Polls On Obama & ObamaCare Falling

Loading

Only gonna get worse:

A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll shows an uphill selling job ahead for President Obama and congressional Democrats to convince most Americans that the health care overhaul passed last week will help them and their families.

In the poll, 50% call passage of the bill “a bad thing” and 47% say it was “a good thing.” That’s at odds with the findings of a one-day USA TODAY Poll taken a week ago — a day after the U.S. House approved the legislation — in which a 49%-40% plurality called the bill “a good thing.”

~~~

The failure of the new law to get even plurality support is especially sobering for House Democrats from competitive congressional districts who heeded pleas from the White House and congressional leaders to vote “yes.” The legislation passed 219-212, with just three votes to spare.

And worse:

Florida voters dislike the new healthcare law so much that President Barack Obama and the state’s top Democrat, U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, are paying a hefty political price, according to a new survey and analysis by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research.

Only 34 percent of Florida voters support the new law while 54 percent are against it, according to the poll. Opposition is significantly strong among two crucial blocs: those older than 65 and voters with no party affiliation. Seniors disfavor the bill by a 65-25 percent margin, while independents oppose the law 62-34.

And worse:

One week after the House of Representatives passed the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats, 54% of the nation’s likely voters still favor repealing the new law. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 42% oppose repeal.

For Obama:

rasmussenobamaapproval032910

And his cohorts who voted for this POS.

gb

To give you a sense of how startling it is for the GOP to actually lead on the generic ballot, revisit this Gallup piece from November comparing major electoral waves to the generic ballot polling that preceded them. The Democrats almost always lead; even in the red tide of 1994, the final generic ballot showed the parties even at 46/46. What does that mean for this year? Well, Gallup constructed the following statistical model to try to predict Democratic gains or losses.

predict

So unexpectedly low is 44 percent that they didn’t even bother to model it. Although the results are clear enough: If these numbers held on election day, you’d be looking at upwards of 60 seats flipping. Which isn’t the first time we’ve heard that speculation.

I have to tell ya, I thought it would take a bit longer then a week for this kind of a dip to start occurring but as usual, Obama & the Democrats beat all expectations.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
27 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

But! But! But!

Rassmussin only polls Right wingers! (It’s Gallup)
Oh.

It’s must be only likely voters! (It’s adults)
Oh.

NAZI!!!Bush! Haliburton! Cheney!!! (um. yeah. whatever)

BOOM!!! (wow. I’ve now seen an exploding head.)

Larry Sbato has a similar analysis based on the generic congressional ballot:

Forecasting the Midterm Elections

I am surprised that the Progressive Socialists are polling as well as they are, some people are just reluctant to accept the truth. Their bottom end is approximately 25% to 30%, the sum total of Blacks and Socialist Radicals, I expect the numbers to be near the 25% to 30% by November. Therefore, by my unscientific reckoning, he still has 14% of people to lose, unions will make up a certain percentage and once they realize they have pinned their hopes to a falling star and the membership bails on their leadership, they will start courting Republicans.

That leaves us 14% to convert, come on people! Let’s try harder!

I happen to work alongside a bunch of union members at my company. I am an employee, they are contractors. Some are already converted, or never were on the lefties side to begin with. But others………oh boy!…………..they wouldn’t believe the sky is blue if you told them it was, had a color wheel to prove it, and were standing under the bright summer sky. They would only believe it once they’ve gone to a union meeting and the union management told them it was. Today’s union members, as a whole, are no better than a bunch of lemmings in my opinion, following the lead lemming whether it is off the cliff or not.

As for the rest of that fourteen percent, alot are probably like my mother in law. Lifetime democrat voters(although I did get her to vote for Bush twice, but then turned around and voted for Obama!) who vote party line without regard to the actual issues. These are the people that need to be reached, and can be reached by intelligent responses to the left. Just my two cents!

Unexpected!!

@JohnG

HereHere.

While I hold no iota of patience for the willfully stupid, (hi Brob!) I think it’s important to remember the effects of the education system and the media on the average dood/doodette.

Sometimes it ain’t their fault, and we need to entice them over, not alienate them with verbal shotgun blast’s. I can’t help but think that some non-conservatives come here to “learn” because they may be having doubts…We should all be aware of that, and act accordingly.

