General Question

john65pennington's avatar

President Obama hits new low approval rating. are you surprised?

Asked by john65pennington (29187points) June 25th, 2010

According to the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal approval rating, Obama has hit an all-time low approval rating….45%. the oil spill in the Gulf is the main reason and failing to act on immigration has to be another reason. 62% of the people surveyed also believe America is on the “wrong track” and that Obama is losing his ability to lead the country. i have said this before and i will repeat that i did not vote for Obama, simply because of his lack of experience in leadership and the military. the Wall Street Journal has its poll, so whats your opinion?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

74 Answers

syz's avatar

My opinion? He inherited a shit sandwich left over from the previous administration, and Jesus Christ himself probably wouldn’t have a good approval rating in that position.

If you’re going to be pointing a finger of blame, make sure you point at politicians in general, since they are so locked into partisan politics and power mongering that they can’t get shit done. I’d like to give about 90% of them a swift kick in the ass.

It’s astonishing how the political machine and money can get even idiots elected, because I can list of number of individuals who shouldn’t be trusted to balance their own check books who are legislating in Congress right now.

lucillelucillelucille's avatar

I am not suprised at all.
I also did not vote for him.

tedd's avatar

Every president goes through low spots, and 45% is actually not that bad. Left out is that its still positive overall, as the disapprove is only 43%.

President Bush spent the majority of his second term UNDER 40% (and in the teens for a huge chunk of it). He also dipped down into the 40’s during his first term, and was re-elected. As did Clinton, Reagen, etc….

The gist of it is right now people aren’t too happy because of the oil spill, and a lot of his own base are upset because he has tried to meet the republicans halfway on a lot of issues and turned his back on many of them for the sake of compromise. But when it comes down to it, even a liberal who thinks he’s not doing so hot will vote for him before they vote for a republican.

dpworkin's avatar

People are sheep, and their opinions shift in the wind, depending upon what is blaring at them from out of their radios and TVs. It doesn’t matter what his poll ratings are; what matters is whether he continues to do what must be done.

missingbite's avatar

@tedd Please name one issue he has openly tried to meet republicans halfway on.

ragingloli's avatar

@missingbite
Healthcare reform? THe whole thing is so watered down precisely because he tried to pander to the right.

Cruiser's avatar

This ain’t nothing…he is going down down down. I did not vote for him either, but IMVHO, he is his own worst enemy in that he is so damn dependent on his teleprompter. Practically every speech he has given is read from that machine and I and I am sure the rest of the world has a hard time taking his words that is obvious some speech writer wrote as genuine, sincere and or heartfelt. A true leader needs to lead, a true commander needs to command and not simply read rehearsed words and in times of crisis and the emergency we now face, his words should come from his heart and his gut and not reflected off a piece of glass.

missingbite's avatar

@ragingloli Really? I don’t know of one republican leader that believes the Federal Government has the right to MAKE a person purchase anything from a company. All are against this. Some of the provisions are good. Not the plan in general.

Not to mention, it was Democrats like Senator Mayr Landrieu that held the Health Care bill up. Not Republicans. Why, because he didn’t need them or invite them to the party.

SmashTheState's avatar

At this point, Amerika is already a de facto one-party police state, with no effective difference between any of the choices offered at the ballot box. As Daniel Guérin wrote, “In the hands of a people whose education has been willfully neglected, the ballot is a cunning swindle benefitting only the united barons of industry, trade and property.” Obama was an attempt by the ruling plutocracy to slap a coat of legitimacy over an increasingly malevolent tyranny. He’s no different than any of the other suits underneath the slightly darker epidermis.

Of course, having read your other questions and responses, I’m aware that the reason you dislike Obama is the specific reason he was chosen: he doesn’t look like an overt fascist. You’d be much happier with a nice white fuhrer with an Anglo-Saxon name. Well, you may rest assured that underneath the dusky skin and the suspiciously non-European name, he’s just as oppressive and authoritarian as all the other warmongering Amerikan fascists.

ragingloli's avatar

@missingbite
Then you might want to read this
John Mccain
Tommy Thompson
Mitt Romney

tedd's avatar

@missingbite The stimulus bill was ⅓ tax cuts because of trying to get Republicans to sign off on it (the original plan proposed by Dems had like 1/6 or 1/8 total in tax cuts). EDIT: I forgot that there were a few hundred million dollars of pork barrel spending added by republican lawmakers for their home states/districts, that dems allowed to be put in under the assumption it would get the republicans onboard. The repubs voted it into the legislation, then voted against the legislation.

The healthcare bill proposed by the Dems would’ve had a public option and not forced anyone to buy something from a company (which honestly is just being a responsible person and buying health insurance, since the federal government HAS TO BY LAW cover the bill of anyone who can’t pay today). They also would’ve had a litany of other things, all things they took out so they could try and get a republican vote. Not to mention they added things like tort reform.

Don’t ask don’t tell could be repealed today with 5 minutes and a signature by Obama. Instead he’s set up the investigation into the “impact” on the military, completely to pander to republicans (even though the HUGE majority of americans want it gone).

Those are just 3 off the top of my head on gigantic issues and bills.

missingbite's avatar

@ragingloli Yes many Republicans made mistakes in assuming that was the way to go. How is Mitt Romney’s state doing with that plan. I think it’s about bankrupt. We saw the light. It won’t work. Republicans weren’t even invited to participate in the Health Care debate this go round.

@tedd Please explain how he was pandering to the right when he didn’t need anyone from the right. He controlled all three branches.

Please review the healthcare debates. It was the Democrats like Mary Landrieu as I said before that he could not get to sign on. Because of the abortion wording he had a hold out in Bart Stupak.

Don’t ask don’t hasn’t been repealed because of the potential political fallout like Clinton had. Obama won’t open that can of worms until his has hearings on the matter even though it was a campaign promise. Another failed attempt at leadership. Not caving to republicans that he doesn’t need to pass anything.

BoBo1946's avatar

He was the best choice we had! He inherited a mess and people have very little patience with politicians especially when it has something to do with their pocketbook. The economy is getting better. There are lots of new jobs in my area. When the economy gets better, his approval rating will also.

As far as the Gulf Oil Spill, maybe he reacted too slow, but no one could have ever has foreseen this coming. Besides, don’t think it would have much difference if the President had acted sooner.

CMaz's avatar

“The economy is getting better.”

Not here. Had to kill off one employee and cut back three others hours.

Still no work to be found. Unless you want to make $8 an hour. Those jobs you need to get in line and you better not show up with experience that will smell like you will quit the first chance a better job comes along.

tedd's avatar

@missingbite Ummm, you seem pretty ignorant to history…. From the top…

-You’re right, he could have jammed anything through on healthcare he wanted all the way back last May and avoided the whole mess. The fact that he didn’t, is PROOF he was trying to pander to the right. If he didn’t want any Republican votes he could’ve just passed any bill he wanted and been done with it.

-If he just wanted to pander to the more centrist Dems, he could’ve started doing that, rather than trying to negotiate for Olympia snow and the other senator from Maine back over the summer (as if you paid any attention to it, that was the goal in the summer).

-Side note, the only branch responsible for making the laws is the legislative. And the Dems don’t control all 3 branches, the Supreme court or “Judicial” branch is led by conservatives 5–4.

-Trouble with Don’t ask don’t tell like Clinton had? Are you aware that Clinton ENACTED don’t ask don’t tell? He made the rule because there was outrage about gays in the military, and yet he couldn’t turn his back on his base. Don’t ask don’t tell was the compromise that president Clinton came up with, and he never tried to get rid of it (something he as well could have done with 5 mintues and a pen).

john65pennington's avatar

Bobo, to give credit where credit is due, Obama’s hands were tied to a degree. he was facing a federal law, passed by Congress, that stated “the oil companies will be responsible for any oil spillage, cleanup, and any associated liabilities occured”. this law was passed after the incident with the Exxon Valdez tanker. in other words, he could not violate his own federal law by taking command of the Gulf oil spill.

BoBo1946's avatar

@ChazMaz understood, but it’s here! Toyota opened their plant this month and that will be, at least, 2,000 new jobs. That doesn’t count all the salelite companies that will open due to the plant opening. Also, seeing more jobs in the classified ads here. Jobs, as you know, always the last to come with the economy!

BoBo1946's avatar

@john65pennington you would be very correct John!

tedd's avatar

@ChazMaz The economy is getting better, as evidenced by the jobs growth. The problem is that its getting better very slowly, and everyone that lost their job is still out of a job. For example, if 3 million people lose their jobs a month for a year… and then the economy improves to say gaining, 10 thousand jobs a month… that IS improvement…. But it doesn’t really feel like it for the millions of still unemployed since we’re only gaining so many jobs each month.

On a more personal side note, I started looking for work last June… since then I’ve found 2 full time jobs paying 30k or more (both degree requiring), and 3 part time jobs. Now I can grant it wasn’t easy at all, but I feel the economy HAS to be improving for me to find jobs that easily.

missingbite's avatar

@tedd O.K, lets start calling names. I’m well aware that Clinton ENACTED don’t ask don’t tell. He was politically slammed for it. Hence the can of worms Obama won’t touch. He doesn’t have the guts to do anything without approval from a board of people so he can blame someone else if it doesn’t work out.

Please name one Republican that had an Oval Office meeting with Obama so they could get Obamacare passed.

@syz I agreed in an earlier post that it was originally Republicans. I also said they saw it as a huge failure. Just like McCain has flipped on the illegal immigration issue. I am talking about the latest health care bill. All were against it.

BoBo1946's avatar

@tedd He did promise to “reach across the isle” in his campaign. There is a lot of compromise in getting Laws passed. Besides, he accomplished something no other President has ever accomplished. Don’t think we will know the full impact of the Law for a few years.

Yes, as you know, jobs are always the last to come in an improving economy.

Also, ignorant is a strong word, maybe mistaken would be a better choice!

john65pennington's avatar

Concerning the Healthcare Reform Act, does it bother anyone that the word “indigent” was purposely left into the Act? does indigent mean poor Americans, but also means illegal immigrants? sorry,, i just had to ask that question.

dpworkin's avatar

@missingbite You merely acknowledge that the right is owned by Big Pharma and Big Health. We knew that.

missingbite's avatar

@dpworkin You merely acknowledge you are ok with the government telling individuals they MUST purchase a product. We knew that.

dpworkin's avatar

That’s just party-line bullshit and will change when the right wants to impose something themselves.

tedd's avatar

@missingbite The alternative is millions of people don’t buy any insurance, a number of them unfortunately become injured or for some other reason have to go to the ER or hospital… they can’t pay, so the Federal government pays (as it is now by law and has been for decades). Hence every person that doesn’t go out and buy insurance actually has insurance…. insurance your tax dollars paid for. Making them buy insurance is telling them to have responsibility.

How much sense would it make to you if you didn’t have to buy car insurance, and if you get in a wreck, uncle same has to pay the bill?

And back to my post, why would repealing something that Clinton got slammed for by his base be a bad thing for Obama? He put it into debate because he knew many republicans wouldn’t like it (as is evidenced by them debating against it).

And he met with many republicans, especially snow and the other maine senator. Whether they were in the oval office I can’t tell you for sure, but why does it have to be in the oval office? Fact is fact, Obama and the Dems tried tirelessly all summer to get republican support and incorporate republican ideas. And even after the republicans refused to sign on, they incorporated ideas like tort reform.

silverfly's avatar

He’s just a man, a puppet to point a finger at. So was Bush, Clinton and the rest. The whole system has a shit approval rating as far as I’m concerned.

CMaz's avatar

This is Reagan Fault. ;-)

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Dr_Dredd's avatar

@john65pennington Indigent means poor. Nothing more, nothing less. You don’t need to read anything else into it.

missingbite's avatar

@Dr_Dredd Actually it’s defined as poor, needy. A needy person. You can be poor and need nothing.

tinyfaery's avatar

Really? This again?

No I am not surprised. Americans are sheep, easily spooked and easily led.

IchtheosaurusRex's avatar

For a counter to the NBC/WSJ poll, I suggest reading this article from Pew Research. Yes, Big O’s ratings are low, but not significantly lower than they were at the beginning of the year.

So do we stick a fork in him? I think not. Remember Ronald Reagan? In January, 1983, his approval rating stood at a whopping 35% thanks to a sputtering economy and ruinous interest rates. Ask Walter Mondale how this helped him the following year.

HTDC's avatar

No one’s ever satisfied, he’s only one man for Jebus sake. He can’t change the world and clean the oil spill with his magic finger. Just be glad he’s not “bumbling Bush”.

missingbite's avatar

@IchtheosaurusRex You mean the economy he inherited from Carter and turned around with tax cuts?

@HTDC You mean the “Bumbling Bush” that couldn’t control N.O. after Katrina?

HTDC's avatar

I was gonna respond, but that’s such a bullshit comparison I’m not gonna waste my time.

netgrrl's avatar

I never pay attention to polls. Statistics are too easily manipulated.

tedd's avatar

@missingbite Yes tax cuts for the rich… tax cuts that jumped the deficit by 100’s of %‘s, the debt by almost 7 trillion during Reagans term alone… and thanks to no president since him having the balls to put the highest tax bracket back up above 30% range, its CONTINUED to leave our country incredibly in debt.

IchtheosaurusRex's avatar

@missingbite , no I mean the economy he propped up with the deficit spending he did to finance those tax cuts. See if you can spot his administration here. Oh, and see if you can spot the Bushes and Clinton, too.

missingbite's avatar

@IchtheosaurusRex You are correct. Funny how that chart starts the upward climb about 1975. Spending is way out of control. Government social programs must stop. We can’t afford to buy everything.

missingbite's avatar

@tedd What affect has out of control spending done to all of this? You know those underfunded social programs. Keep taxing the rich?

IchtheosaurusRex's avatar

@missingbite , which social programs are you talking about? Medicare or Social Security?

missingbite's avatar

@IchtheosaurusRex Both. All of them. The new Health Care bill we are now paying for but not receiving benefits for. The list goes on. The point is, the government doesn’t always have the answer. People love to blame Bush but this upward climb of debt has been going on for years because nobody wants to accept responsibility for themselves. IMHO

silverfly's avatar

There are 3 types of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

tedd's avatar

@missingbite Look at the chart more closely, or look at this one… http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff81/westy81585/charts/Natl_Debt_Chart.jpg

And its funny you mention government social programs as the problem, considering they were all humming along just fine until Reagan cut taxes on the richest 1% of the population from 70% to 30%, which suddenly made budget shortfalls. Not to mention Reagan, and every Republican since him, preached all about cutting social spending, and then failed to do it. Its funny that the medicare program that Reagan himself heralded as the end of freedom ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FzNTB1qtFA ) ... he failed to make any cuts too.

The healthcare bill you’re so adamantly against, has already started sending checks to the elderly (the whole filling the donut hole thing). Not to mention that as of this fall (I think October) pre-existing conditions for children will be outlawed and insurers will have to insure them.

If you want to blindly hate Obama, go for it. But your ignorance of facts and knowledge is going to hurt no one but yourself.

Nullo's avatar

I’m not surprised. And the part of me that likes epichairekakia is gleeful, since I don’t like the guy’s policies.

@tedd Are you sure that they labeled that chart right? I’m pretty sure that the debt has done nothing but go up for a very, very long time. I think you mean the budget.

missingbite's avatar

@tedd I never said I hated Obama. I hate the direction he is going and that is the second time you have called me ignorant because I don’t agree with you. Have a nice day.

tedd's avatar

@Nullo The chart is titled poorly. Its the history of our deficit, NOT our debt. The maker labeled it “Increases to our debt.” For those not in the know (not saying you Nullo, just anyone who may be confused when seeing this), the deficit is the annual shortfall between expenditure and income that our government has. Every year the deficit (or surplus) is added to the total debt. So you are correct our debt has been going up since reagan, BUT, our deficit has varied greatly.

@missingbite I called you ignorant because you’re ignoring the facts, stating false facts, or honestly just ignorant of the facts.

skfinkel's avatar

In face of unbelievable challenges (ie recalcitrant Republicans who want only for him to fail), and the disaster in the Gulf, he is doing amazing things: just got the financial bill passed, the health care bill passed, will fight for alternative energy. He’s working very effectively with the rest of the world. He knew (as most of us did) this would be an extremely difficult time, since we were on the brink of disaster after the Bush years, but Obama has done better than any person I could imagine in the face of all this. Our population seems to have the memory of a flea.

Sandydog's avatar

Over here, Obama seems to be very Anti British. His memoirs apparantly blame us for what went on in Kenya.
Be a shame if he made British people turn against America.
( I know this is moving a bit off topic, but many over here feel we have supported the US far more than any other nation, but this man seems to have a simmering resentment against us ).

UScitizen's avatar

My first thought is, “How did you get this question by the Fluther censors?”

Ivan's avatar

I’m going to start asking questions for the sole purpose of expressing my own personal opinions.

josie's avatar

Nope. He is an empty suit.

jerv's avatar

John, if you are going to go by that then you should’ve been heading the campaign to have G.W. Bush shot in the street due to his lower approval rating, proven incompetence in certain areas, and the sort of stubbornness that could only lead to a total breakdown in international relations.

My opinion is that Conservatives and Republicans are just pissed of that they are no longer holding as much power as they did back when they screwed things up and the no matter who actually did what, they will never accept any responsibility for their actions. It’s questions like this that only reinforce my belief that we are better off with Obama since the alternative would be insanity and incompetence on a grand scale.

mammal's avatar

@john65pennington So presumably you voted for Kerry, cos, he had arguably more military experience than Bush?

Remind me again Why a Civilian leader must have military experience?

Nullo's avatar

@mammal The President is, among other things, Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, and his authority in that capacity supersedes that of even his top generals. It’s comforting to know that the guy isn’t completely clueless about martial matters. But it is not actually required.

jerv's avatar

@Nullo Don’t forget that the higher ranking people are more concerned with what they want done and often have little/no clue if it it even possible let alone how; figuring out the if and how is a task delegated to lower ranks.
As an electrician who had a division officer who didn’t even know what a Fluke™ was (hint: Fluke is to Electrician as “tape measure” is to carpenter) I can confirm that knowing what your subordinates do and how they do it is not required knowledge for a person in command.

mattbrowne's avatar

Too many people believed in miracles. Welcome back to reality. One cannot undo 8 years of utter stupidity.

mammal's avatar

@Nullo Remind me again why the military is such a domineering force in American politics?

Nullo's avatar

@mammal It’s not, really; political weight is pretty well spread around.

jerv's avatar

@mammal Because many voters want the world to be safe from terrorism and believe that the best way to do that is to have a strong military that can and will bomb the terrorists back to the Stone Age and then send in a kajillion troops to mop up and kill the survivors.
Now, most intelligent people will realize how stupid that is, but that is how a large portion of the voting populace thinks; a large enough portion to make the military a political issue.

However, Nullo is correct in that there are other people holding power over our politicians as well, mostly corporations.

hiphiphopflipflapflop's avatar

@mammal Lincoln is generally seen as having been a great wartime Commander-in-Chief, but his military background was slight.

FDR never served, but had been assistant Secretary of the Navy, and was well-versed in naval affairs. FDR was probably the best overall WW2 leader in that he knew his limitations and rarely interfered in operational planning (as Hitler and Stalin often did) and did not bombard his staff with pet schemes (like Churchill).

tedd's avatar

@Nullo What hip hip hop said… Lincoln and FDR are easily the two best wartime presidents in US history, and neither had any real military experience. And come to think of it I don’t think Madison did either and he saw us through the war of 1812.

Plus, military experience doesn’t necessarily mean anything. You could’ve been a crappy soldier.

Nullo's avatar

@tedd Get ye back to my post, and re-read it.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
tedd's avatar

@Nullo If I was going to read your ENTIRE post then I wouldn’t be a regular fluther user… lol…. No I read it all, I was just saying anyways.

IchtheosaurusRex's avatar

@missingbite , been away. But here’s the thing. Let’s do it. Let’s cut Social Security payments. Let’s cut Medicare coverage. Then we’ll watch all the old people, who are the only reasons the Republicans are even competitive nationally, go to the ballot boxes in droves to punish those responsible.

missingbite's avatar

@IchtheosaurusRex Glad you are back. No need to drop it all together but we can phase things out. I’m 38 and doubt I will ever see the money I put in to SS. No need to cut Medicare either. Let’s just put everyone in Congress and the Senate on the same plans. No retirement packages for Senators. SS just like you and me. Let’s see how long it takes to get fixed. It’s not a Republican/Democrat problem. It’s a middle class problem.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther