• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Obama Losing Support; Romney Would Beat Him Now

Bull

New Member
Hey everyone this is my first post! I've posted on several message boards such as Political Crossfire and Democratic Underground. I have a liberal bend to my views...hope you guys don't mind :cool:.
-------------------------

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's approval ratings have sunk to the lowest level of his presidency, so low that he'd lose the White House to Republican Mitt Romney if the election were held today, according to a new McClatchy-Marist poll.

The biggest reason for Obama's fall: a sharp drop in approval among Democrats and liberals, apparently unhappy with his moves toward the center since he led the party to landslide losses in November's midterm elections. At the same time, he's gained nothing among independents.

"He's having the worst of both worlds right now," said Lee Miringoff, the director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion at Marist College in New York, which conducted the national survey. "As he moves to the center, he's not picking up support among independents and he's having some fall-off among his base. If his strategy is to gain independents and keep the Democrats in tow, it isn't working so far."

The poll was taken from Dec. 2 through Wednesday, as the president proposed a two-year freeze on federal civilian workers' pay and cut a deal with congressional Republicans to extend expiring tax cuts — even those for the wealthy, which he'd opposed.

Overall, just 42 percent of registered voters approve of how he's doing his job, while 50 percent disapprove.

Obama's standing among Democrats dropped from a month ago, with his approval rating falling to 74 percent from 83 percent, and his disapproval rating almost doubling, from 11 percent to 21 percent.

Among liberals, his approval rating dropped from 78 percent to 69 percent and his disapproval rating jumped from 14 percent to 22 percent.

His position among independents remained virtually the same, with 39 percent approving and 52 percent disapproving. A month ago, it was 38-54.
One of the outcomes of the President moving to the center (and coming off as a DINO) is that he has SERIOUSLY alienated those that worked the hardest for him in 2008 (liberal campaigners and life long Dems). I don't think in my 23 years I've ever seen a Democratic Prez and his associates like Rahm Emmanuel (who called Liberals "fucking stupid") and Robert Gibbs (Professional Left) attack their base more than this administration after those same people worked their butts off to get him in office. Independents, as important as they are to winning nowadays, were not the ones going door-to-door in 2008. The above shows he's losing them in a major way though and thanks to this Tax "deal" he's now losing his base. I think Dems in power know they're in a piss poor position. It doesn't take the thumping in the midterms to tell them that. That explains the whole Bill Clinton thing from a few days ago. The rebellion of House Dems led by Bernie Sanders is also telling.

Dem. Congressman -"Obama's Tax Deal Good for Trust Fund Babies, "Unfair" to Umemployed."

Democratic Congressman Jim McDermott (D-Wash) called President Obama's tax cut deal "unfair" on Sunday, during an appearance with fellow Congressman Elijah Cummings (D-MD) on CNN's "State of the Union," and accused the president of not being serious about helping the unemployed.
----------
Obama's tax cut deal "gives $68 billion to the trust fund babies with security, it's going to last two years. To the unemployed, he gives $56 billion," McDermott continued. "It's going to go for a year, and then it's sort of up to the Republican-controlled Congress to go into the second year."


"If he were serious about this unemployed, he would have put in two years, he would have demanded that he have two or three years of unemployment, because [Federal Reserve Chairman Ben] Bernanke is saying we're going to have high unemployment for the next five years. It's not going away. And any avoidance of that is simply not caring about the unemployed in this country."
Outside of a major shift in strategy...Obama is in big trouble in 2012. Right now he's making Jimmy Carter look like Braveheart.
 

Bull

New Member
Since I don't have 15 posts I couldn't post the links. The first quote is from a McClatchy poll. The second quote is from The Huffington Post.
 

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
He's a coward plain and simple. The only good thing is that he's pissing off enough democrats that some of them are starting to see their balls drop. We're getting some actual emotion from the left for the first time in a long time. I've been skeptical of Obama since the election campaigns began in '08 and I'm really upset that my fears were well founded.
 

