I’m stunned Obama is still in the 40 something approval range. Would he have a lower approval rating if his over the top anti Americanism didn’t force his supporters into deeper denial to protect themselves from being so incredibly wrong?
Possible reasons for the increasing spread:
1. Open, festering question on whether a member of his staff promised Joe Sestak a job in exchange for dropping out of the Senate race. Is he lying when he says someone in his employ did? He does not appear to be concerned about the appearance that bribery may have been committed. What did he know about this at the time?
2. Appearance that it was it a mistake for Congress to have established a director of national intelligence? Why did Admiral Blair leave? Most in the know say he was forced out.
3. Appearance that he and his key staff may be attending political fundraisers when so much of the nation is suffering the effects of the disaster taking place in the Gulf.
4. No response to James Carville’s criticisms of POTUS?
5. The president obviously feels that the press treats him unfairly. Unadulterated whining!
6. First press conference in almost a year.
7. How does he respond to assertions that the U.S. is losing influence in the world?
8. Gates has stated that Iran be a nuclear power by the end of Obama’s presidency. Needs to address this.
9. Does not appear to be bothered that two U.S. allies, Brazil and Turkey have publicly embraced the Iranian leader.
10. Continues to ignore ignore increasing Russian intimidation of its neighbors and negotiate while its troops remain in Georgia and it uses it control of the oil supply to coerce Ukraine into renewing Russia’s naval base in that country.
11. Arizona
Almost forgot:
12. The pace and number of attempted terror attacks against the U.S. over the past nine months has surpassed the number of attempts during any previous one-year period, according to an internal Department of Homeland Security report issued on Friday, May 21.
I find it interesting that from the very beginning the daily volatility among Obama boosters is quite a bit more than among Obama opponents. That supports the idea that liberals are emotional and conservatives are rational.
I think the gap may widen in the coming weeks/months.
“President Barack Obama on Tuesday authorized the deployment of up to 1,200 additional troops to border areas but State Department spokesman Philip Crowley told reporters, “It’s not about immigration.” ”
Note to Obama and the State Dept: IT’S THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION STUPID!”
Mr. Frank, a fascinating hypothesis. It should be somewhat testable by looking at more detail, including other polls. I would be curious what causes quick spikes or drops in his approval ratings among his general supporters. The meaning is different whether it is the casual observers or the true believers who are volatile. I am going to guess it is the former, which also explains things like spikes in Bush’s support after 9/11 – a broad swath of liberal-leaning people are quite emotional and affected by single events.
But that’s my hypothesis. May prove wrong.
I will get on a favorite soapbox again and note that the extremely low “strong disapproval” numbers when Obama was elected could only be achieved if a large percentage of the people who voted against him made it a point to give him a chance to show what he could do. When the narrative is spun of how people were against him from the start and wanted him to fail, pull out this graph.
The picture of the Democrats cheering a foreign leader who urged the breaking of American laws may have at least temporarily awoken a few more Americans.
Is rationality creeping into the electorate’s mind?
I’ll save my optimistic for now.
Very interesting point, Mr. Frank. I have been wondering who on earth these people are who change their minds about the man so swiftly and often just because he gives a State of the Union speech, or hasn’t given a speech in a while, or whatever.
Pablo, though you hit on this indirectly in your #4, I’d give the oil spill a number of its own — possibly No. 1, 2, or 3. While Obama’s certainly not getting Katrina-level flak for it (and, if he did, wouldn’t deserve it any more or less than Bush did), the way he has handled it so far has not exactly made him look like a competent, effective leader. Moreover, his base — his highly volatile base, as Mr. Frank points out — cares greatly about the environment and has long believed that government, rather than those evil corporations, is the best and proper entity to handle all environmental problems — so why can’t their guy just fix this right up??
Oops, Pablo, I see that your #3 already is the oil spill — read it too fast. Sorry!
You know, the expected thing for a President in trouble to do — particularly in an election year — is to throw a bone or two to his opponents. This has the effect of quieting down the controversy for a while. And it usually works, even though we pretty much expect the President to quietly take the bone back once the elections are safely behind him.
President Obama is not doing this. He (or his staff) spoke out against the Arizona immigration law without having read it, thereby proving that he learned nothing from the incident with the Massachusetts policeman. He continues to honor our enemies and snub our friends. He continues to ignore pressing matters (the BP oil spill, Iranian nukes, North Korea, etc.) except insofar as they address his own hobbyhorse issues.
These are all things that drive his numbers down. Why is he letting that happen? (The White House is not even taking its own advice! Remember that bit about “never letting a crisis go to waste”? What is the BP oil spill, if not a crisis wasted? It was a chance for him to act boldly and decisively, for the good of the environment… and he squandered it.)
I keep hearing how smart President Obama is. Unfortunately for him, he’s apparently not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. (And with the capability to surround himself with the smartest advisers available, he doesn’t seem to be smart enough to take advice either.)
The Democrats are hemorrhaging support, faster than oil spilling into the Gulf. Fortunately for them, they still have five months to turn things around, if they so choose. It doesn’t look like they do.
So — are we taking bets on the possibility of an “October surprise” by the Democrats, something to turn public opinion in their favor? (I’m at a loss to imagine what it could be. There are NO prominent Republicans on the national stage right now; whom would they attack?)
Don’t forget to vote.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
Sestak wasn’t the only politician the White House tried to bribe.
Allegations that the White House offered Joe Sestak a job in exchange for dropping out of the Pennsylvania Senate race echo an earlier report of a job offer to candidate Andrew Romanoff in Colorado.
On September 27, 2009 the Denver Post reported that the Obama administration offered Senate candidate Romanoff a position if he canceled plans to run for the Democratic nomination against incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet.
The paper said the job offer, which specified particular jobs, was reportedly delivered by Jim Messina, Obama’s deputy chief of staff. One position cited by the Post was a job at USAID, the foreign aid agency.
Messina contacted Romanoff soon after news leaked in August 2009 that Romanoff, former Colorado House speaker, would make a primary run against Bennet.
problem with no morals is that laws USED to be created for moral reasons, so that moral people could guess what was wrong, by just being moral.
those without such moral compasses cant see how such behaviors could have been made illegal for moral reasons before they came on the scene and to prevent such abuse, which pragmatic amoral megalomaniacal power addicts tend to think is ok.
For added support for Mr. Franks’s astute observation that there was more volatility in support for Obama than in opposition to Obama, I ran some standard deviation tests on the Rasmussen data. For those not mathematically inclined, suffice it to say that standard deviation measures the variability or the volatility of a sample.
Last 3 months:
Strongly support Standard deviation= 3.61
Strongly oppose Standard deviation= 0.03
Last year
Strongly support Standard deviation= 5.98
Strongly oppose Standard deviation= 0.03
From Jan 20 2009 onward
Strongly support Standard deviation= 10.48
Strongly oppose Standard deviation= 0.05
Of course the libs could reply those numbers show that wingnuts are more rigid, that they don’t account for NUANCE in adjusting their viewpoints. And they would be correct. Emotions vary more than logic.
Pablo: Very good list. As a base from which the increasing speed is being added, lets not forget:
The czars (esp. Van Jones and Kevin Jennings); Israel and Netanyahu; shutting off the water in California;dismissing the IG, Gerald Walpin; Beergate; HCR; Porkulus; debt; Gibbs; Holder; judical appointments; bowing; Hondurus; the budget; crippling our defenses; too proud to salute or honor the flag; blaming Bush incessantly; his mug everywhere all the time; unemployment. . .
Can such immensity of stupidity and arrogance perpretrated upon her peoples only speak volumes about the robustness of the good ole U S of A!
Since we’re on a roll, I offer this one, albeit cautiously because I know it’s contentious particularly to those in NYC:
911 Mega Mosque
Pablo: Totally.
True Fact: I printed out the exact graph yesterday, before Neo published it, and cherished it. It was good news versus the bad news that Rifqa Bary has uterine cancer–a cancer which is so symbolic of the muslim cancer in our government at high levels.
I think I’m going to buy and read “Willful Blindness” by Andrew McCarthy.
Andy McCarthy’s new book is out today: The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.
The other remaining 20% offer conditional support.
I believe it to be a virtual certainty that Obama will suffer further substantial declines in his approval numbers. Both by his own actions and by outer circumstance. He’s slowly approaching a ‘tipping point’ in which his support will appear to suddenly collapse.
Politically, he can’t win this fight.
If over the next 6 months he’s able to force through the radical legislation he desires, he will exponentially increase dissatisfaction with his policies. Which shall result in an even greater Republican landslide sure to ripple on to the 2012 elections.
If, over the next 6 months he is unable to advance his legislative agenda, he cements the perception of incompetence, among many of that 40% currently supporting him. He shall replace, in their minds Carter and, set a new standard in ineffectiveness.
Look for his approval numbers to collapse, at the latest, right after the mid-terms.
Obama is about to become a lame-duck President less than two years into his first term. He’s shot his political wad and his troubles have just begun.
The Sestak scandal is explosive because there’s absolutely no wiggle room, either Sestak is a liar or the WH is protecting a felon and the felon is almost certainly Emanuel or the President. If it’s the President, impeachment is certain. If it’s Emanuel, the political damage will emasculate Obama’s Presidency.
The politically inept stonewalling the WH is engaged in is making it much worse. Almost certainly, it will result in a fatal fault line appearing within the President’s inner circle.
Obama now has his ‘Katrina’ and all the other factors pablo listed, of which Arizona alone is certain to create decisive confrontation and that confrontation will have a far reaching effect; the abandonment of ‘white guilt’ by the majority of the public.
He’s increasingly perceived as opposing the will of the people and America will never tolerate a tyrant who rules by fiat.
I still maintain that we are in the process of witnessing the greatest reversal in a political parties fortunes, ever.
I’d add to Pablo’s and Curtis’s lists the expensive partying and travel (wagyu beef; date nights in NYC; flying a pizza chef to the WH for one meal; Michelle’s $500 sneakers and $600 handbag; decorating the WH like a night club for Calderon’s visit; going to Chicago for Memorial Day weekend; frequent rounds of golf, etc. etc.). Even those who are not terribly “into” political stuff are bothered by the spectacle of lavish spending and personal self-indulgence displayed by the Obamas when ordinary folk feel pinched by the bad economy in all kinds of ways. I overheard a lot of criticism of the O’s lifestyle while I was waiting in the supermarket checkout line last week. And this in a very blue state!
Geoffrey B., you mentioned the Sestak scandal, do you know if the MSM has ever mentioned it at all? You are right, it should be big, but like most negatives about the Obmessiah I suspect it will mysteriously disappear.
The Rasmussen poll shows O picked up some points today. Go figure.
According to infoplease.com, “As of July 1, 2008, … black residents in the United States … made up 13.5 percent of the total U.S. population.” Of those 13.5 percent, I’m imagining they split maybe 12.5 percent pro-Obama to 1.0 percent opposed.
Let’s do a little math here. Let’s assume a black-nonblack split. I’ll assume an electorate (more precisely, those who might be sampled) of 100 million, also for simplicity — don’t worry, it’ll all be in percents anyway at the end of this exercise.
Here goes …
Blacks are 13.5 percent, or 13.5 million by head count (out of a hypothetical 100 million). 12.5 million approve of Obama. Let’s assume the latest approval number is 44 percent overall, so a head count of approvers would be 44 million.
Subtract 44 million minus 12.5 million. The result is 31.5 million. Percentage-wise, 31.5 million out of 86.5 million non-blacks is 36.4 percent.
Black folks have tended to think and feel as a unified block for a long time now, for whatever reasons (they’re not important for this exercise). I say they are more so when it comes to Barack Obama, for obvious racial and cultural reasons.
So among those who are not as susceptible to this particular form of group-think, Obama’s approval rating among nonblacks is only 36.4 percent.
