Understanding Obama's Poll Slide

Pollster.com:

David Brooks commented in his column yesterday "All presidents fall from their honeymoon highs, but in the history of polling, no newly elected American president has fallen this far this fast." Mostly right, sort of. But some context would help.

Read the whole story: Pollster.com

Comments

[LetsGoSteve]

I do not need a poll to tell me ending a life within a mother’s womb is ok, my conscience tells me.

I do not need a poll telling me that having sex with someone I am not married to is ok, my conscience tells me.

I do not need a poll telling me that getting married to someone of the same sex is ok, my conscience tells me.

I do not need a poll telling me that the government should be helping members of my family, neighborhood, co-workers, or members of my church. My conscience tells me.

If we all started listening to our conscience’s, and stopped listening to polls and pundits, we would not need the government intervening into our lives.

[ReedYoung]

Mostly a good, thoughtful article but ...

quote:
The decline since then has been quite steady, dropping Obama from a shade above average at 3.5 months, to a next-to-last place now. This second slide *should be far more worrisome* to the White House than the initial polls or the net change from first to last poll.
/quote

... in an article brushing up another pundit's analysis of statistics, and on a site called pollster.comm" I expect such a statement to be supported by more explicit reasoning, which should specifically include what has been his primary task since "then" (May), health care reform.

My perspective is that people, especially the fluffy "center" of the political spectrum, are just disproportionately ignorant (not stupid, just ignorant, which means not knowledgeable, a curable condition) and therefore easily confused / persuaded by the corporate misinformation campaigns since May to believe falsehoods. This analysis leads me not to conclude that "(t)his second slide should be far more worrisome to the White House" but on the contrary, should be interpreted as meaningless, if not as indication of how much more support he will gain by pushing strong enough to succeed on health care reform.

Polls about people's opinions of President Obama on specific issues exist. What I've written above is from memory of how his popularity seems to correlate to the health care battle, what I'd expect to find if I looked up polls specifically on approval of his work on various issues. I have not.

[OliverTwist]

For President Obama it seems to be all about pandering to the priviledged with back room deals for the banks, the coal and oil industry, the auto industry, the insurance industry, the drug companies, the military, the CIA, and probably others we don't even know about.

This is not "change you can believe in".

Progressives had something else in mind. Hillary is looking better and better all the time.

But the Republicans need not be smirking in the corner. The vast majority of Americans still think that Republicans are pretty much the spawn of Satan.

[jordan327]

"vast majority" I don't think that means what you think it means!

[OliverTwist]

You are right to challenge that last bit.

Those who have that view probably are not a "vast majority." Also, they probably don't think of Republicans as literally the "spawn of Satan." Most of them probably would consider Republicans at most as "disciples of Satan." That's probably more accurate.

Still, you certainly get the general idea.

The poll numbers for Republican representatives suggest they are not generally held in high regard.

[ReedYoung]

Slow change does not constitute surrender to the status quo, only rational understanding of it. If you had done your part you would have greater appreciation for how difficult that is.

[AntonioR]

It's not that complicated to see why Obama numbers are falling.....he's losing the support of the liberals & progressives because he keep back-tracking and sending mix signals on whether he's for a public option or not...and he's compromising to much & keep talking "bipartisanship" crap when he's not going to get a single republican vote. He need to come out straight forward with what he actually want in the Healthcare bill. He either want the public option or he don't. He need to tell Congress and the American people what he actually for or whats. That's just my opinion on the subj..

[PoliticiansRspineless]

You are all a bunch of pathetic sheep....we have all been pilfered over the last 10 years by wall street and both partys. Were is the outrage???Obama is continuing the fraud cover up of the wall street banksters. All the CEO's and CFO's are still in their positions. Why...because the largest ponzi scheme in the history of our nation has occurred and the current admin and the federal reserve have to keep the fraud contained. The American people have not been told the truth on the toxic assets. None of these bailed out banks should be showing any profits.....they are totally worthless..bankrupt.
I had hoped that Obama was going to tell us the truth and start cleaning up the wall street mess. He has chosen the same path as Japan and we can look forward to a lost decade as well. Until we get on a moral path Americans will not trust nor invest in its future.

[unite4change]

Polls can be made to fit any narrative. Who and how many people were polled?

[Cryptic Quill]

I feel that President Obama is in a very difficult position. I’m a fiscal conservative, so I did not vote for him but I also do not wish him a failed presidency. A failed Presidency can have an impact felt for a generation. Most of the difficulty is the result of the obstinate resistance from the right and the division within the left, creating an impasse where no matter what is passed, there will be dissatisfaction. President Obama I believe is a good man and like many good men found the Presidency a much more difficult office to flourish in than to be critical of. I don’t blame the President, almost 50 years after its identification; the military industrial complex remains a juggernaut. I would also remind those in both parties, it’s been only 7 months. The far left will still rally around the President and unless my party begins to accept new ideas, the moderates will also vote left.

[PoliSci2008]

CQ:
Thank you for your prospective as a conservative. I voted and still support President Obama, but just this evening, I unsubscribed from myobama.com. I was being bombarded with multiple emails per day! Couple that with the President's enacted laws and proposed bills and a rough economy, I'm now sounding like the GOPs...it's too much, too fast! Chill! Although the Obama novelty has worn off with me, I still support his policies and his Presidency.

[Marcospinelli]

Obama and Rahm Emanuel have made the Blue Dogs stronger. After the last few weeks, the Blue Dogs' campaign coffers have been beefed up from contributions from Big Insurance. Obama and Rahm Emanuel, and the rest of the DLC-Democrats have helped Blue Dogs keep their seats in the next election. They are flush with cash and will be harder to take out.

This is not a fluke, not a mistake, not unintentional. I've talked about this since the DLC seized control of the Democratic Party in the late 1980s.

Their intention is to move the Democratic Party to the right by alienating, marginalizing, breaking up the different interest groups within the liberal base of the Democratic party (civil libertarians, anti-war, pro-choice, etc.), drive them out of the party and bring moderate Republicans (both politicians who can't deal with the Republican Party's base, the evangelical Christians, who are controlling their party and moderate Republican voters, like Susan Eisenhower) into the Democratic Party. To have a centrist party which would govern for 100+ years.

This was the Clintons' plan (and why I think Bill Clinton was so angry with Obama) because Obama stole the plan with a minor change -- Obama is going for a couple of special interest groups within the Republican Party in a bigger way (defense industry hawks) and one of which Clinton could never hope to bring over (Christian Republicans).

[ReedYoung]

I don't know as much as you about the influence of the Democratic Leadership Council, but I do know it is not to be trusted.

quote:
Sons Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch run the company (largest privately owned company in the United States) as well as Koch Family Foundations, one of the largest single sources of funding for conservative organizations in the United States. Organizations and think tanks supported by the foundation include Citizens for a Sound Economy, the libertarian Cato Institute, Reason Magazine, the Manhattan Institute, the Heartland Institute,

and the *Democratic Leadership Council.*

David H. Koch ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1980. Koch money flows thorugh Triad Management Services, an advisory service to conservative donors groups and candidates.
/quote
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Koch_Industries

(emphasis added, obviously) Why does a family so hell-bent on libertarian "ideas" also support the Democratic Leadership Council? The only plausible motive is what you said, to shove the nominally "liberal" party off course, from the general welfare to the corporate welfare. Just judging on policy outcomes, the Kochs' investments in politics are paying off enormously.

[Marcospinelli]

People have mistakenly believed that Obama&Democrats want public health care.

If the Bush years taught us nothing else, it's that anyone can sell anything to Americans, if you're stolid & relentless in your sales pitch & tactics. It's not that Bush&R0ve were geniuses & knew something that nobody else knew; Bush&R0ve were just more ruthless (clumsy & careless many political graybeards would say) in doing what politicians & the parties had gone to great lengths to hide from Americans.

Obama didn't get to be the first black president, vanquish the Clinton machine & the oldest, most experienced politicians in our nation's history (including the R0ve machine) by not having mastered these skills. Nor do Democratic politicians (more incumbents than ever, in office longer) not know how to do it. How do you think Democrats managed to keep the impeachment of Bush&Cheney off the table & have us still reelecting them, not marching on Washington with torches&pitchforks?

Obama&Democrats know how to do it -- They don't want to do it.

The trick for them has been to keep the many different populist groups believing that they really do support our issues, but that they're merely inept. And to get us to keep voting for them in spite of their failure to deliver on any of our alleged shared objectives.

[ReedYoung]

I cannot follow your reasoning to such a cynical interpretation of President Obama's motives. His repeated calls for more involvement in government and social activism are incompatible, in my opinion, with a scheme to appease liberals without honestly representing us. I think we just need to stop blaming President Obama and Congress, and get more active, each on advocacy for our #1 policy objective. For me, that's energy and environment. Or environment as it tends to be degraded by poor energy policies (petroleum, coal and nuclear) and improved by solar and wind power, to be exact.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090713085248.htm

Nuclear is not an improvement over the status quo with mere disposal problems, it's a trivial variation on exactly the same theme: utter crap.

[ReedYoung]

Good points, but you missed a very important one.

Your party's credibility on defense is also unrecoverable until you collectively admit the truth known by professional interrogators about torture, and by espionage professionals about the faking of the pretext to invade Iraq. That was not CIA error, that was the Cheney / Bush White House interfering in analysis, ORDERING all reports indicating an Iraqi threat to be stovepiped, meaning rubber-stamped and sent to the top of the chain of command regardless of veracity, without normal and proper due diligence.

Only reports of the destruction of Saddam Hussein's WMDs were scrutinized. Those generally were the more credible ones, better able to withstand scrutiny, but at the time, the opposite point of view was repeated ad nauseam, and characterized as "proven." It was absolutely not, and every intelligence director of every agency thought somebody else must have found the "smoking gun" that in fact the administration cut from whole cloth. Thus, Scott Ritter was marginalized without cause, and the IAEA portrayed, suddenly, as inept, when the time came to sell the predetermined policy of invading Iraq.

I hope a stable, free country emerges there, but even the most optimistic "success" will not constitute a reason to absolving Cheney, Bush and accomplices of their war crimes. They can beg leniency for their "good intentions" but not escape investigation and prosecution on that basis. Criminal actions require prosecution. There is no credible argument against expanding Durham's investigation to include the Bush White House.

[factotem]

My analysis sums it up quicker. Grow a pair, Obama.
Talk to HIllary, she did it.

Oh well easy come, easy go.

[H321]

Fanned.

Great Presidents were not always loved at their time. Maybe even despised. But as they leave office, and some time passes and we look back in retrospect, its clear what makes Presidents great. Grit.

[factotem]

It's called power... and Dems are positively lim.p at wielding it. Even with a mandate. ...sigh

[Steelheadangler]

The republicans are already claiming victory. Are they pre-mature in everything they do? 2010 elections are over a year away not to mention 2012.

[denicci1977]

I don't know why they are celebrating. They aren't gaining any fans. They have not done any good deeds this year..They completely embarrassed themselves with Justice Sotomayor.

[ElementalPraxis]

Racist right-wing extremist militia birther tea baggers must be cyberattacking the polls! Lord Obama's actual approval ratings are 100% across the board, but the racists won't let you see those results.

[Golden Ticket]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA

[Okieborn]

There are plenty of Americans who worked hard for President Obama and are very diappointed in his laxed attitude toward the American citizenry !!
A far cry from the Urgency of HOPE and Change !!
Where is the Hope and Change ????

[unite4change]

It's hard to believe you worked hard for President Obama because if you had followed him, he's doing what he said he would do.

[twiggy2]

obama is a great president - i am very proud of him. the tremdous amount of problems he has faced in his short 9 months have to be very difficult - yet he has remained steady . i am 100% sure that this president has the people of the u.s. in mind with every decesion made.

continue the good work mr prez - some of us support you because we know your the best man for the job! and you have already and continue to make an impact and difference in this world.

i am in it for the long haul.

[H321]

Simple. Its his incredible lack of leadership qualities. What a soggy noodle.

Even though I like him and support(ed) him but I'm not blind to how much Obama has allowed Congress to take control of his agenda (stimulus, health care) and play dead when it comes to others (DADT, DOMA).

It doesn't help that he was Hopey McHopeHope during the campaign and has yet to solidly deliver on real changes so people don't trust him anymore. Lack of confidence in our leadership and Obama may go down as one of the most hated Presidents. Liberals and Conservatives may have something to agree on.

[dct1999]

President Obama's poll numbers are sliding because he is disappointing a large number of democrats/liberals/progressives.

[Chernynkaya]

That is correct!

[VikingQuest]

LOL, that's funny.

91% of liberals approve of him . . .

http://www.gallup.com/poll/122468/Obama-Weekly-Approval-Average-New-Low.aspx

Independents and moderates are running

[jmpurser]

Agreed. I thought he was a centrist who would at least listen to liberals and progressives. Instead he's a corporatist. That's the very reason I refused to vote for another Clinton!

[ReedYoung]

Making incremental changes indicates that President Obama is working within a system of checks and balances, not that he is a corporatist. One might honestly and knowledgeably critique his effectiveness, but not his motive.

[AceInTheHole]

PRESIDENT OBAMA CAN GO LOWER THAN SNAIL SLIME IN THE POLLS, AND I STILL COULDN'T BRING MYSELF TO VOTE FOR A MISCREANT REPUBLICAN . SO JUST FORGET ABOUT IT!

[bigsioux]

10-4 that.

[Chernynkaya]

I don't think any Democrat would ever vote Reptilian, but some worry that they will stay home.

[VikingQuest]

In case you didn't notice, both parties are bringing us to the same place :)

It really doesn't matter