« Quotable 24 | Main | The Knucklehead of the Day award »

Obama Voters' Remorse

Here is an excerpt from my Townhall column this week:

Three months ago Barack Obama was elected on a promise of hope and change. After less than a month in office his message has turned to one of gloom and doom. His approval ratings have dropped significantly, and many voters must surely wonder why the reality of the Obama presidency has not matched the promise of the Obama campaign. Some may even be experiencing a bit of buyers' (or voters') remorse...

... In contrast to his talk about bringing the nation together, at least twice in the past two weeks President Obama has made it a point to tell Republicans, "I won." Other Democrat politicians, as well, have reminded Republicans that they won, claiming they have the mandate of the people. They did win - and quite decidedly so. But President Obama and Democrats should remember that the election was over three months ago. That is an eternity in politics and a lot has changed since then. Obama obviously has four more years to figure out how to please the voters as President, but there is never a second chance to make a first impression.

In a matter of three short weeks President Obama has gone from upbeat and optimistic to gloomy and fatalistic. Instead of bringing change to Washington, much of what voters have seen has been politics as usual. Some may be experiencing voters' remorse, but if they had been paying attention to his record instead of his campaign promises, they would have known what they were getting all along.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/34314.

Comments (55)

You wish, Byrdie. The Pres... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

You wish, Byrdie. The President's approval rating is at 68%, and you perceive "doom and gloom" in they way he is handling things, it is because he was handed a shit sandwich by President Bush, and unlike his predecessor, he refuses to lie to the American people and fly off to his ranch in Texas while the country slowly burned to the ground. Former(praise God and the Saints) president Bush was so tuckered out that he surpassed former president Reagan's total of vacation days in his first term.

Our president is holding prime-time press conferences and pushing legislation to help us clean up the failures of the Bush non-presidency in his first month. He's already spoken to the American people as president (in the form of TV appearances and press conferences than the Chimp did in 8 god-forsaken, lost years)

Your post is downright ridiculous. It must be easy to jettison fact and human reason as a Bush-sympathizer.

Sober post indeed. However ... (Below threshold)

Sober post indeed. However I don't think 0bots can admit they were wrong yet, it's too soon. So they will follow everything he says, even if it means looting the nation to buy new doorbells for the white house while everyone on planet earth loses their jobs.

The largest spending bill in history and these schmucks are just fine with it without even having read it. They would sell their mother if he asked them to.

Welcome to fascist America.

"and unlike his predecessor... (Below threshold)
Mike:

"and unlike his predecessor, he refuses to lie to the American people and fly off to his ranch in Texas while the country slowly burned to the ground."

Really, what a short memory you must have or you don't read much. What he just flies off to Camp David?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/02/07/2009-02-07_restless_obama_and_family_head_to_camp_d.html

I guess his first two weeks in office and writing a Gitmo closure order was just was to much for his writing hand.

Lets do some math for this ... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Lets do some math for this wishful thinking and somewhat idiotic post by Byrd.

53% of the voters voted for him. 67% approval rating. Yup that sure looks like 'voter's remorse'.

Oh and what's the approval rating for the Republicans in Congress? Never mind, I'll tell you, it's 31%.

Try writing about reality rather than your dreams will you?

There is little evidence th... (Below threshold)
Bob:

There is little evidence the President's popularity is slipping. He campaigned on hope but the reason he gives to pass the $800+ billion spending bill is that, if we don't pass it, there'll be a "catastrophe." The only thing we have to fear is not enough fear; the worse thing we could do is nothing. In other words, the choice is between $800 billion or zero. The Stimulus/Porkulus/Spendulus Bill may pass only because 3 Senate RINOs will vote with the Dems. The question now is whether Sens. Spector, Snow and Collins will still vote for the bill when it comes back from conference committee, larded up with more spending and stripped of the modest tax cuts they were able to get inserted. If this bill passes, government spending will be close to 40% of GDP, compared to 18% during the 1980s. Can anyone say we're not well on the road to Socialism? The American people will continue to back this good looking, slick talking novice until some of his programs start having consequences. Of course, it the S/P/S Bill doesn't work, he'll just say that's because it wasn't big enough - and ask for another trillion dollars.

a <a href="http://www.daily... (Below threshold)

a 15 point drop is pretty significant in a week, but his approval is still pretty high. Nowhere to go but down.

