Obama: Because of Him, the U.S. Is The Most Respected Country In the World

In a recent Gallup poll, respondents around the world ranked the United States number one in leadership. It wasn't but seconds later, that Obama took credit for it:

The problem with the President's self-serving pat on the back is that, if you actually look at the internal details of that Gallup poll, you would see that respect for U.S. leadership has fallen every year since Obama has been in office.  This after having an unrealistic jump in 2009 when he had nothing to show for his leadership except empty words, false promises, and no action.

However, Obama knows that hardly anyone is going to fact-check the details behind his "I-did-it" proclamation. A better and more accurate poll would reflect the opinion of world leaders towards the U.S.  I think those results may be quite different; especially among our supposed allies.  Still, this is more about the approval of Obama as a man and not his policies. Just as was the case in 2009.

Though President Obama sees himself as respected throughout the world, he may want to check out a recent CNN/ORC poll where he comes in dead last for job approval when compared to the two Bushes, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton.  He only receives a 49% approval when his predecessor, George W. Bush, gets 52%.   Apparently, Americans don't seem to agree with the constant blaming of Bush the "W" for every problem that exists in the country today.

References:

Gallup: Although the leadership of the U.S. earned the highest approval ratings of any major world power asked about in 2014, approval of U.S. leadership dropped to a new low in Africa last year, and tumbling support in Central Asia erased the big gains in the larger Asia region in 2013: http://www.gallup.com/poll/183122/leadership-loses-ground-africa-asia.aspx?utm_source=position3&utm_medium=related&utm_campaign=tiles

CNN/ORC poll (page 10): http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/06/02/obama,.economy.poll.pdf

Hillary Should Not Be Seen or Heard

Over the last three decades, the Gallup polling organization has been able to track Hillary Clinton's approvals; first as First Lady; then, as a person running for the Senate; also, as a Presidential contender; and now with another run at the presidency.  Here's the result of that polling:

As First Lady, she eventually achieved a 62% approval rating by 1994. Two years later, her favorability numbers were down almost 20 percentage points to 43%.  This was because, to many, Hillary was seen as untruthful.  In fact, in 1996, the late Bill Safire, a New York Times opinion writer for a very liberal newspaper, made that quite clear by calling her a "congenital liar".

Then, as Hillary sunk back into hiding, her approval numbers rose again until, by 1999, she stood at an all time of 67%.  However, following her and Bill's exit from the White House, she  decided to run for U.S. Senator from New York in 2000.  By 2001, her numbers had fallen to 44%  and, if she hadn't been running against such a weak GOP candidate as Rick Lazio she probably wouldn't have won.  After her senate victory, her approval numbers climbed back to 58%, until she ran for President against Barack Obama in 2007 and 2008.  Then, her rating plummeted again, to just 46% and Obama won.

Now, since 2013 -- when she started her ill-fated book tour and it was presumed that she was pursuing the Presidency again -- she's gone from a 66% approval down to the current 48%; which, I am sure, will be going even lower in the future.

Essentially, all this proves is that Hillary is a bad candidate.  The more people hear from her, the less they like her.  Bill Safire had her accurately pegged in 1996 as a liar.  Her explanation of her private email server is more proof of that.  Then there's her claim that she and Bill were "dead" broke when they left the White House after they had just spent $2.85 million for a new home in Washington D.C..  And, then, there was a little matter of that $8 million book deal advance in 2000.

No one should ignore history; especially when it comes to Hillary Clinton.  She opens her mouth and people develop negative attitudes towards her.  She is not a good campaigner and the Democrats would be wrong to anoint her as their Presidential candidate.  But, as a Republican, all I can say is "Run, Hillary, Run!"

References:

Gallup: Clinton's Favorable Rating at 48%, But Dems Still Like Her: http://www.gallup.com/poll/182351/clinton-favorable-rating-dems.aspx?utm_source=Politics&utm_medium=newsfeed&utm_campaign=tiles

Bill Safire: A Blizzard of Lies: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/08/opinion/essay-blizzard-of-lies.html

Clintons Buy $2.85 Million Washington Home - NYTimes.com:  http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/30/us/clintons-buy-2.85-million-washington-home.html

Hillary Clinton Book Advance, $8 Million, Is Near Record: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/16/nyregion/hillary-clinton-book-advance-8-million-is-near-record.html

68% Of Those Polled Aren't Really Worried About Climate Change

In a recent poll, Gallup respondents were read a list of 6 environmental issues and, in each case, they had to indicate how much and if they were worried about it.  The top issue turned out to be "Pollution of drinking water" with 55% expressing a great deal of worry.  At the bottom was "Global warming or climate change" with only 32% expressing a great deal of worry.  So, conversely, 68% don't see global warming as a very serious issue.