BigBob

Registered Member
It doesn't surprise me that his approval ratings have dropped, but you can only do so much whenever the Republicans refuse to lay a single vote down for anything he's brought to the table. It's hard to live up to your promises whenever one side refuses to budge on anything. If both sides would get their heads out of their asses and actually attempt to working together, he wouldn't look so bad right now.
 

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
Strikes me as a blip. It's no secret most of the left is pissed about the latest deal-making, but the alternative of letting the government shut down would be more hurtful in the long run. Getting your base back behind you is a lot easier than winning over folks who want a more comprising president willing to take the middle-ground and work w/ the opposition. To me, it seems the political calculus works out to his favor on this one. It also works out to the advantage of Congressional Democrats, since they can look comparatively tough and uncompromising with a bit of grandstanding, which should please the voters back home. It's really short-term vs. long-term here. The election isn't taking place tomorrow.
 

CaptainObvious

Embrace the Suck
V.I.P.
We're just a little two years away from the next presidential election. He could very easily get his base back and could still garner a lot of support from moderates in that time. While it's interesting to see who has support right now and who doesn't or who would win if the election were today it doesn't really mean much at all.
 

MenInTights

not a plastic bag
I love pouring over the polls and even though they look horrible for Obama now, most of the polls are useless at this point. However, losing to plastic man is pretty bad. lol.
 

Mirage

Secret Agent
Staff member
V.I.P.
If both sides would get their heads out of their asses and actually attempt to working together, he wouldn't look so bad right now.
That's an oxymoron though. Opposites can't work "together". They can submit to each others ideas, but it's impossible to work together to get Obama's agenda done. His agenda doesn't leave room for "meeting in the middle".

If one person wants to burn down a house and the other wants to put out the fire, is a controlled burn "working together"? Even if it was, the very idea is absurd. That's how I view today's political spectrum. For the most part, Republican and Democrat stances on the major issues of today are incompatible with one another. "Working together" would essentially be not doing anything in favor of either stance.

Imagine you're in a car with two steering wheels. One driver wants to turn left and the other wants to turn right. How can they "work together" on this? Working together is simply a sugar coated politically correct term for "the other side should change their stance so my side can achieve their agenda".
 

CaptainObvious

Embrace the Suck
V.I.P.
That's an oxymoron though. Opposites can't work "together". They can submit to each others ideas, but it's impossible to work together to get Obama's agenda done. His agenda doesn't leave room for "meeting in the middle".

If one person wants to burn down a house and the other wants to put out the fire, is a controlled burn "working together"? Even if it was, the very idea is absurd. That's how I view today's political spectrum. For the most part, Republican and Democrat stances on the major issues of today are incompatible with one another. "Working together" would essentially be not doing anything in favor of either stance.

Imagine you're in a car with two steering wheels. One driver wants to turn left and the other wants to turn right. How can they "work together" on this? Working together is simply a sugar coated politically correct term for "the other side should change their stance so my side can achieve their agenda".
Good point, and I would argue he didn't need the Republicans to "work together" with the Democrats to get what he promised during the campaign. How he "looks" is his own doing, although as has been pointed out there is still plenty of time to change that.
 

Major

4 legs good 2 legs bad
V.I.P.
That's an oxymoron though. Opposites can't work "together". They can submit to each others ideas, but it's impossible to work together to get Obama's agenda done. His agenda doesn't leave room for "meeting in the middle".

If one person wants to burn down a house and the other wants to put out the fire, is a controlled burn "working together"? Even if it was, the very idea is absurd. That's how I view today's political spectrum. For the most part, Republican and Democrat stances on the major issues of today are incompatible with one another. "Working together" would essentially be not doing anything in favor of either stance.

Imagine you're in a car with two steering wheels. One driver wants to turn left and the other wants to turn right. How can they "work together" on this? Working together is simply a sugar coated politically correct term for "the other side should change their stance so my side can achieve their agenda".
That sounds like a broken political system to me and I think something needs to be done about it.

As far as these polls go, it's way too early to look at them. Polls change drastically everyday in the weeks leading up to the election.
 
Top