JFO - let's look a little c... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

JFO - let's look a little closer at the numbers, okay?

69.4 million voted for Obama.

59.9 million voted for McCain.

The total number of voters is estimated to be between 208 and 213 million.

At a minimum, 78 million didn't even bother to vote. Obama got a bit over 33% of the potential voters on his side. McCain got 28.8%. 37.5% didn't even bother to vote - so well over half the electorate DIDN'T vote for Obama. (Or McCain, for that matter.)

So at this point, we've got what, 65% approval from 33%? That'd be about 21.5%...

Hardly a majority.

I think you guys are freake... (Below threshold)
gracecurl Author Profile Page:

I think you guys are freaked out because last night the President of the United States held a press conference and spoke English, used full sentences, gave precise and nuanced answers and was literate and astute.

You guys are persuaded by hillbilly, trailer-court speak of people like Bush and Palin so obviously you did not understand the words Obama spoke and were possibly very confused by some of the three syllable words.

Hence this post of desperation.
depp=true
notiz=From nuanced to disemvoweled, sockpuppet

Desperation? Nah. We few ... (Below threshold)
wolfwalker:

Desperation? Nah. We few remaining rational Americans understand that "desperation" is no longer necessary or useful. All we can do now is wait, hope the damage isn't too great, and make sure we're around to pick up the pieces after Dear Leader Barry the Pinhead and his darkling hordes implode.

Lorie wrote: many voters must surely wonder why the reality of the Obama presidency has not matched the promise of the Obama campaign.

I don't think they'll be wondering for very long. Pinhead's behavior since the election demonstrates clearly that he had no idea what he was getting into. Like a soldier who enlists with dreams of winning glory in combat and finds reality to be endless hours of drudgework and drill, Pinhead ran for the glory and glamour of the office, and never gave a thought to the responsibility that went along with it. The more contact he has with that responsibility, the more gloomy his attitude gets, and the farther and faster he fades in the public eye. If he keeps going at this rate, then he'll be the first president to leave office after a nervous breakdown.

That will be fun to watch.

JLawsonFor someone... (Below threshold)
JFO:

JLawson

For someone who usually makes intelligent informed comments that may be one of the dumbest responses I've read. Your comment was more worthy of someone like WildWillie.

You don't have to defend every bad post with tortured erroneous logic you know.

Yeah, Mr Lawson, you're usu... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Yeah, Mr Lawson, you're usually much better than that.

I like what Obama said abou... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

I like what Obama said about Iraq. Guess now that Bush is gone even Obama can admit Iraq is a funtioning democracy. Mission accomplished thanks to President Bush.

Sorry the numbers aren't to... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Sorry the numbers aren't to your liking, guys. Even 65% of the total of combined active voters is about 85 million - or well less than half the potential voters, and less than a third of the population of this country.

So again, the 'majority loves Obama' meme just doesn't hold up to scrutiny, much as you might want it to.

Admittedly, there's going to be a significant number that just wouldn't care no matter what the situation. But you know as well as I do that public approval numbers are a very fickle thing - and it only takes one 'Aw Shit' to cancel out a thousand 'attaboys'...

Obama Voters' Remorse</i... (Below threshold)
Justice58:

Obama Voters' Remorse


Hahahahahahahaha

The success of President Obama must really be hard on you. The President hit it out of the park during the press conference. He was great.

Pundits were stunned at his style, swagger, eloquence. America has to get use to this.

Look forward to 8 years of President Obama.

All you trolls forget about... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

All you trolls forget about the congressional DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIIP that has been supposedly providing oversight to keep us from this crisis. They have been in leadership for 3 years. So, as one troll above stated, you lefties eat the "shit sandwich" your party gave us. Enjoy. I know, the likes of Brucy and JFO will not admit that truth. ww

JFO"Oh and what's ... (Below threshold)
retired miilitary:

JFO

"Oh and what's the approval rating for the Republicans in Congress? Never mind, I'll tell you, it's 31%"

yep and the total approval rating of congress is about 12% so that tells you that the approval rating for democrats are in the gutter.

Lets see Obama's approval ratings in about 6 months or after we get by terrorists 2 or 3 times and he ineffectively fumbles around. Rogues and dictators are taking him to school and showing him for the naive babe in the woods he is.

