As expected Obama is finished, Democrats Rubbished

[obama.bin.laden]

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/10/21/obama-approval-ratings-lowest-presidency

Obama Approval Ratings Lowest of Presidency

by LA Holmes | October 21, 2010

* Print
* Email
* Share
* 15 Comments
*

President Barack Obama's approval rating has dropped more than 18 points since taking office to an all-time low of 44.7 percent, according to a new Gallup poll.

The results of the poll, released Thursday, average approval ratings from more than 90 thousand respondents during the third quarter of 2010, July 20 through October 19. Only three presidents since 1954—Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, and Jimmy Carter—received lower marks in the seventh quarter of their presidencies.

More Americans also say they don't think Obama deserves a second term in office, 54 percent, to 39 percent who say the president should be reelected. Only 38 percent of respondents in a 1994 Gallup survey said they thought Clinton deserved a second term, but the president earned a decisive 49-point victory in the 1996 elections; former President George W. Bush enjoyed reelection support from 62 percent of respondents in a 2002 survey, before going on to his second term in 2004.

These numbers may tell more of a story than just the prospect of a second term. Seventh-quarter approval ratings in every president's term come just before critical midterm elections. Republicans made huge congressional gains on their "Contract With America" campaign in 1994, when Clinton's approval and reelect ratings were low. The GOP held steady under Bush in 2002's midterms.

Obama's low ratings are likely unwelcome news to Democrats, who are fighting to keep Republicans from winning the 39 House seats and 10 Senate seats needed to gain control of Congress.

 

[obama.bin.laden]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/most_americans_believe_obama_will_wnYTmuds5FiTX2MQiBh4hN

Most Americans believe Obama should be a one-term president: poll

By CLEMENTE LISI

Last Updated: 1:34 PM, October 21, 2010

Posted: 1:07 PM, October 21, 2010
Comments: 287
More Print

A majority of Americans don't think President Obama deserves to keep his job, a poll released today shows.

With less than two weeks to go before the midterm elections, a survey conducted by Gallup shows that only 39 percent of Americans think Obama deserves to be re-elected in 2012.

A staggering 54 percent think he should be a one-term president, the poll found.

Earlier this year, between 46 and 48 percent of Americans said Obama should be re-elected.

The survey also shows that Obama has averaged a job approval rating of 44.7 percent during the first seven quarters of his presidency.
President Barack Obama delivers remarks during a rally for Oregon gubernatorial candidate John Kitzhaber.
EPA
President Barack Obama delivers remarks during a rally for Oregon gubernatorial candidate John Kitzhaber.

Obama's average approval rating has declined each quarter since he took office nearly two years ago -- falling by more than two percentage points in the most recent quarter to establish a new low.

Similar Gallup polling conducted in the past shows a lot can happen over the next two years for Obama.

At this time in 1994, for example, only 38 percent said former President Bill Clinton deserved a second term.

Clinton cruised to win re-election two years later over Kansas Sen. Bob Dole.

In 2002, 62 percent of Americans said former President George W. Bush deserved to be re-elected as the country unified around him following the 9/11 attacks.

Two years later, Bush narrowly defeated Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry to keep his job.

With the midterm elections looming, Obama's declining public support means the Democratic Party is vulnerable to heavy losses in Congress.

Gallup said that the president's party has traditionally lost an average of 36 House seats when his approval rating is below 50 percent.

However, Ronald Reagan was in similar bind two years into his presidency in 1982, but recovered in time to win a second term.

 

[obama.bin.laden]

http://weaselzippers.us/2010/10/21/whoa-gallup-finds-only-39-support-reelecting-obama/

Whoa: Gallup Finds Only 39% Support Reelecting Obama…

Music to my ears… sweet, sweet music…

Only 39 percent of Americans now believe President Barack Obama deserves to be reelected, according to a Gallup poll conducted Oct. 14-17. That is a steep decline from the 48 percent who told Gallup he deserved reelection in a survey conducted in mid-June.

In the Oct. 14-17 poll, a majority of Americans–54 percent–told Gallup that Obama does not deserve to be re-elected.

In the Oct. 14-17 survey and in three previous polls this year, Gallup asked approximately 1,000 American adults this question: “Please tell me whether you think each of the following political office-holders deserves to be re-elected, or not. How about President Obama?”

In a poll conducted March 26-28, 46 percent said he deserved to be reelected, 50 percent said he did not and 4 percent said they had no opinion.

When Gallup asked the same question in a poll conducted May 24-25, Obama’s reelection numbers had marginally improved. Forty-eight percent said he deserved to be reelected, 48 percent said he did not, and 4 percent still had no opinion.

 

[obama.bin.laden]

http://biggovernment.com/driehl/2010/10/21/at-39-upopular-obama-runs-home-for-a-hug-from-his-rahm/

At 39%, Upopular Obama Runs Home for A Hug from His Rahm
by Dan Riehl

CNS News points out, Obama’s reelection rating by the American people is now down to 39%.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...a-of-playing-faster-and-looser-than-bush.html

Issa Accuses Obama of `Playing Faster and Looser' Than Ex-President Bush
By Patrick O’Connor and James Rowley - Oct 22, 2010 4:49 AM GMT+0800

*
* Tweet (3)
* LinkedIn
* Share
o Business Exchange
o Buzz up!
o Digg
* Print
* Email

U.S. Representative Darrell Issa

U.S. Representative Darrell Issa. Photographer: Sandy Huffaker/Bloomberg

U.S. Representative Darrell Issa, poised to be chairman of the House Oversight Committee if Republicans regain the majority on Nov. 2, accused President Barack Obama today of “playing faster and looser with the rules” than former Republican President George W. Bush.

The comparison, defending earlier remarks Issa made on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show in which he called Obama “one of the most corrupt presidents in modern times,” came during an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt.”

As evidence, Issa pointed to a Pentagon practice, under Obama, of recruiting private contractors to work for the government with promises of better benefits and higher salaries.

He offered no further proof of subverted rules in Obama’s Democratic administration. And he was more forgiving about the administration’s offer of jobs to a pair of Democrats -- U.S. Representative Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania and former state legislator Andrew Romanoff in Colorado -- if they chose not to pursue primary challenges against two incumbent senators. The candidates ran.

“It appears as though presidents have been doing this, even though it’s illegal, for a long time,” Issa said.

He also said he has no plans to further investigate the Securities and Exchange Commission’s fraud allegations against the Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

“The process there worked perfectly,” Issa said, referring to a report issued Oct. 15 by the agency’s inspector general that found no evidence a lawsuit filed against the Wall Street firm was driven by politics. “We’re satisfied.”

Corral Votes

The inspector general agreed to take a look at the case after Issa questioned whether the SEC filed the lawsuit to help Obama corral votes for then-pending legislation to overhaul the country’s financial markets.

In the interview, Issa reiterated his call for tougher, more frequent scrutiny of the Federal Reserve because it controls “trillions of dollars of guarantees” that aren’t included with the money Congress spends each year.

“We do have to have a select team in the House and the Senate, really be able to look in-depth behind the curtain, rather than simply have the Fed chairman come up and lecture us,” he said. One issue is to examine in retrospect how much money the Fed committed at a particular time compared with what the central bank said it was doing, Issa said.

Over the past two years, Issa’s committee has disclosed internal Fed e-mails that he says showed cover-ups of bailout payments to creditors of American International Group Inc. and details of Bank of America Corp.’s takeover of Merrill Lynch & Co.

Regular Oversight

“There needs to be regular oversight,” he said. “This is no different than our clandestine services. It doesn’t have to be all public. The audit of the Fed does not have to be put on the Internet.”

Issa plans to investigate hiring practices in the administration, particularly within the Department of Defense. His spokesman, Frederick Hill, explained that the congressman was talking about the Pentagon’s practice, under the Obama administration, of “going to employees of contractors, trying to recruit them to bring them in house” by “telling them they’d get better benefits or better salary.”

“It’s an illegal practice,” just as illegal as it is for private contractors to try to recruit government workers on the same project, he said.

Defeating Contractors

The Obama administration has “pushed their preference to limit the number of contracts and do more in-sourcing,” Hill said. “They are trying to do that by defeating contractors” by “bringing their employees” into the government or “not letting them work effectively on their contracts.”

Issa singled out Vice President Joe Biden for his failure to monitor that money. The California Republican said neither he nor Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Ed Towns, a New York Democrat, has met with Biden about the stimulus.

“Vice President Biden was supposed to be the great overseer of stimulus money,” he said.

At the same time, he lavished praise on Earl Devaney, the inspector general for the Department of the Interior who’s been given the job of overseeing stimulus spending, saying, “He’s done as good a job as anyone who was ever handed $800 billion of oversight, little budget and no time to do it.”

 

[obama.bin.laden]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-m-holbrook/the-approval-gap_b_772165.html


Your request is being processed...

Thomas M. Holbrook
Thomas M. Holbrook
Posted: October 21, 2010 07:37 PM
BIO Become a Fan
Get Email Alerts Bloggers' Index




The Approval Gap
What's Your Reaction:
digg
facebook Twitter stumble reddit del.ico.us
Important
Funny
Typical
Scary
Outrageous
Amazing
Innovative
Finally
Politics News

0
3views
Get Politics Alerts

*
Email
*
Comments

The current discussion of the enthusiasm gap raises the issue of partisan differences in interest and motivation but also seems to have implications for partisan differences in presidential approval. Specifically, an undercurrent of contemporary discussions of the enthusiasm gap is that Democratic prospects are somewhat handicapped due to relatively anemic support for the President Obama among his own base. While I am not aware of long-term historical data on partisan differences in enthusiasm, it is possible to explore this related issue by examining partisan differences in levels of presidential approval.

In the figures below I use Gallup presidential approval data, focusing on polls taken during October of midterm years from 1946 to 2010 (with the exception of 1946, for which I had to use a poll from September). In terms of overall approval, President Obama's rating currently stands at 45%, just about six points lower than the average of 50.7% during the preceding 16 midterms (below). This puts him in a better position than President Bush was in October of 2006 and slightly better off than Presidents Clinton and Reagan were in 1994 and 1982, respectively.

But the question at hand is whether Obama's approval rating is being dragged down due to flagging levels of support from his base. Of course, it is expected that presidents enjoy an advantage among their own partisans, so the best way to answer this question is to examine partisan trends in approval over time. The figure below shows, as expected, presidents do best with their own partisans, worst with the opposition party, and somewhere in between with independents. No surprises there. But there are a couple of noteworthy observations to make about pattern in 2010.

First, it is just not true that Obama has a problem with his base. In fact, compared to previous presidents, he is doing relatively well with his base, with an approval rating among Democrats (80%) that is somewhat higher than the average level of support other presidents got from their own partisans (76%). Obviously, though, running strong among the base is not enough, as President Bush actually did slightly better among his base in 2006, when the Republicans lost 30 House seats. Second, in sharp contrast to his own base, the level of approval among the opposition Republicans (7%) represents an all time low during this time period, rivaled only by president Bush's approval among Democrats in in 2006 (9%). Together, 2006 and 2010 represent a substantial negative shift in support among opposition partisans, one that fits with the general pattern of increased partisanship that has been observed by others. Finally, the president is also running about 10 points behind the long-term average among independents, coming in at 40% approval. While it may be expected that presidents fare poorly among opposition partisans, this tepid level of support among independents--a group that is typically down-the-middle on approval--is taking a toll on the overall level of approval.

Even though the president is doing relatively well among his own partisans, the patterns shown above do jibe fairly well with contemporary discussions of the enthusiasm gap, at least in so far as they show that Republicans are much more united in their opposition to the president than Democrats are in their support of him.

 

[obama.bin.laden]

http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2010-10/22/c_12687272.htm

美国媒体众口一辞:奥巴马神话破灭 民主党铁定惨败
2010年10月22日 07:21:16 　来源： 中国青年报 【字号 大小】【留言】【打印】【关闭】

10月17日，美国总统奥巴马与妻子米歇尔在俄亥俄州出席竞选活动，号召选民在美国中期选举中支持民主党。

奥巴马已经丧失了他在2008年美国总统大选期间表现出的非凡号召力。执政的民主党在11月2日举行的中期选举中铁定将遭遇惨败。

这是美国内外许多媒体众口一辞的分析与判断。

选议员选州长 民主党都将大败

美国《华尔街日报》10月20日公布的民意调查结果显示，一半受访民众将投票支持共和党，支持民主党的仅占43%%。在92个竞争最为激烈的众议院席位中，共和党人可能获得53席。

调查显示，有69%%的人表示，将把这次中期选举作为促使奥巴马政府“警醒”的良机。

2006年时，曾有59%%的受访民众称将通过中期选举警告时任总统、共和党人布什，结果民主党当年一举夺取了对国会参众两院的控制权。

《华尔街日报》据此分析称，民主党似乎正面临着一场4级飓风。飓风过后，民主党在国会中的多数党地位将“难以保全”。

共和党选情分析师麦金塔夫指出，共和党此次选举中只需获得39个席位，就足以掌控众议院。而从目前的民调结果来看，共和党很可能一举拿下52个或53个众议员席位。

美国一家著名政治网站20日分析称，在与中期选举同时举行的数十个州长选举中，共和党将以2∶1的优势“完胜”。

根据美国宪法，美国总统选举每四年举行一次，国会选举每两年一次。其中一次国会选举与总统选举同时进行，另一次在两届总统选举之间。在两届总统选举之间举行的选举叫做中期选举。中期选举大都在11月的第一个星期的星期二举行。在中期选举进行的同时，美国一些州将举行州长选举。


“他前方的机会之窗已然关闭”

德国《明镜周刊》日前载文指出，现在的奥巴马，已不再是2008年总统大选期间那个“呼风唤雨”、无所不能的奥巴马。尽管他目前仍在苦苦挣扎，力图率领民主党摆脱不利局面，但是，“他前方的机会之窗已然关闭”。

文章分析说，奥巴马洋溢的才华当然没有随着他入主白宫而丢失。他上任后也的确进行了一些大刀阔斧的“变革”。例如，他已开始从伊拉克撤军，他成功地强化了与各重要盟国的关系，他用8000亿美元的经济刺激方案以及金融市场改革应对了全球金融危机，他成功地进行了无数美国人一直梦想的医疗改革等。但他同时也给美国民众带来了“无尽的失望”……

光环尽失 信任不再

该文称，奥巴马在竞选时有个响亮的口号：“是的，我们能！”这一口号曾激起千百万选民对他的信心。如今，这一口号已经悄然改换了一个限定词——“有时候”。这意味着奥巴马不得不承认现实政治的残酷性：“有时候，我们能。有时候，我们不能。”

文章认为，为了推进阻力、争议极大的医疗改革，奥巴马耗尽了他的政治资本。其实他本应优先处理诸如能源改革、劳动力市场等更为迫切的议题。奥巴马自己也承认，他不仅低估了美国失业问题的严重性，而且还给部分民众留下了他喜欢大手大脚乱花纳税人钱的糟糕印象。

此外，当英国石油公司泄漏的原油严重污染墨西哥湾之际，他的妻子和小女儿却悠闲自得地奔向西班牙度假，他本人也在和好友打篮球。这很容易使人产生不好的感觉，即奥巴马只图自己享乐，不顾百姓安危。


政治攻讦堕落 民众心态失衡

《明镜周刊》认为，虽然以奥巴马为首的执政团队看起来依然强大，但他们已不像竞选期间那样铁板一块。对现状感到失望的支持者选择了主动请辞，感到疲劳不堪的工作人员则将在中期选举后黯然离去。

文章说，奥巴马没有为非洲裔美国人争取到更多权益，也没有为同性恋者争得社会地位。他因此丧失了左翼选民。而在争取中间选民方面，奥巴马的做法也是乏善可陈。

与此同时，共和党的极端保守主义者和部分“茶党”成员联手合作，煽动民意，力图将奥巴马比作希特勒式的魔头。反对奥巴马的一些美国媒体也在极尽“鼓噪”之能事，传播仇恨。

《明镜周刊》指出，传媒大亨默多克旗下的福克斯新闻网已经成为专门进行政党攻击的工具。而自由派电视台的表现也令人失望。在美国，理性的政治分析类节目已经很少见了。虽然一些“久经考验”的纸质媒体还在提供公正的分析，但不幸的是，他们的影响非常有限——如今阅读报纸的民众已经太少了。

美国民众当前的心理也处于自相矛盾之中。他们渴望政治自由，反对任何形式的政府干涉，同时又期待作为总统的奥巴马能带领他们走出危机。他们想要修建更多的铁路、车站和学校，想使用清洁能源，但他们不想为此多交税。他们本是移民的后代并为此感到自豪，但他们又反感、反对外来移民。

《明镜周刊》分析称，持续数十年的繁荣，已使美国成为一个“沉睡中的国家”。美国民众早已习惯了他们的“独特性”和“不受伤害性”。虽然美国人自己也知道他们需要变革，但他们同时又害怕变革。他们似乎集体患上了“精神分裂症”。

未来处处掣肘 连任总统吃力

如果美国中期选举的结果真如民调所示，那么奥巴马日后的执政之路将变得更加曲折。

英国《每日电讯报》20日载文称，共和党夺取众议院的控制权之后，奥巴马要想颁布新法案将变得十分困难——除非这一法案对共和党有利。然而，截至目前，没有迹象表明奥巴马将会“屈尊就驾”地选择向共和党妥协。

文章认为，届时，奥巴马以自己政治前途为赌注而推动的医疗改革恐将难以顺利实施。他还将面临巨大的压力去削减政府支出和预算，而这完全不符合他的执政理念。随着施政权力大打折扣，奥巴马今后在处理国内、国际事务时会感到处处掣肘，将很难挽回民心从而在两年后赢得连任。

 

[obama.bin.laden]

http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2010-10/22/c_12687369.htm

美国超40%民众：奥巴马成绩单为“F”
2010年10月22日 07:32:56 　来源： 人民日报 【字号 大小】【留言】【打印】【关闭】

10月17日，美国总统奥巴马与妻子米歇尔在俄亥俄州出席竞选活动，号召选民在美国中期选举中支持民主党。

此时距11月2日美国中期选举仅有10天左右，美国各种政治势力的角逐步入白热化。连日来，美国总统奥巴马一直在首都华盛顿与外地之间奔波，为民主党参选人打气加油。从10月18日开始，2008年总统大选共和党副总统候选人、被视为“茶党”精神领袖的佩林开启新一轮“茶党快车”全国巡游活动，其主要口号是“投票让他们下台”。

美国中期选举是对现政府的“中期测评”，也为各种政治势力的博弈提供了契机，攻守之势不言自明。处于攻势的共和党及“茶党”势力大打“失望”牌，力求改变民主党人同时掌控国会参众两院多数席位的现有格局。奥巴马总统及民主党人则试图使选民继续看到“希望”，力求巩固执政基础。

冷峻的现实加上蓄意的推波助澜，对现政府的失望情绪正在全美蔓延，这与两年前奥巴马获胜时多数选民对其变革允诺的热烈呼应形成鲜明对比。《华盛顿邮报》与哈佛大学不久前进行的一项民调表明，“失望”成了受访者对联邦政府评价最多的词汇；如果将联邦政府视为“学生”，10年前政府的成绩单为 “C”，而此时超过40%的受访者认为现政府的成绩只能是更差的“D”甚至是“F”。

美国政府面临的这种被动舆论局面，既来自于对奥巴马政府期望值与现实感的落差，也不乏炒作与渲染的因素。在华盛顿的政治文化中，中期选举时将执政者置于“被审”地位成为一种惯例，民众对现政府的“失望”也几近必然，只是程度不同而已。舆论普遍认为今日美国的党派政治色彩更加浓烈，多数共和党选民认为国家正走在“错误的道路”上。他们批评奥巴马的“大政府”举措没有关注和解决国家最为重要的问题，也没有合理使用纳税人的钱。对现政府强烈不满的 “茶党”成员也风借火势，成为影响今年中期选举的重要因素。

此次中期选举再次凸显美国“金钱政治”的本质。有舆论称，如果有人能在两周内控制电视台，那么其所宣扬的立场就能迅速转变民众的看法。近日媒体不断披露，倾向于共和党的各种利益集团正利用中期选举加紧“秘密献金”，以资助其政治代表大做竞选广告及其他竞选活动。诸如此类的造势愈显共和党人的凌厉攻势。

奥巴马19日坦言此次中期选举是一次“困难的选举”，因为美国正在经历极困难的时期。选举不仅事关美国的“前进与倒退”，也是民众“最深切的希望与最深切的恐惧之争”。他指责共和党人在打“恐惧牌”，他要重燃选民“希望”之火。

美国经济及社会保障、国防、教育、就业、环保等国内问题仍是此次中期选举的焦点话题。为了让选民看到“希望”，奥巴马总统近日提出初期投资 500亿美元的交通设施改造计划，以借此拉动需求，改善基础设施和创造就业。无奈此类举措“远水难解近渴”，对经济状况的改善难以立竿见影，再加上“失望”情绪在年轻选民中更有市场等多重因素，2010年美国中期选举早已缺少了2008年多数选民对奥巴马当选时所表现出的亢奋感。时移势易，这也是奥巴马政府必须面对的现实。 温宪

 

[flkyflky]

Recently people threw book at Obama as he gave speech. Also a man ran nude as Obama gave speech. Reminded me of Bush in Iraq where reporter threw shoes at him.

 

[Cruxx]

Leftists will always fail. You don't succeed by being "nice".

 

[Dreamer1]

Wait for boy wonder to stage the biggest come back!
I think-two terms

 

[obama.bin.laden]

Wait for boy wonder to stage the biggest come back!
I think-two terms

Kang Kor lah! Be realistic!

1. Kept squandering tax dollars on losing wars can not show any positive result.

2. Economic reform result is too short term, and deteriorated away fast and would be worst than before.

3. Diplomacy sucks. With EU Asia & Middle East.

4. International influence sucks. Can not deal with North Korea & Iran can not even deal with Somalian Pirates.

US citizens kept dying in wars and paying or wars, without result, fear to lose more jobs, property bubble bursting, can still support this type of Bull Shit President meh? Disappointed like shit! Lots of electoral talk cock and commitments unfulfilled.

 

[shOUTloud]

Kang Kor lah! Be realistic!

1. Kept squandering tax dollars on losing wars can not show any positive result.

2. Economic reform result is too short term, and deteriorated away fast and would be worst than before.

3. Diplomacy sucks. With EU Asia & Middle East.

4. International influence sucks. Can not deal with North Korea & Iran can not even deal with Somalian Pirates.

US citizens kept dying in wars and paying or wars, without result, fear to lose more jobs, property bubble bursting, can still support this type of Bull Shit President meh? Disappointed like shit! Lots of electoral talk cock and commitments unfulfilled.

You forgot most of the nonsense started with George Bush Jr. Obama will be beating that drum next year and by end 2012, he will be re-elected. Do not underestimate the ability of his opponents to self destruct.

 

[obama.bin.laden]

You forgot most of the nonsense started with George Bush Jr. Obama will be beating that drum next year and by end 2012, he will be re-elected. Do not underestimate the ability of his opponents to self destruct.

No use man. If Obama was smart to get votes out of Bush he should had nail Bush & Cheney etc or war crimes LONG AGO. He is worse than Bush now that he claimed Noble Peace Prize and then go on bloody wars. Everyone knows that he is worse than most. Bush is no longer a valid punching bag for Obama, he is totally out of the picture. All people have in mind now is not Bush's war but Obama's own and his fucking joke Peace Prize, which he don't deserve any shit and made a joke out of the award.