Obama’s approval state by state
Interesting. It seems to be concentrated in just a few large and populous liberal states. Take a look.
The New Neo
A blog about political change, among other things
Interesting. It seems to be concentrated in just a few large and populous liberal states. Take a look.
“Father, must I work to eat?”
“Oh, no, my lucky son,
We’re living now on Easy Street,
With dough from Washington.
“We’ve left it up to Uncle Sam;
Now don’t get exercised.
Nobody has to give a damn,
We’ve all been subsidized!”
“But if Sam treats us all so well,
And feeds us milk and honey,
Please tell me, Daddy, where oh where,
He’s going to get the money?”
“Don’t worry son, there ain’t no hitch
To this here noble plan.
He simply soaks the filthy rich,
And helps the common man.”
“But Daddy, won’t there come a time,
If we take all their cash,
When they’ll be left without a dime,
And things will all go smash?”
“My faith in you is shrinking, son,
You nosy little brat!
You do too damn much thinking, son,
To be a Democrat!”
Courtesy of the Stromata Blog.
I wouldn’t get too excited about Obama’s low approval ratings. The last two Presidents to be where he is now were Reagan and Clinton, and they aren’t exactly thought of as failed Presidencies.
Specifically, its the economy. We’ve likely recovered from one of the longest recessions in history (if you go by the 2007 starting date) but perceptions (and unemployment) always lag. After all, clinton was elected prez even though the recovery had already begun under Bush I, as we know in retrospect.
Odds are perceptions will be better by Nov ’10, though repubs should still make gains as is customary during a a midterm. But looking forward, politics is zero sum game, so one has to look at Obama approval ratings in comparison to a repub challenger. With the teaparties driving the republicans toward simple-minded libertarian sloganeering, conspriacy theories (birtherism), and even an ahistorical revival of the confederacy(McDonnell, Barbour), the top candidates become less and less electable. we may very well be looking at a reverse mcgovern scenario in ’12. even now, its not looking too good for the right on the presidential front, as evidenced here:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e20133ecb0911b970b-popup
THIS IS WHY WE NEED TO PRESERVE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.
Mnaju
I would not compare Obama to any other President in recent US history for the simply reason we never had a president who so damned the will of the people and forsook the American political religion. Obama is truly unique in both those aspects. Even if the economy recovers, which it would in spite of Obama not because of him, there are just too many other things he has done to disqualify himself for consideration for public office.
BTW not one minute do I believe he is anywhere near as popular as the polls would indicate. As Neo indicated, among those who care enough to vote his name is Mudd.
What you either fail to notice or choose to ignore, manju, is that Obama’s approval ratings were significantly higher than either Clinton or Reagan’s following their respective elections. He has dropped much farther, much faster.
Furthermore, Democrats well may face a backlash not only if the economy fails to improve significantly over the next six months, but also because of their disregard for the majority of constituent’s wishes and their “in your face” attitude in bullying through such an unpopular and potentially harmful bill.
Furthermore, the fear over the additional costs to be incurred in hiring under ObamaCare could well hobble the recovery and prolong what has been for many in this country the worst period of stagnation and unemployment in their lifetimes.
And just how much harm will “birthers” cause a party, considering how little the 9/11 truthers have hurt the libs? What you are so eager to label as simple-minded libertarianism is a strong and growing population that is becoming even more sick and tired of being fleeced and sheared by those in Washington.
“”With the teaparties driving the republicans toward simple-minded libertarian sloganeering””
As opposed to the nuanced Ivy League minded progressive sloganeering thats nearly destroyed the country?
I’ll take simple. Because truth and decency really are simple.
This brings up a damning reality. Those liberal states are made up of the public union members, public servants plus liberal nut jobs fully propagandized by the media and the educational system.
Just as in the UK these states are run and have been bankrupted by Democratic policies that favour a particular set of Americans out to destroy the Judeao Christian foundation of the country that has made America exceptional.
The problem is that Obama’s policies are creating more and more of these individuals who have lost their will to strive and who want to continue to live in an unsustainable liberal bubble.
For example 47% of them presently pay no taxes.
What happens when the tipping point is reached when they outnumber hard working Americans ?
The tipping point is almost there.
There is something very wrong with that map. It shows Obama extremely popular in Massachusetts. That does not jive with the recent election.
There is something very wrong with that map. It shows Obama extremely popular in Massachusetts. That does not jive with the recent election.
While the map may well be incorrect, there is also an alternative explanation. Polls indicate that approval of ∅bama the person is greater than approval of his policies. Perhaps some believe that San Fran Nan, a.k.a. the Wicked Witch of the West, is leading the POTUS astray. Bear in mind that Scott Brown didn’t run against ∅bama, but against the health care bill.
“Furthermore, Democrats well may face a backlash… but also because of their disregard for the majority of constituent’s wishes and their “in your face” attitude in bullying through such an unpopular and potentially harmful bill”
The problem with this resoning is that the only way you can get this bill to be unpopular is to include those who oppose it from the left as part of the opposition, when they are actually, for all practical purposes when it comes to voting at least, supporters of obama and the dems. what % of them are going to sit out the election or vote against the prez? the left has nowhere to go but with the dems so obama can basically ignore them. maybe throw them a bone or two like reagan did the pro-life crew, but thats it.
so, as far as healthcare goes, the bill gives repubs probably a minority constituency to work to begin with. there’s obviously a core who are republican who’ll never vote for Obama or a dem on principle, and the rest are probably moderates, most likely seniors, whose concern is their own socialist benefits, medicare in particular.
obviously, they like their medicare, especially bush’s completely unfunded prescription drug pt d which alone could bankrupt the nation, and they’re upset with obama b/c bachmann is telling them there are going to be death committees or something, and of course it stands to reason that if you expand coverage there’s less money to go to those already on the welfare rolls, and b/c obama’s actully trying to pay for the benefits while people like stuff for free, like W offerred.
but come election day and death committees fail to appear while premiums stay the same, they’re up for grabs again for the dems. Of course, if you guys are right and death camps do appear and premiums for seniors are higher, you might pluck off some red states by appealing to seniors who want “socialism for me but not for thee.” but i wouldn’t bet on the tea party hype coming true.
Manju,
Why is it that the “Shift” key doesn’t seem to function much of the time on most leftist’s computer keyboards? Just curious.
You are obviously one of those “concerned” trolls, trying to make a “reasoned argument” against the common prevailing perception. The problem for you is that anyone who would link to anything posted by Andrew Sullivan simply cannot be taken seriously (what with his very unfortunate, total mental and emotional breakdown in the Bush years).