No preconditions to talk to Iran. Oh wait they put their own preconditions on talking to Obama. And what were they? Oh yeah. America has to say it's sorry. Great position to negotiate from.


Obamalala's press conferenc... (Below threshold)
MPR:

Obamalala's press conference was a joke. A few short weeks into his term and he is lying to the country to convince the American people he knows what he is doing.
I'm not going to say I told you so. Obamalala has told you so. If, you were paying attention.

Here's some truth for you, ... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Here's some truth for you, Wee Willie. The Dems have been in control of Congress for TWO years, not three. TWO. Can you not read a calendar? Jesus, you're dumb.

Bruce, apparently not as "d... (Below threshold)
AJ:

Bruce, apparently not as "dumb" as Speaker Pelosi, who claims we'll lose 500 million jobs a month if the porkulus isn't passed, or President Obama, who visited 57 states.... but I'm sure you have a valid excuse for Dumb and Dumber, right?

LawsonNow you soun... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Lawson

Now you sound like an idiot which is too bad. Stop drinking the Kool Aid.

The poll was not based on voters numskull, it was based on "americans."

retired military

The democratic congressional approval rating was 48%. You ought to check the facts befoe you answer something. And it's nice to note that you and some others are just wishing and hoping for a terrorist attack. Nice.

Brucy, the dems are in thei... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Brucy, the dems are in their third year. Jeez, you are dumb. Can't you read a calender?

Where was the oversight? Where is the lefts outrage? ZZZZZZZZ

Your party failed this country. ww

JFO -Polls are ver... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

JFO -

Polls are very subject to manipulation, as you well know. Weight your calls to one particular demographic, and your entire poll skews. 65% of the people you call may approve - but if it's 100 people and you've already preselected their political leanings...

Hell, even the KOS kids are getting disappointed by St. Barry.

But it doesn't really matter, does it? He's the President for the next 4 years. Personally, although I don't want to see it, I think he's going to make Jimmy Carter look like a great statesman, and end up rivalling Warren G. Harding.

By the way, Bruce, the Demo... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

By the way, Bruce, the Democrats have controlled Fannie and Freddie for the last 8 years. Any failures THERE were caused by the Democrats blocking Republican efforts to impose more regualtory oversight. After all - it was RACIST to tighten credit requirements and not make low-rate loans available to darn near anyone with a pulse, regardless of their ability to pay it back!

LawsonNow the poll... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Lawson

Now the polls are suspect? Geez man give it up. You're looking sillier by the minute.

Re Approval Ratings for Con... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Re Approval Ratings for Congress -

Polling Report has a compilation of the total approval.

The best one THIS year so far is from Fox Opinion Dynamics - at 40%. Latest is from CNN - 29%.

Break it down to Democrat only - you get 60%. (60% of 29%?) Sample group - 409 adults nationwide.

Republican only - you get 49% - same sample size, possibly the same group?

But overall - 29%.

JFO -Numbers get t... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

JFO -

Numbers get thrown around constantly - doesn't it make sense to try to understand both their meaning and how they were derived - and how they can be flawed?

The CNN 29% poll was based ... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

The CNN 29% poll was based on 397 people answering the following question.

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job?"

29% - yes.

71% - no.

Makes you wonder - would that sort of polling be considered accurate if, instead of having a general election, a random sample of 397 people determined who the next President would be?

A CNN poll? Really? The s... (Below threshold)
apb:

A CNN poll? Really? The same guys that shielded Saddam Hussein's atrocities so they could keep their franchise in Iraq?

A bastion of integrity, no doubt.

To be fair, APB - Fox had t... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

To be fair, APB - Fox had them at 40% a couple of weeks ago.

But I'm sure they'll continue sliding down...

No sqwawking from ... (Below threshold)
irongrampa:


No sqwawking from this proud vet. I'm involved in doing whatever I can at my admittedly LOCAL level to derail these morons from causing irreparable damage to my country.

Not gonna quit, no way. I REFUSE to concede my country to these morons.

It's way too soon to be arg... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

It's way too soon to be arguing about approval ratings. Obama's only successes so far have been using our tax dollars for foreign abortions, starting to re-impose the oil embargo againt the American public, taxing the poor to put more middle class children on government controlled health care, and collecting a couple hundred thousand in back taxes from his peers.

In time we'll see the effects of Obama's policies and then we can see what happens to the approval ratings.

As far as Lorie's article, it was cute, but a little premature. Obama voters, polls have demonstrated, lack awareness and without awareness there is no remorse. In time reality will inevitably slap them in the face and then they will feel the remorse. Well, the majority of them will. Some Obama voters, like the trolls here, want a Marxist America and are o.k. with the universal poverty that it entails. They are o.k. with a lower standard of living and actually think it will be a good thing.

Actually Bunyon I'm only i... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Actually Bunyon I'm only interested in fascists like you having a lower standard of living. That way you can't buy all the guns and other "stuff" you need to try and hold us "commies" at bay.
depp=true
notiz=You've just been disarmed JFO

How, SPECIFICALLY, am I a f... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

How, SPECIFICALLY, am I a fascist, JFO?

Can you give me a single example of when I've supported increasing government control over our lives? One single example?

No? I didn't think so.

P. Bunyan -I belie... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

P. Bunyan -

I believe that now fascism is going to be defined as NOT wanting government to have more control...

Most Obama worshipers are s... (Below threshold)

Most Obama worshipers are still too delusional to notice the things that should be disappointing them...but its *starting* to sink in for some.
http://www.rightklik.net/

So at this point, we've ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

So at this point, we've got what, 65% approval from 33%? That'd be about 21.5%...
Hardly a majority.

You're assuming that the 65% approval rating from the poll is only from actual voters, and not from the general population. And by "assuming", I mean "inventing and pretending". So sorry, 65% really is 65%.

Someone mentioned Obama had... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Someone mentioned Obama had been in charge 3 weeks and this was too early to talk about buyer's remorse.

HEll just wait until he has been in charge 4 years.

I am confused. When Pres. ... (Below threshold)
Steve R:

I am confused. When Pres. Obama told the Repubs that "he won," wasn't he talking to people who "won" in November, also?

Brian -I provided ... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Brian -

I provided a link to the polls I used, which had the question asked and the sample size, and the responses.

Where did the 65% number come from?

Wee Willie:In # 15, ... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Wee Willie:
In # 15, you state (as you have all over this website recently) that, and I quote, "they have been in leadership for 3 years."
I call you on it, and in # 21, you write,in your inimitable wee Wanker style, "Brucy, the dems are in their 3rd year. Jeez, you are dumb." You go on from there to mis-spell "calendar."
Way to step up and take personal responsibility, son.
Then Mr Lawson writes, "By the way, Bruce, the Democrats have controlled Fannie and Freddie for the last 8 years. Any failures there were caused by democrats blocking republican efforts to impose more regulatory oversight."
Please explain, Mr Lawson how the "Democrats controlled Fannie and Freddie for the last 8 years" when the executive branch was Republican and for six of those eight years the congress was too.
Then explain to me how the minority Democrats could manage to block any serious GOP attempt at more regulation. And then tell me SINCE WHEN have Republicans EVER been in favor of imposing MORE regulation.
And yes, I've seen the NY Times articles about how Bush proposed reforms in 2003. I'm talking about SERIOUS efforts. Bush also proposed a manned mission to freaking Mars. How's that coming along?

Bruce -Here ya go.... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Bruce -

Here ya go. Forgive the Cut&Paste from Wikipedia - you deserve a quick (and reasonably accurate) reply...

------------------------------

"In September 2003, Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the Republican-led Financial Services Committee, opposed Bush administration proposals for transferring oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by creating an independent agency to supervise. "The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part ... by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies ... [it] does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out ... Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws." The proposal would have moved oversight from Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to the new agency. Frank stated in 2003, "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."[40] Frank stated that the bill would potentially "[weaken] the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing".[40]

Conservative groups have criticized Frank for campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ($42,350 between 1989 and 2008). They further claim the donations influenced his support of their lending programs, and they have partially blamed Frank for not playing a stronger role in reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the years leading up to the Economic crisis of 2008.[41][42] In addition, Frank's former partner, Herb Moses, was an executive at Fannie from 1991 to 1998, where Moses helped develop many of Fannie's affordable housing and home improvement lending programs. In 1991, Frank pushed for reduced restrictions on two- and three-family home mortgages.[43] Frank and Moses' relationship ended around the same time Moses left the company; Frank's support of Fannie and Freddie predated and continued past that relationship.[44]

