Skip to main content

Obama Approval Advances to 47%, Up From 43% Pre-Election

President Barack Obama earned a 47% approval rating from the American public in Gallup Daily tracking from Friday through Sunday, slightly higher than his 44% approval rating at the start of the week, and his 43% approval rating in the three days prior to and including Tuesday's midterm elections.

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Juan, you are an intelligent and well versed poster who uses facts to back up his statements. I admire you for your diligence in thwarting the misinformation that is often espoused from the Republicans and their step children the tea partiers.
On this topic though, I cannot fully agree. After watching President Obama's interview last night on 60 minutes, I am getting even more disgusted with his lack of fight.
The time for cooperation came and went. The main goal, and it was stated at the onset of the President's administration and has continued until the present, is to block every legislation proposed and ultimately to regain the Presidency. That seems to be the ONLY position of the Republicans for the last two years. NO COMPRMISE. President Obama stated last night he is looking for a point to reach a compromise with the Republicans, AGAIN??? The democratic party needs to start beating the republicans at their own game. You have to give it to republicans, they don't flinch. This sounds sophomoric, but dems need to grow a pair and quick!!!!!!
Politics is just a game, and Obamas not playing by the same rules. He had real, sincere long-term goals that can only be reached with compromise now. Of course the response will that "Hes a socialist!!!" which is crap but makes them feel better about their unresolved anger issues. There wont be any successful political reformation during my lifetime, just as there has not for the last 100 years. Perhaps in another 100, we will see some real change.
Obama does believe in socialist ideas, that is evident.

As for reformation, I don't know what you are expecting. We have waves of dem leadership and waves of rep leadership, in repeating cycles.

If you want libertarian or some other view, then people will have to realize that no where does any law state we can only have two parties. I think that is beginning to dawn on some as evident by the Tea Party movement.
Well then answer this b50m, if the tea party is: to use a Sarah Palin term so "mavericky", why didn't they just do like Ron Paul and create a third party? Because the whole "movement" was rebranded and repackaged from Ron Pauls original idea by Dick Armey and Freedom Works to make sure they could insure the republicans started winning elections. As far as the congress went for 2010, it worked! But a lot can happen in two years and apparently from the president's numbers, over the weekend.
The Tea Party does not exist, it is merely the corporatist wing of the Rep Party. The Reps are already backing off any Tea-spired agenda items, and by 2012, Tea Party will be a bad word. Even heath care reform, which was facilitated by big Pharma Rep lobbyist Billy Tauzin, will not be broached as a target. There will be tweaks, but in the end will get Romneycare, and the Rep candidate for Pres in 2012, all in one package.
I doubt that. The Tea Party is not going to fade away as Speaker Pelosi hoped when she called it ASTROTURF.

Lot of hope in that group. They hoped no one would read the health care bill, they hoped no one would mind government take- overs of businesses, they hoped no one would mind spending trillions of borrowed dollars, they hoped no one would notice the Fed buying our own debt.

Wacky.

No, Romney won't be a candidate, he blew his own state. He won't get the chance to blow the country.
quote:
Politics is just a game, and Obamas not playing by the same rules. He had real, sincere long-term goals that can only be reached with compromise now.


Well...YEAH, of course he wants to "cooperate" NOW. Since it's finally dawned on him that the party of "Pelosi/Reid/Let-them-eat-cake/Failure" got their ass waxed.
Problem is both parties have elements like you goobs why can't see past the party line.
Defeat sux...don't it.
quote:
Lot of hope in that group. They hoped no one would read the health care bill, they hoped no one would mind government take- overs of businesses, they hoped no one would mind spending trillions of borrowed dollars, they hoped no one would notice the Fed buying our own debt.

Well let's break this down:
hoped no one would read the health care bill.

Was it not online? Was the bill not made available before it was voted on? Too many pages for republicans to read?

hoped no one would mind government take over of business.

Are you referring to the loan to the American automakers to keep them from collapsing, of which GM is already making substantial repayment?

hoped no one would mind spending trillion of borrowed dollars.

Are you referring to the deficit that was started by the republicans under the Bush administration? There was no deficit when Bush took office, was there a deficit when Obama became president and how much was it?

hoped no one would notice Fed buying our own debt.

Are you referring to the debt ceiling? (Seriously, what are you referring to) Confused

More republican rhetoric parroted very effectively until actually examined on merits.
Last edited by rocky
quote:
Originally posted by CageTheElephant:
quote:
Politics is just a game, and Obamas not playing by the same rules. He had real, sincere long-term goals that can only be reached with compromise now.


Well...YEAH, of course he wants to "cooperate" NOW. Since it's finally dawned on him that the party of "Pelosi/Reid/Let-them-eat-cake/Failure" got their ass waxed.
Problem is both parties have elements like you goobs why can't see past the party line.
Defeat sux...don't it.


It is the Reps that will have to compromise. They will raise the debt ceiling, as they did every time BushIIe asked them to on a party line vote. They will cut taxes, but only 2% of the Federal Budget, or 6% of the deficit, so they fail there also. Democare will continue mostly untouched. Meanwhile, we just had an election while conducting two Police Actions overseas and I dont think anyone even mentioned that fact during October.

Rand Paul is a perfect example: he campaigned on being an advocate of smaller government and ending earmarks, and has already said that he will seek earmarks for Kentucky. Thats some bitter Tea.
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

Monday, November 08, 2010

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 28% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-four percent (44%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -16 (see trends).
As they have since the moment the bill was passed, most voters continue to favor repeal of the health care law passed by Congress earlier this year.
Forty-three percent (43%) of workers now expect to be earning more in a year. That’s a nine-point jump in optimism since August but still below the positive expectations expressed in April 2009.
Most voters are pretty confident that the right candidates were the official winners in last Tuesday’s elections, but nearly one-in-five think a lot of ineligible voters were allowed to cast ballots.
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, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) disapprove.

The fact that President Obama’s Strong Disapproval numbers have remained above 40% almost all year foreshadowed how difficult the midterm elections turned out to be for the Democrats. The Approval Index first went negative in July 2009 on the eve of angry Town Hall meetings that brought the public anger into plain view. At that time, Talking Points Memo contacted three Democratic activists who attacked the Presidential Approval Index as meaningless or worse. However, the article noted that Scott Rasmussen thought “that these numbers could be an important indicator in the lower-turnout midterm elections of 2010.” The results on Tuesday night confirmed this hypothesis.
A Wall Street Journal profile calls Scott Rasmussen "America's Insurgent Pollster." The Washington Post calls him “a driving force in American politics.”


It is important to remember that the Rasmussen Reports job approval ratings are based upon a sample of likely voters. Some other firms base their approval ratings on samples of all adults. President Obama's numbers are always several points higher in a poll of adults rather than likely voters. That's because some of the president's most enthusiastic supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn out to vote. It is also important to check the details of question wording when comparing approval ratings from different firms.
posted at 10:12 am on April 23, 2010 by Ed Morrissey



The backers of the bailouts to General Motors cried with triumph this week when the automaker announced that they had repaid their bailout loans ahead of schedule. That amounted to proof of the wisdom of government intervention, the argument went, and wondered aloud why bailout critics didn’t acknowledge their errors. Perhaps it’s because the government essentially got paid off with even more government money:

During an April 20 hearing on Capital Hill, Sen. Tom Carper, (D-Del.) asked some pointed questions of Neil Barofsky, the “special watch dog” on the Wall Street Bailout, aka, TARP.
“It’s good news in that they’re reducing their debt,” Barofsky said of the accelerated GM payments, “but they’re doing it by taking other available TARP money.”…
“It sounds like it’s kind of like taking money out of one pocket and putting in the other,” said Carper, who got a nod of agreement from Barofsky.
“The way that payment is going to be made is by drawing down on an equity facility of other TARP money.”


Furthermore, Exhibit 99.1 of the Form 8K filed by GM with the SEC on November 16, 2009, seems to confirm that the source of funds for GM’s debt repayments was a multi-billion dollar escrow account at Treasury—not from earnings. In the 8K filing GM acknowledged:
Of the $42.6 billion in cash and marketable securities available to GM as of September, 30, 2009, $17.4 billion came from an escrow account with Treasury,
$6.7 billion of the escrow account available to GM was allocable to the repayment of loans to Treasury,
$5.6 billion in cash would remain in the Treasury escrow account following the repayment by GM of their loans, and
Upon repaying Treasury, any balance of escrow funds would be released to GM.
Therefore, it is unclear how GM and the Administration could have accurately announced yesterday that GM repaid its TARP loans in any meaningful way. In reality, it looks like GM merely used one source of TARP funds to repay another. The taxpayers are still on the hook, and whether TARP funds are ultimately recovered depends entirely on the government’s ability to sell GM stock in the future. Treasury has merely exchanged a legal right to repayment for an uncertain hope of sharing in the future growth of GM. A debt-for-equity swap is not a repayment

http://hotair.com/archives/201...f-its-bailout-loans/
Juan, you and Rocky have been drinkin' the Kool-Aid. When the Speaker of the House doesn't really know everything that's in a bill and then says it has to be passed so "we" can find out what's in it, is either assinine, foolish, arrogant, or elitist. (Probably a combination of all the above). I supported the Tea Party "platform", although I never attended any functions; I expect that is the case with many supporters. Just let the Dems keep printing money for all their dream programs and watch this "Grand Experiment" go up in smoke. You two might want to buy and bury some gold for your kids and/or grandkids.
quote:
Originally posted by rocky:
quote:
Lot of hope in that group. They hoped no one would read the health care bill, they hoped no one would mind government take- overs of businesses, they hoped no one would mind spending trillions of borrowed dollars, they hoped no one would notice the Fed buying our own debt.

Well let's break this down:
hoped no one would read the health care bill.

Was it not online? Was the bill not made available before it was voted on? Too many pages for republicans to read?


Seriously? The G-D forsaken Demonrats wouldn't even read it! Talk about parroting tripe, Goebbels would be proud.

read the bill?

Pelosi: we have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it
quote:
Originally posted by rocky:
From elinterventor: Ain't dead yet.

Man, that would be an early demise, the candidates aren't even sworn in and have been elected for 6 days! Talk about pessimistic! The grand old tea party surely has more of a shelf life than that e-ventor!
You and Juan are pretty screwed up in your mind. I do believe you have not been past third grade and do not understand a lot about life.
The Dems got waxed. plain and simple.
Part of their problem is the lieing Republicans have kept from us the progress we have made in the last 2 years, and the Democrats are just plain terrible at message control and bragging about their accomplishments.
In case you are interested in what has been accomplished under the Obama presidency so far :
http://whattheheckhasobamadonesofar.com/?q=31

Check it out, you may be surprised !
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:
Americans were agains those "accomplishments" from the beginning.


Not the majority, only the fools.


In case you were out of the country, Democrats lost big in the House, some in the Senate and lost big time in state assemblies and state houses. A majority, the fools are packing, doing their resumes, and applying for unemployment.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×