I personally think that all the climate change/global warming believers are themselves responsible for this. Their continual claims that every single weather event is a result of climate change only cheapens their story.  Saying Hurricane Sandy is proof of climate change is a little hard to swallow when, in fact, we have had years of quiet hurricane seasons.  The seas aren't rising as projected and the temperatures have remained flat.  The frozen Himalayas have not turned into a sunbather's paradise.  The fact is that many of the dire predictions of the climate alarmists aren't even close to happening; and, if people can't see it happening their not going to believe that it's a problem.

References:

Gallup: In U.S., Concern About Environmental Threats Eases: http://www.gallup.com/poll/182105/concern-environmental-threats-eases.aspx?version=print

What's Up With All These Quiet Hurricane Seasons?:http://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/news/whats-up-with-all-these-quiet-hurricane-seasons/

New York Times: January 14, 2015: Researchers have reported that the ocean did not rise quite as much as previously believed:  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/15/science/earth/new-research-may-solve-a-puzzle-in-sea-levels-rise.html?_r=0

Seas have been rising and falling for thousands of years – without help from the EPA or IPCC: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/02/history-falsifies-climate-alarmist-sea-level-claims/

Alarmists Are In Way Over Their Heads On Rising Ocean Claims: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/09/24/alarmists-are-in-way-over-their-heads-on-rising-ocean-claims/

'Global warming has been on pause for 19 years': http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2740788/Global-warming-pause-19-years-Data-reveals-Earth-s-temperature-remained-CONSTANT-1995.html

Claims Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 were false: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/himalayan-glaciers-melt-claims-false-ipcc

pb

Gallup CEO Calls 5.6% Unemployment Rate a Lie

In a recent opinion piece for Gallup.com, the CEO of Gallup, Jim Clifton, called the current unemployment rate of 5.6% "a lie" because it excludes workers who want to work but, for the lack of job availability, have given up looking.  Thus, the Census Bureau considers them not part of the workforce and excludes them in their tally for the official unemployment rate.  Clifton could have written that same article when talking about the unemployment rate under most modern-day Presidents.  It has always been the case.  Both in good times and bad.  He also goes on to point out that if a person works sporadically or day-works with many days going without work, he/she is still counted as being employed.  Because of these factors, Gallup claims that as many as 30 million workers may fall into the category of not working or looking for work or sporadically working  A number that is substantially higher than the current official 8.7 million unemployed.

This whole issue of not counting workers who aren't looking for work has been debated for years and  believe me, every President probably wants the current system of "official" unemployment reporting to remain as is because it makes them look better. This is truly the case with Barack Obama.  There is no way he wants the American people to know that when you add in those not looking for work, the actual unemployment rate is 11.2% and, not the 5.6% that is being reported.

Also, what you will never hear is the fact that in November 2007, a month before the start of the recession, the official unemployment rate was 4.7% and the unofficial rate was only 8.4%.  That means that the current official unemployment rate is still nearly 20% higher than it was pre-recession; and, almost 35% higher than the unofficial unemployment rate number.  Yet, despite these facts, the President had no problem stating in his recent address, that the "the shadow of the crisis [recession] is passed and the State of the Union is strong".  Of course, I would like him to tell that to the 30 million who are desperately seeking better work or any work that Clifton was referring to in his opinion piece.

References:

The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment: http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/181469/big-lie-unemployment.aspx

Alternative U6 Unemployment Rate: http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

Official Unemployment Rate: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

Obama: The shadow of crisis has passed: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/01/20/obama-state-of-the-union-republican-senate-mitch-mcconnell/22040331/

To Mr. Gruber...Only Democrats Were Too Stupid To See Through You

According to one of the key architects of ObamaCare, Jonathan Gruber, Americans were too stupid to see through what he (and other Democrats) actually did to get the healthcare law passed; arguing that the lack of transparency was politically powerful.

One big problem with his "stupid" statement is that the American public have never been stupid enough to give ObamaCare majority approval.  According to Gallup, the highest approval in their polling since December of 2012 was 48%.  Today, it sits at a freshly-printed record low of 37%.

Polls conducted by Business Insider, going all the way back to 2009, showed that no-higher that 40% have ever thought ObamaCare was good for the country.

Additionally, when you look at the Gallup poll's approval rates broken down by party affiliation, you get this chart:

You see Mr. Gruber, only Democrats (now down to 74% from 80%) were, and still are, too stupid to see what you and the other Democrats were doing.  Independents and Republicans pretty much got it right away. However, their current 74% approval number means that even 26% of Democrats aren't too stupid to see through all the politically-motivated shenanigans that were used to get the law passed.


References:

Obamacare Architect: Americans 'Too Stupid to Understand': http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/curtis-kalin/obamacare-architect-americans-too-stupid-understand

Gallup: Approval of ObamaCare At New Low: http://www.gallup.com/poll/179426/new-enrollment-period-starts-aca-approval.aspx

Blaming the House Republicans On Immigration Reform Isn't Working Mr. President

In an effort to deflect responsibility for the current unaccompanied child border crisis, President Obama has tried to lay the blame at the feet of the House Republicans for not passing the so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform bill.  However, apparently, Americans aren't buying the latest Obama blame-game tactic (as noted by the results of the latest Gallup poll):

By more than two-to-one, they are critical of the President for his handling of immigration; with a 4-year high in those disapproving of his actions or inaction; depending on your particular political viewpoint. There's a problem with this poll.  It really doesn't tell us if people are upset with the President for not taking more action by executive order or for not working with Congress.  But, the sudden jump in his disapproval rating from 55% to 65% does seem to track with the current parent-less child entries from Central America.  For that reason, I think it seems to indicate that Americans feel that, once again, the fault lies with Obama.

Reference:


American's object to Obama's handling of immigration: http://www.gallup.com/poll/171755/approval-obama-handling-immigration-falls.aspx

Obama's Legacy: Being the Worst President?

In two separate, recent polls, Barack Obama has found himself in the unenviable position of being the "worst" of his presidential predecessors.

In a Gallup poll, he found himself dead last among all other living presidents.  Adding insult to injury he even trailed behind Jimmy Carter -- arguably, the previous worst president in modern times. Along with finding himself at the bottom, those polled awarded him with a favorability rating of less than 50%. All others managed to at least score over 50%.

And, in a Quinnipiac poll, the current President found himself, once again, at the bottom of the heap with 33% of those respondents labeling him as the "worst".  Second from the bottom was George W. Bush -- the same guy that Obama seems to blame for everything that's gone wrong since he's taken office.  Obviously, Americans don't share his opinion of George W.

I think that both of these polls reflect the incompetence of Obama's handling of both domestic and foreign policy.  Like or not, he is not a strong President.  Unable to negotiate or compromise, he is constantly going around Congress by issuing executive orders; many of which, are overreaching, violate the Constitution, and are being struck down in the courts.  On the foreign policy front, one is hard pressed to find a success. Most of the Middle East is in flames, or on the verge of it. China and Russia are flexing their muscles against their neighbors, and both of those countries are vying to be the biggest kid on the block.

Sadly, Obama is not listening to what the polls are saying because he just continues to barrel down his ideological highway by declaring that he will continue his planned end-runs around Congress and the Constitution.  While some pundits might be pooh-poohing either of these polls in isolation, the reality is that two separate sources independently came to the same conclusion: Obama is the worst President in modern times.

References:

Of Living Presidents, Obama Has Least Favorable Approval Rating: http://www.gallup.com/poll/171794/clinton-elder-bush-positively-rated-living-presidents.aspx

POLL: Obama Worst Modern-Day President: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/poll-obama-worst-modern-day-111329150.html

Gallup Polling Suggests Democrats Are Again In Trouble In This Year's Midterm Election

In 2010, America saw a sea change in politics with Democrats losing big at both the federal and state levels.  At the federal level, the Republicans retook the House of Representatives and the Senate Democrats lost their two-thirds, legislative super majority.

In that year, more than anything else, ObamaCare was adversely on the minds of the voters.  But no group was more active in punishing the Democrats for the health care law than seniors.  A post election analysis showed that 61% of those aged 65 years or older turned out to vote.  The highest percentage of any age group. Of those 55 to 65, the turnout rate was still relatively high at 54%. Only 37% of those 25 to 44 voted that year.  Worse yet, only 21% of the nation's youth turned out.

One only has to look at this graph from Gallup to understand why 2010 was such a bad year for the Democrats:

 

As this chart shows, Democrats went from a positive 13% party affiliation advantage among seniors in 2006 to a negative 6% disadvantage in 2010.  That's really surprising because the drop took place during the supposed Great Recession.  A recession that the Democrats were constantly blaming on Bush and the Republicans.  Even the "younger" Americans trended away from the Democrats but still left their party with a 2% voting advantage in 2010.

While Gallup suggests that the Democrats have recovered from their 2010 lows, seniors are still a negative for the Democrats; and, if 2010 was a midterm blueprint, they and their high turnout are the one's who will probably decide who wins or loses in the Fall.

In another polling report, Gallup also indicates a loss of  Democrat party affiliation among all whites and all non-whites:

In this polling result, the Democrats bottomed out in 2011 with their party reflecting a 14 percentage point disadvantage among all whites.  On top of that, a normally solid base for the Democrats, saw a drop from a high of 58% to just 43% in 2011; meaning that, no longer, were Democrats able to hold a majority against non-whites.  In the case of whites, there has only been a recovery of 2 percentage points since 2010.  For non-whites, the story is even more grim with support for Democrats still less than a majority at 45%.

Now, none of the above charts reflect any attitudinal changes that may have taken place since the roll out of ObamaCare.  However, my guess is that there has been another 2010-like shift away from the Democrats.  If so, I truly believe the Democrats will lose big again with the loss of control of the Senate.

References:

Why Older Citizens are More Likely to Vote: http://money.usnews.com/money/retirement/articles/2012/03/19/why-older-citizens-are-more-likely-to-vote

U.S. Seniors Have Realigned With the Republican Party: http://www.gallup.com/poll/168083/seniors-realigned-republican-party.aspx

U.S. Whites More Solidly Republican in Recent Years: http://www.gallup.com/poll/168059/whites-solidly-republican-recent-years.aspx

pb 

Do The Latest Gallup Poll Numbers Show That Biden Really Blew It?

Gallup's October 18th presidential tracking poll shows Romney leading Obama -- nationally -- 51% to 45%.  This poll is a seven-day, rolling average of daily samples so, it doesn't include the recent Obama-Romney debate results. But, it does include, for the first time, full polling data following the Biden-Ryan debate.  The real question is whether or not this phenomenal weakness on the part of the Obama campaign is a result of Biden's childish debate performance or, perhaps, fallout from the Benghazi embassy attack.  Given the way the media has done everything possible to cover up the Benghazi story, my guess is that this poll is showing us that Biden's performance was a serious negative for the President's campaign.

Make no mistake about it, this Gallup poll is a real problem for Obama.  As Karl Rove aptly noted, no candidate has ever lost after having achieved a 50% or greater rating by mid-October in this particular Gallup poll; definitely putting Romney in the catbird seat.  Or, to put it another way, if Obama was to win, it would be a historic first.

Furthermore, the always-accurate University of Colorado Poli-Sci election model now indicates that  Romney has a 77% chance of winning the popular vote.  That model has never been wrong; going all the way back to 1980.  And, that 77% chance is a very high number relative to past winning candidates.

Update: As of today, the very latest Gallup numbers give Romney a 52% to 45% lead.

--- Gallup Tracking Poll: http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx

--- Story on the Colorado University Study: http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4435

--- Karl Rove Video: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/17/rove_no_candidate_who_has_led_with_50_of_more_in_likely_voter_poll_in_mid-october_has_lost.html

91 Million Radical Muslims Means The War On Terror Is Not Over

As noted in this blog recently, the Obama administration would prefer us to believe that the War on Terror is over.  They would have you believe that Al Qaeda and the Taliban are no longer a threat.  This head-in-the-sand attitude completely ignores the realities of how radical the Muslim world has become.

According to the Gallup organization, about 36% of the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world believe that the attacks on 9/11 were either somewhat or completely justified.  Buried within that 36%  is a hardcore and radical group of 7% who do think the 9/11 attacks were "completely" justified.  Now, 7% might seem like a small percentage but, in actuality, its about 91 million people.  Even if one-tenth of one percent of the most radical would be willing to kill themselves for the cause, you're talking about at least 91,000 Muslims around the world who could be a serious threat to us.  Of course, there's a real possibility, that this number is well understated.

