your reply to my reply of eburger.. …most of your points had nothing to do with eburgers original post.
—“ I guess only you determine the truth based on the conservative sources you listen to. Why don’t you try listening to the other side once in awhile and you may find another version of the truth!”— ***what are you talking about? what truth? What truth is in dispute? His numbers have fallen substantially…that’s truth. Eburger said they hadn’t…. that’s false and that’s the point. Period. Everything else you said is your take on the reasons for the decline…Eburger said there was no decline…he’s the one who is misleading/lying. No need to be defensive.
—“Don’t remember bipartisanship in your original post? Check out your third paragraph from the bottom -really simple to scroll up.”— *** You guys always have to play the childish card don’t you…when you run out of things to say and you try to ridicule and focus on punctuation, spelling, all caps, scrolling, etc. It’s a stupid waste of time and I’m surprised that someone who considers themselves to be an intelligent person who enjoys a reasonable exchange would bother to stoop to that. Why do you? What does it accomplish? Do you think it reflects positively on you …do you think it reduces my credibility and thus my arguments credibility in some manner. Why bother? Surely you aren’t playing for laugh points from the likes of mainstreeter and drew are you?
I assume this is the sentence to which you refer —- ”While voters blame Republicans for the lack of bipartisanship in Washington, the fact is that they do not believe Mr. Obama has made any progress in improving the impulse towards cooperation between the two parties.”— ***those aren’t my words, that’s why I didn’t realize what you were getting at initially, those are the findings and analysis of the Rasmussen Polling people not me.
—“Since when does behaving in a bipartisan manner depend on an invite to the White House?”— ***it matters when the president goes on TV and says his door is open , when he says he is all about bipartisanship and that he invites full participation — and then he sends a note saying don’t bother. That’s when!
—“ They have publicly declared their intention to kill health care reform on their blogs, campaign solicitation letters, town halls, etc and they are intent on trying to slow down the committee process in that effort. Say it ain’t so, Dave”— ***There you go again…all this has nothing to do with eburgers post and that’s what I replied to but yes, there are many republicans who have blogged and mailed and written about killing health care reform and defeating the president. I believe they are wrong and made a huge mistake in making their resistance about the president…their resistance should be to the provisions and bits and pieces of the “plan” that don’t make sense, that will cost too much, that will fundamentally change a good system instead of targeting the reforms necessary to cut costs and broaden coverage.
—“And BTW, if you get on the city council, Dave, the meetings will be agonizingly long if you feel the need to repeat everything said by others before making a comment.—“ *** in which case I invite you not to watch or attend.
My, my, seems like I hit a nerve or two with you Dave. If you bother to read my blog entries, you will see that I am not a stand in for eburger – he can certainly speak for himself. Did I read that you actually agreed with me on a point?
Reply to Seagal—“My, my, seems like I hit a nerve or two with you Dave.”—Not at all, what makes you say that?
—“ If you bother to read my blog entries”—***if I bother to read? Are you kidding? Not only do I read your points but I go to the trouble of answering you point by point, and I include your points as well as my response to enable you and other casual readers to understand more clearly where my response is coming from. Then you give me crap about restating your points!!!-which is a courtesy to you and others- only to have you ignore all the points I send to you…priceless…oh no, I don’t bother to read at all. You are kidding, right?
—“you will see that I am not a stand in for eburger”— -***I don’t see you as a stand in for eburger…you use my response to his original post ,not to further the discussion but to raise all kinds of stereotypical side issues beyond the point at hand and then fail to answer my questions based on the original post… and eburger? eburger is hit and run…say something and hide..he fails to show up period. So No, I do not confuse the two of you.
—“he can certainly speak for himself.”— ***that would not seem to be the case in the time I have been here.
—“Did I read that you actually agreed with me on a point?”— **** If you are referring to—there are many republicans who have blogged and mailed and written about killing health care reform and defeating the president. I believe they are wrong and made a huge mistake in making their resistance about the president—THEN YES WE DO AGREE… but for different reasons.
But what about these from my last post? . Why do you say I am accusing you of lying
—you may find another version of the truth!”— ***what are you talking about? what truth? What truth is in dispute? His numbers have fallen substantially…that’s truth. Eburger said they hadn’t…. that’s false and that’s the point? ***what truth is not truth?
Don’t remember bipartisanship in your original post? Check out your third paragraph from the bottom -really simple to scroll up.”— *** You guys always have to play the childish card don’t you …. Why do you? What does it accomplish? I would love to hear an answer to this.
