Approval Ratings & Ragnarok

Mike Rowe is always fishing for some new dirty and unpleasant job to do. He should trying being an advisor to Mitt Romney right now. Rick Perry has surged in all the major polls since he announced his candidacy, and he is now an average of ten points ahead of Romney.

Romney's strategy so far has been to act as the presumptive nominee. He has kept out of the squabbles between other Republican contenders and mostly out of the news. That seemed to be working just fine until Perry happened. No bother! Ross Douthat at the New York Times thinks that Romney is sitting pretty. His only real threat was another establishment candidate. Let Perry percolate for a bit. The Texas governor is unelectable. As the real contests approach, Perry will burn out.

All that may be true, but… There are two things that make you a viable candidate for a party nomination. First, do the voters think you are a viable candidate? Second, does the money think you are a viable candidate? Perry has established himself with the voters. Romney should keep a close eye on the money. If the money looks to go south, he is in deep doodoo.

Enlarging the view a bit, this is shaping up to be a very interesting election. If Perry wins the nomination, he will be the most conservative politician to do so since Ronald Reagan. I have a hard time believing that Perry is electable, but then I had a hard time believing that Reagan was electable. I am hearing the same things about Perry that I heard about Reagan back in 1980.

In a typical election cycle, you'd be putting your Vegas money on Obama. This is no typical cycle. We suffered a severe recession. Whether we get a second dip or not, there has been no recovery. That is very unusual. Obama, not Perry or Romney or any other Republican, will have to run with that record. Yikes.

Obama's overall approval rating is dismal but not unprecedented. What is or should be existentially terrifying for the Obama camp is how broad their champion's fall has been. FiveThirtyEight, the polling blog at the New York Times, shows that over this year Obama's approval rating has fallen precipitously among 27 definable demographic groups.

Among "pure independents", Hispanics, and Conservative Democrats, Obama's approval rating has fallen about ten percent respectively. Independents are the swing voters who often decide elections. Hispanics are a key Democratic voting bloc and he is barely breaking even. Conservative Democrats are, well, Democrats. Obama has fallen seven points, from 44% approval to 37% approval, among voters older than 64. That is the demographic most likely to vote.

Is it too soon to talk about a failed presidency? It is not too soon to say that Obama has lost the confidence of nearly every bloc of American voters.

Obama will not recover on his own. We know our man pretty well by now. He has nothing. Short of an unlooked for economic surge or some other happy accident, he will not recover. The only way he wins next year is if the Republican nominee is existentially alarming. Maybe Rick Perry will fit that bill. That is what Obama's supporters, all 48 of them, have to hope for.

If Obama does win, he will limp across the finish line. We will have reelected a man in whom no one but himself has confidence.

Comments

[Bill Fleming]

Here's a fun little website, KB. Just keep clicking the bottom button.
I'll look for your rebuttal to each and every point. LOL.

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

[not bill fleming]

Dear Mr. Bill Fleming,
If President Obama's accomplishments are so stellar, why does the web site you linked to need a swear word in it?
Sincerely,
Not Bill Fleming

[Bill Fleming]

For the humor of it. There is a PG version for prudes and children. See lower right of page.

[Bill Fleming]

Better? If that's your only objection, this should take care of it for you:
http://whattheheckhasobamadonesofar.com/?q=24

[Ken Blanchard]

The President signed some bills. He knows how to write his name. So far so good. Maybe if he'd had time lately to produce a national budget...

[Bill Fleming]

Right. So the TeaBaggers could stonewall it, KB?

How about if they get up off it and write a reasonable budget the rest of the Congress and the President will sign?

Obama already laid the groundwork with Boehner. They know what to do. They should do it, instead of trying to amend the Constitution and other ultra conservative, unicorn-chasing GOP pipe dream adventures.

It's the duty of the Congress to produce the budget.

When they get back in the saddle, call them up and tell them to do it and quit farting around. ;^)

[duggersd]

Why is it, Bill, that the only way you can refer to a group of people who have had a great success against your champion is to label them with a derogatory name? If I used some of the kinds of language you use for people who consider themselves TEA party members for your candidate, I would be labeled a racist or something else. One can only conclude you are out of ammunition. The fact of the matter is the House of Representatives has sent a budget to the Senate. They could sign it and President Obama could sign it. However the Senate defeated it. Obama cannot sign anything that does not get to his desk. It seems to me the Senate could offer their budget. Let's see, they have not passed a budget since um, when is that? BTW, it is the duty of the Congress to produce a budget. Boehner and the House has. The Senate has not. Perhaps you should call Reid and tell him to quit passing gas around.