The fact is that radical Muslim terrorism is never going to go away as long as radical Madrassas (schools) continue to exist throughout the world.  Muslim children, at their earliest ages, are being taught to hate America, Israel, and the Western way of life.  On top of that, you have thousands of radical religious leaders (Imams) teaching that same hate at weekly prayers.  Those two facts, combined, are why 36% of all Muslims even believe that the 9/11 attacks were in some way justified.  It doesn't matter if Bin Laden is dead.  There are millions of potential terrorists who eagerly want to hurt the U.S..

Note: I would suggest that you read this article which covers a speech given by CBS Reporter Laura Logan and which is perfectly related to the above post: Chicago Sun-Times: Reporter Lara Logan brings ominous news from Middle East:  http://www.suntimes.com/news/washington/15581902-452/reporter-lara-logan-brings-ominous-news-from-middle-east.html

Statistical Reference: The Weekly Standard: Gallup says only 7 percent of the world's Muslims are political radicals. Yet 36 percent think the 9/11 attacks were in some way justified: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/066chpzg.asp?pg=1

Democrat Pollster Slams Gallup For Under-Polling Minorities

In a lengthy analysis that was published in the left-leaning Huffington Post, Democrat pollster, Mark Blumenthal, concluded that the Gallup polls were flawed and biased against President Obama because the Gallup organization always under-polls minorities.

Of course, the only reason that Blumenthal went through that analysis, in the first place, is because he's upset with the fact that Gallup has a tendency to show low approvals of "his" president.  This, unlike, all those other polls, from left leaning news agencies, that always show Obama in a much better light.

But, let's assume Blumenthal's analysis is correct and, in fact, the Gallup polling is too white in its results.   The real question, then, is whether or not they are biased against Obama.  To me, the only real answer to that question is how Gallup polled in the last presidential election in 2008; since, as of right now, we have no other way to confirm or discredit the polling results.  We get that answer from RealClearPolitics who conveniently summarized all of this nation's final polling prior to the presidential election.  When we look at the results, we find that Gallup was actually the outlier; predicting that Obama would win 55% to 44% over McCain. Except for Reuters/C-span/Zogby poll, which gave Obama a 54% win factor, every other polling organization put him below 53% in winning the election.  The actual results were that Obama won handily over McCain; 52.8% to 45.6%.

Obviously, the 2008 final numbers showed that Gallup was actually biased towards Obama; despite their typical under-polling of minorities. I'm quite sure Blumenthal was very happy with Gallup's 2008 position.  But, now, he's critical and wants to discredit them.   Blumenthal, like most political strategists and pollsters, know that negative polling can cause some of our electorate to switch their votes to the one who's winning.  So, in typical leftist fashion, I guess Blumenthal thinks it's time to kill the messenger.

Sources for this blog entry:

Mark Blumenthal's "Race Matters: Why Gallup Poll Finds Less Support For President Obama"

Election 2008 National Head-to-Head Polls: Final Results 

Obama's Worrisome Erratic Polls

Over the last three weeks, the Rasmussen daily tracking polls have had Obama's approval ratings bouncing around between 41% and 50%; sometimes changing direction by as much as 3 points in a day. And, the same has been true over at Gallup, with the approval ratings jumping up and down, daily, in a range between 43% to 49%.

All this volatility should be quite unsettling to Obama's reelection team because it becomes almost impossible to determine what the actual driving force is behind such erratic daily numbers. To me, it simply appears that Obama numbers are being driven by the news du jour and not by anyone's absolute comfort level with this President and his policies. And, if that is true, it bodes well for the election of a Republican president in the fall; as long as that candidate can grab the headline by hammering Obama on his all too many shortcomings.

Obama Is Hammered In A NYT/CBS Poll

Yesterday's top story in the "Drudge Report" showed a picture of President Obama with his back to the camera and a two-line headline that read: "Pain in the Pump" and "44 down to 41". For those who "clicked" to read the story behind the headlines, they found that, in the most recent New York Times/CBS poll, President Obama's approval rating sunk to 41%; a new low for his Presidency. At the same time, his disapproval rating reached a new high.

What is amazing about these numbers is that they were even published at all by these two, very left-leaning, media outlets. In the past, other polling operations -- like Gallup and Rasmussen -- have had the President's approval down to 41%; and, like some kind of White Knights, the New York Times and CBS would band together to refute the 41% polling by publishing their own data which almost always showed Obama near or above 50%. So, why such a low approval rating now when both Rasmussen and Gallup actually have Obama at 49%? It's just the opposite of what has happened between these polling operations in the past. This makes no sense.

Being the skeptic that I am about all politics, I smell a rat. While I have no proof of this, it just may be that the New York Times and CBS are trying to jolt Democrats into rallying around the President with both cash and support. It's early enough that this low approval rating won't actually hurt the President's reelection bid; assuming that the NYT/CBS polling in the months to come return Obama to the his near 50% level. And, it comes at a time when the President's fund raising is somewhat lagging. Of course, I just might be all wet.

Obama Wrestling The "Worst Ever" Crown From Carter

There's still 11 months to go to before we officially find out whether Obama has become the reigning one-term, "worst ever" President. Right now, that title still comfortably sits with the one-term wonder: Jimmy Carter.

But, based on recent polling data from the Gallup organization, Obama is proving that Carter's title isn't as implacable as many would have thought. According to Gallup, Obama's overall approval rating -- for this point in his Presidency -- is 8 points below the approval rating of Carter and certainly below the ratings of all other modern Presidents (Click here to See Story: Obama's Approval Plunges Below Worst-Ever President Carter).

This was no small feat on the part of our current Chief Executive. After all, he had to really go out of his way to prove that he was a weaker leader and a more do-nothing President than ole Jimmy. Further, he had to prove, like Carter, that he could actually make things worse since taking office. My hat's off to the man. Veni. Vidi. Vici!

pb

Juan Williams' Polling Defense of Obama: Shattered!

I guess I've heard it dozens of times. Whenever Fox News Contributor, Juan Williams, is asked about the chances that Obama may lose the 2012 election, he always counters by pointing to the fact that Obama wins in any heads up poll against a Republican. Williams even furthers his argument by stating that Obama always wins against the so-called, no-name, generic Republican. (Click to See the Video).

Well, this week has been a really bad one for Juan. That's because, in a variety of polls, Obama falls short of both individually named Republicans and, you guessed it, against his favorite boogeyman: the generic Republican.

Juan's first bad news came this week when, in a Rasmussen poll, Obama loses to the fictional generic Republican by 5 points; 48% to 43%. That's well beyond the 2 point, plus/minus margin of error. (Click here to See Story: Election 2012: Generic Republican 48%, Obama 43%)

Then, in a Gallup poll, Romney beats Obama by 2 percentage points and Perry hangs close with a tie. (Click here to See Story: Obama in Close Race Against Romney, Perry, Bachmann, Paul) However, there is some solace for Mr. Williams because, in both cases, the results are within the margin of error. But, even so, the margin of error might not necessarily be in Obama's favor.

Then, in the all important and high electoral vote, swing-state of Florida comes even more disturbing news. In a Magellan Data and Mapping Strategies poll of Floridians, Obama loses to Romney by 10 percentage points; 49% to 39%. Against Perry, Obama loses by 7 percentage points; 46% to 39%. And, even Michele Bachmann scores a win; albeit, by only 1 point. But, even more disconcerting for Williams must be the fact that Hispanic voters only give Obama a 23% nod against Romney's at 62%. Against Perry, Obama see's a meager 25% of the Hispanic vote. Finally, against Bachmann, Obama can only muster 30%. This has to be very disturbing because in 2008, Hispanics voted in droves for Obama; 62% nationwide and 57% in Florida. (Click here to See Polling data -- go to page 3 for data specific to this blog entry)

So, poor Juan might just have lost his last, favorite argument on behalf of Obama's reelection. What then? My guess is he'll join the rest of the Democrats in simply attacking the Republicans in an effort to make Obama look better. Ya think?

No One Can Say Obama Is A Popular President Anymore

The last three polls that had been released mid-week last week -- Gallup, Fox Opinion Dynamics, and Rassmussen -- are all now showing Obama's approval rate below his disapproval rate. This upending of what had been an extremely popular President (when he took office) just proves that America is turned off, in mass, by this guy and his policies. To quote his ex-pastor: "The chickens have come home to roost!" Obviously, the American people were duped. Actually, he's doing exactly what he said he would do. But, America didn't listen.

To me, we now have a renegade President and Congress because of the stupidity of the voters of this country. I would hope, in the future, that the American voters get more up to speed about the candidates that they vote for. In the last year we have had an extremely expensive and totally ineffective Stimulus Package. Now, we have health care reform that, in the years to come, will probably bankrupt America. With that, Americans only have themselves to blame for voting this guy into office.

Obama Gets A Surge In The Gallup Poll

Just so people don't think I am not being fair to Obama, I should report the good as well as the bad when it comes to his Presidency.

In the last two days Obama has had a significant uptick in his polling numbers at Gallup. After having seen a low approval rating of 50% and high disapproval rate 44%, Obama is now sitting with a 55% approval and only 39% disapproval.

I really think that since the White House announced the elimination of the Public Option in health care reform, he has regained some of his lost support. However, it should also be pointed out that I am not seeing the same rebound in the Rasmussen poll; so, Gallup might just be an anomaly. We'll have to wait and see.

The Obama-Show is Losing Steam!

This morning's Gallup poll, reflects a Presidential popularity rating that is sinking fast.



At the beginning of June, Obama had a 64% personal approval rating in that poll. As of today, he has slipped to a 57% approval rating. That's a slide of 7 percentage points in a single month. Further, if you look at the fact that he had a "taking office" approval rating of 68 to 69%, Obama has suffered a loss of job approval in the month of June, alone, that is greater than all the previous months' losses combined since he took office. This suggests a loss that is rapidly accelerating.

If this trend continues and he loses another 7% in July, he will be right on the edge of a 50% approval rating. Anything lower than that would suggest that he has become an "unpopular" President. And if that does happen, he would have done so in just 5 months.

His disapproval numbers are even more disconcerting. Upon taking office, he had a mere 10% disapproval rating. Now, he is at 35%. That's a net dissatisfaction increase of 25 percentage points. Combined with the 12% decline in his job approval since taking office, America's dissatisfaction with this President is increasing at a factor of 2 to 1. This also means that previously undecided respondents are quickly moving into the disapproval camp faster than those who previously supported this President. When Obama took office, about 21 percent of the poll respondents were undecided. Today, that number is down to 8 percent with the majority of those, if not all, becoming dissatisfied with Obama. This is important, because those that were undecided at the time that he took office showed a logical restraint by taking a wait and see attitude about this President. At the same time, those who gave Obama a high approval rating at the time he took office, with no job performance to speak of, were being totally disingenuous. I think Obama should really worry about all the fence-sitters who have gone negative towards him.

We know from other polls that the bulk of this erosion in popularity is also coming from Independent voters. In just one month, the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll reported that the popularity of Obama among Independent voters fell to 45% from a prior month's 60% (See Full Story). Anyway you shake it, that is a big drop from a group that tends to shape elections and who swing approval/disapproval rates in the polls. Independents are certainly less ideologically bound to any particular political party and are a very good indicator of the general satisfaction/dissatisfaction of any politician.

That same NBC/WSJ opinion poll also reported Obama's overall rating at 56%; which is very close to the Gallup number of 57%. Because of this synchronicity between the two polls, I think you can be somewhat assured that the loss of Independent voter support is genuine.

Another sign of waning support for this President and his policies didn't come from a poll but from ABC's ratings when it aired the all-day-with-Obama on healthcare show last week. ABC was third in the rankings that night. The Obama-show had less than 4 million viewers and, during one time slot, actually failed to beat a rerun of a sit-com. I think if that same ABC stunt had been pulled right after Obama took office the ratings would have been at least four times that of this week's actual ratings; maybe even higher. But, now the low ratings show disinterest in what has truly become an overexposed President that is more in love with his own words than in producing actual results.

I think the polls are reflecting the fact that this guy's "flowing" and "glowing" words aren't matching up with the realities on the ground. Things aren't happening the way he promised and he will be punished, popularity-wise, for the deceptions being attempted in and by his well-delivered speeches.

As I had said long ago, this guy is a "Flim-Flam Man" and a lot of people are starting to realize it!

Note: The Gallup daily tracking poll can be viewed at this link (Click Here To View).