Frank has responded that he "opposed right-wing efforts to put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac out of business, while simultaneously supporting strong regulation" and "voted against the [2005 reform] bill in protest of those restrictions, while making it clear that I was for the reforms it otherwise contained."[45] Lawrence B. Lindsey, former chief economic adviser to then-President Bush, states that Frank "is the only politician I know who has argued that we needed tighter rules that intentionally produce fewer homeowners and more renters."[46]

---------------

Yeah, they may have been needed but there's no way he would let Republicans set them up...

Let's see - is 5 years enough time to ensure a train wreck on this, or would you need 3 more years? Or would you rather count from 1991 onward, did Frank make things more 'favorable' for Freddie and Fannie, to keep his partner happy?

Isn't it also interesting how trying to regulate Fannie and Freddie is characterized as 'trying to put it out of business'? And regulation would 'weaken the barganing power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing'?

So how'd that unregulated Fannie and Freddie stuff work out? Well, I hope...

Oh, the Mars stuff? Man, I... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Oh, the Mars stuff? Man, I'd rather see a Moon colony first. But unfortunately, NASA's developed a severely risk-adverse culture where development is concerned... and I don't think anything can pull them out of it.

I understand the various public space-exploration X-Prizes are coming along fairly well, though.

Well, Mr Lawson, your wikip... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Well, Mr Lawson, your wikipedia cite does indeed say that Barney Frank opposed the reforms Bush proposed. What it does not prove, or even assert, as you have, is that Frank, or any Democrat, "controlled" Fannie and Freddie.
As I said, I'm talking about serious efforts at reform. I'll even stipulate that reform was needed. What I'm trying to get you to do is explain how the MAJORITY Republicans, if they really wanted to do so, could not thwart the will of the MINORITY Democrats.
Do you imagine that Barney Frank, as the ranking democrat on the committee, held absolute veto power over any and all decisions regarding the GSEs?
The Mars thing was an analogy. Proposing legislation and then not following up is kinda like giving a speech saying "The US needs to go to Mars!" and then doing nothing to make it happen.
See, because Bush was going around bragging about his "Ownership Society" and how many low-income people were homeowners. Seems to me like the 2003 proposals just might have been for ass-covering purposes.

BunyonYou're too m... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Bunyon

You're too much of a dimwit to get the point. I am as much a "marxist" as you are a fascist. You really are an idiot you know. That allegation I can prove.

Bruce -The point y... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Bruce -

The point you're missing is that Washington believes in crisis management. A problem isn't a problem UNTIL its a crisis and the shit is hitting the fan.

Republicans were saying 'Uh, this might be a problem down the line.', and Frank was saying 'Nope - not a problem.' - at which point everyone just shrugged. It's not a problem, doesn't need to be dealt with, so leave it alone for now.

Hey, it wasn't like there was a war on or something else was taking political attention.

There is a great deal of institutional momementum in Washington - and that's normally not a bad thing. But there's also a lot of political infighting (as I think you'll agree has been prevalent in the last 8 years) and the political capital needed to make a relatively minor change (IE more oversight on Fannie and Freddie) was being used elsewhere.

Plus - the political mindset in Washington is such that there's little to no way ANY problem is going to get solved or averted, if that problem is caused by ONE party's proposals or programs, (IE the Democratic loosening of the mortgage requirements) and the solution (IE the Republican proposals of regulatory oversight) comes from the opposite party - unless the party proposing the solution has an overwhelming majority. And even then, it's iffy.

It sucks. And badly. But it's what we've got, God help us...

Look forward to 8 ... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
Look forward to 8 years of President Obama.

Pfff! You mean 8 years of Rahm Emanuel's whipping boy and soup kitchen lines. We are not seeing one dime of that fiat bailout, except for what appears to be "roadwork" in our favor. Seriously, "nuance" is what was elected for us as a tranquilizer, in yet another effort against us.

No, Mr Lawson, I get that p... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

No, Mr Lawson, I get that point. I very much agree with you there.
The point you are missing is that you made a statement, "The Democrats controlled Fannie and Freddie the last 8 years," that WASN'T TRUE, and now you're doing an excellent job of not admitting it.
You're also very good at not telling me when the GOP became the party of MORE regulation.

It's not true in YOUR opini... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

It's not true in YOUR opinion, Bruce.

The record says otherwise. When you can block regulation, as Frank did, you've got defacto control of the problem.

And when did the Republicans first look at regulating Fannie and Freddie - how does 1992 grab ya?

In October 1992, a brief debate unfolded on the floor of the House of Representatives over a bill to create a new regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. On one side stood Jim Leach, an Iowa Republican concerned that Congress was "hamstringing" this new regulator at the behest of the companies.

He warned that the two companies were changing "from being agencies of the public at large to money machines for the stockholding few."

On the other side stood Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat who said the companies served a public purpose. They were in the business of lowering the price of mortgage loans.
Good ol' Barney. Guess who won?

So now the Democrats "contr... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

So now the Democrats "controlled Fannie and Freddie" for the last SIXTEEN years?

Wow, so what are you guys worrying about? Just have the ranking Republican on each Congressional committee simply veto anything Obama proposes!

What? That's not the way Congress works, you say? Huh?

JFO, Your sore wi... (Below threshold)
maggie:

JFO,

Your sore winner attitude is growing rather
tiring. President Obama is here for the next
four years, he was elected by the electoral
college. We are all going to have to live with
it whether voting for him or not. It would be
a pleasure as the winning party you could show
a little humility and good taste instead of
hammering everyone in every one of your posts.

Otherwise I'm going to give you an excuse for
your sore attitude.

Bruce -At this poi... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Bruce -

At this point it's pretty clear it's far more important to you that you both win the arguement and make sure that you paint the Democratic party as blameless, helpless victims than see the Democratic party have any responsibility for what's happened with Fannie and Freddie.

It's a crock of shit you're trying to sell, but go ahead and try to rewrite history. The record is there - spin it how you can, it won't change.

As I said in the column for... (Below threshold)

As I said in the column for those who read it, it is still really early and Obama has 4 years ahead of him. This was about his "first impression," as I wrote in the column -- his first almost three weeks.

Those commenting on the approval numbers already know this if they bothered to check the Rasmussen site linked, but I will provide it here for convenience. I did not include these numbers in the column due to space.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/oba ma_administration/obama_approval_index_history

On 1/21 when Obama became President, his strong approve number was 44 and his strong disapprove was 16%. On 2/10 his strong approve was down to 39 and his strong disapprove was up to 24. That is a change from +28 to +15 for strong approve/disapprove, a 13 point swing. If a change of 13 points in under 3 weeks is not significant, then I don't know what is. The people who are crazy about Obama (strong approve) dropped by five points. That surprised me because I thought his strong approves would stick with him regardless. His strong disapproves went up eight points.

I saw similar results in other polls as well. Support for the stimulus bill dropped even quicker. Obama's numbers are still high (around 60% in Rasmussen) because they started sky high. I said they "dropped significantly," which they absolutely did, unless you think a 13 point swing in less than 3 weeks is not significant. If that trend continued, do the math and look at where he would be in a few months. Quite significant. Those who say otherwise are denying reality.

That is why Obama had to hit the road to build support. He saw the polls. He had to reverse, or at the very least stop, the downward trend.

If you read the column you will see that I only cited a few of the numerous reversals/broken promises Obama as already made in his three weeks in office. In light of those he is probably lucky his numbers have not dropped more.

Yes Lorie those approval nu... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Yes Lorie those approval numbers are just tanking. Why yesterday CNN had him at 76%.

Mr Lawson:I never sa... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Mr Lawson:
I never said the Democrats were blameless. I only took issue with your statement that "The Democrats controlled Fannie and Freddie the last 8 years." If you recall, I stipulated thet GSE reform was needed. Someone is trying to "rewrite the history" of this thread.
Now, can you expand on your argument that the ranking minority member of each Congressional committee has veto power over all legislation that comes before the committee? Isn't that what you're saying about Barney Frank?

Wow, this column was before... (Below threshold)
Brent:

Wow, this column was before it's time. Obama's approval index has gone from 44 to 2. That is a dramatic plunge, and he's only been in office for 6 months.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy