PDA

View Full Version : Poll: Obama's approval hits new low



Gingersnap
03-31-2011, 10:33 AM
Poll: Obama's approval hits new low

http://i54.tinypic.com/2qrzqxh.jpg
Since early March President Obama's approval rating has dropped 4 percentage points. | AP Photo Close

By JENNIFER EPSTEIN | 3/30/11 7:57 AM EDT

President Barack Obama’s approval rating and prospects for reelection have plunged to all-time lows in a Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday.

Half of the registered voters surveyed for the poll think that the president does not deserve a second term in office, while 41 percent say he does. In another Quinnipiac poll released just four weeks ago, 45 percent said the president did not deserve reelection, while 47 percent said he did.

The decline in support for a second Obama term comes as his approval rating has dropped 4 percentage points since early March, landing at 42 percent – a record low – in the poll released Wednesday. His disapproval rating has risen from 46 percent to 48 percent.

The downward shift may in part be the result of dissatisfaction over U.S involvement in Libya, with 47 percent of those surveyed saying they oppose it. By a margin of 58 percent to 29 percent, registered voters said that Obama has not clearly stated U.S. goals for the mission.

The poll as conducted March 22-28 and surveyed 2,069 registered voters. The error margin is plus or minus 2.2 percentage points.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/52208.html#ixzz1IBhCUajq

Arroyo_Doble
03-31-2011, 10:46 AM
Wars aren't as fun as they used to be.

lacarnut
03-31-2011, 10:53 AM
Wars aren't as fun as they used to be.

Since you have never served, how would you know.:rolleyes:

Arroyo_Doble
03-31-2011, 11:02 AM
Since you have never served, how would you know.:rolleyes:

I was being glib. Usually, the president's approval numbers go up when military action is taken by the United States; rally 'round the flag and all that. That Obama's have gone down should be an ominous sign for Democrats.

Until now, I pretty much thought Obama was a shoe in for a second term. Not any longer.

Articulate_Ape
03-31-2011, 11:14 AM
It's "shoo-in", he hasn't been even close to that for a year and a half, unless you are a member of his cult or the MSM (although that might be redundant).

Arroyo_Doble
03-31-2011, 11:17 AM
It's "shoo-in",

I didn't know that. Or if I did, I had forgotten. Thanks.

Apocalypse
03-31-2011, 11:36 AM
Lets see why its down.

Libya war

Iraq War

Afghanistan War

Guantanamo Bay Prison

Torture of Bradley E. Manning.

Trials at Guantanamo Restarted.

Economy

Failed Healthcare Reform

Failed Stimulus

Debt

High Unemployment

I said it before, and will say it once more. Obama is officially a one term pResident. His own party is now turning on him.

Arroyo_Doble
03-31-2011, 11:39 AM
Lets see why its down.

Libya war

Iraq War

Afghanistan War

Guantanamo Bay Prison

Torture of Bradley E. Manning.

Trials at Guantanamo Restarted.

Economy

Failed Healthcare Reform

Failed Stimulus

Debt

High Unemployment

I said it before, and will say it once more. Obama is officially a one term pResident. His own party is now turning on him.

That one is the key.

lacarnut
03-31-2011, 12:06 PM
That one is the key.

Yep, that doomed daddy Bush when the economy went south.

Apocalypse
03-31-2011, 12:11 PM
That one is the key.

They all are in a way if you think about it.

Yes the Economy will be a large roll in getting re-elected or not. But take other things into consideration.

Obama likely won't pick up many Republican support, unless we really drop the ball and put up another McCain style or worse candidate. And even at this point, if we do, many still won't support Obama.

SO that leaves Indy's and Dems.

Indy's right in recent polls will go GOP over Obama.

So he has to pick up both his base Dems, a large share of them and get them motivated to vote, and recover those lost indy's

With the first three on that list;


Libya war

Iraq War

Afghanistan War

Obama is likely to see the anti-war crowed to sit at home on their hands then vote this round, especially over Libya.

Torture of Bradley E. Manning. & Trials at Guantanamo Restarted.
This will cost him the extreme far left. Especially if it becomes a topic during the election.



Failed Healthcare Reform if popularity remains were it is, he won't be able to run on its passing. And will get beat over the head with it. Much like the '10 elections where not one Dem ran on its passing, and the only Dems who did well, ran against it. Obama can't run against it.

Debt will likely be around 18 - 19 Trillion come '12, and will be an explosive topic. And with Obama running a 1.5 trillion a year deficit almost his whole presidency, this will be a around his neck. He promised he would cut the deficit in half, but he has almost doubled it.

High Unemployment & Economy go hand in hand. And if both remain where or near to where they are now. Expect a wave to sweep him out like that he rode in on.

NJCardFan
03-31-2011, 01:49 PM
A further nail in the coffin, I'm expecting to see a far left candidate, like Nader, running essentially taking more votes away from Obama. You might see a GOP candidate win with the same margin of victory that Clinton did in 1992.

Arroyo_Doble
03-31-2011, 02:04 PM
A further nail in the coffin, I'm expecting to see a far left candidate, like Nader, running essentially taking more votes away from Obama. You might see a GOP candidate win with the same margin of victory that Clinton did in 1992.

Are you talking about a primary challenge or another party altogether such as the Green Party?

Odysseus
03-31-2011, 03:07 PM
Wars aren't as fun as they used to be.
Especially if you don't have an entry strategy, nevermind and exit strategy.


It's "shoo-in", he hasn't been even close to that for a year and a half, unless you are a member of his cult or the MSM (although that might be redundant).
Not necessarily. While the MSM belongs to his cult, not all members of his cult are in the MSM. The MSM is a subset of the cult. :D

Are you talking about a primary challenge or another party altogether such as the Green Party?

It would have to be a third party. Any Democrat who tried to challenge Obama in the primaries would either lose to him, or have to run in the general election without the black vote, which is about 18% of the Democrats' base. If the primary were really ugly, some of the black vote might jump to the Republicans.

Arroyo_Doble
03-31-2011, 03:11 PM
It would have to be a third party. Any Democrat who tried to challenge Obama in the primaries would either lose to him, or have to run in the general election without the black vote, which is about 18% of the Democrats' base. If the primary were really ugly, some of the black vote might jump to the Republicans.

I think a more likely scenario (although a low probability), is a true Tea Party candidate if that wing of the Republican Party is not satisfied by the Republican Party ticket.

malloc
03-31-2011, 03:16 PM
I think a more likely scenario (although a low probability), is a true Tea Party candidate if that wing of the Republican Party is not satisfied by the Republican Party ticket.

I think the Tea Party is going to have the biggest seat at the table when it comes to choosing the Republican nominee. The Tea Party had the largest say in who won 2010 nominations and I don't see that changing for 2012.

Arroyo_Doble
03-31-2011, 03:23 PM
I think the Tea Party is going to have the biggest seat at the table when it comes to choosing the Republican nominee. The Tea Party had the largest say in who won 2010 nominations and I don't see that changing for 2012.

I agree completely which is why I consider it a low probability. The tea party wing of the Republican Party will either pick the nominee outright or the VP but I doubt they will be happy with just a VP slot. The nominee will have to pander to them or be one of them.

If I am not mistaken, the Republican primary will choose delegate proportionally throughout the United States. That could make for an interesting race in the way the Democratic primary in 2008 was.

MountainMan
03-31-2011, 11:04 PM
Since you have never served, how would you know.:rolleyes:

Actually, if I remember correctly, Oreo has served and if so, deserves an apology. :rolleyes:

AmPat
03-31-2011, 11:42 PM
The O Bammy focus group will attack the pollsters. Numbers don't matter to this administration.

lacarnut
04-01-2011, 11:17 AM
Actually, if I remember correctly, Oreo has served and if so, deserves an apology. :rolleyes:

He can speak for himself. There is a possibility that your memory is flawed.

Arroyo_Doble
04-01-2011, 11:21 AM
He can speak for himself. There is a possibility that your memory is flawed.

Mau is right. I served in the US Army in my youth.

lacarnut
04-01-2011, 11:31 AM
Mau is right. I served in the US Army in my youth.

My bad, I apologize

Arroyo_Doble
04-01-2011, 11:47 AM
My bad, I apologize

No problem. Thanks.

Odysseus
04-01-2011, 01:05 PM
I agree completely which is why I consider it a low probability. The tea party wing of the Republican Party will either pick the nominee outright or the VP but I doubt they will be happy with just a VP slot. The nominee will have to pander to them or be one of them.

If I am not mistaken, the Republican primary will choose delegate proportionally throughout the United States. That could make for an interesting race in the way the Democratic primary in 2008 was.

It will make it very interesting. Proportional delegate selection requires that candidates campaign through almost the entire primary season, as it is much harder to get a decisive edge early on. That's a forcing function for the candidates to hit every state. It also means that it's a lot harder for the establishment to pick a candidate, as Romney will not get more than a plurality of votes. The various conservative candidates tend to split the base vote, so in the old system, they would eliminate the conservatives early on. This way, if one of the conservative candidates has a weak following, they have the option of turning their delegates over to a stronger one that they are in sync with.

CueSi
04-01-2011, 03:04 PM
Since you have never served, how would you know.:rolleyes:

I think A_D is ex-USAF.

~QC

Arroyo_Doble
04-01-2011, 03:17 PM
I think A_D is ex+USAF.

~QC

What lacarnut said didn't bother me but that is just fucking rude.

Bailey
04-01-2011, 04:10 PM
What lacarnut said didn't bother me but that is just fucking rude.

It couldve been worse she could've said you were ex navy ;) :p

Odysseus
04-01-2011, 04:24 PM
What lacarnut said didn't bother me but that is just fucking rude.

Remind me to tell you my stories of the USAF at Balad some time.

CueSi
04-01-2011, 04:28 PM
What lacarnut said didn't bother me but that is just fucking rude.

Are you talking about him or me?

~QC

Phillygirl
04-01-2011, 04:35 PM
Are you talking about him or me?

~QC

You...he's insulted that you thought he was air force.

CueSi
04-01-2011, 08:05 PM
You...he's insulted that you thought he was air force.

I am not sure whether I should laugh or not. It was either Army or Air Force. <shrug> Either way, he served, which contradicts lacarnut's assertion.

So... yeah.


~QC

JB
04-01-2011, 09:02 PM
There is a possibility that your memory is flawed.The irony.

Odysseus
04-02-2011, 12:26 AM
I am not sure whether I should laugh or not. It was either Army or Air Force. <shrug> Either way, he served, which contradicts lacarnut's assertion.

So... yeah.


~QC

Yes, but calling a Soldier an Airman is like mistaking a bull for an ox. :D