Obama's great numbers
More good news for "the one."
UPDATE: Speaking of poll numbers Rasmussen is showing a massive drop in support for Obama's SCOTUS pick Sotomayor. It may be one of the most radical turn-arounds we have ever seen in such a short period of time. An interesting parsing of her poll numbers can be found here.
Exit question: What happens if Sotomayor becomes Obama's Harriet Miers?
UPDATE UPDATE: It has become the latest rage for the liberals these days to constantly refer to the Rasmussen polls as "leaning right" or some other dismissive term (even though he has been as correct as any other pollster out there. perhaps it is just the liberals' way of acting out in a manner they always accused conservatives of? projecting no?).
Yet it seems that Scott Rasmussen just happens to always be ahead of the curve with his polling. As this story in Politico seems to point out. More and more pollsters are seeing what Rasmussen saw a few days ago. That is that Obama is sinking.
“This is a huge sea change that is playing itself out in American politics,” said Democratic pollster Doug Schoen. “Independents who had become effectively operational Democrats in 2006 and 2008 are now up for grabs and are trending Republican...Ok now the spinmeisters can take a rest. Your theory has been put to rest.
Obama dropped 6 percentage points last week from the week before in Gallup’s tracking poll, and Quinnipiac University found a 5-percentage-point drop in approval from independents between early June and early July. Recent state polling shows drops over longer periods.
yip yip
Posts
10 comments:
This is terrible news. We need to blame Republicans for the mess they created and we inherited. Even though Reid and Pelosi have been running Congress for 2-1/2 years. We need another Stimulus, much much bigger than the last three. We need to pass Card-Check so we can start rebuilding the Middle Class. More importantly than anything else, however, we need to discard the tired, old ideas of the past like limited, Constitutional government, the private sector, and competitive, fraud-free elections.
AHH -- HAHAHAHA!!
Obama is such a tool. He's a corrupt lying scumbag -- a marxist who is ruining this once great country.
Good to see people are actually waking up to the bill of goods they've been sold.
Now that I've turned against Obama, I realize that the one person most responsible for Obama becoming President is George W. Bush.
Conscience.
you forgot to add the following to the end of your sentence,
"and his policies, the majority of which were passed by the Republican controlled Congress sitting during the first 6 years of his administration."
Can you give us a list of those "policies" and which Republicans voted for those "policies?"
It would be interesting to see your exhaustive list of Republicans and Republican votes and see if those Republicans are still there.
Meanwhile the poll numbers for this president are continuing to slide.
You should ask conscience. He blamed Bush-I assumed he meant his policies. Maybe I'm wrong and there is something else about Bush that he thinks led to the Obama election.
Anyway, my point is that Bush had a compliant congress on most issues for most of his term. If you believe that Bush policies got us where we are today, which Conscience seems to, then you also need to speak to your own elected representatives who rubberstamped them.
FWIW, I would point to those Bush policies (tax cuts, for example) that managed to turn a budget surplus into a huge deficit in a short time, the Iraq war and the misguided GWOT generally, and Bush's SEC and its apparent willful ignorance of the instability of the financial markets and easing of capital requirements for investment banks. Congress is less culpable regarding the SEC.
No, I meant Bush, not his policies. It was the arrogant Bush personality where he knew everything and never admitted when he was wrong. Obama promised to be different. That's why we voted for him. But has taken just 5 months to prove he is even worse than Bush. The other thing is this. They are public servants. They are supposed to work for us. But the carry themselves like Kings, like we work for them. That is wrong.
The liberal Congress led by Pelosi and Reid had a compliant Bush, and that is why we are where we are.
The economy started to slide around fall 2007 - when the first wave of legislation passed by the democrat(ick) Congress began to go into effect. By fall 2008 it had snowballed out of control - great timing for Obama's election, but a rational analysis by people who understand the issues indicates liberal policies passed by a liberal Congress sparked the decline.
Unfortunately for America - and the GOP - Bush and too many republicans in Congress contributed to the problem with big spending along the way, followed by rolling over and dying after 2007.
Had GWB and the republicans spent a little less prior to 2006 elections, or fought a little harder to control spending after (preferably both), we'd have a stable economy now... and probably a Republican President.
Instead, we have an economic free fall and Obama gets to blame it on his inherited fiasco - even though the worst of his inheritance has Pelosi's name all over it.
Anon 9:36, which legislation caused the economy to slide? What evidence do you have of cause and effect?
You do realize that unemployment started going up around the time of the Bush tax cuts in 2001. Before the attacks of September 11.
Real family income decreased during Bush's Presidency, after gaining steadily during Clinton's. So, tell us how that's the Democrat's fault.
"You do realize that unemployment started going up around the time of the Bush tax cuts in 2001. Before the attacks of September 11."
Funny.
You DO realize that unemployment AFTER the IMPLEMENTATION of Bush's tax cuts, DESPITE 9/11, dropped down in to the low 4's and remained low until AFTER Pelosi and Reid took over Congress, right?
Post a Comment