« | »

Obama’s Disapproval Doubles In 1 Month

From the “blog section” of a suddenly chastened Los Angeles Times:

One month in, Barack Obama’s approval slips, disapproval doubles

By Andrew Malcolm

One month down, 47 to go.

And Barack Obama’s poll numbers have slid almost 10% already. According to the latest Gallup Poll, the new president’s approval rating of 68% in January has slipped now to 63%, about average for recent new presidents one month in.

What isn’t average, however, is Obama’s new disapproval rating — 24%, or 50% higher than the 16% average for a month-old new presidency.

And it’s twice the 12% disapproval rate that Obama had last month.

While liberal and independent support has held fairly steady, the rookie chief executive’s approval among Republicans has plunged from 41% to 30%, presumably tied at least somewhat to growing awareness of the spending program. The drop has been especially steep among conservatives, from 36% at inauguration to 22% now.

Additionally, Obama’s support has weakened among middle-class Americans, those touted during the campaign as benefiting from his promised tax cuts. Among that working crowd, Obama’s approval fell from 69% to 58%

Historically, 63-62% approval after a month is about average; Ronald Reagan had the worst at 55%, and Jimmy Carter had the best at 71%. Look how they turned out.

In fact, after 30 days, the Gallup Poll shows Obama has about the same approval rating as did George H.W. Bush and his son, George W. Bush, the man whose eight years in office the Illinois senator so often denounced as destructive during the recent campaign.

What’s surprising, as the astute Don Surber points out this morning, is that the gap between approval and disapproval is worse now for Obama than it was for the newly departed Texan after his first month. Bush’s differential gap was 41 points between approval and disapproval. Obama’s is 39 points, still above Bill Clinton, who had the worst differential of 30 points. Carter again had the best after one month of 62. Richard Nixon had 54

Of course we put little stock in polls, which are almost always contrived to drive the media’s agenda.

But if these are the numbers our watchdog press are reporting, imagine how many are already disenchanted with our new President?

And most don’t even know what has hit them yet.

(We also enjoyed the image that the LA Times selected to illustrate this article.)

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, February 24th, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

47 Responses to “Obama’s Disapproval Doubles In 1 Month”

  1. Steve says:

    Mr. Limbaugh is discussing this article as we type.

  2. MinnesotaRush says:

    lol .. right on, Steve .. this is a “poignant” photo to use for this article!

    I’d sure expect that as more and more folks wake up and see thru o-blah-blah’s smoke and mirrors and become better informed .. his ratings will continue to plummet at rocket speed. Tragically however as we know, while it’s headed there, the impact of this meteoric o-blah-blah & crew will, too, continue to be catastrophic.

  3. Helena says:

    Hahahaha! EXCELLENT PHOTO!

  4. proreason says:

    we need a mulligan

  5. Dangerous says:

    I can feel an “I told you so” brewing, but I don’t want to throw it at his former supporters yet. I think the end of his first hundred days would be a far more appropriate moment.

    • Right of the People says:

      I’m surprised that the disapproval rate is as low at it is. I thought it would be at least 75 to 80 % by now.

      10-7

    • caligirl9 says:

      There are still plenty of un-enlightened Americans drinking the kool-aid.
      Not to mention the ones who are waiting for the check that is in the mail, no doubt personally signed by TCO himself!

  6. Alice L. says:

    I laugh when I hear “give him a chance”. He had a chance – and in one week he destroyed the economy, and in two weeks, the military

  7. Confucius says:

    These numbers might explain Obama’s obsession with conservative pundits and compulsion to continue selling the stimulus plan.

    His ego is as large as it is fragile.

  8. Confucius says:

    Who knew polls could be cowardly racists?

    Could we get a little affirmative action over here?

  9. nascarnation says:

    I think Baraq’s plan is to do a Chavez and rule for life.
    If he can pump out enough welfare, he’s got a decent shot at a permanent electoral majority.

    Although some states would eventually secede.

    • proreason says:

      That would be an interesting scenario, and I don’t think it’s as far-fetched as it sounds. We’ve never had anybody with an ego close to what this idiot has.

      But there is already some talk about secession, and it could get a lot louder in the next few months. I can see him getting 2 terms no matter how bad it gets, because, as you say, he can welfare himself over 50%. But if he goes for three terms (assuming the country could last that long), there would be a revolution, for sure.

      The other interesting question is how much support he will get from the military. Before he was inaugurated, I wondered out loud about what kind of support he would have from the military, and a number of the patriots here got pretty upset about it. I wonder what they think now.

    • JohnMG says:

      I can’t speak for all the military, Pro, but I will say this much. At our most recent Marine Corps League meeting we had as a guest speaker the Sgt.Major of the 3rd Bn/24th Marines who will be deploying later this year–either to Iraq or Afghanistan. (The orders are subject to change.) He told us of many high-level briefings he had attended and the policy papers he had seen, and said he was at first a skeptic about Obama, but had since changed his mind and thought the services would be well served by him. The Sgt.Maj. wouldn’t elaborate, however, whether from a security perspective or other reasons left unexplained.

      Most of us in attendance were stunned. Though the League, by charter, must remain neutral in political matters, most of us don’t have a scintilla of confidence in Obama, yet here was a career Marine, about to deploy to a war zone, talking him up. Is it possible Obama has even flim-flammed the military so early in the game? Personally I feel a double-cross in the works.

    • MinnesotaRush says:

      Pro .. this may help depict some of the sentiment within the military:

      “Soldier doubts eligibility, defies president’s orders”

      ‘As an officer, my sworn oath to support and defend our Constitution requires this’

      By Bob Unruh
      © 2009 WorldNetDaily

      “Soldier Scott Easterling, a U.S. soldier on active duty in Iraq has called President Obama an “impostor” in a statement in which he affirmed plans to join as plaintiff in a challenge to Obama’s eligibility to be commander in chief.”

      Wardmama and I both posted comment on this over in the “selected news from our correspondents” earlier today; but, wow …. tough spot for all these folks to be in.

    • MinnesotaRush says:

      A serious and dangerous double cross (if it is). Hate to think of the many ramifications of that ….

    • proreason says:

      In case you didn’t see Ralph Peter’s column today, it’s about Afghanistan.

      http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/02/the-mendacity-o.html

      He says we need to get out, which I’ve thought for a few years now.

      The Moron, of course is sending troops in, while he announces combat withdrawl from Iraq NEXT YEAR. Sometimes I wonder if I’m crazy. It seems like everything the fool does is precisely the opposite of what should be done.

      John, re the Sgt Major, I think any spokesperson for the military has to be extremely careful about what he/she says. None of Hitler’s generals spoke out against him while they were feverishly trying to kill him (not drawing a direct analogy to Hitler by thet. Even I don’t think the Moron has reached Hitler’s level of mania…yet). The true sentiment would never be expressed in public.

    • JohnMG says:

      Be that as it may, Pro, my own experience and that of most of my contemporaries is that if he hadn’t been sincere in his sentiment, he wouldn’t have brought it up but would have remained noncommital–part of the ol’ ‘If you can’t say anything nice about someone, don’t say anything at all’ adage. That’s how we’ve all been taught to handle such situations.

      The purpose of the Sgt.Maj.’s talk was to inform us of the coming deployment and the preparation for stageing. Our detachment, along with others have formed a support/relief group for the spouses and dependents who will remain behind. My own pledge is to make my business available to provide help or assistance should any emergency construction needs arise. Others have pledged similarly in their own areas of expertise. This meeting was to bring us together with those families at some point in the future so that they were aware of the potential help should it be needed. Why he even brought up the topic of Obama is beyond me.

  10. 1sttofight says:

    It was really sweet of you to drop by xo, now run along and play with the other children. Adults are talking here.

    • MinnesotaRush says:

      Disappointed???

    • JohnMG says:

      xo; …..”Hey if there is a revolution, will all you republicans move to the south……”

      Nope. Won’t be any need to go there. First thing we’ll probably do is look you up and say hello. (Nice facts, by the way–straight from the DNC talking points.)

  11. 1sttofight says:

    If they are publishing these numbers, just imagine how high his REAL negatives are.

  12. Zilla says:

    Ignorant republican followers can start ripping me/ name calling now.…xo

    Too bad you hillbillies are in the minority these days.…xo

    Uh…

  13. canary says:

    oxoxox/ you must be Nancy Pelosi, gushing about how wonderful the muslims are. All that Love they neighbor, and we’ll love them til they love us b.s. as more suicidal bombers killing their own innocent children. Now Al-quaida using woman and children as human shields in the most dangerous area on the upper border of Pakistan and Afganistan. It amazes me as it all plays out on the streets up there, the democrats are saying how wonderful they are.

  14. Rusty Shackleford says:

    Watching Bo-Bo last night….I could stand only one minute of it. While looking for something, anything worth watching, I had to scan past those stations that carried his “talking down to the American people”.

    In one minute, here is what I heard and saw.

    -Lip service paid to a significantly less-than-enamored US military…those who were somehow “asked” to be there. (anyone who’s a veteran will know what I mean)
    -A very good impression of George C Scott, doing an impression of “Il Duce” when Mussolini would “make a statement of fact” during one of his “talking down to the Italian people” moments, then folding his arms and sticking out his chin and pressing his lips in a defiant look and nodding.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Body language is key.

    I happened to hear he intends to increase the number of soldiers. Enlistment right now is already pretty high, so it’s not like he can claim responsibility for that. But remember folks, simultaneously, he will most likely cut funding for equipment. And, like Carter who somehow expected us to utilize broken, worn out, ancient equipment, I guess if you have a bazillion troops with slingshots, that’ll get the job done.

    Since most civilians nowadays have never even been NEAR a military installation, let alone served on active duty or the reserves/guard, there’s an interesting phenomenon that happens.

    They actually think that a 25 year old jet that’s never been in combat, is just as good as a brand new one. In one conversation with someone of xoxoxox’s ilk, the notion is that an F-16 sits on the ramp, fueled and “ready-to-go” but since it was never used in combat, is actually never used. Much like the gun that sits in the night-table drawer awaiting the moment when a burglar comes into the house.

    No thought (key point) is given to the concept that all military members USE this equipment in the capacity for which it was intended, to stay practiced in the “art of war”. They think the same about the Army and its tanks, Hummers, etc. That in a peacetime military, all that equipment that was “jut parked and waiting” suddenly gets mobilized and sent off to wherever.

    This fallacy, born of phobia, mostly, and a desire and choice to NOT understand how the military works, runs headlong into the more pragmatic theory of operational readiness. But liberals, during the Reagan years loved to use phrases like “bristling with weaponry” and “chock full with ammo” and similar emotionally generated, notional ideas that evoke images of a military just waiting to pop out mortars like a PEZ dispenser on some unsuspecting (and innocent) child who was just playing with a kitty.

    Which brings me to the next fallacy: That liberals believe military people LOVE the idea of going to war.

    Well, there is no way to explain to a liberal the basic fundamental difference between a young person who has raised their right hand and sworn to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States” versus someone who wants to study global warming and make sure that trees have rights, too.

    But to put it simply, they answer to and adhere to a much higher ideal than the tree rights activist. It takes absolutely NO courage to stand up for the rights of trees. None. To say otherwise is ridiculous.

    And I say “higher ideal” because they, as young as they often are, are acutely aware of the ridicule and downright hatred they will face from their high-school and college friends who still say that “war is about killing people, and it’s ikky and stuff”. And, because they enlist while completely understanding they may have to defend the rights of the tree-rights activist some day.

    And yet they do it anyway. Not because they WANT to go to war. In fact, war is usually the LAST thing they want. But they understand that there are bad people out there who want what we have. Yes, even in this marvelous, modern age we live in.

    If 9/11 is but a foggy memory to the average liberal….it is very much in the minds of young people who still feel compelled to protect what we have and what we are. It’s not of the desire to kill people. In fact, one of a soldier’s most ponderous moments is of the time when they are called upon and actually have to kill another human being. It’s not a “fun” thing for any of them. It’s a responsibility of enormous weight. And, the military spends a great deal of time to prepare a soldier for that moment. And, for those liberals who think it’s a “gung-ho” blood fest hoopla of an event…I would ask you to attend the classes these soldiers take, that are taught by careful, thoughtful people who don’t,in any way, encourage senseless violence. Quite the opposite.

    In any case, Bo-Bo will never understand that. Indeed, by watching his arrogance, I’m sure he quite believes that he does. Having never worn the uniform, and never held a job, never been responsible or accountable, his is the mind of a dreamer. A raconteur of stories that were told to him by hateful people and thus, his touchstone is only the experience of others.

    It physically hurts to even watch him address our military members….100%VOLUNTEER military members and treat them as a used car salesman treats his marks in the lot.

    In the words of an Indian chief, a friend of mine who died some time ago, I will say this about Obama, “He thinks he is important. But what he says is not and I do not hear his words.”

    • pdsand says:

      He said he’s going to cut spending on defense for cold war weapons that we don’t use. If he can stop the war in Iraq and Afghanistan I suppose just about all the weapons in the military could be described as cold war weapons we don’t use. Cut all the weapons out of the budget and increase spending on welfare type benefits for Soldiers and veterans.
      One of the philosophical things I think Obama wants to achieve is to change the military back to a college scholarship program a la Clinton. That’s why all the lipservice to “supporting the troops” because for liberals it’s so easy to spend on big government programs for the military and the VA, they basically look at the Soldiers as welfare cases. Remember all the talk from Kerry about people down and out and forced to join the military?
      That’s why the visceral anger towards Bush sending troops into war, the whole idea of commander-in-chief and wartime interrupts their ideas of social engineering through the military.

    • pdsand says:

      To clarify, health care and the GI Bill and probably almost all veterans and military benefits are not welfare. I would consider something like the paternity leave that just came out, secondary dependency, or the exceptional family member programs to be “welfare” type benefits for the military. Nothing wrong with them if you have the time, opportunity and money to do them, but they are definitely not particularly related to the mission. It’s these programs or more like them that I’m sure are going to be increased in the new Obama budgets, whereas silly things like planes and tanks will decrease.

    • proreason says:

      “He said he’s going to cut spending on defense for cold war weapons that we don’t use”

      why would you, for even a second, accept, believe or repeat a single word that The Moron says?

      – It’s clear he intends to destroy the economy and replace it with Socialism.

      – It’s clear he intends to rig the electoral process to insure radicals are in office forever.

      – And he might be trying to destroy our military strength. It’s not yet 100% clear, and it on the surface somehing that looney seems unbelievable. But understand that the left WANT a world government under the U.N. They HATE the United States of America and everything that our country has stood for.

      So I think there is a substantial chance that he is in fact trying to destroy our national security.

    • MinnesotaRush says:

      Thanks, Rusty .. well said ….

    • pdsand says:

      Exactly, gut the military from a national security standpoint. Remove all warfighting capabilities and spend the bare minimum on equipment. The only thing Obama or any of the liberals can use the military for is as a quasi-welfare system. They especially hope that the wars wind down badly, so they can try and cow conservatives against the prospect of ever…heaven forbid…using the military to defend this country in a war ever again, the way they tried to do after Vietnam.

  15. proreason says:

    “Obama didn’t destroy the economy in 1 week and he won’t fix it in 100 days either”

    and the U.S. didn’t destroy Hiroshima in one day either.

    xoxoxoxo is so concerned with Bush’s economics but could care frigging less about tripling the deficit the first month in office.

    That’s called “being brain dead”

  16. oldswimcoach says:

    XOXO – sorry, as a career military officer I don’t buy your posturing. Your points appear to be from a PFC’s perspective at best, but more like a left wing postured belief about how the military [should] view things.

    I do not pretend to speak for the military in the comments below, but from one who has been there, currently wears the uniform and has experienced the medical system first hand (illness not wounds) let me pass on my thoughts:

    “He also spent time over in Afghanistan where our CIA had trained another guy named Bin Laden.”

    Never happened. Might want to read “Ghost Wars” – probably the most objective account of Afghanistan I’ve read. Bin Lauden is a product of Saudi and Paki intel subsidies, not CIA/US subsidies. He was under the radar as far as the CIA was concerned, because the Taliban was the clear and present danger up through 9-11.

