« Just when we thought we were safe ... | Main | Shut Up And Eat Your Dog Food! »

New poll: 50% would not vote today for Obama

If you are an Obama supporter, this is undoubtedly terrible news:

A year into his tenure, a majority of Americans would already vote against Pres. Obama if the '12 elections were held today, according to a new survey.

The Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor poll shows 50% say they would probably or definitely vote for someone else. Fully 37% say they would definitely cast a ballot against Obama. Meanwhile, just 39% would vote to re-elect the pres. to a 2nd term, and only 23% say they definitely would do so.

... Among those who believe Obama's policies have moved the country in the wrong direction, 45% cite spending and government regulation as a top cause for their opposition.

Meanwhile, those who think Obama's policies are moving the country down the right track largely cite long-term benefits of his initiatives.

In the meantime, health care legislation is by no means popular, but a majority of Americans don't oppose the legislation yet. 44% said they support the legislation under consideration, down 5 points from the last poll in Sept., while 46% oppose it.

Captain Ed Morrissey observes:

The poll has another big red flag for Democrats. After a year of single-party governance, Americans have grown very disenchanted. In April of last year, 47% of respondents thought the country was moving in the right direction, against 42% who thought it was going off the rails. Now, 55% think the country is moving in the wrong direction, and only 34% think otherwise. Since only Democrats have been doing the driving, that gives a strong indication that they may find themselves replaced at the wheel at the next opportunity.

We can only hope for such a change ...


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/37863.

Comments (36)

So what say you fascist ste... (Below threshold)
Michael:

So what say you fascist stevie sturm & rascist stevie green?

Part of the reason is peopl... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

Part of the reason is people sense that he is running from the press while all these huge govt plans are being decided :

" President Obama has not held a full news conference at the White House since July 22, the night he said that the Cambridge Police "acted stupidly" in the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates.

Since then, the president has delivered dozens of speeches and taken a few questions from reporters while with world leaders on foreign trips. But, lately, it is rare for him to take questions from the media at events or meetings at the White House." -ABCNews

He's not a leader and more of the people are beginning to realize it.

He's not a leader.......AND... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

He's not a leader.......AND NEVER WAS! Too bad the pollsters didn't ask "how many of you have buyer's remorse?"

Though, probably the bigges... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

Though, probably the biggest reason is this:

"Martin Crutsinger and Christopher S. Rugaber, AP Economics Writers, On Thursday January 14, 2010, 1:29 pm EST

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Retail sales unexpectedly" -Ha!- "fell in December, leaving 2009 with the biggest yearly drop on record and highlighting the formidable hurdles facing the economy as it struggles to recover from the deepest recession in seven decades.

In another disappointing economic report, the number of newly laid-off workers requesting unemployment benefits rose more than expected" -double Ha!- "last week as jobs remain scarce...."

Obviously, the reason for t... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

Obviously, the reason for these numbers is that the 1.5 to 2 million people employed in the new jobs created by the Obama stimulus package are too busy working to respond to polls.

Maybe he's been too busy to... (Below threshold)
Hank:

Maybe he's been too busy to meet the press.
According to:

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/01/after-first-family-tells-america-everyone-must-sacrifice-they-hold-white-house-party-every-3rd-day-in-first-year/

Obama's been quite busy.....partying.
Key quote:

"In fact, according to the Chicago Tribune, the stylish Ms. Rogers and the party-hearty First Couple hosted no less than 170 parties and social events through December 3 of 2009."

"Obviously, the reason f... (Below threshold)
Jlawson:

"Obviously, the reason for these numbers is that the 1.5 to 2 million people employed in the new jobs created by the Obama stimulus package are too busy working to respond to polls."

Or go buy stuff!

The poll is not a represent... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

The poll is not a representative cross-section. Half of those surveyed were unemployed.

No wonder right wing blogs quoting this poll aren't linking to the actual poll....

My bad - that's not the cur... (Below threshold)
Steve Greene:

My bad - that's not the current poll. I'll try to track down the most recent one and provide a link - but if the one I linked to is any indication the polls from this group are not representative.

48% of those polled were... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

48% of those polled were unemployed

You guys are pathetic. Link.

Steve Green: "48% of those ... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

Steve Green: "48% of those polled were unemployed"

Huh? How is that possible? Obama has created or saved 200 million jobs...hasn't he?

If it's any consolation, Stevie, I'D VOTE FOR HIM! Yup, if he shows up on 'American Idol' and has ANY talent I promise to dial in and vote for him! Fair enough?

Stevie going down again. Wh... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Stevie going down again. Why anyone would keep coming back for a beating is besides me. ww

Green, still avoiding... (Below threshold)
Hank:

Green, still avoiding

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2010/01/13/coakley-hooligan-shoves-weekly-standard-reporter-into-railing.php

Time to man up.
Or are you going to continue running away like a little boy?

Comrade Steve,Plea... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Comrade Steve,

Please read your own link (well the one you likely got from Comrade Markos, or Comrade Ariana) before you post it here and you'll look slightly less ignorant.

Yes 52% were "unemployed" of those 52%, only 19% were looking for work. The rest were students, homemakers, retired, or "refused".

If you actually look at all the data instead of cherrypicking one very misleading item you would see that it was a representative poll. But then if you ever did that, anytime on any subject, you couldn't be a democrat, could you? The big picture never supports your Marxist worldview does it?

If it's any consol... (Below threshold)
Stan25:
If it's any consolation, Stevie, I'D VOTE FOR HIM! Yup, if he shows up on 'American Idol' and has ANY talent I promise to dial in and vote for him! Fair enough?

He would just get ACORN to stuff the ballot boxes there too. To make sure he would win, he would get the purple shirt brigade to intimidate the voters.

s green... why arn't you in... (Below threshold)
Marc:

s green... why arn't you in Mass. along with ACORN and the SEIU "helping" coakley "win" her election?

I mean really you proved yesterday without a doubt to be just as ignorant, stupid and a lying gas bag as her so it stands to reason your carrying her water in Mass.

In this poll, the candidate... (Below threshold)
Rance:

In this poll, the candidate is implicitly running against an unnamed other candidate. Those types of poll are unreliable until an actual opponent appears on the other side of the ballot, either as a primary opponent or in the general election.

It the 39% "someone else" vote is split between two or more others in a primary, the 39% will most likely win.

With the first real action 2 years away, polls like this are the political equivalent of the "hot stove league".

"Yes 52% were "unemploye... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

"Yes 52% were "unemployed" of those 52%, only 19% were looking for work. The rest were students, homemakers, retired, or "refused"."

48% were unemployed. Approx 25% were retired.

Are 25% of the voters in national elections retired?

No.

Are 48% of the voters in a national election unemployed?

No.

Is this poll representative of US voters?

No.

I know people like Marc are too stupid to read and understand these things, and therefore they rely on blog writers to "analyze" the news and regurgitate it for them, but the poll link is right here, and the adults in the audience are encouraged to read it for yourself...

... and then you'll understand why the link to the poll wasn't provided in the post above.

rascist stevie green is so ... (Below threshold)
Michael:

rascist stevie green is so lame. Kind of sad.

Hey Stevie, anyone ever tel... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Hey Stevie, anyone ever tell you you're a fucking moron?

NEW RULE FOR POLLSTERS: Under no circumstances will you include results from those who are currently unemployed. Being unemployed, they have no opinion other than to serve as a background for The Obamassiah.

This rule is to extend those already covered, ie, NO polling of Independents or Republicans. The only people worth polling are ardent Obamabots. Everything else is a distraction.

s green "I know people... (Below threshold)
Marc:

s green "I know people like Marc are too stupid to read and understand these things,"

How sooooo typical of you asshole, even when proven definitively to be misguided, ill-informed and completely incapable of admitting a mistake your only rejoinder is to pull out your invective card.

You have ZERO credibility here, and frankly doubt you'd have much with nutjobs that infest DKos and his kiddies.

Comrade Steve,Marc... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Comrade Steve,

Marc didn't post that, I did. And doing a quick check, I couldn't find the number of voters in 2008 who were retired, but I did find that 19.4% were over the age of 65, while your second survey link (from post 18) show 48% unemployed and 46% of those retired which comes out to 22%.

22% percent is not that far off from 19.4%, so I stand by my statement that it was a representative sample and you are an idiot.

Marc didn't post that, I... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

Marc didn't post that, I did.

Marc is too stupid to look it up, Bunyan, and I wasn't crediting him for doing so.

I couldn't find the number of voters in 2008 who were retired, but I did find that 19.4% were over the age of 65, while your second survey link (from post 18) show 48% unemployed and 46% of those retired which comes out to 22%.

I can't see the 194% figure on the link you provided. Actually, according to CNN, 16% of the 2008 Prez voters were 65 or over - and the poll has a very similar number - 17% - so the poll is representative as far as age.

I never said it wasn't.

However, this is a telephone poll. Telephone polls are notoriosuly skewed.

They under sample young voters, for example, who have unlisted cell phone numbers more often than 'land lines'.

And as is obvious here, they catch a lot of unemployed people sitting at home.

And, to no surprise, they catch a lot of retired folks too.

Both unemployed and retired were over-sampled. The poll results are not representative of US voters.

The poll is not representative.

"so I stand by my statement that it was a representative sample and you are an idiot."

Don't you have some lumber to jack?

"New poll: 50% wou... (Below threshold)
914:

"New poll: 50% would not vote today for Obama"

That means the other 50% of stuck on stupid are Steven ASS green!

"Hey Stevie, anyone ever... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

"Hey Stevie, anyone ever tell you you're a fucking moron?

NEW RULE FOR POLLSTERS: Under no circumstances will you include results from those who are currently unemployed. Being unemployed, they have no opinion other than to serve as a background for The Obamassiah.

This rule is to extend those already covered, ie, NO polling of Independents or Republicans. The only people worth polling are ardent Obamabots. Everything else is a distraction."

Right - you're not an idiot - that's really smart and cool... GarandFan should get his own column.

Steve has a point, actually... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Steve has a point, actually. Consider that the poll's conclusions are, from comparison with Gallup, Marist, and other major mainstream polling groups an outlier. Generally, political support in an election is off from poll support by a range. In this case, the fact that we are 34 months from Obama's next election, there is no commitment to saying if you would or would not vote for him again. Less than a year before he claimed only 37% of the popular vote, some polls indicated President G.H.W. Bush would claim almost 68% of the vote - if his re-election had come up in January 1992 instead of November 1992.

Of course, Steve would have done better to use the facts and statistical causality in his argument. Banal insults and rhetorical poo-flinging are frankly not the kind of things that win over objective consideration.

"NEW RULE FOR POLLSTERS:... (Below threshold)
914:

"NEW RULE FOR POLLSTERS: Under no circumstances will you include results from those who are currently unemployed. Being unemployed, they have no opinion other than to serve as a background for The Obamassiah"


And if pollsters refuse to follow the Fuhrer's demand's they will also join everyone else and become unemployed.

1) This poll is not adverti... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

1) This poll is not advertised as a likely voter poll.

2)46% of 48% is 22%, not 25.

3) Only 22% of the 48% identified as "looking for work". That would be 10.6% of the people surveyed. What's the unemployment rate today?

Someone calling others too stupid to understand ought to get the simple details straight, Steve.
BTW, how was that crow?

My goodness. Also, where is... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

My goodness. Also, where is there proof that if someone is out of a job they blame the president? They may blame him if he lied and said the stimulus would keep unemployment from going past 8%, so the unfavorable rating would be for having been lied to.

Also, I remember all these polls that I agree are lame, but the lefty tards such as Stevie would go on and on about how that proves he is a ? (fill in the blank)

I did explain to you yesterday that Obama's administration does not recognize the word "poll". They now call it "someones interpretation of data collected to express a viewpoint usually right wing haters". ww

"Don't you have some lumber... (Below threshold)
914:

"Don't you have some lumber to jack?"

Dont You have a toothpick to spare?

Steve,Take the res... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

Steve,

Take the results from next Tues MA Senate election, ram it up your wife's ass, and come back here next Wed and tell us how she had something real for the first in a long time.

nehemiah, I think that is u... (Below threshold)
Andrew Sullivan:

nehemiah, I think that is uncalled for. Steve Green may be a dolt, but there is no reason stoop that low.

It's rather amazing that co... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

It's rather amazing that comments like Nehemiahs would not be deleted by the moderators around here..... not.

Actually, the hypocrisy of deleting liberal messages and allowing comments like Nehemiah's is part and parcel of the right wing blogosphere.

Steve,Everyone kno... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

Steve,

Everyone knowing you around here, you're gonna talk about hypocrisy? Thanks for a good laugh going into the weekend.

Say, how bout that latest Senate poll in MA? Care to ram that up your ass?

While ignoring how his ass ... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

While ignoring how his ass got handed to him AGAIN, he now goes forward with the aurgument that another poster's refrences to sodomy are ban worthy, as apposed to his many gleeful invocations of teabagging...

For all the times you take the low road Steve, don't be schocked that people don't care so much that you've had mud splashed on you.

Well - since the moderators... (Below threshold)
Stve Green:

Well - since the moderators don't care neither do it. It's their play pen, if they want to allow conservative morons to piss all over their web site that's their business.

Besides, the fact that you knuckleheads are obsessed with ass is telling, and it isn't all that surprising.




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