Bookmark and ShareShare
Friday, August 13, 2010

Does the Evidence Support an Obama "Meltdown" and "Stunning Decline" in Approval Ratings?

A post by “Washington-based foreign affairs analyst and political commentator” Nile Gardiner in Britain’s Daily Telegraph caught my eye recently. The headline aptly describes Gardiner's thesis: “The stunning decline of Barack Obama: 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in meltdown.”

I’m less interested here in the 10 key reasons Gardiner promulgates, although a number of them are conjectures rather than evidence-based. I’m more interested at the moment in Gardiner’s premise about Obama’s “stunning decline” (he also calls it a "meltdown," "Titanic-like," and "spectacular political collapse"), in part because I am asked on a frequent basisabout Obama’s standing in the polls.

Any reference to a "decline" implies change and therefore must be based on a time period. Obama has been in office now for about 18.5 months. We are faced with the question of defining the time period during which the "stunning decline" is hypothesized to have taken place -- over the entire course of Obama's time in office so far, so far this year, so far this month, or something else? 


Gardiner is not crystal clear on this. He does say in his second paragraph “ . . . the president’s approval ratings have been sliding dramatically all summer [italics are mine] . . . ” which, as far as I can tell, is the only direct reference to a time frame he makes in his piece.

Gardiner does, however, quote several poll results, including one he says marks the “lowest point so far for Barack Obama since taking office,” which would seem to imply a longer time frame. He also quotes an aggregated summary of polls and states that the disapproval rating ("over 50%") is remarkably high for a president just 18 months into office, which does not imply a time frame. And he quotes a latest USA Today/Gallup poll, but without trend context.

The best source for trends on Obama’s approval ratings is Gallup's Daily tracking, based on very robust samples of over 3,500 interviews a week, and rigid procedures by which the sampling and the location of the approval question within the questionnaire are kept consistent.

Gallup tracking shows essentially no decline in Obama's approval ratings so far this summer. Over the first week of June, Obama had an average 46% approval rating (again, based on over 3,500 interviews during that week), and in our most recent weekly average (Aug 2-8) had an average 45% approval rating. So our massive Gallup Daily tracking database of Obama approval ratings gives no support to the assertion that Obama’s ratings have been “sliding dramatically all summer.”

We can expand the time frame somewhat, and look at what has happened so far this year, 2010.



The average drop in approval ratings from January through August in the second year in office for these nine presidents is 9.4 points. Obama’s six-point drop so far this year is thus below average and tied for the lowest -- with the exception of Dwight D. Eisenhower. So it does not appear appropriate to say that Obama has undergone a “dramatic slide” in his second year in office, either absolutely or in terms of comparisons to other presidents.

Further, Obama’s latest 45% weekly average is by no means at the bottom of where previous presidents have been at this time in their first term. Obama is doing better now than were former Presidents Clinton, Reagan, or Carter in August of their second years. He is doing worse than either of the former President Bushes, both of whose approval ratings were buoyed in their second years by international events and foreign policy (George W. was still in the aftermath of the rally effect that developed after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and George H.W. Bush in August 1990 had just reacted to the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq’s Saddam Hussein) .

My colleague Jeff Jones recently did an analysis of Obama’s sixth quarter in office. Obama’s 47.3% sixth quarter approval rating was down only marginally from this fifth quarter in office (48.8%) and was ahead of the sixth quarter ratings of Presidents Clinton, Reagan, and Carter.

All in all, it does not appear scientifically appropriate to describe Obama’s job approval ratings as having undergone a “dramatic slide” this year or this summer, or to characterize his presidency as in the throes of a “ . . . spectacular political collapse.”

The trajectory of Obama’s job approval ratings does look somewhat more negative when his entire tenure in office so far is considered. Obama averaged 63% job approval in his first quarter in office and 62% in his second, before dropping to 52.9% in his third quarter and sliding gradually from that point to his current 47.3% quarterly average. Thus, his shift from first quarter to most recent quarter is about 16 points, which is, in fact, higher than average for presidents since Eisenhower.


These nine presidents underwent some fairly widely varied changes in approval ratings between first quarter and sixth quarter. Both Bushes improved their approval rating position over this time frame -- again, because they both were involved in dramatic international/foreign security events. All other presidents, like Obama, dropped in average approval ratings between first and sixth quarters.

Obama’s 16-point drop, although hefty, is not the largest. Reagan also dropped 16 points. Jimmy Carter suffered the indignity of having the largest single drop in approval rating between his first and sixth quarters of any president since Eisenhower. Part of Obama’s situation results from his fairly high initial approval ratings upon taking office. His 63% first quarter approval rating was the highest since Jimmy Carter’s first quarter, and thus -- of course -- gave him farther to fall.

Still, in this context, I’m not sure I would call even the 16-point fall between Obama's first and sixth quarters “stunning.” It’s on the high end of what we have seen from recent presidents, but certainly is not unprecedented.

45 comments:

Anonymous said...
August 13, 2010 at 8:49 PM  

The polls only tell a small part of the story....Obama's decline is approaching "stunning" if you compare the kind of excitement, momentum, enthusiasm and support he had as a new leader, compared to where he is now.....of course, it is relatively early in his Presidency, but so far he has failed to give much indication that he can be the type of transformational leader many had hoped he would be.

Anonymous said...
August 14, 2010 at 7:42 PM  

What polls and data do not really reflect are what people say to other friends but wont say to a pollster. This is especially true in this day and age where people fear being labeled as a hate monger, racist, etc. Though not scientific the comments and feelings I hear on a daily basis is this guys ratings are much lower than what your polls indicate. I deal with a very diverse group of people on a daily basis so this is not coming from one sampling group. This guy politically has lost credibility and thats almost impossible to get back. I am an independent and I would never vote for him again.

Anonymous said...
August 14, 2010 at 9:22 PM  

The author misses the point, as do those who insist on comparing Mr. Obama to any other President in terms of the polls, especially Mr. Reagan. The key differences are: (1) the media -- When Mr. Reagan was President, there was no 24-hour news cycle and, as we can all now admit, the media then, as now, was left-leaning...as such, the media harped on everything negative about Mr. Reagan and the people really had nothing to understand in terms of contrast (ie there was no talk radio or Fox News); with respect to Mr. Obama, the traditional media has all but acted as an arm of the WH, and the public sees this...the main difference now is that there is a 24-hour news cycle, talk radio and above all, the Internet. Voters know MUCH more now than in the early 80s. Accordingly, polls today represent a much more informed and aware electorate than 30 years ago, ie Mr. Obama's drop is occurring despite a very favorable media, unlike Mr. Reagan who was hit very hard by a very limited number of media outlets. The bottom line is that much of Mr. Reagan's drop may have been more artifical and thus can not be compared with Mr. Obama. (2) Mr. Reagan was well known long before politics, and then well known as a Gov of a large and growing state -- the public "knew" him as an actor, spokesperson, liberal, Union member, conservative, politico, etc. Mr. Obama has a cellophane thin resume. The public was therefore more apt to judge Mr. Reagan in terms of past aspects of his life (recall Bedtime for Bonzo) whereas Mr. Obama is lterally learning how to do anything that would resemble a real world job as President -- law profesor? No, more like an extension of dorm-room dribble. State politico? Perhaps but in Chicago that is akin to be a Mafia soldier at dinner time on Friday nights with the boys. US Senator? he spent more time writing books and running for President. In other words, the public is able to see him as he is -- untested, unprepared and ill-equiped to handle the job as a LEADER. His poll drop is much more realistic because his only real job is this one, and hence he is being judged "real time". (3) Above all, connection. Like his views or not, nobody can say that Mr. Reagan was unable to truly connect, not sappy-ly like Mr. Clinton, but from the heart -- when he spoke, we listend. Mr. Obama has become worn out, he is over-exposed and has himslef lessened the prestige of the WH with silly stunts (picking Sweet 16 winners, winning the Nobel Prize simply for being elected President, vacation upon vacation during a horrible economic summer while telling all of us to be patient, etc.) Mr. Reagan could recover because he had substance. Mr. Obama has some substance but it is diametrically oppossed to a great number of Americans. He will not tack to the center like Mr. Clinton, his ego will not allow him. He will be in the 30s by January at the latest and will never rise unless some truly unexpected event occurs.

Anonymous said...
August 15, 2010 at 12:21 AM  

Interesting analysis. I think the comparison between Reagan and Obama is most entertaining particularly since their economic policies are on each end of the spectrum. With the benefit of hindsight, we know that the economy began to turn around by the end of 1983 and Reagan's approval rating began to climb significantly above 50% (to 56% in 1984 and 60% in 1985). In addition, throughout the first two years as his approval ratings sagged (similar to Obama's) a majority of American's remained confident (close to half per Gallup) that Reagan would do the right thing in terms of the economy. Currently the American people do not express a similar degree of confidence in Obama.

In addition, the analysis does not give consideration to the actual mood of the country during both administrations. Having lived through both periods, I can tell you the public mood in the 80's was drastically different than the public mood today.

Finally and most importantly, this comparison of the two administrations does not address the direction of the economy at the time of the low approval ratings for each president. 2 years into the Reagan administration the economy began to show definitive signs of growth. 18 months into the Obama administration, economic forecasts do not suggest a recovery of any comparable fashion.

So entertaining from a data point of view, but the analysis misses much making its value is rather limited.

John said...
August 15, 2010 at 12:23 AM  

Well, now Obama's down to 43%. So that's 20 points down. Second to worst on the list. That is dramatic.

EdenPrairieDad said...
August 15, 2010 at 2:02 AM  

A key factor is missing in this analysis: Race. Polls show that ~88% of African Americans still strongly support Obama. The non-African American slide in support is much more significant, and greater than even Carters. When one segment of a population heavily distorts the overall data, you must show the results with and without the distorting data.

Anonymous said...
August 15, 2010 at 5:43 AM  

There was no corresponding analysis of the disapproval number in this blog. I would think that would be necessary to fully understand the situation .

Anonymous said...
August 15, 2010 at 6:47 AM  

Well, president Obama has just pushed through major Domestic policies like Health Care Reform as well as Banking and Financing reform, and given away about 1 trillion dollars. He has also given his response to the current economic collapse. Add the oil spill. All combined I would say easily compare to Kuwait or 911. Why hasn't it produced a bump?

Anonymous said...
August 15, 2010 at 7:37 AM  

Americans are disappointed in the President. He campaigned as a centrist. He turned out being a radical. He said he would reach across the aisle. His legislative actions have been more characterized as "my way or the highway". There was no compromise in any of his legislative agenda.
His Administration will be vilified by history for passing his landmark Healthcare bill by reconciliation, and without a single Republican vote. So much for a bipartisan legislative approach. This legislation was passed despite the fact that more than 60% of the American people opposed the Healthcare legislation.
Your discussion minimizes the President's fall.
My feeling is Mr. Obama's dishonesty with the American people, will insure that his popularity numbers will NEVER go back up. He has permanently lost the trust of the American people.

Anonymous said...
August 15, 2010 at 7:39 AM  

Why is LBJ missing?

Anonymous said...
August 15, 2010 at 7:49 AM  

I get the sense that "approval" was not what was being described in the original article as much as the change in "strongly approve" vs. "strongly disapprove" of the President's performance. Fence sitters don't count as much.

Anonymous said...
August 15, 2010 at 8:20 AM  

Thank you for this perspective. A much needed anchor in the sea of "hot headed" pundits who feel the need to narrativize all that is political.

Anonymous said...
August 15, 2010 at 11:25 AM  

Sounds like you're whistling past the graveyard.

Anonymous said...
August 15, 2010 at 12:19 PM  

While I agree that the term "stunning" doesn't describe this decline, I disagree with what I term excuses such as "since he started with a high approval rating, he had furter to fall". That's bunk. Nixon, Kennedy and Eisenhour had higher initial ratings and fell by less than 1/3 of the amount that Pres. Obama has fallen. President Nixon was mired in Vietnam and a less than terrific economy. Pres Kennedy had to deal with a balky economy and the Russian threat and the Cuban Missile Crisis. The notion that President Obama's slide has had something to do with the very difficult circumstances is true. Except that this slide is because he's NOT done a very good job, NOT simply because these difficult challenges EXIST. The author is simply biased and not factual in his description. All in all, this wasn't a helpful analysis because there is no data as to WHY any of these approval ratings rose of declined. The overall numbers really don't tell us much other than the voters generally approve or disapprove. Analyis implies INSIGHT. This offers none.

Anonymous said...
August 15, 2010 at 1:42 PM  

Post-mosque issue, the stunning decline will materialize by August 19 or so in the Gallup 3-day rolling average. One can only imagine the conversations taking place between Democrats running for office and the White House this weekend.

Half Norsk said...
August 15, 2010 at 3:40 PM  

I would like to see a comparison of DISapproval ratings. President Obama's poll numbers seem to indicate very few people in the "undecided" middle. Have other presidents have shown such a high level of polarization?

Anonymous said...
August 15, 2010 at 5:28 PM  

Thanks for showing both lists of statistics. If you added a third, however, showing the approval rating at the time of taking office in comparison with the approval rating 18.5 months later, you would probably find a larger drop in Obama's rating than anyone but Carter. Still, the British writer was guilty of hyperbole, which is often used to make a point. In fact, the news media does this constantly, as the past few months of reporting on the Gulf oil spill have shown.

Karnak said...
August 15, 2010 at 6:31 PM  

Are you kidding? You are trying rationalize a loss of support that is historic by most any standard. To compare Obama to Carter only damages your argument, since saying that one historically bad President (Carter) is really no worse than Obama does little to burnish Mr. Obama's image.

Bob Finch said...
August 15, 2010 at 6:38 PM  

Why no mention of Reagan having been shot near the end of his first quarter, which surely must have affected his ratings positively? What were his numbers just prior to his being wounded? I'd imagine that with the recession growing they were likely hovering around the 51% he garnered in the 1980 election. You should have qualified that comparison in the same manner you did with the two Bushes.

JD said...
August 15, 2010 at 8:08 PM  

What was the percentage change over the past two quarters compared to the other presidents?

Anonymous said...
August 15, 2010 at 8:44 PM  

Now that his approval is down to 42%, can you re-write this article for us?

Anonymous said...
August 15, 2010 at 9:11 PM  

O's numbers have been on a declining trend since day one. No debating that. Debating timeframes, amounts or even demographics of O's decline is of little interest to most. The why is the real story. Nile Gardiner's article provided an opinion for why. The why is very clear to those of us paying attention. Even Democrats can see O is an incompetent narcissistic neophyte.

Anonymous said...
August 16, 2010 at 12:55 AM  

oops... O approval now down to 42% and falling.

Anonymous said...
August 16, 2010 at 2:07 AM  

Great article! I can always count on you guys to see thru the spin on both sdes.

Anonymous said...
August 16, 2010 at 7:57 AM  

Years ago a very smart employer told me and showed me thru a real life business example that it is not enough just to "count the widgets"...the important thing is "how you count the widgets"I never have and never will trust "pollsters and their polls".
My conclusion...be it nonscientific...Is that there are thoughts,opinions,feelings,and prejudices that will continue to be incorrectly reported, incorrectly measured, and incorrectly analyzed....and incorrectly presented...with incorrect conclusions.
Check your presumptions.....

Dr. Tom said...
August 16, 2010 at 9:09 AM  

It's reassuring to know there's still a chance for a "stunning" fall from grace.

Anonymous said...
August 16, 2010 at 10:27 AM  

You give people facts, yet they refuse to listen. It is frustrating that these "voices" (Gardiner and others) are giving the public a false perception of the Obama presidency.

History will fix this, once again.

golf said...
August 16, 2010 at 12:06 PM  

I'm a fan of the in-depth analysis by Mr. Newport and Gallup. Intellectually I agree with this article, but emotionally I feel it's understated the degree to which President Obama's approval has declined.

As an Information Architect, I'm fascinated by numbers and charts, and I have a real passion for politics, so every day I look at approval ratings (both numbers and charts) by Gallup, Rasmussen, and the aggregators... RealClearPolitics and Pollster.

The numbers of all over the last 18 months are fairly consistent and I have full confidence in the accuracy of the polls. But in comparison to the charts from the others, the Gallup chart doesn't convey (to me) the same degree by which President Obama's approval has declined.

Gallup's charts may need upgrading?

One last point, President Obama's rating has dropped precipitously over the last several weeks and looks to be in a steep downward trend. This contradicts the trend found in Gallup's Presidential Approval Center (love it) for mid-term elections where presidents approval ratings trend up in Aug-Oct.

All that said, I appreciate the work by Gallup and being able to access really fascinating information and raw data.

Anonymous said...
August 16, 2010 at 12:08 PM  

I thought Gallup was supposed to be unbiased, but this blog hardly seems so. Your general tone is that Obama has not suffered a significant decline, which was the point of Nile Gardiner's piece. The fact is, according to your own polls, Obama is at a 42% approval rating (as of August 16, 2010) and that is both a significant decline and a dismal approval rating for a president so early in his presidency. Furthermore, your use of the data is totally flawed and biased. It is not reasonable to compare raw percentage declines when comparing a president who was at 80% approval (George H.W. Bush) and thus started at a very high approval rating, to one who started at 51% (Barack Obama), the lowest of any president since Eisenhower. Obviously, George Bush Senior had much lower to go. A different and more meaningful way to look at the data is to analyze the percentage of decline relative to the starting percentage. This would paint a very different picture, which is that Bush had a decline in his approval rating of 7.5% whereas Obama had a decline of 11.8%. Data can be sliced in many ways. That you choose to slice it in a way that paints the rosiest picture is disappointing.

Anonymous said...
August 16, 2010 at 8:55 PM  

You know for all the rhetoric about President Obama essentially trying to be for the (center) left what President Reagan was for the right in the 1980's, I found it most interesting that these two have the most statistically similar numbers in reference to their first two years.

Anonymous said...
August 17, 2010 at 9:59 AM  

Don't confuse us with the facts!

student1776 said...
August 17, 2010 at 12:08 PM  

The fall in Obama's ratings are inevitable. First, he ran as a tabula rasa for people to project their hopes and fantasies on - with the aide of almost universal lionization by the completely compliant and liberal media and against a weak candidate (himself the earlier beneficiary of media lionization as a reward for excoriating fellow Republicans - lionization withdrawn when he ran against a Democrat) - an impossible base to sustain once you govern. Second, he ignored the concerns of the American public and instead focused his energy entirely on paying off donors and unions while driving an agenda to socialize healthcare and nationalize our largest banks (citi, BOA), insurer (AIG), the $40B student loan program and in general to make people more dependent on government. Americans want to run their own lives not have their lives be managed by a superior smarter elite of experts who believe they can make better choices for us than we can for ourselves or than markets can. The difference between Obama and the others is that he will never recover from this drop because his policies will produce stagnation for a generation. He had a brilliant opportunity and totally blew it.

Anonymous said...
August 17, 2010 at 12:16 PM  

Today it is at 42%. This blog has an obvious tilt to it. So what if the time frame is different. Just look at the overall numbers for the past 18 months.

Marvin Marks said...
August 17, 2010 at 5:34 PM  

This only goes to show how easily people are manipulated by the constant barrage of lies coming from the right wing media/politicians. It's so sad that people aren't giving Obama the chance to actually clean up the huge mess left for him by Bush.

It's absolutely stunningly insane that anyone would even consider voting for a Republican again after what they did to this country.

Wake up! You're being fooled by them AGAIN!

Anonymous said...
August 18, 2010 at 8:21 AM  

I travel extensively as part of my job in the US. I have not met a single person who believes that Obama is doing a good job. Not one! Contrasted against some of the same individuals there were larger numbers of people "excited" about his presidency. I would have to agree that for unknown reasons, the real job approval number may not be accurate. I think stunning may be a bit overstated, but I hear many more comparisons to Carter now then ever.

Anonymous said...
August 18, 2010 at 2:24 PM  

Obviously, conservatives have never given Obama much of a chance and as their per-election observations are coming true there is a huge growing discontent among this group, i.e., Tea Party.

Where I think the true meltdown is, is with Independents who were willing to take a chance on him and within the Democratic Party as his habitual lying has been exposed in the form of broken promises.

Independents are bitter about the economy and unemployment and gays, anti-war, greenies and fiscal dems all have the right to dissent and break ranks. Lets not forget that his ground zero and border positions are unpopular with most Americans. Also his veiled, yet fairly obvious attempts to divide blacks/whites/Hispanics have gotten past some, but some have seen the real Obama and are responding with growing discontent and anger. Here in New Mexico, there is a growing rage amongst Hispanics who are very upset with the politicizing the border. Many here on both side of the isle say they are in disagreement with what amounts to legalizing illegal immigration. The Mexicans who most vocally support the president are here illegally and they're not supposed to have a vote anyway. Unless the pres has a miracle up his sleeve, I think the meltdown is going to be even bigger and faster in the next six months or so.

Anonymous said...
August 18, 2010 at 2:36 PM  

Now that Obama is down to 41% approval, (and the fallout from his support of the G.Z. mosque hasn't even hit the polls yet), will Gallup rethink this article?

Anonymous said...
August 18, 2010 at 3:25 PM  

What are Obama's approval numbers if you take out the black community's 90%+ approval? Not all of that support is based in reality but actually pride in one of their own. While admirable and understandable, it overstates what American's think of the president's job and whether they will go out of their way to support him. I suspect without blacks Obama's approval would look a lot like the anemic approval numbers that you see for congress. I'm just saying....

Anonymous said...
August 18, 2010 at 3:38 PM  

I noticed however that virtually every other President listed (except Carter and Reagan, due to the '82 recession) did not drop as much as Obama by this same time in their Presidency. Reagan, however, actually knew how to help the USA get out of the '82 recession (cutting taxes and stimulating growth -- oh and it helped that he was actually a pro-America optimist, who wasn't flying in the majority's face on every single issue, every single moment of every single day)...and not 24 months later, he was re-elected with 49 states (which I rather doubt Obama is capable of duplicating in 2012). Gardiner's whole article factored in the utterly absurd, emotional heights that Obama had been lifted to upon entering office, something NONE of the other Presidents had when THEY took office -- and he compared that to how Obama's seen today as well as the political trajectory he's on, plus the utter political disaster he's facing, this fall -- and if you ask me, 'stunning decline' was putting it far too mildly. Gardiner was being much too modest.

Anonymous said...
August 18, 2010 at 3:41 PM  

An important consideration that the author neglects is what will happen to the Democrats in Congress in the upcoming elections. They are largely staying away from Obama for good reasons. Obama is toxic right now due to his exploding the deficit, a worsening economy, a socialist take over of auto companies and our health care system and now this mosque in lower Manhattan.

Anonymous said...
August 18, 2010 at 6:52 PM  

Clearly today's numbers warrant a reassessment of this analysis.

Also, it is important to note the absolute starting point at the beginning of the year.

It is much easier for a President to fall from 84% to 68% approval than from 54% to 38%.

At 84% approval, GWB had won tenuous approval from a large % of the opposing party. It is much harder to hold these approval levels as policy debates endure, therefore it is much easier to lose them.

Obama's near double-digit decline since January represents a ~20% loss of support from a modest, not elevated level. This is significant.

It is the equivalent of Jimmy Carter's and Bill Clinton's decline at this stage.

We know both of those meltdowns portended near-term doom for the President's party. Clinton's 1994 meltdown ushered in a stunning defeat for Democrats in Congress and a decade-long Conservative majority.

In the case of Jimmy Carter, it delivered a fatal dose of "malaise" to his Presidency which ended in a landslide loss in the 1980 election.

The biggest remaining question is which path will Obama follow: Clinton or Carter?

Since the election he has proven to be more Carter-like than Clintonesque. Clinton was far more malleable ideologically, and it remains to be seen whether Obama will bargain in good faith with Congressional Republicans.

It is also worth bearing in mind that at this point in Clinton's administration the economy was performing quite well, and would continue to do so for the remainder of his term.

You will look long and far to find an economist predicting that sort of fairy tale recovery of jobs and resolution of our current fiscal mess.

Smells like a Carter to me...

Anonymous said...
August 20, 2010 at 11:24 PM  

Vote for Republicants and Tea Partiers only. Let's destroy the country once and for all. In fact, let's throw away the votes altogether. Let's just send every last time dime to the corporations while we're at it. And promptly submit to being an obedient serf that will accept what is given or taken by your corporate masters. Serfs Down, not Surfs Up!

Quit wasting time! Write those checks already.

It is pointless communicating with bigoted right-wingers. They never let truth get in their way. Demonizing a President to make sure that he fails is not a very Patriotic act at all. The problem is not that Obama has not accomplished a lot. The problem is that complex problems like the healthcare system couldn't be solved in one line for the mindless masses.

All these prognostications about the polls are pointless, because the people making them are wasting their time. Go and vote in your misguided fashion and destroy the USA once and for all. Divide the population between the haves and have nots. Divide the population along racial lines, sexual orientation lines. Divide Divide Divide! Why stop there? Let's have an all round civil war.

If I were Obama, I would call it one term and never want to serve this country ever. Let it crumble! It is not worth saving!

Anonymous said...
August 22, 2010 at 1:56 PM  

How come so many of these comments seem to be coming from the GOP playbook? Why do so many of you folks seem to want the President to fail? Don't you understand that you are rooting against your own country? And when will you all start explaining why you think Mr. Obama is a "radical"? Do you mean because he pushed through a Romney-style health care plan? Or because he sent more troops into a Bush war?

Anonymous said...
August 22, 2010 at 8:31 PM  

As a registered Democrat ("D") this President has certainly brought about the "Change" he had promised...Although NOT the type I had hoped for. Steamrolling in policies, and continually blaming the previous administration, was not what I had hoped for.

It seems like he is in WAY over his head...Although he does do a great job at dividing the nation quite well!

Come Nov. I'll be voting for every "R" on my ballot just to stop the out of control steamrolling this President has come to represent. As a Democrat did I just say that?

Yikes, Yes,I did!

Anonymous said...
October 21, 2010 at 4:16 PM  

Anonymous: Exactly what did Obama promise us.
(1) to stimulate the banking industry and prevent wholesale closings. (2)stimulate the auto industry and prevent bankruptcys and massive layoffs,which would have ballooned the unemployment figures well above the present 9% figure. (3)he promised a healthcare Bill to help
Americans, even Republicans, unfortunate enough not able to afford healthcare on their own. (4)He promised to repair the economy which many of our leading economist now say is improving; example, the Dow has risen from 6000 when the Republicans were in power to its present 11,200 a 5200 point rise. The DOW indicates the economy in the next 6 months so it should improve. Bush tried to lower taxes lowering the $ coming into the government coffers to run the country and at the same time spending billions to run two wars. No wonder we have budget problems at both federal and state levels. (5) Obama said he would work to get our troops home. He has done this in Iraq. Yes he has spent a lot of money, but did we really think we could correct the problems he faced without spending great mounts of money.

Post a Comment

Comments are moderated by Gallup and may not appear on this blog until they have been reviewed and deemed appropriate for posting.

Copyright © 2010 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. | Terms of Use | Privacy Statement