    “and was actually at the airport in Kuwait liberating that country from the grasps of a man that was an ally of HW’s.”

    Well actually this is “an enemy of my enemy is my friend” logic. Yup, we funded Hussein and even supplied him with chemical weapons (oops, that means he really did have WMDs, ’cause we had the receipts!). Iran was and is a larger strategic threat than Iraq, and if Sadaam was willing to wage a war to weaken them and tie down their move towards regional hegemony, well sometimes in the real world you take ugly deals that are available to advance your strategic interests. It’s not pristine, but it works, and both Democrat and Republican administrations have used this tactic.

    “how bout when he comes into office and leaves with a 6 trillion debt after 8 years. He also squandered that 500 billion surplus that was left behind”

    Well there was this little attack on our economic system as well as our country that played a tinsee, weensie role in this issue. Just sayin’…

    “As for reducing spending, how bout W who let our soldiers come home w/brain injuries and rot like the facilities at Walter Reed Medical which is the VA facility for these guys. Once they were here he didn’t give a damn about the fact he was sticking these guys in a hospital room with mold on the walls.”

    Actually this is not the scandal it is purported to be. The facilities are always the lowest of funding priorities, and oh by the way, if memory serves, the DEMOCRATS held a number of war funding bills hostage to social program growth. Basically those moral paragons would rather fund welfare for the non-productive over facilities for veterans, but I digress!

    The care at Walter Reed is incredible for wounded veterans (combat illness is a different and less positive story). The housing facilities for long term recuperative care was derived from mothballed facilities pressed into use because of high demand. Not saying this is OK, but the Army doesn’t just put people in moldy substandard rooms if better facilities are available, and they can’t just magically make facilities appear over night. This was an example where a level of risk was accepted by the senior leadership in the Army, and that risk came back to haunt them. And something that has never happened before to a DEMOCRAT politician (OK, maybe it happened once…), people were held accountable and lost careers over the issue!

    “While in Iraq they were very poorly equipped while Halliburton made over 1 billion on a 7 billion contract and then stole another billion of it.”

    Sorry, we were not poorly equipped. We had the best equipment available in quantities the DEMOCRATS allowed us to field – while I bitch about the Democrats, truth is it was enough, and of good quality. Bush was 2 years into his presidency before he had his first shot at the POM (military budget process). The issue now is we have not mobilized for war economically, and there is an issue on the near term of worn out equipment that will need to be addressed, but that’s a different issue than we are “poorly equipped.”

    As to Halliburton, they are one of about three companies worldwide that have the cash flow, cash reserves, workforce, and expertise to provide rebuilding a national infrastructure and simultaneous supporting a deployed combat force (KBR and a French company are the only two others I am aware of, but there may be more). They take incredible economic risk in a project like this, and like it or not, in a free market high risk generally equals high reward. There is nothing immoral about this. If Halliburton lost 1 billion on a 7 billion contract would you be griping about how unfair the US defense contracting remuneration is? Didn’t think so.

    I could go on, but this post is too long already, and likely wasted time any way, because you appear to have a mind of cement – all mixed up and permanently set!

    • proreason says:

      He’s a fool coach. I responded for a while as well.

      But SJ correctly pointed out that he should be ignored.

      Save your brainpower for the adults on the site.

  17. proreason says:

    This is how the criminally deranged think about our country.

    http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_dual_mission

    “He (The Moron) has already come some way in changing the culture of politics, including acting with respect toward those whose party was defeated in the last election. Though Obama has frustrated some progressive Democrats who see him as caving to the enemy, this is his attempt to defuse the winner-take-all culture of Karl Rove-era politics. To do the same in the economy, he’ll have to create an alternative to this particular form of capitalist culture. Obama will have to build institutions that foster a new culture, one still driven by the quest for growth, innovation, and profit but where the returns are more broadly shared and where stewardship and sustainability are valued more than today’s share price. And if this time it is politics that reshapes capitalism, then the new culture that emerges will be one where even the winners in the economy appreciate that their wealth was made possible by a collective enterprise, government.

    For those of you thinking this is just politics as usual, take heed.

    The psychopaths are coming out of mommy’s basement.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »