Sign in to follow this  
Stephen of Borg

Obama Approval Rating Sinks to 50%

Recommended Posts

WASHINGTON, Aug 6, 2009 (AFP) – US President Barack Obama's approval rating has slumped to 50 percent, the lowest since his inauguration, according to a poll released Thursday on the eve of his 200th day in office.

 

Quinnipiac University said the president's job approval rating dipped to 50 percent, versus 42 percent who disapprove -- a reflection of growing unease over Obama's handling of the economy, which sank into a devastating recession last year prompting his administration to unleash a deficit-stretching stimulus package, and health care which faces a critical overhaul in Congress.

 

The figure is a substantial drop from the 57-33 percent approval rating he had on July 2, and far less than the numbers he enjoyed in the honeymoon first 100 days of his tenure.

 

The poll of 2,409 registered voters nationwide found they disapproved 49-45 percent of the way Obama was handling the economy, and disapproved 52-39 percent on his handling of health care, but approved 52-38 percent of his foreign policy.

 

While Republicans disapproved of the Democratic president's job performance by an expectedly large margin of 77-16 percent, the poll found that Americans disapproved 59-29 percent of how Republicans in Congress were doing their job and that they trusted Obama over Republicans 47-36 percent to fix the economy and 46-37 percent to deal with health care.

 

"The president is right on the magic 50-percent threshold in public approval because of bad grades on the economy and even worse grades on health care," said Peter Brown, assistant director of Quinnipiac's Polling Institute.

 

"The good news... is that American voters still see him as better able to handle the economy and health care than Republicans in Congress," Brown said. "The bad news is his margins are shrinking."

 

On July 21 a USA Today/Gallup poll found Obama's approval rating was 55 percent six months into his presidency, one point lower than that of his predecessor George W. Bush at the same point in his tenure.

 

Another poll released Thursday revealed better numbers for Obama, the nation's first black president, but showed the same downward trend as Quinnipiac's.

 

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation telephone poll of 1,136 adult Americans -- including what it described as an "oversample of African-Americans" -- said 56 percent of respondents approved of the way Obama was handling his job, compared with 40 percent who disapprove.

 

In late June, that figure stood at 61-37 percent, according to CNN.

 

The Quinnipiac poll said 93 percent of respondents described the US economy as "not so good" or "poor," with just 28 percent saying it is improving, and 29 percent saying it is getting worse. Forty-one percent saw no change.

 

The survey also found that "by a 49-33 percent margin, voters think his policies will help the economy, but they believe, 36-33 percent, that Obama's policies will hurt their personal financial situation," Brown said.

 

The poll conducted July 27 to August 3 had a margin of error of two percentage points.

 

Obama has hit the road in recent weeks, traveling to parts of the American heartland to push his efforts to stabilize the economy and his bid to reform health care.

 

He has pledged to overhaul the US health care system. He and most Democratic lawmakers want to introduce a public coverage option, while many Republican members of Congress and some conservative Democrats are against the idea.

 

On Tuesday a Harris Interactive online survey showed a majority of Americans are in favor, 52-30 percent, of having a government-run health care option as proposed by Obama.

 

Quinnipiac also showed that Obama was licking his wounds in the wake of a race scandal in which he said police "acted stupidly" when a white officer arrested prominent black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates at the scholar's own home last month.

 

By 46-37 percent, respondents said Obama himself acted "stupidly" in the dispute, and by a margin of 62-26 percent they said Obama should not have intervened at all.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090806/ts_al..._20090806123511

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sad that Americans can not elect Presidents and Conresses that they can approve of for any length of time. :)

 

 

Odd, isn't it? Like nobody could see this coming?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sad that Americans can not elect Presidents and Conresses that they can approve of for any length of time. :)

 

Sad that Presidents and members of Congress can never come through on their campaign promises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pardon me for being the cynic but the American people don't get a lot of choice in choosing their officials because they get little choice in choosing the candidates. Those are chose by special interest groups - powerful organization and individuals that pour money positioning their candidate into the headlines. In other words we may get to vote in the November election but hve little say in who will be running in the Nov election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pardon me for being the cynic but the American people don't get a lot of choice in choosing their officials because they get little choice in choosing the candidates. Those are chose by special interest groups - powerful organization and individuals that pour money positioning their candidate into the headlines. In other words we may get to vote in the November election but hve little say in who will be running in the Nov election.

 

Well there are the primaries, but I agree the choice in the general election is limited. Is this the time to discuss the merits of a multi-party system? Personally, I don't know how this is ever going to change without introducing a viable third party. Or if there suddenly is a major split in the platforms/ideals of the two existing parties. Right now all the Republicans have going for them is that they're not Democrats. I mean... that's not really a choice at all, is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Ralph Nader - they're all Republicrats - and I'm not sure I see all that much difference.

 

However, they can change primary voting procedures so that all votes get equal weight - Florida is a large state with a large electorate and in the prmaries it is a "winner take all" so that McCain got all the delegates by getting the highest percentage of votes. Had the electoral votes been apportioned as in some states another candidate would have led the electoral tally coming out of Florida and may have done better in subsequent and the November election may have different if someone other than McCain had run.

 

So there is something that could be done - but no one ever brings attention to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
According to Ralph Nader - they're all Republicrats - and I'm not sure I see all that much difference.

 

However, they can change primary voting procedures so that all votes get equal weight - Florida is a large state with a large electorate and in the prmaries it is a "winner take all" so that McCain got all the delegates by getting the highest percentage of votes. Had the electoral votes been apportioned as in some states another candidate would have led the electoral tally coming out of Florida and may have done better in subsequent and the November election may have different if someone other than McCain had run.

 

So there is something that could be done - but no one ever brings attention to this.

 

Republicrat... I kinda' like that. It does seem that the Democrats grow the government and the Republicans grow it at a slightly slower pace.

 

The states are free to set their own policy, but it would be interesting if they all proportioned their votes in the primaries. It does seem a bit unfair that winner-take-all states—especially large ones like Florida—can have such influence in the selection process. I live in Texas and by the time the primary vote came to us, the winners were already pretty much decided... especially on the Republican side. So I guess another question is: how different would the nominations have been if all the states had their primaries on the same day? I'm sure that a lead in one of the candidates can inspire someone to vote for them or discourage a supporter of another candidate from taking the effort to vote. Honestly I'm not sure any Republican would have been able to defeat Obama; he was just that popular. But I do think that maybe someone else would have put up more of a fight!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this