Rasmussen has him at 50/50 right now. You may want to check the internal demographics on party affiliationon Gallup/CBS/NYT. Or, you may not. I have, so do so at your own risk.
Interesting poll, only 2.7M votes. Not scientific though. And there's this: http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/79295.html OBAMA'S POLL NUMBERS TRAIL THOSE OF W.; GALLUP COVERS IT UP/update Gallup reports that 56% of the public believes that Obama is doing an excellent/good job. Gallup reported 62% approved of George W. Bush's job performance after the first 100 days. MSM tells us how popular Barack Obama is but the numbers tell a different story especially when used comparatively. Comparing the Gallup poll taken following the first 100 day of George W. Bush and Barack Obama is rather informative especially given the highly contentious nature of the 2000 election. Here are the numbers for other presidents: April approval ratings in first year in office Bush now 62% Clinton, 1993 55 Bush, 1989 58 Reagan, 1981 67 Carter, 1977 63 Nixon, 1969 61 Sampling error: +/-3% pts
Rasmussen has had a significant Republican house effect recently. During the campaign, Rasmussen was always the outlier in putting McCain ahead or essentially even with Obama when other polls had Obama comfortably ahead. The election didn't show Rasmussen to be right.
Con: His unequivocal support of Musharaff's military dictatorship almost stifled Pakistan's civil rights movement. Also, while I applaud his AIDS relief for Africa, I hated the Christian overtones it contained (impractical emphasis on abstinence).
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ministration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 36% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Twenty-eight percent (28%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of +8 (see trends). For the first time in years, voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on economic issues. This comes following the unpopular bailout and takeover of General Motors. Adding to the hurdles facing the struggling auto-giant, GM owners are looking elsewhere for their next car. Just 42% are likely to buy from GM again. A Rasmussen video report notes a widespread expectation that the government will be forced to provide ongoing bailout funding for GM. Few expect taxpayers to get their money back from the auto bailout. Overall, 58% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance so far. Forty-one percent (41%) disapprove. For more Presidential barometers, see Obama By the Numbers and recent demographic highlights.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html Rasmussen had Obama winning by 6, he won by 7.3. Horribly inaccurate.
Rather than cherry-picking the poll that one would like to believe, let's use them all. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/ This includes Rasmussen, along with other major polling entities. The average is 59.6 approval vs. 33.9 disapproval. Pretty healthy approval numbers, despite such a bad situation. Presidents would love such approval numbers in good times.
Rasmussen had it much closer until just before the election. Conservatives on this forum were using Rasmussen polling in September and October to suggest that it was still a toss-up when it was clear to almost everyone that Obama was pulling away.
The polls are what the polls are. Rasmussen has proven to be accurate going back several election cycles; it's reasonable that his numbers were accurate all along. You can't prove otherwise.
Rasmussen has proven to be consistent, not accurate. Once you adjust for its tilt, it's as good a poll to use as any. Regardless of what one believes about Rasmussen, they also have Obama near 60% approval and the Real Clear Politics polling index I linked averages all the latest polls, including Rasmussen. It's not good news for you.
Au contraire, it is good for me. It'd be great if Obama comes to his senses and earns that approval rating over time. And your latest polls average has 59% approval while Rasmussen has 58%. Without looking at all the polls and how the questions were asked, I can say Rasmussen clearly asks "strongly favor, somewhat favor, strongly disapprove, somewhat disapprove" while the others may not. That he's not as popular as any president after 100 days aside from clinton is bad news for you
Not if you think he's tanking in approval, as you alleged a couple of months ago. First of all, I don't much care about Obama's approval rating. I linked it only in response to Shooter's political cartoon which implied "America" no longer likes Obama, which is clearly untrue. Second of all, comparing first hundred days data isn't terribly meaningful. They all inherited different situations and the country has been getting more and more polarized over time. In today's climate, there is no way a Democratic president can win the approval of the 25-30% most right-wing conservatives or a Republican president can win the approval of the 25-30% most left-wing liberals. The only President less popular than Obama after 100 days in your data was Clinton, eh? And his Presidency proved to be so unpopular that he only won re-election in a walk. A feat that I expect Obama to duplicate. I guess we'll see.
His disapproval was rising; that was my point then. Clinton is the only two-time president in my lifetime to win with < 50% of the vote both times. Last president that did that was a democrat also, guess who Clinton didn't win the 2nd time in a walk, he won a 3 way race in which many more people voted for anyone but Clinton. More good news for you: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...od_of_america/trust_on_issues/trust_on_issues Voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on six out of 10 key issues, including the top issue of the economy. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 45% now trust the GOP more to handle economic issues, while 39% trust Democrats more. This is the first time in over two years of polling that the GOP has held the advantage on this issue. The parties were close in May, with the Democrats holding a modest 44% to 43% edge. The latest survey was taken just after General Motors announced it was going into bankruptcy as part of a deal brokered by the Obama administration that gives the government majority ownership of the failing automaker. Voters not affiliated with either party now trust the GOP more to handle economic issues by a two-to-one margin. Separate Rasmussen tracking shows that the economy remains the top issue among voters in terms of importance. Republicans also now hold a six-point lead on the issue of government ethics and corruption, the second most important issue to all voters and the top issue among unaffiliated voters. That shows a large shift from May, when Democrats held an 11-point lead on the issue.
Sure, he did. He beat his closest challenger by 8.5%. That's a very easy victory. Interesting that the only polling data you'll link is Rasmussen. Let me guess...they're the only ones who dare tell the truth? Keep quoting Rasmussen as the Democrats keep winning elections. Super-majorities in both houses and a President with high approval ratings, following an easy win to get elected. Also, the Real Clear Politics averages for Generic Congressional Vote: 44.7 Democrats / 37.0 Republicans (Democrats +7.7)
That poll was on MSNBC's WWW site. MSNBC's reporting heavily favors Obama and democrats. There is the interesting bit about that poll.
Al Gore may have won in 2000 if not for Nader and even his weak % of the vote he got. The 8.5% measures the strength of Perot who took a huge % of the vote overall (compared to Nader, for a 3rd party candidate) and almost exclusively from GHW Bush's side of the ledger. RCP's averages are meaningless as they do include the actual outliers, like Democracy Corps (D) 52-39. It's a mix of any polls, not any sort of consistent polling methodology. I choose Rasmussen because of his accurate results (as proven by his result compared to the elections) and even moreso due to his methodology (doesn't use human callers to ask the people the poll questions). Rasmussen had the Generic Congressional Vote at 47-41 Dems on election day, and now it's 40-40. Jon Corzine is down double digits in the polls for NJ governor, too. Watch out. If you want to use a consistent poll like Rasmussen or Gallup or Daily KOS or NPR, go for it. It'll have some meaning if you look at the trend over time. What Rasmussen shows is that the public doesn't feel like there's been enough time on Obama's watch to blame him for our economic woes. Republicans are starting to make some noise about pinning the economy on Obama and the democrats. The public is noticing all the spending and not happy about it, but they seem to be giving Obama a chance, which I find fair enough. Come next election cycle, the economy will be Obama's and the voters will vote accordingly. It is the economy, stupid. And for the record, I'm not opposed to Obama per se. I think he's a smart and eloquent fellow with a beautiful wife and a wonderful family. I didn't agree with his proposals as candidate and don't now as president, but what's most relevent to me is that people find jobs and have money to spend and aren't losing their homes, etc.
President Bush kept us safe, which was his first responsibility. He did so, standing against our so-called allies who were more interested in not offending the Muslim communities in their own countries. It should be noted that the anti-American policies of Jacques Chirac and Gerhart Schroder were reputiated by their own populaces who voted their parties out of office. Furthermore, his work in Africa went largely unreported, but may prove to be what he is most remembered by. I could give two shits what other countries think of us. The world isn't high school and we're not some insecure teenager hoping to join the "cool" clique. Oh wait, that's exactly the candidate we voted for in 2008.
Salon.com is quite left-leaning. Two interesting articles I found today: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/06/09/populist_backlash/index1.html A warning for Democrats? Should the Democratic Party be concerned? The situation in the U.S. is different from that in Europe in many ways. The tensions over large-scale Latino immigration to the U.S. are minor compared with those over large-scale Muslim immigration to Europe. Libertarianism is far stronger in the U.S. than in Europe, so that right-wing protest is as likely to be channeled through libertarians like Ron Paul as through nativists like Patrick Buchanan. And Barack Obama frequently appears in public standing in front of not one but several gigantic American flags. Still, I think Democratic strategists should be worried about the European election results. The Obama administration has inherited its third-way neoliberalism from Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. Notwithstanding Obama's personal popularity, a synthesis of internationalist idealism and deference to Wall Street is not a sustainable formula for governing during the most severe economic crisis since the 1930s. Nor was the same synthesis popular among American voters back in the Clinton era, when Clinton was only narrowly reelected while the Democrats lost Congress from 1994 to 2006. When the Democrats regained Congress in 2006, it was thanks in large part to the success of populists like Heath Shuler and Jim Webb, who ran left on economics and right on immigration. The Republicans have been very shrewd in voting not only against the too-small stimulus but also against the Obama administration's expensive and ill-conceived bailout of America's zombie banks. If Larry Summers and Tim Geithner succeed in identifying the Democrats too closely with Wall Street, then the moribund Republicans might be revitalized as a vehicle for anti-establishment populism -- not Hitlerian, but Jacksonian. A Republican comeback might be helped further if Democrats seek to increase immigration at a time of mass unemployment.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/06/10/waterloo/index1.html Obama's hit -- and big miss Within the U.S., the Obama presidency will be mainly measured by the success or failure of his economic policies. And here, I fear, the monstrous stimulus package with which this administration stumbled out of the gate will prove to be Obama's Waterloo. All the backtracking and spin doctoring in the world will not erase that major blunder, which made the new president seem reckless, naive and out of control of his own party, which was in effect dictating to him from Capitol Hill. The GOP has failed thus far to gain traction only because it is trudging through a severe talent drought. But the moment is ripe for an experienced businessman to talk practical, prudent economics to the electorate -- which is why Mitt Romney's political fortunes are steadily being resurrected from the grave.