And 20 or 25 percent out of the 36.4 percent are hard-core, who will approve of any- and everything Obama does.
That leaves 11.4 to 16.4 percent who are not hard-core who still approve of Obama. They’re the ones who are slowly slipping away.
M J R
I saw a video snippet of Obama recently (I think it was a Barbara Boxer fundraiser) where he was talking about how he’s no longer perceived as cool, that he has more gray hair, that he’s now depicted with a Hitler mustache on posters, and that it’s been a rough 16 months.
He used the line that it’s been a rough 16 months again today at the oil leak press conference.
He looked unhappy and discontent in both interviews. For the first time, I’m starting to wonder if he may decide not to run for re-election if things don’t improve by early next year.
BoV,
The MSM has mentioned the Sestak scandal, though they haven’t pursued it. Hannity on FOX yesterday, showed multiple clips of Sestak being questioned on his allegations, by the MSM.
It’s been below the radar but so was Watergate for a long time and this has the potential to be another Watergate.
What did the President know and when did he know it?
The Democrats, WH and LSM are not going to be able to sweep this under the rug, all they can do is delay it and the longer they do, the worse it stinks.
But whatever Obama’s involvement, politically this will emasculate his administration.
I say that because if Sestak was lying they would have immediately and categorically denied it. And if it was a case of “he said, she said”, by now they would have characterized it as a misunderstanding on Sestak’s part. Having others suggest that Sestak ‘imagined’ it is a sign of legal weakness by the WH.
As a former Admiral and current Congressman, Sestak knows that you don’t make accusations of the WH without at the least, circumstantial evidence to back it up.
When, at the latest, a Republican Congress appoints a special prosecutor to investigate, Sestak is going to have to place all his cards on the table or face charges of obstruction of justice in a federal investigation.
That’s a federal crime, a felony for which he could and would go to prison.
If he admits to having lied his career is over.
If Sestak lies to cover for the WH and is caught, that’s obstruction of justice.
This story has legs because it’s irrelevant that this goes on all the time, politically, it’s not that a crime has been committed, it’s that it’s now a public crime.
Someone’s going to prison simply because Sestak opened his mouth and let the proverbial ‘cat out of the bag’. The only question is who.
Right GB, this does go on all the time and that is exactly how the NYT is trying to spin it. (Go to the last fifth of the article for quotes from Elmendorf and Sosnik.)
With respect to the Sestak case, one is reminded of the observation that if you strike the king, you must kill the king. I suspect Sestak appreciates this wisdom about now. To mix metaphors, one wonders if he will pull the trigger.
“The Rasmussen poll shows O picked up some points today. Go figure.”
Could some of the J.Q. Public actually believe it was Obama to the rescue?
Synopsis of article:
Blame BP: “BP has unleashed an unstoppable force of appalling proportions.” Jeremy Symons, vice president of the National Wildlife Federation.
Credit Obama: “My job right now is just to make sure everybody in the Gulf understands: This is what I wake up to in the morning, and this is what I go to bed at night thinking about. The spill,” he said. Obama said he would put an end to the “scandalously close relationship” between regulators and the oil companies they oversee. He also extended a freeze on new deepwater oil drilling and canceled or delayed proposed lease sales in the waters off Alaska and Virginia and along the Gulf Coast.
GB wrote “The Democrats, WH and LSM are not going to be able to sweep this under the rug, all they can do is delay it and the longer they do, the worse it stinks. ”
Hasn’t the MSM been sweeping O’s dirty laundry under the rug from day one? Why should this get different treatment from the rest of his unethical acts. There is certainly not going to be a Woodward or Bernstein to pursue it. The price an investigative reporter would pay for pursuing Obama would be his career and friends. Nor will there be a special council soon, Holder and O will see to that in the best Chicago tradition, any more than there was an investigation about why Obama tried to replace a democratic government in Honduras with a leftist one. I do see the press complaining that some people are accusing Obama of something or other and investigating them, but not actually investigating to see if anti-Obama charges are valid. We saw precisely that with regard to Van Jones.
As for Congress appointing a special prosecutor sometime after November; by that time the whole thing will be ancient history. The press will rally against the evil racist Republicans using anything to hurt a dedicated hardworking non-white idealistic leader.
I hope you are right and I am wrong, but we see Obama doing one miserable thing after another and paying at worse a modest price. In the case of Obamacare, he was lauded.
Here is a new name for the Chosen One, the Teflon President, because nothing sticks to the guy and there is so much that should. (Apologies to John Gotti, the Teflon Mafia don, I do not mean to belittle his memory by comparing him to Obama).
“Obama said he would put an end to…”
Don’t let a crisis go to waste, drag your feet (play golf, campaign…) for a month, slow in response to several state’s requests for assistance; then use it as an excuse to extend executive/federal control into the future, as well as current and previously invested projects. He could easily be a href=”http://cowgirlfromhell.wordpress.com/2010/03/23/bill-introduced-to-repeal-the-22nd-amendment-remove-term-limits-for-president/”>budding despot ala Venezuela were it not for the ultimate constitutional limits on his term; while the Democratic Party’s aim is to become a securely established long-term controlling force within the federal bureaucracy; tantamount to the role which the “Communist Party” plays in its intimate and pervasive control of every aspect of the PRC. Then there is the Dem Party/Executive branch challenge exemplified in recent Arizona events, undermining legitimate state rights and interests; conspicuously “profiling” what part of the law the government will or not enforce, party ideology driven rather than authentic constitutional mandate and fiduciary responsibility.
The MSM and the public dismiss how far out of reality the Democratic Party has ventured; how dangerous are the ramifications in the long-term measured financially and economically, but most important, the insidious erosion of personal liberty.
“There is legislation proposed in the house to repeal the 22nd Amendment. This would remove the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President. This was proposed in January 2009, and was referred to committee in February 2009. To date no action has been taken on this bill, but the fact that it is out there sitting in committee is FRIGHTENING.
For more on this see:
Obama to Challenge 22nd Amendment; Become King
HOPE and CHANGE: Move to Repeal Presidential Term Limits Started”
Quote 1: . . .from the moment this disaster began, the federal government has been in charge of the response effort. As far as I’m concerned, BP is responsible for this horrific disaster . . .
(Right. Here’s the baby talk. BP bad, made bad thing. Me good. Made bad thing go away.)
Quote 2: There is no evidence that some of the corrupt practices that had taken place earlier took place under the current administration’s watch, but a culture in which oil companies were able to get what they wanted, without sufficient oversight and regulation, that was a real problem. Some of it was constraints of the law, as I just mentioned.
But we should have busted through those constraints.
(Technique known as Rousseau’s Confessions (admit a lesser blame: problem versus corrupt practices) and also, the ever ready and reliable Blame Bush)
Quote 3: In either circumstance, we’ve got the authority that we need; we’ve just got to make sure that we’re exercising it effectively.
(Then why aren’t you? And why did the “constraints of the law prevent you?)
Quote 4: But overall, the decisions that have been made have been reflective of the best science that we’ve got, the best expert opinion that we have, and have been weighing various risks and various options to allocate our resources in such a way that we can get this fixed as quickly as possible.
(This explains everything.)
Quote 5: First, we will suspend the planned exploration of two locations off the coast of Alaska.
(A non sequitur: Do the best minds think exploration will fix the spill or that explorations itself is dangerous? Let’s go ahead and hamper even exploration. I think this is more just a childish shove at Palin. Unhhhh.)
Quote 6: In this case, the federal, state and local governments have the resources and expertise to play an even more direct role in the response effort. And I will be discussing this further when I make my second trip to Louisiana tomorrow.
(Wow. Your second trip. And how can the federal government play an even more direct role when they were totally in charge in the first place?)
Geoffrey, Pew Research would suggest that your guess is a great off-the-cuff estimate. They say 19% for a closely overlapping group: http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=949
Subtract from that some liberal-issue true believers who are abandoning Obama, add it some folks from Pew’s other categories who would be loyal for reasons other than liberalism, and it may be a wash.
I’m with Bob, however, about sweeping things under the rug. Conservatives railed about Clinton’s requisitioned FBI files of his enemies, Whitewater, the travel office, forbidding the FBI access to Vince Foster’s office, the Lincoln Bedroom rental, and a dozen other things. Not until sex was involved did the general public get interested (and then, of course, the defense was that it was we who were obsessed with sex).
Something may eventually kick this rotten door in, but what that would be may depend more on chance (or salaciousness) than on reason and law.
Not that we shouldn’t keep trying…
Who has a problem with a well and thinks “Man i wish government was here to solve this”? There is no trade, profession, endeavor or calling that government is an expert at. Even things like the military they’re decent at is 10 times the cost it could be without the bogged down beauracracy of an obese government
They’re simply experts at pretending to be experts.
“Hasn’t the MSM been sweeping O’s dirty laundry under the rug from day one? Why should this get different treatment from the rest of his unethical acts.”
Yes, the MSN has and they will certainly protest that its a tempest in a teapot and that its a partisan witchhunt. The radical behavior of the Democrats however has swung the pendulum and the Republicans will now consider actions that previously they wouldn’t have considered. That’s why they hung tough on health care.
If, after the mid-terms the Republicans allow themselves to be intimidated by the MSM, then things will become grim indeed. Radicalism among the public will increase because the perception will increasingly grow that we are living under tyranny.
The Sestak scandal is different however because its a felony with an accusation of unlawful exercise of Executive favors. It can’t be defended, only asserted that it didn’t happen and if Sestak has evidence that it did happen, it takes on a life of its own.
If a Special Prosecutor is appointed, Sestak has to submit any and all evidence he possesses or be found guilty of obstruction of justice, a very serious offense.
“”if Sestak has evidence that it did happen””
It will never see the light of day. These people in the process of redistributing trillions worldwide are going to let a wanna be senate candidate from Pennsylvania bring damning evidence against them? I don’t see it.
There is another excellent article by Barry Rubin about Obama at Rubin Reports. The crux of it that he seems incapable of learning from or even acknowledging his mistakes.
Bob From Virginia The crux of it that he seems incapable of learning from or even acknowledging his mistakes.
Not only was this an absurd claim, he refused to admit he was wrong.
So, it isn’t as if we weren’t warned about this trait of our POTUS.
Neo, for someone with such commanding political talent, after following all the lack of action on the spill, I was reminded of this scene from the movie, GHOSTBUSTERS. The boys are in the mayor’s office and everyone is flailing. The politicians have overlooked the most obvious reason to do something on the Gulf, … that is about the ghosts, quickly:
Dr. Peter Venkman: Or you can accept the fact that this city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, “biblical”?
Dr. Raymond Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath-of-God type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the sky! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes…
Winston Zeddmore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice. Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria!
Mayor: Enough! I get the point! And what if you’re wrong?
Dr. Peter Venkman: If we’re wrong, then nothing happens. We go to jail. Peacefully. Quietly. We’ll enjoy it. But if we’re right, and we can stop this thing, Lenny… [The mayor looks at him incredulously.] you will have saved the lives of millions of registered voters.
“Familiarity breeds disapproval.” Oh, and contempt, too.
“I’d like to say that you always offer valid information and I have been an fascinated reader of your site for quite some time. I wanted to say thankyou really 🙂 for all the good work you do!”
However I?¡¥m going through problem with ur rss feed”
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
I’m stunned Obama is still in the 40 something approval range. Would he have a lower approval rating if his over the top anti Americanism didn’t force his supporters into deeper denial to protect themselves from being so incredibly wrong?
Possible reasons for the increasing spread:
1. Open, festering question on whether a member of his staff promised Joe Sestak a job in exchange for dropping out of the Senate race. Is he lying when he says someone in his employ did? He does not appear to be concerned about the appearance that bribery may have been committed. What did he know about this at the time?
2. Appearance that it was it a mistake for Congress to have established a director of national intelligence? Why did Admiral Blair leave? Most in the know say he was forced out.
3. Appearance that he and his key staff may be attending political fundraisers when so much of the nation is suffering the effects of the disaster taking place in the Gulf.
4. No response to James Carville’s criticisms of POTUS?
5. The president obviously feels that the press treats him unfairly. Unadulterated whining!
6. First press conference in almost a year.
7. How does he respond to assertions that the U.S. is losing influence in the world?
8. Gates has stated that Iran be a nuclear power by the end of Obama’s presidency. Needs to address this.
9. Does not appear to be bothered that two U.S. allies, Brazil and Turkey have publicly embraced the Iranian leader.
10. Continues to ignore ignore increasing Russian intimidation of its neighbors and negotiate while its troops remain in Georgia and it uses it control of the oil supply to coerce Ukraine into renewing Russia’s naval base in that country.
11. Arizona
Almost forgot:
12. The pace and number of attempted terror attacks against the U.S. over the past nine months has surpassed the number of attempts during any previous one-year period, according to an internal Department of Homeland Security report issued on Friday, May 21.
I find it interesting that from the very beginning the daily volatility among Obama boosters is quite a bit more than among Obama opponents. That supports the idea that liberals are emotional and conservatives are rational.
I think the gap may widen in the coming weeks/months.
“President Barack Obama on Tuesday authorized the deployment of up to 1,200 additional troops to border areas but State Department spokesman Philip Crowley told reporters, “It’s not about immigration.” ”
Note to Obama and the State Dept: IT’S THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION STUPID!”
Mr. Frank, a fascinating hypothesis. It should be somewhat testable by looking at more detail, including other polls. I would be curious what causes quick spikes or drops in his approval ratings among his general supporters. The meaning is different whether it is the casual observers or the true believers who are volatile. I am going to guess it is the former, which also explains things like spikes in Bush’s support after 9/11 – a broad swath of liberal-leaning people are quite emotional and affected by single events.
But that’s my hypothesis. May prove wrong.
I will get on a favorite soapbox again and note that the extremely low “strong disapproval” numbers when Obama was elected could only be achieved if a large percentage of the people who voted against him made it a point to give him a chance to show what he could do. When the narrative is spun of how people were against him from the start and wanted him to fail, pull out this graph.
The picture of the Democrats cheering a foreign leader who urged the breaking of American laws may have at least temporarily awoken a few more Americans.
Is rationality creeping into the electorate’s mind?
I’ll save my optimistic for now.
Very interesting point, Mr. Frank. I have been wondering who on earth these people are who change their minds about the man so swiftly and often just because he gives a State of the Union speech, or hasn’t given a speech in a while, or whatever.
Pablo, though you hit on this indirectly in your #4, I’d give the oil spill a number of its own — possibly No. 1, 2, or 3. While Obama’s certainly not getting Katrina-level flak for it (and, if he did, wouldn’t deserve it any more or less than Bush did), the way he has handled it so far has not exactly made him look like a competent, effective leader. Moreover, his base — his highly volatile base, as Mr. Frank points out — cares greatly about the environment and has long believed that government, rather than those evil corporations, is the best and proper entity to handle all environmental problems — so why can’t their guy just fix this right up??
Oops, Pablo, I see that your #3 already is the oil spill — read it too fast. Sorry!
You know, the expected thing for a President in trouble to do — particularly in an election year — is to throw a bone or two to his opponents. This has the effect of quieting down the controversy for a while. And it usually works, even though we pretty much expect the President to quietly take the bone back once the elections are safely behind him.
President Obama is not doing this. He (or his staff) spoke out against the Arizona immigration law without having read it, thereby proving that he learned nothing from the incident with the Massachusetts policeman. He continues to honor our enemies and snub our friends. He continues to ignore pressing matters (the BP oil spill, Iranian nukes, North Korea, etc.) except insofar as they address his own hobbyhorse issues.
These are all things that drive his numbers down. Why is he letting that happen? (The White House is not even taking its own advice! Remember that bit about “never letting a crisis go to waste”? What is the BP oil spill, if not a crisis wasted? It was a chance for him to act boldly and decisively, for the good of the environment… and he squandered it.)
I keep hearing how smart President Obama is. Unfortunately for him, he’s apparently not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. (And with the capability to surround himself with the smartest advisers available, he doesn’t seem to be smart enough to take advice either.)
The Democrats are hemorrhaging support, faster than oil spilling into the Gulf. Fortunately for them, they still have five months to turn things around, if they so choose. It doesn’t look like they do.
So — are we taking bets on the possibility of an “October surprise” by the Democrats, something to turn public opinion in their favor? (I’m at a loss to imagine what it could be. There are NO prominent Republicans on the national stage right now; whom would they attack?)
Don’t forget to vote.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
Sestak wasn’t the only politician the White House tried to bribe.
Allegations that the White House offered Joe Sestak a job in exchange for dropping out of the Pennsylvania Senate race echo an earlier report of a job offer to candidate Andrew Romanoff in Colorado.
On September 27, 2009 the Denver Post reported that the Obama administration offered Senate candidate Romanoff a position if he canceled plans to run for the Democratic nomination against incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet.
The paper said the job offer, which specified particular jobs, was reportedly delivered by Jim Messina, Obama’s deputy chief of staff. One position cited by the Post was a job at USAID, the foreign aid agency.
Messina contacted Romanoff soon after news leaked in August 2009 that Romanoff, former Colorado House speaker, would make a primary run against Bennet.
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/romanoff-sestak-obama-job/2010/05/26/id/360232
problem with no morals is that laws USED to be created for moral reasons, so that moral people could guess what was wrong, by just being moral.
those without such moral compasses cant see how such behaviors could have been made illegal for moral reasons before they came on the scene and to prevent such abuse, which pragmatic amoral megalomaniacal power addicts tend to think is ok.
For added support for Mr. Franks’s astute observation that there was more volatility in support for Obama than in opposition to Obama, I ran some standard deviation tests on the Rasmussen data. For those not mathematically inclined, suffice it to say that standard deviation measures the variability or the volatility of a sample.
Last 3 months:
Strongly support Standard deviation= 3.61
Strongly oppose Standard deviation= 0.03
Last year
Strongly support Standard deviation= 5.98
Strongly oppose Standard deviation= 0.03
From Jan 20 2009 onward
Strongly support Standard deviation= 10.48
Strongly oppose Standard deviation= 0.05
Of course the libs could reply those numbers show that wingnuts are more rigid, that they don’t account for NUANCE in adjusting their viewpoints. And they would be correct. Emotions vary more than logic.
Pablo: Very good list. As a base from which the increasing speed is being added, lets not forget:
The czars (esp. Van Jones and Kevin Jennings); Israel and Netanyahu; shutting off the water in California;dismissing the IG, Gerald Walpin; Beergate; HCR; Porkulus; debt; Gibbs; Holder; judical appointments; bowing; Hondurus; the budget; crippling our defenses; too proud to salute or honor the flag; blaming Bush incessantly; his mug everywhere all the time; unemployment. . .
Can such immensity of stupidity and arrogance perpretrated upon her peoples only speak volumes about the robustness of the good ole U S of A!
Since we’re on a roll, I offer this one, albeit cautiously because I know it’s contentious particularly to those in NYC:
911 Mega Mosque
Pablo: Totally.
True Fact: I printed out the exact graph yesterday, before Neo published it, and cherished it. It was good news versus the bad news that Rifqa Bary has uterine cancer–a cancer which is so symbolic of the muslim cancer in our government at high levels.
I think I’m going to buy and read “Willful Blindness” by Andrew McCarthy.
Andy McCarthy’s new book is out today: The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.
Looks like a read…
Pablo – and you won’t be wrong.
Nice thread Tatyana. You might also be interested in this: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/
Pam Geller is quite active on the subject.
Pablo: I know; I’m coming to the protest.
Perhaps 20% of Obama’s support is hard core?
The other remaining 20% offer conditional support.
I believe it to be a virtual certainty that Obama will suffer further substantial declines in his approval numbers. Both by his own actions and by outer circumstance. He’s slowly approaching a ‘tipping point’ in which his support will appear to suddenly collapse.
Politically, he can’t win this fight.
If over the next 6 months he’s able to force through the radical legislation he desires, he will exponentially increase dissatisfaction with his policies. Which shall result in an even greater Republican landslide sure to ripple on to the 2012 elections.
If, over the next 6 months he is unable to advance his legislative agenda, he cements the perception of incompetence, among many of that 40% currently supporting him. He shall replace, in their minds Carter and, set a new standard in ineffectiveness.
Look for his approval numbers to collapse, at the latest, right after the mid-terms.
Obama is about to become a lame-duck President less than two years into his first term. He’s shot his political wad and his troubles have just begun.
The Sestak scandal is explosive because there’s absolutely no wiggle room, either Sestak is a liar or the WH is protecting a felon and the felon is almost certainly Emanuel or the President. If it’s the President, impeachment is certain. If it’s Emanuel, the political damage will emasculate Obama’s Presidency.
The politically inept stonewalling the WH is engaged in is making it much worse. Almost certainly, it will result in a fatal fault line appearing within the President’s inner circle.
Obama now has his ‘Katrina’ and all the other factors pablo listed, of which Arizona alone is certain to create decisive confrontation and that confrontation will have a far reaching effect; the abandonment of ‘white guilt’ by the majority of the public.
He’s increasingly perceived as opposing the will of the people and America will never tolerate a tyrant who rules by fiat.
I still maintain that we are in the process of witnessing the greatest reversal in a political parties fortunes, ever.
I’d add to Pablo’s and Curtis’s lists the expensive partying and travel (wagyu beef; date nights in NYC; flying a pizza chef to the WH for one meal; Michelle’s $500 sneakers and $600 handbag; decorating the WH like a night club for Calderon’s visit; going to Chicago for Memorial Day weekend; frequent rounds of golf, etc. etc.). Even those who are not terribly “into” political stuff are bothered by the spectacle of lavish spending and personal self-indulgence displayed by the Obamas when ordinary folk feel pinched by the bad economy in all kinds of ways. I overheard a lot of criticism of the O’s lifestyle while I was waiting in the supermarket checkout line last week. And this in a very blue state!
Geoffrey B., you mentioned the Sestak scandal, do you know if the MSM has ever mentioned it at all? You are right, it should be big, but like most negatives about the Obmessiah I suspect it will mysteriously disappear.
The Rasmussen poll shows O picked up some points today. Go figure.
According to infoplease.com, “As of July 1, 2008, … black residents in the United States … made up 13.5 percent of the total U.S. population.” Of those 13.5 percent, I’m imagining they split maybe 12.5 percent pro-Obama to 1.0 percent opposed.
Let’s do a little math here. Let’s assume a black-nonblack split. I’ll assume an electorate (more precisely, those who might be sampled) of 100 million, also for simplicity — don’t worry, it’ll all be in percents anyway at the end of this exercise.
Here goes …
Blacks are 13.5 percent, or 13.5 million by head count (out of a hypothetical 100 million). 12.5 million approve of Obama. Let’s assume the latest approval number is 44 percent overall, so a head count of approvers would be 44 million.
Subtract 44 million minus 12.5 million. The result is 31.5 million. Percentage-wise, 31.5 million out of 86.5 million non-blacks is 36.4 percent.
Black folks have tended to think and feel as a unified block for a long time now, for whatever reasons (they’re not important for this exercise). I say they are more so when it comes to Barack Obama, for obvious racial and cultural reasons.
So among those who are not as susceptible to this particular form of group-think, Obama’s approval rating among nonblacks is only 36.4 percent.
And 20 or 25 percent out of the 36.4 percent are hard-core, who will approve of any- and everything Obama does.
That leaves 11.4 to 16.4 percent who are not hard-core who still approve of Obama. They’re the ones who are slowly slipping away.
M J R
I saw a video snippet of Obama recently (I think it was a Barbara Boxer fundraiser) where he was talking about how he’s no longer perceived as cool, that he has more gray hair, that he’s now depicted with a Hitler mustache on posters, and that it’s been a rough 16 months.
He used the line that it’s been a rough 16 months again today at the oil leak press conference.
He looked unhappy and discontent in both interviews. For the first time, I’m starting to wonder if he may decide not to run for re-election if things don’t improve by early next year.
BoV,
The MSM has mentioned the Sestak scandal, though they haven’t pursued it. Hannity on FOX yesterday, showed multiple clips of Sestak being questioned on his allegations, by the MSM.
It’s been below the radar but so was Watergate for a long time and this has the potential to be another Watergate.
What did the President know and when did he know it?
The Democrats, WH and LSM are not going to be able to sweep this under the rug, all they can do is delay it and the longer they do, the worse it stinks.
But whatever Obama’s involvement, politically this will emasculate his administration.
I say that because if Sestak was lying they would have immediately and categorically denied it. And if it was a case of “he said, she said”, by now they would have characterized it as a misunderstanding on Sestak’s part. Having others suggest that Sestak ‘imagined’ it is a sign of legal weakness by the WH.
As a former Admiral and current Congressman, Sestak knows that you don’t make accusations of the WH without at the least, circumstantial evidence to back it up.
When, at the latest, a Republican Congress appoints a special prosecutor to investigate, Sestak is going to have to place all his cards on the table or face charges of obstruction of justice in a federal investigation.
That’s a federal crime, a felony for which he could and would go to prison.
If he admits to having lied his career is over.
If Sestak lies to cover for the WH and is caught, that’s obstruction of justice.
This story has legs because it’s irrelevant that this goes on all the time, politically, it’s not that a crime has been committed, it’s that it’s now a public crime.
Someone’s going to prison simply because Sestak opened his mouth and let the proverbial ‘cat out of the bag’. The only question is who.
Right GB, this does go on all the time and that is exactly how the NYT is trying to spin it. (Go to the last fifth of the article for quotes from Elmendorf and Sosnik.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/us/politics/25baker.html
M J R: Did you read this AT article by Lloyd Marcus?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/the_black_churchs_commitment_t.html
With respect to the Sestak case, one is reminded of the observation that if you strike the king, you must kill the king. I suspect Sestak appreciates this wisdom about now. To mix metaphors, one wonders if he will pull the trigger.
“The Rasmussen poll shows O picked up some points today. Go figure.”
Could some of the J.Q. Public actually believe it was Obama to the rescue?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100527/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill
Synopsis of article:
Blame BP: “BP has unleashed an unstoppable force of appalling proportions.” Jeremy Symons, vice president of the National Wildlife Federation.
Credit Obama: “My job right now is just to make sure everybody in the Gulf understands: This is what I wake up to in the morning, and this is what I go to bed at night thinking about. The spill,” he said. Obama said he would put an end to the “scandalously close relationship” between regulators and the oil companies they oversee. He also extended a freeze on new deepwater oil drilling and canceled or delayed proposed lease sales in the waters off Alaska and Virginia and along the Gulf Coast.
GB wrote “The Democrats, WH and LSM are not going to be able to sweep this under the rug, all they can do is delay it and the longer they do, the worse it stinks. ”
Hasn’t the MSM been sweeping O’s dirty laundry under the rug from day one? Why should this get different treatment from the rest of his unethical acts. There is certainly not going to be a Woodward or Bernstein to pursue it. The price an investigative reporter would pay for pursuing Obama would be his career and friends. Nor will there be a special council soon, Holder and O will see to that in the best Chicago tradition, any more than there was an investigation about why Obama tried to replace a democratic government in Honduras with a leftist one. I do see the press complaining that some people are accusing Obama of something or other and investigating them, but not actually investigating to see if anti-Obama charges are valid. We saw precisely that with regard to Van Jones.
As for Congress appointing a special prosecutor sometime after November; by that time the whole thing will be ancient history. The press will rally against the evil racist Republicans using anything to hurt a dedicated hardworking non-white idealistic leader.
I hope you are right and I am wrong, but we see Obama doing one miserable thing after another and paying at worse a modest price. In the case of Obamacare, he was lauded.
Here is a new name for the Chosen One, the Teflon President, because nothing sticks to the guy and there is so much that should. (Apologies to John Gotti, the Teflon Mafia don, I do not mean to belittle his memory by comparing him to Obama).
“Obama said he would put an end to…”
Don’t let a crisis go to waste, drag your feet (play golf, campaign…) for a month, slow in response to several state’s requests for assistance; then use it as an excuse to extend executive/federal control into the future, as well as current and previously invested projects. He could easily be a href=”http://cowgirlfromhell.wordpress.com/2010/03/23/bill-introduced-to-repeal-the-22nd-amendment-remove-term-limits-for-president/”>budding despot ala Venezuela were it not for the ultimate constitutional limits on his term; while the Democratic Party’s aim is to become a securely established long-term controlling force within the federal bureaucracy; tantamount to the role which the “Communist Party” plays in its intimate and pervasive control of every aspect of the PRC. Then there is the Dem Party/Executive branch challenge exemplified in recent Arizona events, undermining legitimate state rights and interests; conspicuously “profiling” what part of the law the government will or not enforce, party ideology driven rather than authentic constitutional mandate and fiduciary responsibility.
The MSM and the public dismiss how far out of reality the Democratic Party has ventured; how dangerous are the ramifications in the long-term measured financially and economically, but most important, the insidious erosion of personal liberty.
Sorry, I screwed up the link above:
From http://cowgirlfromhell.wordpress.com/
“There is legislation proposed in the house to repeal the 22nd Amendment. This would remove the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President. This was proposed in January 2009, and was referred to committee in February 2009. To date no action has been taken on this bill, but the fact that it is out there sitting in committee is FRIGHTENING.
For more on this see:
Obama to Challenge 22nd Amendment; Become King
HOPE and CHANGE: Move to Repeal Presidential Term Limits Started”
Obama’s incoherent press on the oil spill:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/05/obama_on_bp_oil_spill_im_fully.html
Quote 1: . . .from the moment this disaster began, the federal government has been in charge of the response effort. As far as I’m concerned, BP is responsible for this horrific disaster . . .
(Right. Here’s the baby talk. BP bad, made bad thing. Me good. Made bad thing go away.)
Quote 2: There is no evidence that some of the corrupt practices that had taken place earlier took place under the current administration’s watch, but a culture in which oil companies were able to get what they wanted, without sufficient oversight and regulation, that was a real problem. Some of it was constraints of the law, as I just mentioned.
But we should have busted through those constraints.
(Technique known as Rousseau’s Confessions (admit a lesser blame: problem versus corrupt practices) and also, the ever ready and reliable Blame Bush)
Quote 3: In either circumstance, we’ve got the authority that we need; we’ve just got to make sure that we’re exercising it effectively.
(Then why aren’t you? And why did the “constraints of the law prevent you?)
Quote 4: But overall, the decisions that have been made have been reflective of the best science that we’ve got, the best expert opinion that we have, and have been weighing various risks and various options to allocate our resources in such a way that we can get this fixed as quickly as possible.
(This explains everything.)
Quote 5: First, we will suspend the planned exploration of two locations off the coast of Alaska.
(A non sequitur: Do the best minds think exploration will fix the spill or that explorations itself is dangerous? Let’s go ahead and hamper even exploration. I think this is more just a childish shove at Palin. Unhhhh.)
Quote 6: In this case, the federal, state and local governments have the resources and expertise to play an even more direct role in the response effort. And I will be discussing this further when I make my second trip to Louisiana tomorrow.
(Wow. Your second trip. And how can the federal government play an even more direct role when they were totally in charge in the first place?)
Geoffrey, Pew Research would suggest that your guess is a great off-the-cuff estimate. They say 19% for a closely overlapping group: http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=949
Subtract from that some liberal-issue true believers who are abandoning Obama, add it some folks from Pew’s other categories who would be loyal for reasons other than liberalism, and it may be a wash.
I’m with Bob, however, about sweeping things under the rug. Conservatives railed about Clinton’s requisitioned FBI files of his enemies, Whitewater, the travel office, forbidding the FBI access to Vince Foster’s office, the Lincoln Bedroom rental, and a dozen other things. Not until sex was involved did the general public get interested (and then, of course, the defense was that it was we who were obsessed with sex).
Something may eventually kick this rotten door in, but what that would be may depend more on chance (or salaciousness) than on reason and law.
Not that we shouldn’t keep trying…
Who has a problem with a well and thinks “Man i wish government was here to solve this”? There is no trade, profession, endeavor or calling that government is an expert at. Even things like the military they’re decent at is 10 times the cost it could be without the bogged down beauracracy of an obese government
They’re simply experts at pretending to be experts.
“Hasn’t the MSM been sweeping O’s dirty laundry under the rug from day one? Why should this get different treatment from the rest of his unethical acts.”
Yes, the MSN has and they will certainly protest that its a tempest in a teapot and that its a partisan witchhunt. The radical behavior of the Democrats however has swung the pendulum and the Republicans will now consider actions that previously they wouldn’t have considered. That’s why they hung tough on health care.
If, after the mid-terms the Republicans allow themselves to be intimidated by the MSM, then things will become grim indeed. Radicalism among the public will increase because the perception will increasingly grow that we are living under tyranny.
The Sestak scandal is different however because its a felony with an accusation of unlawful exercise of Executive favors. It can’t be defended, only asserted that it didn’t happen and if Sestak has evidence that it did happen, it takes on a life of its own.
If a Special Prosecutor is appointed, Sestak has to submit any and all evidence he possesses or be found guilty of obstruction of justice, a very serious offense.
“”if Sestak has evidence that it did happen””
It will never see the light of day. These people in the process of redistributing trillions worldwide are going to let a wanna be senate candidate from Pennsylvania bring damning evidence against them? I don’t see it.
There is another excellent article by Barry Rubin about Obama at Rubin Reports. The crux of it that he seems incapable of learning from or even acknowledging his mistakes.
Bob From Virginia
The crux of it that he seems incapable of learning from or even acknowledging his mistakes.
Good point. I recall ∅bama’s absurd off-the teleprompter claim from the 2008 campaign “But we could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling if everybody was just inflating their tires? And getting regular tune-ups? You’d actually save just as much.”
Not only was this an absurd claim, he refused to admit he was wrong.
So, it isn’t as if we weren’t warned about this trait of our POTUS.
Neo, for someone with such commanding political talent, after following all the lack of action on the spill, I was reminded of this scene from the movie, GHOSTBUSTERS. The boys are in the mayor’s office and everyone is flailing. The politicians have overlooked the most obvious reason to do something on the Gulf, … that is about the ghosts, quickly:
Dr. Peter Venkman: Or you can accept the fact that this city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, “biblical”?
Dr. Raymond Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath-of-God type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the sky! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes…
Winston Zeddmore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice. Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria!
Mayor: Enough! I get the point! And what if you’re wrong?
Dr. Peter Venkman: If we’re wrong, then nothing happens. We go to jail. Peacefully. Quietly. We’ll enjoy it. But if we’re right, and we can stop this thing, Lenny… [The mayor looks at him incredulously.] you will have saved the lives of millions of registered voters.
“Familiarity breeds disapproval.” Oh, and contempt, too.
“I’d like to say that you always offer valid information and I have been an fascinated reader of your site for quite some time. I wanted to say thankyou really 🙂 for all the good work you do!”
However I?¡¥m going through problem with ur rss feed”