—“the majority of whom support not only reform, but a public option”— How can you say that? That is nothing like the national polling trends?
Monday, September 28, 2009–Just 41% of voters nationwide now favor the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s down two points from a week ago and the lowest level of support yet measured. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% are opposed to the plan.
***even the senate bill is now expected to come out without a public option…don’t you feel a sense of responsibility to be truthful rather than wishful when you post? Feel free to answer these issue by issue, I promise not to give you a hard time about being thorough and considerate.
Rasmussen is slanted to the right, in case you haven’t noticed, and arguing incessant polling results is an fruitless activity. I already expressed my opinion regarding the influence of constant polling. Results hinge on how the questions are worded. 4 of the 5 congressional committees have approved bills with the public option still in play. You need to get a grip, Dave. You seem to have a lot of pent up anger and are focusing it on me. Repeating prior entries and posting lengthy responses is just not my style.
Reply to seagal —“Rasmussen is slanted to the right, in case you haven’t noticed”— ***I hadn’t noticed…so, what polls do you recommend? Afterall you did make this statement “the majority of whom support not only reform, but a public option” …Pardon my lack of knowledge on this but I was wondering how you come by the information necessary to make that conclusion? How does the average citizen, such as yourself, know in detail what a majority of his fellow citizens think without some kind of ascertainment study or polling?
—“and arguing incessant polling results is an fruitless activity. I already expressed my opinion regarding the influence of constant polling”—***yes you did, and I apologize and I will let it go…but I was wondering if you could just first clarify how you came by the “knowledge” that the majority of people support reform and a public option?
—“Results hinge on how the questions are worded.”— I was always shaky in statistics and data management…but don’t those polling companies with national reputations show the questions they asked so readers can factor that into the equation?
—-“4 of the 5 congressional committees have approved bills with the public option still in play.”— ***that’s true but there are a couple of factors that loom large as obstacles…POLITICO – “Obama is cool to the idea of government-run health care — including saying during his speech to Congress that it’s just one option for driving down costs and ratcheting up competition, but not the only one. . So in terms of the most immediate decision, Obama and Reid are not expected to push for a bill with the public option, according to Senate sources….and… As long as the Democratic leadership and the White House want a bill that can win 60 votes, the public option isn’t likely to survive.”
—“ Repeating prior entries and posting lengthy responses is just not my style.—“ how about posting answers to direct questions? How about not avoiding the points that challenge or contradict yours? How about responding to the original post without side trips? How about a reasonable two-way conversation?…any of that in your style?
—“You need to get a grip, Dave. You seem to have a lot of pent up anger and are focusing it on me”— ****HA! And how do you come by that conclusion? You don’t know me! I guess we can chalk up whatever it is that you perceive to be “my anger” as just the otherside not being expected to stay on point, back up their points or answer questions. Maybe I’s my lack of blog coolness & savvy about how the blog world works…it’s not my style to toss out unsubstantiated comments, not to follow up on direct questions, to intentionally demean and personally criticize as a first response. I see that in others here but didn’t think it was your style either. Was I wrong again!?
You have more time on your hands than I do, Dave. Geez, twelve questions in the last blog alone!!! You can find answers to many of your own questions by seeking balanced sources which is what I try to do. Balanced sources report facts and stories that are favorable/unfavorable to both the right and left and publish retractions when they get something wrong. A bit of humor is nice too. Seek and ye shall find!
Reply to seagal—“You have more time on your hands than I do, Dave. Geez, twelve questions in the last blog alone!!! —and again you answer none of them…you are quite the conversationalist…try answering instead of counting? I guess we probably won’t be doing this too much in the future will we? I had hoped for more from you.
—“You can find answers to many of your own questions by seeking balanced sources which is what I try to do.”—***and if I can snatch the stone from your palm, then this grasshopper will have moved one step closer to enlightenment? A modest Kwai Chang Caine reference as I seek out those balanced sources! The questions were for you, to you, based on things you said! I don’t need balanced sources, I need someone who will back up and explain what they say…I feel like I have slid into an alternate universe! Sheesh.
—“Balanced sources report facts and stories that are favorable/unfavorable to both the right and left and publish retractions when they get something wrong.”— alright, excellent definition, thanks for that, the hunt is on.
—“A bit of humor is nice too. “—you see what passes for humor here….hyenas at the carcass…pick on and put down..insult and giggle and run and hide.
—“Seek and ye shall find!”—you aren’t getting all religiosity on me now are ya? I continue to seek here…I have yet to find here…like Lot looking for a single righteous man