As Obama’s Numbers Fall, Democrats Revolt

Looks like the Won is finally coming down to Earth. His approval rating country wide is the lowest it has been at 56%. His supporters will say that this is a good number, and it is, but it has continued to trend downward and poll numbers for individual states are lower with Ohio at 49% and Virginia at 48%. George H.W. Bush had approval numbers in the 70s following the Gulf War and they rapidly disappeared (within a year). Obama had a wave of excitement because he screamed Hope and Change and because he is the nation’s first half black leader. Some of the shine is starting to wear off. His approval is up but his approval index is -5.

Obama said we had to act now with the stimulus or we would be doomed. They acted “now” without even reading it and we are still doomed. The unemployment number, the one he promised would peak at 8% with the stimulus, has reached 9.5% and will likely hit 10% by the end of Summer. He has spent trillions we do not have and he continues to push for more spending that is unwise and reckless. People are beginning to see he is out of his league and that he is taking us the wrong way. While Germany, which said no to stimulus, is rebounding from its recession, we are heading deeper into ours and Obama’s solution is to have another stimulus. He wants to do more of what did not work. These very acts are the ones FDR took when HE drove us into a depression.

The Democrats of his majority are bucking him. A large number oppose the health care plan because it is too expensive and would add to the massive debt they are creating. The cap and tax bill has met stiff resistance in the Senate where Robert Byrd has been extremely vocal about not supporting it. Others have reservations as well. Even the liberal Brookings Institute says it will cost too much and be damaging to us financially.

Universal health care and cap and trade will have a tough time passing even though the Democrats can do that without any Republican support. This economy and all the things going on belong to Obama and his party and the consequences are theirs as well. The Democrats in Congress are aware of this and they are thinking about their next campaigns to be reelected.

Obama’s numbers will continue to fall unless, by some miracle, his policies start to make things better. However, since history shows that we will suffer high inflation (a position many economists predict) things will not get better any time soon.

While Obama works on another stimulus to spend even more money we do not have, Germany is seeing the outcome of acting responsibly. Contrary to what some of his advisers think, a second stimulus will not help any more than the first one did.

If he continues on this path 2010 will be a good year for Republicans (if they can get good candidates to run).

We will have to wait to see if we still have a country in 2012 to make predictions.

As an aside, Congressman Hoyer says health care bill would not get votes if members had to read it. [Big Dog Salute to Stop the ACLU]

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

34 Responses to “As Obama’s Numbers Fall, Democrats Revolt”

  1. Blake says:

    The rest of the Dems better hurry if they want to retain their relevance- pretty soon Hussein will be able to do almost anything he wants without Congress, using these “Czars” to do his bidding- after all they are not answerable to Congress, just the Resident.
    We’re going to have 535 people sitting on the sidelines because of the increased executive powers THEY voted for, and that will be their fault, but we will be the ones paying for this defection of responsibility.

  2. Darrel says:

    BLK: “His approval rating country wide is the lowest it has been at 56%. His supporters will say that this is a good number, and it is,…>>

    DAR
    Of course Obama’s extremely high numbers will go down. Considering the house is still on fire from the fire Bush set, and the hopes some have that it will quickly be put out (it won’t), it’s amazing he’s even near 60% at all.

    Here are the last ten mainstream polls of his Job Approval.

    Quinnipiac U. 57% (6/23-29/09)

    CNN/ORC 61% (6/26-28/09)

    ABC/Washington Post 65% (6/18-21/09)

    CBS/New York Times 63% (6/12-16/09)

    NBC/Wall St. Journal 56% (6/12-15/09)

    Pew 61% (6/10-14/09)

    FOX/OD RV 62% (6/9-10/09)

    Ipsos/McClatchy 64% (6/4-8/09)

    Diageo/Hotline 65% (6/4-7/09)

    Marist RV 56% (6/1-3/09)

    Average = 61.9%

    D.

    • Blake says:

      I noticed that his approval numbers in Ohio are below 50%- going down, and going fast- he’s not even in his first year, and we haven’t even begun to press hard at the festering wound that is Hussein.
      This is going to be fun….

      • Darrel says:

        BLK: “we haven’t even begun to press hard”>>

        DAR
        Yes, I’ve noticed that. When are you going to start? Pressing hard will require good arguments, backing up stuff and getting your facts straight.

        I think he’s pretty safe from any criticism from you!

        D.

  3. Mike Radigan says:

    Some questions for Darrel:

    How much longer are you going to blame Bush? And before you answer that:

    Which party had control of Congress when the stock market and economy peaked and started downward?

    Who headed the House Financial Services Committee when the housing bubble broke?

    Which direction is the economy going now?

    Which direction is the unemployment rate going now? And where did Obama say it would peak?

    How would you rate the first stimulus package? Do we need a second? What about a third? And how do you think we will pay for them? When do you think all this stimulus will get the economy going again?

    Why don’t the liberal left admit they want a socialist country? Why don’t you? Can’t you guys say it out loud?

    And, oh yeah, how much longer are you going to blame Bush?

    • Darrel says:

      Thanks for the questions Mike. I’ll answer them all.

      MK: How much longer are you going to blame Bush?>>

      DAR
      Quite a while. Years. Most of the bills for his $4-5 trillion war haven’t even arrived yet. It’s also normal for the first year to be considered a shared budget. Etc.

      MK: Which party had control of Congress when the stock market and economy peaked and started downward?>>

      DAR
      The DOW was about 12.5k when the Demos got in. It later went up to 14k. Drawing a direct line of causation between ups and downs in the market and who has a slight majority in Congress, would be unwarranted and silly, of course. I would expect to see a good effect if a party had all power for six years. The GOP market sucked whatever angle you shake it from. If the market performed as it did under Clinton, the DOW would be at 33k now. It’s not, and that’s not Obama’s fault or some Demo’s in Congress who didn’t even stand up to Bush.

      MK: Who headed the House Financial Services Committee when the housing bubble broke?>>

      DAR
      The head of this committee doesn’t get to run big things like bubbles and the idea that he could have caused one in many months, is absurd. It’s a little more complicated than that.
      Who ran on the “ownership society?” Your Bush, and he had his congress too. But the seeds were planted before that. Nicely explained here. Phil Gramm planted these seeds.

      MK: Which direction is the economy going now?>>

      DAR
      Too vague. Sideways.

      MK: Which direction is the unemployment rate going now?>>

      DAR
      This lagging indicator is still going bad and probably will for some time. Obama has great gifts, but he can’t walk on water (no one can).

      MK: And where did Obama say it would peak?>>

      DAR
      He didn’t. Read the report, read the footnotes. I have. Here are the qualifiers in the footnotes (thanks to Bigd):

      ***
      “Forecasts of the unemployment rate without the recovery plan vary substantially. Some private forecasters anticipate unemployment rates as high as 11% in the absence of action.”

      And in the conclusion:

      “This study has sought to investigate the likely job creation effects of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan currently under consideration. As emphasized at many points in the analysis, there is substantial uncertainty around all of our estimates. Nevertheless, we believe they can provide useful guidance as we go forward.”

      Also:

      “These estimates, like the aggregate ones, are subject to substantial margins of error. One additional source of uncertainty concerns the impact of the state fiscal relief.”

      MK: How would you rate the first stimulus package?>>

      DAR
      Expensive.

      MK: Do we need a second?

      DAR
      Probably.

      MK: What about a third?>>

      DAR
      I hope not.

      MK: And how do you think we will pay for them?>>

      DAR
      By spending money we don’t have. That’s how we got out of the ditch the last time the GOP did this to us in Great Depression 1.0.

      MK: When do you think all this stimulus will get the economy going again?>>

      DAR
      Don’t know, and don’t even know how much credit the stimulus would deserve. Some of it’s placebo.

      MK: Why don’t the liberal left admit they want a socialist country?>>

      DAR
      Because they don’t. Best to avoid the word “socialist” because of it’s vagueness and commie baggage. The right uses it as an epithet, constantly. Some people want more collectivism, some want less. This doesn’t make them socialist. One could easily argue that we are up to our eyeballs in “socialism” now and that this has made America great. Let me know if you would like a long list of examples.

      MK: Why don’t you?>>

      DAR
      Because I don’t want a socialist country.

      MK: Can’t you guys say it out loud?>>

      DAR
      People shouldn’t say things out loud that aren’t true.

      MK: And, oh yeah, how much longer are you going to blame Bush?>>

      DAR
      A very long time.

      D.

      • Mike Radigan says:

        I’m going to respond to these one at a time. First:

        DAR

        The DOW was about 12.5k when the Demos got in. It later went up to 14k. Drawing a direct line of causation between ups and downs in the market and who has a slight majority in Congress, would be unwarranted and silly, of course. I would expect to see a good effect if a party had all power for six years. The GOP market sucked whatever angle you shake it from. If the market performed as it did under Clinton, the DOW would be at 33k now. It’s not, and that’s not Obama’s fault or some Demo’s in Congress who didn’t even stand up to Bush.

        The Clinton stock market is one of the big fallacies of all time. No one wants to admit it, but it was a direct result of the Y2K problem. All big companies had to spend huge amounts to be compliant. Many, mine included, spent north of 100 million. Guess what, the tech sector’s profits exploded as did the market. But now everyone had all the latest hardware and software and the cycle was over. No one needed to spend after that for 3 years. The first earning’s season after Y2K started in April of 2000. The tech sector disappointed. Duh! And it took the bubble it had created down with it. This was a once in a lifetime effect similar to the Christmas effect on retailers. Hardware and software cycles normally take about three years. Guess what, after 3 years companies starting spending on these again and the market started going up again. Clinton had nothing to do with it.

        • Darrel says:

          MIKE: The Clinton stock market… was a direct result of the Y2K problem.>>

          DAR
          You think the Y2K problem made the stock market go up 330%? That’s new one. Did you make that up yourself?

          The total, GLOBAL estimated cost of preparing for Y2K was about $300 billion. Link.

          The US may get a third of that. I nice stimulus for sure, but hardly going to add the trillions of net gain in stock value we enjoyed during the 90’s.

          Extra point for creative thinking!

          D.

        • Mike Radigan says:

          MIKE: The Clinton stock market… was a direct result of the Y2K problem.

          DAR
          You think the Y2K problem made the stock market go up 330%? That’s new one. Did you make that up yourself?

          The total, GLOBAL estimated cost of preparing for Y2K was about $300 billion.

          The US may get a third of that. I nice stimulus for sure, but hardly going to add the trillions of net gain in stock value we enjoyed during the 90’s.

          Extra point for creative thinking!

          Yeah, 300 billion here, 300 billion there. Pretty soon you’re talking serious money.

      • Mike Radigan says:

        MK: Who headed the House Financial Services Committee when the housing bubble broke?>>

        DAR
        The head of this committee doesn’t get to run big things like bubbles and the idea that he could have caused one in many months, is absurd. It’s a little more complicated than that.
        Who ran on the “ownership society?” Your Bush, and he had his congress too. But the seeds were planted before that. Nicely explained here. Phil Gramm planted these seeds.

        You can blame Bush for being at the helm, but give Frank a pass when he was at the helm overseeing Freddie and Fannie. I find that a little dishonest.

        • Darrel says:

          MK: “you… give Frank[s] a pass when he was at the helm overseeing Freddie and Fannie.”>>

          DAR
          The bubble was about 90% full by the time he got there. If you want to give him 10% of credit, okay.

          D.

        • Mike Radigan says:

          And what about Franklin Raines? What percentage does this Obama advisor get?

          In accordance with the mission of Fannie Mae to enable home ownership by a greater proportion of the population, Franklin Raines, while Chairman and CEO, began a pilot program in 1999 to issue bank loans to individuals with low to moderate income, and to ease credit requirements on loans that Fannie Mae purchased from banks. Raines promoted the program saying that it would allow consumers who were “a notch below what our current underwriting has required” to get home loans. The move was intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners. Some observers have noted that the expansion of easy credit to home buyers with a lesser ability to pay them back was one of the major contributing factors to the subprime mortgage crisis. Although under Raines, Fannie Mae invested in some securities backed by subprime loans, it didn’t start buying subprime and Alt-A loans directly (and bundling them into securities) until late 2004 after the accounting scandal.

        • Blake says:

          oh no, D- Frank was there for a long time, and during that time (from Clinton’s tenure on) he pressed for the FMs to LOOSEN regs, saying he “wanted to roll the dice” with regard to home ownership for poor people.
          You DO NOT “roll the dice” with tax money.
          Rules are built into bank and financial regs for a reason- they protect both the lender, and also the person wanting to borrow.
          By loosening the regs, you change the rules, and this is what you end up with.

        • Blake says:

          You know the Dems like Frank and Dodd are the problem when even Bill Clinton admits that the Dems are at fault, which he did in an interview in 2008, which you can see on youtube anytime you wish to see the truth.

      • Mike Radigan says:

        MK: And, oh yeah, how much longer are you going to blame Bush?>>

        DAR
        A very long time.

        Yep, Obama will also get a pass from you guys when his stimulus’ fail. Blame Bush. I get it.

        • Blake says:

          Okay, why do liberals want a fascist country where they decide who lives or dies? That is an aim of eugenics, is it not?
          People, including some Dems, are waking to the fact that Hussein wants the biggest power grab in History, but he is doomed to fail.
          The big problem is the heavy hitters lining up to take us on- China, Russia, even Mexico would take advantage of the internal strife we will experience.
          Better get some guns- they will be worth more than gold.

  4. Mike Radigan says:

    MK: Why don’t the liberal left admit they want a socialist country?>>

    DAR
    Because they don’t. Best to avoid the word “socialist” because of it’s vagueness and commie baggage. The right uses it as an epithet, constantly. Some people want more collectivism, some want less. This doesn’t make them socialist. One could easily argue that we are up to our eyeballs in “socialism” now and that this has made America great. Let me know if you would like a long list of examples.

    Commie baggage? Your words, not mine.

    From Wikipedia on socialism:

    Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, creates an unequal society, and does not provide equal opportunities for everyone in society. Therefore socialists advocate the creation of a society in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly based on the amount of work expended in production, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how and to what extent this could be achieved.

    Isn’t this what you want? If not how is what you want different than this? Or maybe you disagree with Wikipedia’s definition. If so, please give your’s.

    • Darrel says:

      DAR
      I am saying, because the history of the word “socialist” (commie baggage, “socialist country” etc.) I am saying using the word today is not useful. It’s usually used as an insult by people to young (or misinformed) to know the history of the word.

      You used the word, you can provide your definition. It’s probably based upon the distortions I just mentioned.

      We have one “socialist” in government and his name is Bernie Sanders. And he is using the title partly to be cute. I let people label themselves (within reason). To do otherwise is ad hominem. Best to avoid that.

      There is no connection between liberal, and socialist, contrary to what you have heard repeatedly in the media.

      D.
      ——————–
      dictionary.com

      so·cial·ist n.

      1. An advocate of socialism.
      2. often Socialist A member of a political party or group that advocates socialism.

      adj.

      1. Of, promoting, or practicing socialism.
      2. Socialist Of, belonging to, or constituting a socialist party or political group.

  5. Big Dog says:

    Notice Darrel, that the footnote:
    *** “Forecasts of the unemployment rate without the recovery plan vary substantially. Some private forecasters anticipate unemployment rates as high as 11% in the absence of action.”

    Says IN THE ABSENCE OF ACTION. That means if they do the stimulus it will peak at 8% without at 9.5% BUT COULD BE 11%.

    The footnote never says that it might go up even with action.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “if they do the stimulus it will…>>

      DAR
      Perhaps you missed this part:

      “These estimates, like the aggregate ones, are subject to substantial margins of error.”

      It’s so obvious it hardly needs to be said (and this is why it wouldn’t even be mentioned in a speech).

      Any projections about the future rate of unemployment, are always *highly speculative.* No exceptions.

      D.

      • Blake says:

        The substantial error was in electing a socialist POS like Hussein- but i’m sure I do not mean that in a bad way, right?
        Truth- a subject matter you dance around, Darrel, is that this financial crisis was of the Dems own doing- Bush warned of it and wanted more regs in both 2001, and 2004, but was rebuffed by Frank, first the ranking Dem on the Finance Committee, later the Dem leader for said committee- also by Dodd, Frank’s counterpart in the Senate.
        John McCain, for all his faults, also warned of it in 2004.
        Where they went wrong was in not being louder about who was truly responsible- they allowed the ems to shape the blame- but that, as we all know, is much different than who was truly responsible.

  6. Big Dog says:

    I also notice that you say we can’t blame this person or that person but you have no trouble blaming Bush.

    • Darrel says:

      He was, the president, for eight years.

      • Blake says:

        Yes, but he doesn’t personally gather intel, nor does he personally stop dishonest liberals from loosening regs to cause this financial crisis.
        I know you love and admire Bush, but Darrel- he cannot do all things at once- other people also have to stand up and act like decent human beings. Unfortunately, many of the liberal left have been acting the fool, and now it shows,

  7. Big Dog says:

    Then why mention that without action it might be 11%? Why not say that it could go higher even with the stimulus?

    Was it deception?

    I don’t think so. I think they did not know what they were (or are) doing. Even Biden admitted that.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “Why not say that it could go higher even with the stimulus?”>>

      DAR
      Because it’s really, really, really obvious.

      D.

      • Big Dog says:

        But it is not obvious that it would go higher without? It makes no sense to point out one and not the other unless the intent was to deceive.

        It is really, really, really obvious to those of us who pay attention that the stimulus was unnecessary. And that they did not know what they were doing.

        • Darrel says:

          Bigd: “But it is not obvious that it would go higher without?”>>

          DAR
          Notice how you changed from “could” to “would.” There is a difference.

          You had said: ““Why not say that it could go higher…”

          And I said, no need to, it really (x3) obvious. Of course it *could* go higher. Such estimates are… “subject to substantial margins of error” as the report says.

          Now you say: “But it is not obvious that it would go higher without?”

          DAR
          No, that’s not obvious.

          Bigd: “It is really, really, really obvious to those of us who pay attention that the stimulus was unnecessary.”>>

          DAR
          Again, I’ll have to pull rank and point out that neither one of us are economists or experts on this. Stimulus spending in an effort to dig out of Great Depression 2.0 is not a specialty of mine (or of very many). So I appeal to the great preponderance economists who do study this, and I hope for the best. And they say:

          “Economists Agree Time Is of the Essence for Stimulus”

          While economists remain divided on the role of government generally, an overwhelming number from both parties are saying that a government stimulus package — even a flawed one — is urgently needed to help prevent a steeper slide in the economy.”

          Washington Post.

          D.

        • Blake says:

          Stimulus spending did NOT dig us out of Depression 1.0- Why would ANY educated man think that it would be different?
          Oh, that’s right, he went to an Ivy League school that doesn’t require the study of history in order to graduate- because knowing the history of a situation might just make a difference in your decisions- you could end up looking rational, and liberals can’t STAND that, can they?

  8. Big Dog says:

    Yes Mike, he is a Socialist who will not admit it. His definition of socialist is someone who practices Socialism. You defined Socialism and he seems to espouse many of those views.

    And thanks for stopping by to comment.