« | »

Obama’s Job Approval Hits A New Low

From a discreet Gallup:

Obama Averages 61% Job Approval in June

Obama at 89% approval among Democrats, 25% among Republicans

by Frank Newport

July 8, 2009

PRINCETON, NJ — U.S. President Barack Obama averaged a 61% job approval rating for the month of June, down from his 65% average in May, and one point below his previous monthly low of 62%, recorded in March.

Obama’s June average is based on 14,914 Gallup Poll Daily tracking interviews conducted in June. The 61% average represents a five percentage-point drop compared to his 66% average for his first 11 days in office, Jan. 21-31, 2009. These two time periods — Jan. 21-31 and the month of June — are respectively the highest and the lowest monthly averages for Obama so far. This fairly narrow range underscores the fact that there has not been a great deal of change in Obama’s approval rating since he was inaugurated.

(While Obama’s approval rating has remained fairly steady, there has been significantly more change in the percentage of Americans who have no opinion of Obama, down from 19% in January to 7% in June, and those who disapprove of his job performance, up from 15% to 32%. Thus, the overall pattern has been a fairly stable positive rating of Obama’s job performance, coupled with an increase in negatives occurring concomitantly with a drop in those with no opinion.) …

Gallup does their best to put this news in a positive light for Mr. Obama.

They have even changed the headline from what they first had: “Obama’s Job Approval Dips to New Monthly Low.”

But the original can be still found here.

Funny, but we don’t recall them taking the same tack back when Mr. Bush was President and every drop in the polls was the cause for celebration.

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, July 9th, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

6 Responses to “Obama’s Job Approval Hits A New Low”

  1. proreason says:

    Rasmussen has a significantly different story.

    8% more people strongly oppose the Moron than strongly support him.

    And his overall support is at 51%, and dropping fast.

    Of course, we know that all of these polls are rigged (Rasmussen may be an exception, but who really knows).

    But still, it’s nice to see a glimmer of hope.

    And if I were Rasmussen, I would be fortifying my home, and hiring a full-time security staff.

  2. bronzeprofessor says:

    Pro Reason, I posted a link somewhere on here a few weeks ago, which documents the different accuracies of the polling companies.

    The two polling companies that were most correct in predicting the NOvember election results were Rasmussen and Pew — which means Rasmussen is probably closer to the truth in this case. Rasmussen’s method of breaking down the numbers simply makes more sense. Asking “do you approve?” is vague; that’s how Gallup does it. Rasmussen investigates the contours more closely, distinguishing between those who strongly v. mildly approve or disapprove, etc.

    Zogby’s accuracy was lower than I expected, but if I remember correctly, Zogby was close to Gallup in accuracy; these were in the middle range of accuracy.

    NBC, CBS, Time, Newsweek, the Washington Post, the LA Times, and the NY Times were all wildly off and are, for all intents and purposes, useless in terms of polling data. I would stick to cross-referencing Rasmussen against Gallup, and check in with Pew from time to time.

    Zogby can be taken or left, and Quinnipiac strikes me as erratic.

    • proreason says:

      The questions need to be really simple in any poll. It’s too easy to lead the person being polled to the answer you want.

      That’s why Presidential polls can often be very accurate. It’s the one question that is impossible to distort (but it is pretty easy to distort the sample set.)

      Unfortunately, people assume the accuracy ratings for the Presidential polls can be apply to anything the pollster wants to ask. And that leads to the SlimesWaPronbccbsabc trick of designing polls to forward their libwit agenda.

      I’m sure that it would be possible to prove that 55% of the country is solidly in favor of Charles Manson taking over the country. Just word the question correctly. (i.e., if Charles Manson and Adolf Hitler were the only 2 candidates, would your vote for ….)

  3. bronzeprofessor says:

    Here is some news that might explain the changing tides:

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-07-08-redblue_N.htm

    From USA Today:

    Billions in aid go to areas that backed Obama in ’08

    by Brad Heath

    The reports show the 872 counties that supported Obama received about $69 per person, on average. The 2,234 that supported McCain received about $34.

    Investigators who track the stimulus are skeptical that political considerations could be at work. The imbalance is so pronounced — and the aid so far from complete — that it would be almost inconceivable for it to be the result of political tinkering, says Adam Hughes, the director of federal fiscal policy for the non-profit OMB Watch. “Even if they wanted to, I don’t think the administration has enough people in place yet to actually do that,” he says.

    “Most of what they’re doing at this point is just stamping the checks and sending them out,” Hughes says.

    The stimulus package Obama signed in February includes about $499 billion in new spending, and to date, the Obama administration has allocated about $158 billion to specific projects and programs. Most of that money has gone directly to state governments, which then disperse the money to prevent school layoffs, repair roads and fund social services. That contrasts with the $17 billion that Washington distributes directly to local communities.

    I thought Joe Biden was going to be on top of things.

  4. Liberals Demise says:

    Great googley-moogley!!
    Finally something we can ALL cheer about!!
    Here is to flushing Barry and the MSM boot lickers down the ol’ loo!!


« Front Page | To Top
« | »