« A Minor Rant | Main | Brief, bright and relevant »

Hope floats

The hope represented by more Americans seeing this President for what he is:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that 24% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-five percent (45%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -21 (see trends).

...

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates are also available on Twitter and Facebook.

Overall, 42% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. This matches the lowest approval rating yet measured for President Obama. Fifty-six percent (56%) now disapprove.

I can't help but focus however on the 24% who strongly approve.  What exactly are they approving of?  On what basis are they claiming that the man is doing a good job?  What are their standards?

What are they smoking?


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/40022.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hope floats:

» Brutally Honest linked with Hope floats

Comments (50)

24% of Americans believe th... (Below threshold)
Marie:

24% of Americans believe that this President is their best shot at never having to work again. They think he is going to pay them money to stay home, pay for their healthcare, pay for their food, pay for their cell phone, pay for the roof over their head. It is that simple. Obama has told them he will take care of them and they love him for it.

24% STUCK ON STUPID!... (Below threshold)
914:

24% STUCK ON STUPID!

12% of the nation is Africa... (Below threshold)
jim m:

12% of the nation is African-American. I'd wager that 90%+ strongly approve of obama based primarily if not solely on his race (but that's not racism).

So at least half of his support is due to the simple fact of his skin color.

That leaves another 12% to explain. Well, that's significantly fewer than believe that UFO's are aliens from another planet, that GWB planned 9/11, maybe even that the moon landing was faked. At that level I don't feel any need to explain stupidity.

Part of that 24% are the la... (Below threshold)
Stan:

Part of that 24% are the lackeys in the state controlled media that bent over to get it rammed up where the sun does not shine.

About only half of those 24... (Below threshold)
Neo:

About only half of those 24% could have possibly been without health insurance.

Most of that 24% are govern... (Below threshold)
TexBob:

Most of that 24% are government employees, enjoying the welfare benefits courtesy of the jug eared wonder boy from Harvard. Of course they will say he is doing a great job. They won't bite the hand that feeds them. No sense in doing that, it would interfere with their porn surfing all day.

Jim m, like your analysis. ... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

Jim m, like your analysis.

Re: the other 12% - I suggest we consider much of that number is comprised of people that are happy just because all of us ("us" being conservatives) are unhappy/upset/pissed-off/suffering. Like a suicide bomber smiling as they trigger the device strapped to their body, the effect on us is what's important to them.

If you recall, about 20-25%... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

If you recall, about 20-25% still strongly approved of George Bush despite the fact he drove the economy, and this country's standing in the world, over a cliff.

There are diehards on both sides. Most people, though, are influenced by events and change their opinions as circumstances change. Those are the 60-65% who AREN'T diehards.

It's my opinion that the 42% who still at least somewhat approve of Obama are closer to being correct than those who oppose him. He can't undo in 18 months the damage that 30 years of piss-on-'em, er, I mean "trickle-down" Reagonomics has done to the economy.

Also, those of you crowing about how decisively Obama is being rejected in the court of public opinion would do well to remember that some of those who disapprove do so because they don't think he was radical ENOUGH. Too willing to compromise, like giving up single-payer preemptively. I count myself among that number, or would, if a pollster asked me.

But if the election was held tomorrow, and I had to choose again between Obama and McCain, or any of the current GOPers whose names are being bandied about, I'd still choose the President, and I'll bet most voters would, too.

LOL, nice satire, Bruce.</p... (Below threshold)
epador:

LOL, nice satire, Bruce.

#8Denial is not yo... (Below threshold)
914:

#8

Denial is not your friend Bruce. If the election were held tomorrow Gumby could kick the hell out of Barry's hate church of racist socialist ass!!

Unfortunately, most people ... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Unfortunately, most people don't realize that the President has very limited control of the economy. Bush didn't destroy the economy any more than Obama can save it. It comes down to the Congress. Obamacare, TARP, ARRA, etc. weren't passed by Presidential order they were passed by Congress.

All of those people today complaining about Republicans obstructing the Democrats, I would like to hear the answer to this question.

If the current Republican minority is able to block and obstruct the current Democrat majority, why didn't the Democrats obstruct the Republicans to prevent the current financial crisis when the roles were reversed and the Democrats had a larger minority than the Republicans do now?

Also it serves as a reminder that the Democrats took control of Congress 11 months before this recession began.

"He can't undo in 18 months... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

"He can't undo in 18 months the damage that 30 years of piss-on-'em, er, I mean "trickle-down" Reagonomics has done to the economy."

18 months? With his ideological outlook he couldn't do it in 18 years. The past has passed, Bruce. If you would "rehire" someone who clearly is not capable of the job then hopefully you are not running a company where other's paychecks depend upon your decisions. There is no indication at this point that McCain could possibly have been as bad in 18 months as Obama has been. The one difference is that McCain seems to have a soft spot in his heart for the United States.

Also, this is a Rasmussen p... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Also, this is a Rasmussen poll, which everyone knows skews right.

And, if the Tea Party Republicans take over Congress this year, count on them to immediately pull a Gingrich-style "shut-down-the-government" stunt and ensure Obama's reelection in 2012, as the Contract-On-America crowd did for Bill Clinton back in '95.

Then there's the prospect of endless investigations of the President's underpants for the next 4-5 years. Yeah, the voters are chomping at the bit for THAT.

I'm just sayin', Mr D, that... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

I'm just sayin', Mr D, that we had a choice in '08 between Obama and McCain. McCain proved himself in the campaign to be a pathetic, desperate, say-anything weasel who abandoned any and all principled positions he ever held in the vain hope of being elected. Sickening.

So, yeah, given the same choice, I'd rehire Obama. Especially if Palin was still on the McCain ticket. And so, I think, would most voters. I could be wrong.

#13- posted by a diehard di... (Below threshold)
914:

#13- posted by a diehard dimwit

"Then there's the prospect of endless investigations of the President's underpants for the next 4-5 years. Yeah, the voters are chomping at the bit for THAT."


4-5 years? There is no way lackwits impeachment will take that long. If you have a flat tie you cannot drive well. This administration and the yoda eared fool in chief are trying to drive this economy on 4 flat tires and a blown head gasket..

Time to take these assclowns to the junkyard.

C'mon DaveD, get real. Mr. ... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

C'mon DaveD, get real. Mr. Magoo was Obama lite.

The President has limited c... (Below threshold)
jim m:

The President has limited control over the economy, but he has tremendous influence upon it.

For idiots like Bruce, who think that the current problems are brought about by Reaganomics, they should look at the history of the economy for the last 30 years and they would see hat Reagan came in with high unemployment, high inflation and high interest rates and managed to reduce all of those while cutting taxes AND increasing federal revenues. What some people deride as "Reaganomics" kicked off a decade of growth.

So just as Reagan implemented tax and monetary policies that rescued us from 20%+ interest rates, obama's policies have crushed a fragile economy. He has burdened us with a staggering amount of debt that has done nothing to jump start the economy. So much debt in fact that buyers of our bonds are starting to sell them off and refusing to buy more. If China stops buying our debt the country will need to print money to pay for obama's spending (Hint: it already has). Monetizing the debt much more than he already has can kick off hyperinflation and that is not going to make anyone happy.

SO this excuse that he cannot effect the economy is a bunch of apologist bullshit. In fact, obama realizes that he can effect the economy but not control it. That is why he has tried to nationalize the auto industry, the health care industry, the financial industry and the energy industry. Then he would control the economy.

Bruce, you're overstating y... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Bruce, you're overstating your points, don't you think?

The "strongly approve" cons... (Below threshold)
oldpuppymax:

The "strongly approve" consist of blacks--who approve because Hussein is sort of black--and other assorted members of the radical, America hating left. Blacks will approve as long as their checks arrive on time and the rest will remain in Hussein's corner as long as his work to destroy the US continues. A small minority undoubtedly consists of the true MORONS--those who believe everything Chris Matthews says, for example.

BO sure is trying to undo 3... (Below threshold)
howcome:

BO sure is trying to undo 30 years of Reaganomics. Other than some dips and dives the economy has been pretty good during those years. BO is really going all out to change that though. Even though BO's whole economic plan has failed morons out there still bitterly cling to hope it will all just magically work out. At this point that is the best BO can hope for. Things just working out in spite of his idiotic policies.

"C'mon DaveD, get real. Mr.... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

"C'mon DaveD, get real. Mr. Magoo was Obama lite."

Yes, this is true. Which is why I don't understand why Mr Henry thinks he is such a glaring contrast to Barack Obama.

Perhaps I am, Mr SPQR. Over... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Perhaps I am, Mr SPQR. Over the top rhetoric is kinda the norm on Wizbang. Are you new here?

I do try not to call people names much, like my friend Jim M just did. Why he feels the need to call people names rather than, or before, addressing their points is something you might want to take up with him, re: "overstating his points."

As for Jim's POV, I disagree. Sure, taking taxes WAY down helped, but a good part of what happened in the 80s happened because of the drop in oil prices, thus removing a lot of inflationary pressure. and much of that was due to the Saudi response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. To the extent Reagan was a part of that, I give his administration credit. When I refer to piss-on-'em Reagonomics, I mean the union-busting, deregulating-at-any-price, free-market-is-never-wrong, blame-the-poor-for-their-poverty, sweetheart-deals-for-rich-folks rigging of the economy that has been the norm since 1981.

C'mon, Bruce, RR and GW are... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

C'mon, Bruce, RR and GW are history.

Your focus should be on the series of events which have occurred since the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007. That other extraneous stuff that you menioned is just smoke, mirrors and diversions ..., and what's more, I suspect that you know it.

#21:I don't think ... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

#21:

I don't think Obama's job performance is much of a contrast to a hypothetical McCain performance. I doubt that panderer would have resisted the call to "do something". He would have tried SOME form of Keynesian stimulus, just as Bush did with the $1800 tax rebate my family (and millions of others) got in '08.

And I wonder what the response of Wizbang's readership would have been had that occurred, and Hypothetical McCain's approval numbers were at the same level as Obama's actually are. Do you think that there would be the same attribution to freeloaders, government titsuckers, and black people as we see here today?

And besides the stuff that ... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

And besides the stuff that you menioned, that includes the stuff that you mentioned, too.

#24"I don't... (Below threshold)
914:

#24


"I don't think"

Nice to see you admit it.

#23:Funny thing ab... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

#23:

Funny thing about history. It seems to kinda have an effect on current events. And what happened over the past 30 years has almost as much bearing as what has happened over the past 3.

Address the basics, Henry.<... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Address the basics, Henry.

1.) The economy tanked after the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007.

2.) Unemployment began to skyrocket after Obama was inaugurated.

3.) Instead of focusing on the economy and unemployment, Obama became obsessed with passing misleading healthcare legislation which fully two-thirds of the country didn't want; legislation which is, at best, sleazy, and which will be a further detriment to our economy.

The bottom line here is that Obama owns the tanked economy which was bubbling along just fine before the Democrats in Congress meddled in matters for their own self-aggrandizement, and Obama owns the high unemployment which was at 5% before Obama was elected, and Obama will own his healthcare legislation when it is read and exposed by Republicans as perhaps the most outrageous scam and the biggest blunder by our government in this country's history.

4.) The Obama Administration's involvment of the UN in their dispute with Arizona was sleazy, despicable and unprecedented.

5.) For bizarre reasons, Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder, has been unwilling to prosecute terrorts held at Guantanama Bay.

6.) And now we have Hillary Clinton, of all people, overseeing peace talks between Palestine and Israel. Whoa, that'll make the Israelis and the Palestinians feel safer, you betcha. Never mind that there is evidence that Obama's incredibly bad judgment might unravel and destroy everything that GW and our valiant troops accomplished in Iraq and in Afganistan over 7 years, examples of which are too numerous to list here. (And the list goes on and on.)

Tell me, Henry, do you have problems with respect to Obama's misconduct in any those aforementioned six areas?

Face it, Henry:If ... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Face it, Henry:

If we put all of the Democrats north of the Mason-Dixon Line, and all of the Republicans and Independents south of the Mason-Dixon Line, that area north of the Mason-Dixon Line would become a Third World Country and a basket case within less than a decade, and that is an understatement.

People, let's all remember ... (Below threshold)
John M:

People, let's all remember the voters have the power in this country so far. That is how the founders wanted it when they formed this great country. However, over time we the people have given to much power to the government and not used our power wisely.
As for comparing Reagan and Obama economic policies, Reagan for most of his term had a Democrat congress to deal with. So far Obama has had a super majority of his own party to deal with. If you want to look at the Bush years you can ignore the fact that the economy was going well with the lowest peacetime jobless rate until the Democrats took over Congress. With Nancy Pelosi in charge, everything has gone downward.
We in two year will see a more complete picture of Obamanomics. For one believe it will be worse than trickle down Reaganomics because Obamanomics is money trickling down from the government not the privet sector. The government can only trickle down what it collects (at the point of a gun I may add), borrows or prints. In either case, the money trickles down to us. The Democrats like to blame the Republicans for everything. If that were the case, why did they not pass all of the issues they wanted passed? Their agenda was going to make the country perfect for us all. They had a super majority and the Republicans could not stop them.
Those of you who like the government to pay all your bills. Has your life gotten any better since you started depending on the government? In 50+ years I have yet to see someone become richer off government assistance (government trickling down money to you). However, I have seen many people become richer from money trickling down from their employer and then re-investing that money into resources to start a better income source for themselves. They didn't sit there and bitch how bad they had it. They did something about it.
Even if they did not become millionaires, they provided a better life for themselves and their families. You can sit there and think equal outcome makes you feel better, but in the end you are still miserable. Equal outcome only means everyone is equally miserable. One thing is for sure. The Democrats and Republican establishments won't help you. They are both supported by big money and big money only is concerned for itself. Party affiliation notwithstanding.
I for one am tired of rich lawyers telling me that they are going to make my life better if I vote for them. Having read the bills they pass, I only see them helping themselves and not the average person. The Democrats are controlled by big corporations every bit as much as Republicans. The difference being is we know the Republicans aren't hiding it. Unions control the Democrats and if you don't think they are big corporations to then you need to get your head out of the sand. They want you to think they are for you, but they are profit motivated as well.
I can tell you that history has proven that the course that Obama is taking has failed every time. You will find no evidence to the contrary. On the other hand, the course Reagan took put over 21 million more people to work.
You have to decide who you want telling you what to do, the government whom you can't escape or industry who you can escape. Capitalism has created more opportunities to escape misery than the government has. Choose wisely my friend.

Far be it from me, Mr SPQR,... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Far be it from me, Mr SPQR, to defend any and all actions of the Obama administration. I'm just pointing out the fact that any president, Republican or Democrat, would have had a difficult time sorting out the mess the country was in in January 2009.

Whether you trace the economy's troubles back only as far as 2007, as you insist on doing, or take a longer view, as is my position, it's my contention that any President's poll numbers would be slumping right about now - and how would Wizbangers explain THAT? Surely not by attributing his remaining support to freeloaders, titsuckers, and minorities, eh?

As for "addressing the basics," as I said, I think the "basics" are the 30 years of conservative ascendancy that preceded the financial crisis. You seem focused only on blaming Democrats. I disagree. I think Democrats like Bill Clinton and other DLC types are just as much to blame as Republicans for buying into the false Greenspanian bullshit that led us to this point. Privatized profit and Socialized risk - that's what got us into this quagmire. Whether Obama's policies can help get us out or not I don't know; but more trickledown ain't gonna do it either.

And besides Holder's unwill... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

And besides Holder's unwillingness to prosecute terrorts, that incompetent twit hasn't prosecuted terrorists either.

I like your capacity for se... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

I like your capacity for self-deprecating humor regarding typos, Mr SPQR. You're alright.

I'll tell you what, Henry: ... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

I'll tell you what, Henry: When the south secedes from the Union, we'll give you all of the attorneys and psychiatrists. You'll need them. We won't have any use for them anymore.

I hope the South doesn't se... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

I hope the South doesn't secede. I was born and raised here. I don't want to live in Wizbangistan.

Tell me, Henry, inasmuch as... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Tell me, Henry, inasmuch as you won't or can't defend Obama, why are you attacking what you call "Wiz Bangers" here? It strikes me as kind of rude and senseless ..... and weird.

"I hope the South doesn't s... (Below threshold)
914:

"I hope the South doesn't secede. I was born and raised here. I don't want to live in Wizbangistan."


Well Barry's changing this country into indonesiakenyanistan so pick your poison.

I'm not "attacking" Wizbang... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

I'm not "attacking" Wizbangers, Mr SPQR, simply taking issue with some of the comments. "Wizbangers" is kind of my shorthand for those conservatives/libertarians/Bushdeadenders who comment here. It's not meant to be offensive. I'm sorry if you find it to be so.

No apology necessary, Henry... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

No apology necessary, Henry. You're a good sport.

Well, some here find me obn... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Well, some here find me obnoxious, Mr SPQR.

I found this site because, as a regular reader of a liberal site called OliverWillis.com, I was introduced to a guy named Jay Tea, who was what some would call a "troll" there. This was in 2004, I think. I liked the idea of being a contrary voice on an ideologically opposing site, and so I would sometimes visit here and occasionally post a comment. After the 2008 election, I began coming here more frequently.

Although it may not always seem to be the case, I respect most of the authors and commenters here. In the heat of argument, or in the spirit of sarcasm, I sometimes say things I probably shouldn't, but I hope it's all taken in the spirit in which it is intended: good clean fun.

See, there are lots of very... (Below threshold)
Jim Addison:

See, there are lots of very stupid people out there.

I blame 40 years of Democratic control of public education. They have achieved their goal of turning out an electorate poorly enough educated to vote for Democrats.

"...an electorate poorly en... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

"...an electorate poorly enough educated." You go to public school, too, Mr Emeritus Gravitas?

Back to the subject of the article - polling - have you seen the latest Newsweek and CNN polls? They show that more Americans blame Bush and the Republicans for the recession than blame Obama and the Democrats. And they show the public clearly wants more spending on job creation. They do agree with Rasmussen, though, about Obama's approval/disapproval numbers.

Got a link, Bruce?... (Below threshold)
Sky Captain:

Got a link, Bruce?

I need to check the distribution of respondents in the polls. I'll bet they're biased towards Democrats, as usual.

What's ironic is that peopl... (Below threshold)
Tsar Nicholas II:

What's ironic is that people who vote for Democrats are so numbingly stupid they won't even be able to figure out the irony inherent in that 24% vs. 45% dichotomy.

44 months now with Liberal ... (Below threshold)

44 months now with Liberal Democrats in control of the House, the Senate and the purse strings of this country.
What have they accomplished?
What do we get?
The answer: Its all President Bush's fault!

Umm, you need a link to CNN... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Umm, you need a link to CNN and Newsweek, Captain?

Come on, click a couple of times. You'll find it.

Unlike Bruce, I provide lin... (Below threshold)
Sky Captain:

Unlike Bruce, I provide links.

here's the CNN poll:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/09/03/rel12b.pdf

It was conducted by telephone Sept 1-2, has no party breakdown.
It ain't worth much, as there is a lack of respondent data.
Also, telephone polls are pretty unreliable as they are biased towards those at home.

Not finding any such poll on Newsweek's website, though.
Which is why I asked Bruce for links.

Sky Captain,Liberals... (Below threshold)
John M:

Sky Captain,
Liberals don't need facts. They rely on the left's word and take it as fact. Truth is not what they want. Truth is the last thing these heart string people want. Only control over our lives because they are not rugged enough to make it on their own.

My guess on the 24% that st... (Below threshold)
John S:

My guess on the 24% that strongly approve? 12% is black population because Obama is 1/8 black and has a negro dialec when he wants to. The other 12%? Federal and state employees sucking furiously on the public tit.

I have asked this question ... (Below threshold)
John:

I have asked this question over and over and over again, when does Obama become responsible for his presidency, I don't get a damn about trickle down Reaganomics the 80's are long gone folks. The democrates have controled congress since 2007 they have contolled the presidency since 2009. Now we're not even satisfied with blaming Bush we have to blame Reagan? That's just truly amazing considering the complete and utter failure he followed into office. The problems facing America today belong to Obama and the democrats, come Jan 2011 the republicans might get to share in the responsiblity, I sure hope they do a better job than this bunch is doing, if they don't then they will be out on their ears as they should be.




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