Skip to main content

I'd be interested in hearing Kossacks' opinions on this October 6th Quinnipiac poll.

The poll surveyed 2,118 registered voters and has a margin of error of 2.1. It included both land lines and cell phones.

Overall, the poll seems to be really bad news for the President. It shows only a 77% approval among Democrats. The poll found that Obama's disapproval has gone up 9 points since the summer, and indicates that 49-39 percent believe Romney would do a better job on the economy than Obama.

The president is stuck at a politically unhealthy level for someone who wants to be re- elected. His standing with the American people is obviously closely related to their views of the economy."

The president's job approval among Democrats, 77 - 18 percent, is lower than his disapproval among Republicans, 91 - 7 percent. Independent voters disapprove 56 - 38 percent.

According to the poll's findings:

"The political challenge for the president will be whether he can make voters believe his eventual GOP opponent is a carbon copy of the former president," said Brown. "The fact that voters are unsure whether the economy will improve if he is re-elected is not a good sign for Obama."

Is this really all we've got in our arsenal? To continue to run against George Bush?

I am more than frustrated. I know there's an inherent problem for any sitting President to swing an election with a nine plus unemployment rate, but I was really hoping the President's new, aggressive approach would at least begin to move his numbers in a positive way, not fall further.

What's it going to take to move these numbers into positive territory?

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis, Hill Jill, nupstateny

    "Whenever a fellow tells me he's bipartisan, I know he's going to vote against me."-- Harry S. Truman

    by irmaly on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 06:34:48 AM PDT

  •  I would advise you (6+ / 0-)

    or anyone who supports the President to take ALL these polls with the appropriate amount of salt going forward until perhaps the last month before the election. From now on the media's narrative is going to be that "Obama is losing support."  The GOP presidential field is dismal; the GOP is congress is VERY unpopular right now. These polls are propaganda tolls and they are the media's latest weapon against the President. They will push agenda-driven polls as much as possible, exaggerate these claims, bury information that goes to the contrary.  Yesterday, the Gallup poll showed an 83% approval for the President among Liberal Dems, yet no mention of it in the media.

    Do you notice that almost NOTHING has been mentioned in the media of the WV gubernatorial elections? The night the Dem won, the lead story for my local 11pm news in the DC Metro area was Amanda Knox returning home. The media was counting on a Democratic loss and had that happened, it would have consumed the media cycle for the rest of this week.

    •  Thanks for this info (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Supavash

      I was under the impression Quinnipiac had a pretty decent rack record, but I am well aware there is a push on many fronts to drive a negative narrative. I am going to check out the Gallup poll.

      "Whenever a fellow tells me he's bipartisan, I know he's going to vote against me."-- Harry S. Truman

      by irmaly on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 06:46:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Regardless, when the media (0+ / 0-)

      behaves in this manner, it gets results.  The unenlightened see and hear what they're saying or not saying and accept the consensus.  Add to that, Senators like Schumer calling a news conference stating that the president's tax plan is flawed.


      The religious fanatics didn't buy the republican party because it was virtuous, they bought it because it was for sale

      by nupstateny on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 07:10:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's going to take a bit.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Supavash, Adam AZ

    ....before the polls improve. It's sort of like turning a rudder of a very big ship. I think Obama is pointed in the right direction and the recent addition of 103.000 jobs is a step in the right direction. Obama isn't going to get a favorable economy (Republicans have seen to that), but he can certainly put the blame squarely where it rests- on Republican support of wealth over the people. Obama can win with a populist campaign.

    •  Yes, I guess that's what we're left with (0+ / 0-)

      The Republicans will never let him have any decent part of his jobs bill. That's for sure. I guess there's not much left but to run against a "Do Nothing" Congress.

      "Whenever a fellow tells me he's bipartisan, I know he's going to vote against me."-- Harry S. Truman

      by irmaly on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 06:51:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  "the President's new, aggressive approach" (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pot, Gooserock, RickD, skayne

    So far, we've only heard "new, aggressive" talk from Obama.

    The reason his poll numbers are slipping is that fewer and fewer people believe that there's any correlation between what he says and what he does.

  •  Leaven This Poll (0+ / 0-)

    with a little thoughtful speculation.

    How do you think the hat-in-the-ring-Republicans who want Obama's jobs would fare if the poll question were, "Who would you rather see in the White House Mr. "R" or Mr. Obama?" if the same demographic were polled?

    And the correct political challenge for the president is if he can make the voters believe he's a better choice than whoever his opponent turns out to be.  That won't be hard, given everything we've heard come out of the pie holes of the Republican wannabes.

    The fact that the public knows the economy was wrecked by Republicans, that the public knows the Republicans are a bunch of do-nothings when it comes to job creation and tax-cutters-for-the-rich while shafting the middle class and trashing the poor when it comes to "economic" policy will not be hard for Mr. Obama to prevail over.