I try (but many times fail) at stating facts/opinions calmly, and guiding them over, but…well. Let’s just say that with the help of calmer persons (hi Mata!) I’m getting better, and I’m at least seeing it as a worthwhile goal.

Johngalt, i think that is very useful information. Obviously, some union members see through the blind obedience that is asked by leadership. Within this group may be the key to get through to at least some of the Lemmings in the future.

The inherited Democrat syndrome is another group that requires a unique strategy.

John, you are a unique and critical thinker, if all original thinkers devote an effort to reaching these recalcitrant voters, we will only insure our complete victory and a humiliation for The Won.

Please keep us informed of your unique perception of the union voter.

I just hope that IF the Republicans take over both houses, that they will have learned their lessons and that they don’t act as stupidly as they did last time. otherwise this may just be another house cleaning followed by them losing control again. Point’s for all Republican Politicians to ponder:

1. It isn’t big business moguls, financial fat-cats, or lobbyists that put you into office, it’s the voters, who are usually represented by neither.

2. The voter’s don’t want a Republican form of socialism either. Or a theocracy. Nor do we want either party to whittle away at our Constitutional rights.

3. The past “Free trade” agreements may have been great for business, but it was lousy for employment, and it changed our country from the most productive industrialized nation in the world, (“American Dream” economy) into a weak outsourced debtor service economy. Do you really think the (mostly small town) American red state’s labor were happy about all the factory closures? If you don’t work to protect and create jobs, the Democrats will by expanding government.

4. Stop being so damned Anti-labor! The economy following the depression was built on the pride of workers and employers. Industry needs workers to produce. They are the hands that under wise leadership built the American Dream and enabled us to win WW2. The Republican party used to care about American workers. When they stopped, the lost the support of workers who had no choice but turn to Democrats and unions.) Nations profit from making things and selling them, not from showing other nations how to make what you used to and then buying from them because “It’s cheaper.” You guys are supposed to understand how basic economics works, I don’t know why you can’t figure this out.

5. Stop asking if it’s good for business, and instead ask if it’s good for America.

6. Stop expecting Democrats to play fairly. They’ve been outmaneuvering you because you’re too busy chanting party rhetoric, beating your chests and playing into their hands. They are not stepping across the aisle to meet you half way, they are just suckering you into showing your cards. Make them work for your support, and don’t vote for their plans just because you’re offered some juicy pork for the people at home. Consider instead what the people want ans (again) what’s best for America.

9. Look we all know that the MSM is biased in favor of making Democrats look good, and Republicans look bad. So with that in mind: For crying out loud. STOP DOING, AND SAYING STUPID SH*T!!! Either think(!) BEFORE you speak or s-t-f-u. You need to get the following through your heads! The MSM has it out for you. Once you understand that and act accordingly they will have less they can use against you. I know the game’s unfair, but stop whining and deal with it like you have common sense.

Excellent post, Ditto!

I’m just suprised the seminar posters haven’t shown up here yet with their latest talking points. Must be welfare check day.

Skookum

As far as the union members go, I have a hard time facing them anymore(at least the ones who blindly insist that Obama is great), and the responses gained from having any type of conversation with them would make most people’s heads explode. Example:

Me: “The cap and trade legislation that Obama wants pushed through will do nothing more than raise your electric bill, raise gas prices and better yet, increase the cost of any goods you purchase in town. You do know that, right?”

Union guy: “Well at least he’s better than the last president.”

Me: “Is that what your union chief told you at your last meeting?”

Union guy: “Nnnnnoo! Besides, Bush lied about the Iraq!”

Me: “?” Basically, I have nothing to say at that point because it is clear that he doesn’t have any clue on the issues and will only repeat whatever he heard the union management say and not consider any alternative. Like I said. Lemmings.

I fare no better when talking health care, the cash for clunkers program, or any other topic that Obama is wrong on.

John, it is still helpful to know the intellectual dysfunction of the average union member; for example, to be associated with people who are so innately stupid eventually becomes embarrassing for some union members. The Acorn expose displayed not only the corruption of Acorn, but the stupidity of its staffers and eventually its leadership, when the tried to rationalize their illegal activities. At a certain point, even Obama had to distance himself from his quasi-political organization. There is only so much corruption and stupidity a President can afford to be associated with and Biden is using up a large percentage of the stupid quotient.

I have heard local leaders of the SEIU being interviewed and their nearly senseless ramblings sound similar to the union personnel you have contact with; this is good news, they would be more formidable opponents if the could think for themselves instead of reciting phrases like a parrot.

Ditto: Excellent post, I think we should all send a copy to our Republican politicians, especially the young ones who can use these words as a reference or a moral compass. Well done, indeed!

Skookum

I hear you, it is just disheartening to see otherwise decent guys and gals get caught up in the ignorant, stupid rhetoric and not have an original thought of their own on the issue(s).

Obama, America’s first BLANK “president”, never really stopped campaigning. And, his pitch for ObamaCare has been fierce with so many pushes, only Obama is not convinced that it is DEAD and it is WRONG. Conservatives WILL redact ObamaCare regardless.

Obama’s pitch is fruitless only because by now almost all THINKING America’s know about Obama’s socialist and radical extreme leftist past — with a host of his ilk in tow. Americans don’t want socialism or communism.

As far as I am concerned, Obama may be replaced as soon as America gets to it.

@ Ditto

You make some very good points Ditto.

The health of the American economy is not based on how well the stock market is doing, it is based on how well individual citizens are doing. Unfortunately our current system of metrics fails to quantitatively measure such well being.

Even Obama has a good idea on occassion although they are few and far between.

How fast do you think a company would move its operations overseas if an executive of a publicly traded corporation knew that his/her compensation would be limited to 50 times the earnings of the lowest paid worker? An Obama idea. Now I would not advocate that policy for a privately owned company but whole heartedly agree that it would do wonders for keeping jobs in America. I would however, use an average of all worker salaries, not just the lowest paid worker.

It is also true that management cannot implement any idea without the hard work and cooperation of those he manages therefor I would also submit that bonuses should be shared with all individuals within that manager’s chain of command on a wage/percentage basis. Some would argue that there are those within the ranks that don’t deserve to share in bonuses because they don’t put forth the effort. To that I would respond; management should get rid of them.

I realize that there are those that will argue that government has no right to interfere with how a corporation compensates its executives and I realize this is a subject of great passion for them. But, if we look at the role of management as one of not just generating a bottom line profit but of managing a companies resources so as to gain the best long term return for all the stakeholders involved, then it makes more sense.

We don’t have to create massive federal safety nets if our legislative bodies were to simply put in place some reasonable incentives for business management to ensure the well being of all its stakeholders, those being, employees (managers are employees too), stockholders, suppliers, customers.

Boeing gave Phil Condit a one million dollar bonus the year that he guided Boeing to its first financial loss in 50 years. How could that have been good for shareholders, employees, suppliers or customers?

Would there be a need for antagonistic labor unions if the only way a corporate executive could see his salary rise or recieve a bonus was to see to it that all boats rise with the tide? Would the workers need to demand security from outsourcing? Would the workforce want to protect the unproductive worker from dismissal?

Private industry can do most things better than government, but sometimes it takes government to shake up the status quo and guide us from what has been to what might be.

I mostly agree Donald, With the caveat that Democrats (and especially Obama) can not be trusted to set forth and manage such regulation without rabidly delving into socialist agenda items and their version of “sharing the wealth”. At the same time, the Neil Cavuto model of Republican (pro:executive con:worker,) will work only to continue protect the deep pockets and golden parachutes of those at the top, while holding scorn (and sometimes even hostility) for those below on the corporate chain. The corporate world would do better to take on the military leadership model, which works to get the business done while looking out for their subordinates. There were companies in the mid last century where the workers loved and respected their bosses, and as such they worked harder and were proud to see the company and themselves prosper.

At the same time, (going off the sensible business model of the middle of the last century,) a board of directors and CEO should NEVER EVER receive bonuses and contract raises for doing a terrible job. Nor is it sensible to give these executives contracts that will reward them for failure should they be canned. I’m not sure how the boards of directors get away with this stupidity, but I suspect it is due to the system of stockholder proxies and how said proxies are appointed.

For too long Republicans have lauded the Walmart & Neutron Jack Welch version of corporate leadership, never considering the affect on the workers, their family, their communities. The compensation gap between the top and bottom is obscene. Stockholders of the early 19th century would have tossed such greedy CEO’s and board of directors out on their asses for their so richly lining their own pockets. And truth be told their expansive bonuses take away from the company profits without adding to it’s profitability. By giving themselves ridiculous exorbitant salaries and bonuses, they take monies that could have been invested back into the company, and paid dividends to stockholders, (increasing the value of the company,) and that could have been shared and rewarded to employees (which results in more productivity, and worker loyalty).

One of the first things I see on these bills (that Mata so generously linked for me-HR3590 and HR4872) is that the penalties that an individual is hit with are collected on their tax return, as that is where they are reported.

I guess if you do not file tax returns, hard to be penalized, heh?

Oh and how to you like this section?

Here is the title:

“Prohibition against discrimination on assisted suicide.”

Mr. Bly and ditto

I am one of those who believe that government has no business in interfering with a company and the benefits given to the executives. As always, the trust placed in the government is the sticking point. To believe that a government, given a small amount of regulatory power in the realm of executive compensation, will abide by that and not take on more and more power in that regard is to forget history, specifically our history, altogether.

As for this:

Would there be a need for antagonistic labor unions if the only way a corporate executive could see his salary rise or recieve a bonus was to see to it that all boats rise with the tide?

May I remind you that the unions themselves employ large amounts of executives and managers that in many cases have used the union members dues to vote themselves rather large compensation packages, most times at the expense of the union members retirement benefits, including retirement health benefits. In some cases, those health benefits have been reduced to practically nothing. The big wonder is why those union members don’t see the parallels between the federal government and their own management happening, i.e. raiding the future retirement funds available for present costs.

The only change that I would make in a regulatory capacity regarding publicly traded companies is to give the shareholders only the power to vote on replacing board members and board member compensation. As it is, most companies allow present board members only to vote, bypassing the actual owners of the company(shareholders).

To sum, may I just remind you that governments inherent desire for power, many times in the name of “doing good”, results in them taking more and more.

Will any part of the healthcare bill go into effect immediately? Do all the lawsuits have to be settled before it can be enacted? I personally don’t think it would be legal for this healthcare bill to be forced upon us immediately, if the legality of it has not been confirmed. Does anyone know the answer to this?
Thanks, Madalyn

@John Galt:

I’m a big believer in capitalism, and I would never want the government to get involved in compensation issues of businesses that are Sole Proprietorships, Partnerships, LLC’s or Sub Chapter S Corporations or even privately held non-publicly traded corporations. Once a company steps into the realm of “publicly trade” the public has a right to expect protections against excess.

However, when it comes to the oligarchy that the current publicly traded Corporations have become I believe that there is a cancer afoot. I recognize that corporations need to act as persons for certain limited functions, I do not however, believe that because this quasi-personhood status exists that publicly traded companies should or are entitled to the same rights as a living breathing citizen.

I also believe that this intransigence on the part of some conservatives is what drives many into the camps of the left leaning loons. Color me a moderate on this issue. I asked in my previous post, the question about the need for “antagonistic unions” when the point of the question was really “Would we need unions at all”, perhaps I should have left the adjective out to get my point across. Stop for a moment and consider all the benefits that could be achieved vs the potential cons. So far you have only argued against the idea based on a “possible” misuse of government power in this arena.

These are corporations, and as such are subject to government regulation, that is not in dispute by anyone. So, to use the argument that the slippery slope is too dangerous in the area of compensation is not credible in my mind. You say to advocate such a position is to forget history. Could you please point out to me; where in our history! Already the government mandates minimum wages, but only within our nations juristiction, why would minimum wage laws even be necessary if we could fealize to fruition incentive that a multiples cap on compensation would provide executive managers to ensure that their labor pool wasn’t manned by chinese workers making 3 cents an hour. Great for the company bottom line, bad for US workers, and in truth nothing more than a form of slavery of peoples in less developed nations.

Executives from one company sit on the boards of other companies, it is an oligarchy, plain and simple, and there is a vested interest to vote exhorbitant pay packages and bonuses, with the expectatiion of quid pro quo, regardless of the merit of those receiving such pay, bonuses and benefits to the detriment of the stockholders, the employees and consumers. Yes, government can be too power hungry at times, but so too can corporate executives. It is quite literally possible for a board of directors to fully loot a company through executive compensation and bonuses, but once done, they’ve got their money and the stakeholders are left holding an empty sack.

Mr. Bly

I have realized exactly what you are talking about with regard to executive compensation, and I worry about the repercussions of allowing the status quo to live on. What I don’t agree with is using government regulation to limit that compensation. What I meant when bringing up the history aspect is the history of governmental regulation as a whole. The history of involving government in regulation shows us that they tend to regulate more and more of the activities of whatever sector the regulation applies to. More is taken as government sees a need to feed the beast known as spending. This is limiting liberty and goes against what the founding fathers believed in.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. – Thomas Jefferson

I do not doubt that if what you advocate were to come to pass that initially business as a whole would benefit, but I also do not doubt that in the years after that government would limit that compensation more and more, especially given that governmental rule goes in cycles and it won’t always be guaranteed that a conservative majority would be manning the leadership. That is why I would be totally against what you propose.

@ John Galt

I can fully understand your fear that a socialist government might try to limit that multiple to near zero, I share the same mistrust of government. The trick here is to engage our mental faculties so as to find a way to include safeguards against such proclivity. Our founding fathers spent a great deal of time arguing their positions exposing pro’s and cons and formulating checks and balances. I don’t think that such deep thinking was germane only to them.

What I do know is that our current system of executive compensation and the oligarchy’s quid pro quo that is now in place is a big problem. It colors the decisions and behavior of executives that is not in the best interest of those to whom they have a duty. Excess and indifference is not the sole domain of government.

So, I would ask, entertain the idea, then promulgate a set of checks and balances that could preclude a government from enaging in such over regulation. The alternative is that the disenfranchised will use “over compensation” as foder to fuel an ever increasing call for socialist policies from a government that they feel is already deaf to their plight of jobs being shipped overseas and executives making obscene salaries that cannot possibly be justified by any sane measure of performance.

Mr. Bly

Like I said, I understand your proposal and the ideas involved including the results. I just have that inherent mistrust of government as a whole to keep anything good, well………good. They have ruined many a great idea by overreaching and it isn’t too big a stretch to say they would overreach on your idea either. As for checks and balances, great idea, if, and it’s a big if, it can be worked in stone and not subject to the whim of whoever happens to be in power at the time. I don’t think there is much separation between your political ideology and mine, I just mistrust government more than most I guess. 😉

@John Galt

You are right our political ideology is very similar. What I would ask you to consider is the negative aspects of too much distrust of government. On the one hand we have anarchy which is not desirable and on the other hand we have totalitarianism. Between the two we have a place we need to be, but it requires some government.

To allow forces to work within our society that are at odds with the general well being of the citizens and the nation for the benefit of an oligarchy because of a fear of government overreach, thus doing nothing to combat such practices, is tantamount to capitulating to such forces. Utilizing the one tool we have to reign in such corruption, government with contraints, is the only truly viable option. On the one hand we are already damned, and on the other, we might be.

.

..a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government. — Thomas Jefferson

I concur with the majority of what Donald Byl has said. History has always recognized a right and even responsibility for governments to regulate business when necessary, and this is not in question. The founding fathers understood the need as well, which is why they included a commerce clause. This is one area of the constitution which many in the Libertarian party fail to understand (or at least that they simply don’t want to accept). They assume that businessmen will be “responsible”, while history shows quite well the dangers of unregulated business.

Total anarchy for business in a nation will prove to be dangerous to the people, the nation, and even commerce itself. Let me remind you that businessmen in history have often resisted even the rightful “reigning in” by government of what most of us recognize as despicable and immoral practices.

Slavery, prison labor, press-gangs, child labor, company stores, bait and switch, false advertising, unsafe products, willful pollution, smuggling, price fixing, “weight & measure” cheating… a totally free and unfettered marketplace will not regulate it’self. It eventually will grow into a mob of greedy uncontrollable top predators.

I’m not of course saying that businessmen in general are immoral, but only that the predatory capitalist will not play fair with responsible capitalists, unless they are forced to.

Obama is going agsinst the will of the citizens of america and is paying the price for his arrogance and so are his fellow liberals as well 8)