[Bill Fleming]

Oh, I forgot. Tea Partiers. I didn't mean it as a pejorative. Never have.

And hey, it's not my fault they called themselves by that name and dangled tea bags off their tri-corner hats.

That was their own bright idea.

______________________________

The House sent a joke to the Senate and they knew it when they did it duggerSD.

[duggersd]

Liar. You know good and well you did. I have never heard anybody except for people aligned with the Democrat party call them teabaggers. But we expect that from you. No, that was not a joke. It was a serious budget. But the Senate does not want to go on record. What was that you said about courage?

[Ken Blanchard]

Bill: it's the President's job to produce a budget and send it to Congress. The President did so back in Feb. It contained no deficit reduction whatsoever. Not only did the Republican House ignore it, but so did the Democratically controlled Senate. The Senate hasn't passed a budget for almost two years now. Only the Republican House has passed a budget this year.

The President has given a pious speech recognizing the need for deficit reduction, but he has yet to produce a plan. You write: "So the TeaBaggers could stonewall it, KB?" If the President is failing to produce a budget out of fear of the Tea Party, then he really is in over his head.

[Bill Fleming]

DuggerSD, I have absolutely no reason to lie to you about that.

What would be the point?

The whole reason people laughed about that was because they were calling their group a name that had an urban double entendre, primarily in gay circles. Since I am neither urban or gay, I didn't really get it either.

That said, to me it's always been a big so what.

If it still bothers you, you need to learn to let go, man.

(

[Bill Fleming]

I hear you KB. I think there will be an Obama budget forthcoming now.

If there isn't I'll be as disappointed as you will. (Doesn't mean I'll vote for Perry tho.)

Let's see what happens, okay?

[Bill Fleming]

p.s. KB, I'm looking here to find where doing a budget is the POTUS's job and not having much luck finding it. In fint, I can't find the word budget in there anywhere. Can you point it out for me please, Prof.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article2

[Bill Fleming]

..."in fact"... above. (...where did that "fint" come from?)

[Bill Fleming]

Now... if you're talking about this, KB, I submit, as before, that it is technically Congress's turn, not the Presidents, Yes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_process

[Stan Gibilisco]

"If Perry wins the nomination, he will be the most conservative politician to do so since Ronald Reagan. I have a hard time believing that Perry is electable, but then I had a hard time believing that Reagan was electable. I am hearing the same things about Perry that I heard about Reagan back in 1980."

After four years of pure prune juice, roadkill chili sounds great.

[Ken Blanchard]

Bill: it is the President's job to oversee the budget process. The Wiki article you cite describes the formal procedure, but the reality has almost always been messier. Neither the Democratic Senate nor the Republican House acted on his Feb. budget proposal. Why? Because it ignored fiscal realities. Your argument seems to be that the President is now justified in sitting on his hands until Congress acts. Is that really what you think of the presidency? Do you never tire of making excuses for this man?

If, as the President acknowledges and anyone with brains can see, the public debt is a threat to the security and prosperity of the United States, is it not his job to propose a plan to deal with it? He has done absolutely nothing. The Democratic Senate has done absolutely nothing. Only the House has produced a plan that even addresses the problem. I know you hate it, but where is the alternative?

To return to the subject of this post, everyone but you can see that the President is asleep at the wheel.

[Bill Fleming]

Perhaps with unemployment rates as they are, cutting expenses is the wrong priority right now, KB? That said, Boehner and Obama have supposedly worked out "the Grand Compromise." Let's see if the Tea Party has the cojones to implement it. Oh, and by the way, where is their jobs bill?

[George Mason]

Bill; The Tea Party movement is about freedom, reduced regulation of our lives and businesses and reduced taxes and other government imposed costs. That is a jobs bill.

[Bill Fleming]

George. Baloney. The Tea Party is all about government regulation of our lives. Give me a break. They are simply the religious right extremists in newly minted tri-corner hats. A jobs bill is one that acknowledges that demand comes before supply and that labor is more important than capital.

[Lynn]

Bill will never admit the truth about the Tea Party. He and Dems have adopted a strategy of maligning the Tea Party and what it stands for (which George above has exactly correct BTW). Bill, why don't you attend a Tea Party meeting and see what they are recommending instead of simply referring to them as you do? Which party is passing new gov't regulations by fiat (bypassing Congress which refuses to pass some of them)? Which party is ignoring the War Powers Act? Which party is trying to implement new rules as regards unions and small businesses? Which party is asking for increased taxes (uh, enhanced revenue and investment in Obama-speak)? And which party is asking for less gov't regs, less taxes which has been shown to produce more revenue to the govt?

If Obama does ever get around to proposing a budget, it will undoubtedly include much "enhanced revenue and investment" which was not the answer with the stimulus and isn't the answer now. But some more gimmes will help him buy votes, and that is foremost in his mind right now.

[Anthony Renli]

Ok - I have a question or two for the Tea Party People (ok...and other conservatives) AND a question or two for the Liberals. To both sides, no fair doing the cop out answer to either of these questions of never. Never and Always are not real answers in the real world.

1) Conservatives: When is it appropriate to raise taxes? When is it appropriate to create/enforce new regulations?

2) Liberals: When is it appropriate to cuts social programs (i.e. food stamps/Medicaid/aid to education)? When is it appropriate to cut regulations and let the free market have it's way?

[Bill Fleming]

Lynn, let's don't argue. Just read this and tell me if you dispute it:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1903/tea-party-movement-religion-social-issues-conservative-christian

[Bill Fleming]

2)
a. Anthony, I'm in favor of means testing for social program benefits. It's supposed to provide a safety net (see also my answer to your second question that follows...)

b. When we have a strong, vibrant, burgeoning middle class, and relatively low unemployment.

[Lynn]

Not arguing, Bill! I read the article. I don't disagree with it. The Tea Party principles are basically those of conservatives, which this poll shows. All registered voters includes both Dems and Reps and independents, right? If people are Reps they for the most part are conservative. If people are Dems, they for the most part are liberal. Most Blacks are Dems and liberal; nothing racist here, it's just a fact; therefore there are few of them who would be attracted to the Tea Party. That does not make the Tea Party racist either; that is also just a fact. So what's the point? All Tea Party supporters are most concerned with the size of govt and excesssive spending; a majority of them are also concerned with the social issues, some are not. Again, what's the point?

Yes, Tea Party took the name from the first tea party, and yes, it was a bright idea. Those who feel the need to denigrate us by the use of the other term have every right to do so; it is a freedom of speech after all. But when a person freely uses that other term as a perjorative (and there is no other reason to use it, period), then it reflects on the person using the term, not the people who believe in the principles of smaller gov't, less gov't spending, and less gov't intrusion in our private lives.

[Lynn]

Regulations are necessary to enforce necessary laws to ensure individual safety and to some degee safety of the public. (Example - NOT necessary to force small businesses to post notices about unions; ARE necessary to prevent and prosecute murder, rape, robbery, etc).

It is appropriate to raise taxes IMO when all waste and fraud, duplication of services, unnecessary gov't agencies and bureaucrats, etc have been addressed. NOT before! In other words, CERTAINLY NOT NOW!!

As for social programs like Medicare and Social Security, they have to be addressed and even means tested for probably. They are unsustainable as they are presently, and we owe it to our kids and grandkids to do something to address this issue. Same probably goes for SS Disability as I just heard the same facts about that program.

Food stamps are necessary for some, but not to the degree they are used now. Make them available ONLY for quality food items.

If the economy could be competently addressed (hopefully it will be after 2012), a lot of these problems will solve themselves to a large degree. But as long as the way to solve the problem is to pour more money into social programs and make more and more people dependent on them (works wonders to buy votes and the Dems know it), things don't bode well.

[Lynn]

Regulations are necessary to enforce necessary laws to ensure individual safety and to some degee safety of the public. (Example - NOT necessary to force small businesses to post notices about unions; ARE necessary to prevent and prosecute murder, rape, robbery, etc).

It is appropriate to raise taxes IMO when all waste and fraud, duplication of services, unnecessary gov't agencies and bureaucrats, etc have been addressed. NOT before! In other words, CERTAINLY NOT NOW!!

As for social programs like Medicare and Social Security, they have to be addressed and even means tested for probably. They are unsustainable as they are presently, and we owe it to our kids and grandkids to do something to address this issue. Same probably goes for SS Disability as I just heard the same facts about that program.

Food stamps are necessary for some, but not to the degree they are used now. Make them available ONLY for quality food items.

If the economy could be competently addressed (hopefully it will be after 2012), a lot of these problems will solve themselves to a large degree. But as long as the way to solve the problem is to pour more money into social programs and make more and more people dependent on them (works wonders to buy votes and the Dems know it), things don't bode well.

[Bill Fleming]

"Tea Party took the name from the first tea party, and yes, it was a bright idea."

In what way was it a "bright idea," Lynn?

What specifically do the Tea Party people have in common with the folks who threw English Tea into the Boston Harbor?

[Lynn]

Bill, I'm not playing this game. Why don't you tell me why you dislike the Tea Party so much, why you have no problem calling Tea Party people names, and why the left is obviously so afraid of the Tea Party.

[Lynn]

Bill, I'm not playing this game. Why don't you tell me why you dislike the Tea Party so much, why you have no problem calling Tea Party people names, and why the left is obviously so afraid of the Tea Party.

[Stan Gibilisco]

The more the Leftists make fun of the "Tea Party," the more powerful the "Tea Party" gets.

If I were a committed Lefty, I'd try to get Donald Trump to run as an independent candidate.

As a fiscal conservative, I fear Trump more than anyone else in the presidential race. If he runs, Obama wins, and we might as well join the EU.

[Bill Fleming]

Suit yourself. Lynn. It was your assertion, I was just wondering if you could back it up with anything rational.
I'm not surprised to learn that you either can't or won't.

As for who's afraid of the Tea Party Lynn and Stan, again I'll point to the recent Pew study, since Lynn has admitted to agreeing with it. You'll see here that it's the GOP who is "afraid" of them, not the left. And with good reason. They are ripping the party to shreds.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1892/tea-party-republicans-divide-cuts-federal-spending

[Lynn]

You say I won't answer your question, Bill. Well, you refuse to answer mine too. And I don't think the Reps are afraid of the Tea Party. Without the Tea Party, the Reps would not now be in control of the House. There are many Reps who are not really very conservative, and it's true that probably some of those do fear the Tea Party because the Tea Party is bringing more conservatism to the Reps. But the Dems have their own problems too; the split between the far, far left, marxists who have essentially taken over the Dem party, and the more middle of the road Dems, many of whom are now independents or have left the Dem party over the years (as I have). Obama is seeing that right now; he has to appear to please the far, far left while not alienating his more moderate supporters.

And I don't see the need to explain why the present Tea Party took this name. It is obvious to all, including you, and I'm just not going to play.

[Bill Fleming]

Other evidence that the Party's Tea Kettle is losing steam:
http://www.pollingreport.com/politics.htm

[George Mason]

Since liberals (we will now call them the $#!+head movement) have not been able to substantiate a single charge of racism against any of the Tea Parties they now accuse them of being religious nuts. Obviously anyone who attends church should be disqualified from participating in politics. In church these people might her preachers talking about loving your fellow man (unlike the church Obama attends). We simply can't have that in politics.

[Bill Fleming]

George, are you kidding me? What do you call the whole birther thing? Give me a break. And then there's Gingrich:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2010/0913/Newt-Gingrich-Did-he-go-too-far-with-comments-about-Obama

[Bill Fleming]

"And I don't see the need to explain why the present Tea Party took this name. It is obvious to all, including you, and I'm just not going to play."

No Lynn, it is not obvious to me at all. That is precisely why I asked you the question which you refuse to answer.

The original Tea Party people were basically committing an act of treason and they knew it. It's why, to this day we still don't know what their names were. Benjamin Franklin said, "We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." They were declaring themselves independent of their government. Fomenting revolution.

Now, with that background, would you care to clarify? Are the Tea Party people trying to overthrow the government? Leave the Union? Or what?

[Bill Fleming]

George, the other thing that bugs me is all this "taking our country back" business. Taking it back from whom?

[George Mason]

Bill; You obviously have nowhere else to go with this or your ignorance is to deep to plumb. Conflating the "birthers" with the Tea Party? Newt Gingrich and the Tea Party? Keep trying my friend.

[Bill Fleming]

It's not my problem, George. It's a Tea Party problem.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/poll-results-show-only-32-of-likely-gop-voters-believe-obama-was-born-in-united-states/

[Bill Fleming]

George see also:
http://dakotapoll.com/dakotapoll-finds-large-majority-of-tea-party-supporters-favor-sales-tax-increase-for-education

Excerpt:
–64% believe that “illegal aliens are taking jobs away from South Dakotans.
–57% believe that Congress should investigate President Obama’s citizenship.
–63% believe that “The 2nd Amendment gives private groups the right to form militias to hold government accountable.
–48% believe “the earth is 6,000 years old as calculated by Biblical scholars.”

[Bill Fleming]

(George must be one of those in the minority of reasonable Tea Party people in SD.)

[Lynn]

Bill is simply following the Dem line of attack on the Tea Party with his ridiculous comments above. If the Dems weren't concerned with the Tea Party politically, they would just ignore it. But they are afraid of the conservative movement, and demonizing Tea Party members is just one of their strategies. You are being a very loyal Dem, Bill.

[duggersd]

Bill, you found a poll from last year before The One presented a copy of something that looks like a birth certificate. I do not know a lot of people who were pushing the birther thing, but at least the Donald got something from the guy. And I really do not have a problem with states requiring proof of citizenship to be on a ballot. The Constitution has a requirement in there. So what is wrong with showing one is qualified? I really do not buy into that thing about the earth being 6000 years old. I suspect something wrong with the polling on that. I know very few people who believe that.
Depending upon how you interpret the question, yes illegal aliens are taking jobs that could be taken by South Dakotans. Every time an illegal alien is working in SD illegally, that person is taking a job that most likely could be taken by a citizen.
On the other hand 97% of liberals believe global warming is a man-made phenomenon and impugn people who do not believe as they do. http://www.newsroomamerica.com/story/165340.html
98% of liberals believe there are no illegal aliens in this country and even if there are, who cares? It is their country too.
87% of liberals believe we should harness the wind, except for when there are turbines that might block a view.
93% of liberals believe we should import less oil and drill for less oil. THEY should be able to drive in limos and fly in jets, but the rest of the people should ride bicycles.
100% of liberals will not understand the numbers used are for sarcasm purposes. These are the same people who will take a quote out of context and make the quoter look like a bigot or a racist. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CRpjPJOEIE

[Bill Fleming]

Dream on guys. The Tea Party is a goner. Nobody's listening anymore.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2011/43_now_view_tea_party_label_as_a_negative

[duggersd]

Yeah, Bill, that headline is a real attention grabber. Then I read the article. "The partisan divided on the Tea Party label is perhaps predictable: 56% of Republicans see it as a positive, while 70% of Democrats think it’s a negative. Voters not affiliated with either party also now regard Tea Party as a negative label by a 42% to 25% margin."
Last September, the TEA party had a negative of 38%. But then let us think about it a bit. Establishment Republicans do not like the TEA party, which, BTW, is not even a party, but a movement. They do not like the TEA party because those are the people who are upsetting the applecart.
I suspect the demise of the TEA party is a lot like the premature notice of the death of Samuel Clemens who reportedly said "reports of my death have been grossly exaggerated".
I believe it was also Clemens who said there are lies, damn lies and statistics. You like to hide in statistics and polls, but when the final votes are tallied, unless the Democrats can find enough dead people to vote, there will be another President in 2013. TEA party or no TEA party.
Perhaps a comparison would be with The One's negatives? http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/mid/1508/articleId/824/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/Default.aspx

[Ken Blanchard]

Bill: the original tea party was not an act of treason, at least as the colonists saw it. It was certainly not "fomenting revolution". The colonists still considered themselves loyal British subjects who were just insisting on their rights as such.

The contempt that you feel for the tea party people and that is general among the American left exposes you. You are all for the people, as long as the people do what their betters tell them. I have news for you. Those people, sitting on their lawn chairs in public squares and voting their conscience are just as good as you are.

[Bill Fleming]

Just as good at what, Ken? No doubt they are better than I am at some things, but rational thinking doesn't appear to be one of them.

[Jimi]

Bill,

"It's the duty of the Congress to produce the budget."

You had better do a little research for once. I am embarrassed for you!

[Bill Fleming]

The feeling's mutual, Jimi. Ken and I have already resolved this. You need to keep up.

[Ken Blanchard]

Bill: in the rational thinking department, they have you beat. It is more rational to think that we cannot run massive deficits indefinitely than to think, as you do, that we can ignore fiscal responsibility altogether.

[Bill Fleming]

KB, that's not what I think, of course. And how foolish of you to say that it is. What were you thinking?

[Ken Blanchard]

Bill: you and the Democrats will put all your efforts to defeat any proposal to reduce the deficit. You vigorously defend the President for not having a plan. You scathingly dismiss the Ryan plan, the only plan that exists that actually addresses the problem. That is what I was thinking.