    Readers & Book Lovers Pull up a chair! You're never too old to be a Meta Groupie

    by Limelite on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 07:06:25 AM PDT

    •  The Voters Knew All That Last November. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      moira, PhilK

      How's the worst nationwide election defeat for Democrats in over a century working out for you? I know how it's working out for me.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 07:19:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Those numbers reflect people's frustration with (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    moira, irmaly, theKgirls, skayne

    the economy. It makes no difference to them that the President has presented a "jobs bill" and is urging Congress to vote on it. They know Congress will as usual do nothing, and they are blaming the President for that, as if he has the power to make them vote. Also every news outlet is giving the G.O.P. the opportunity to get out there and say he is just doing this because he wants to be re-elected.
    Using the "bully pulpit" is not enough. He needs to do something really bold, like issuing an executive order or a signing statement to put people back to work, if it is at all possible circumvent the Congress for the good of the American people. They need to see action, they have had enough talk on both sides.

    •  a sense of "too little, too late" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skayne

      Two years later, Obama notices that something needs to be done about jobs.  And so he proposes legislation that he knows won't get passed.  This is on the heels of "deficit reduction" that he focused on for half a year, the extension of the Bush tax cuts that he pushed through the lame duck Congress for some bizarre reason, and the health care legislation that he managed to get through.
      A lot of people think the jobs bill is for show since it's got no chance of becoming law.  But when he wants something to get done, Obama has shown himself quite willing to put pressure on liberal Democrats.
      There are a lot of things Obama could do to show that he's serious about  "change."  He could replace Geithner for starters.  He could propose legislation aimed at cleaning up the banking sector.  
      Sorry, but people aren't going to get terribly excited about "trying and failing."  

      •  I don't see it that way. (0+ / 0-)

        HCR was supposed to jump start the economy. One of the few places there are jobs to be had is in healthcare. Was he too focused on passing HCR, maybe, but it was a long time coming and there was a real need for something to be done.  
        I don't have a problem with him extending the Bush tax cuts for another year, there are worse things he could have done, and by doing so he got meaningful legislation passed, DADT, the first responders bill, the START treaty. There are always trade offs, so what, they got to keep a lower tax rate for another year.
        I have had several jobs in my lifetime, one was working in an S &L, and you would be surprised how many really smart, decent, well meaning people have no knowledge of the world of finance. I think if you fault him for anything it was for getting shitty advice from his financial team and not realizing it was such shitty advice. There are issues with Geithner, but he is knowledgable in the area of finance, and I think Obama respects him for his knowledge. Why he hired Sumners is  beyond me, I am glad he is gone.
        With the half assed Dodd/Frank bill look at what B of A is doing, charging for ATM usage. That sucks, but that is what banks do, they find a way to get what they want, and feel they need to survive. I would like nothing better than to see B of A go belly up, I hate the fuckers, always have. They are quick to give out ATM cards and encourage their customers to use them, by charging for checks written or in bank services, they even encouraged customer by rounding off the cents on any ATM transaction "an easy way to save" they branded it. At a time when so many people are over the heads in debt and are trying to clean up their credit, credit cards are out of the question for some, so they depend on their ATM  card which seves as a credit card when a credit card is necessary, renting a car purchasing an airline ticket, ordering stuff online. It cost them nothing to service ATM cards and yet they think it is fine to charge this fee. This is what happens when you try to clean up the banking sector, they pass it on to the consumer. Like with everything else the little guy gets screwed. I would bet their larger depositors get those ATM fees waived, the same way they get everything else free, Safe Deposit boxes, Cashiers checks, all service fees waived. The banking sector should have been cleaned up a long time ago, but instead they were deregulated and allowed to grow so big, "too big to fail".  Do you think it is easy to clean them up now? It isn't, in theory it sounds fine, but reality is very different.
        I also think there was the belief on the part of the administation that this is cyclical, and things would improve as they always did, and lets face it, in order for the government to begin to create jobs, they need to spend money, since the G.O.P. was very successful in putting the debt front and center, and allowing it to stifle any real spending, something had to be done about the debt. The most reasonable would be to repeal all the tax cuts, but then politics come into play, and everyone is up for re-election, no one wants to be known as a taxer.
        Banks are misbehaving, corporations are not hiring, not because of uncertianity, because they don't want to see 4 more years of a Democrat in the W.H. especially 4 more years when their is no fear of being re-elected. Their worse nightmare is Barack Obama getting another 4 year term, because they know if he does, he doesn't need them and he can be free to do what he set out to do when he was elected in 2008. It is hard to play nice, but sometimes you have to do what you have to do in order to get exactly what you want.  As far as him putting pressure on liberal Democrats, I consider myself one of them, and I don't feel pressured, perhaps because I realized early on Obama was not that much of a way out there liberal, he was always the most moderate of the candidates.  
        I guess what I am saying is very difficult to govern, especially in the office of President, so much is heaped upon you normally this term it was 100 times worse, because of the mess left by the Bush Adminstraion. Who the hell wants to be President when there are two wars raging, and economy in shambles and America's image in the world destroyed? I think we have come a long way, perhaps we didn't get everything he promised, but still a long way.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site