E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS“Public confidence in President Obama has hit a new low, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll. Four months before midterm elections that will define the second half of his term, nearly six in 10 voters say they lack faith in the president to make the right decisions for the country, and a clear majority once again disapproves of how he is dealing with the economy.”
More: “Regard for Obama is still higher than it is for members of Congress, but the gap has narrowed. About seven in 10 registered voters say they lack confidence in Democratic lawmakers and a similar proportion say so of Republican lawmakers. Overall, more than a third of voters polled -- 36 percent -- say they have no confidence or only some confidence in the president, congressional Democrats and congressional Republicans. Among independents, this disillusionment is higher still. About two-thirds of all voters say they are dissatisfied with or angry about the way the federal government is working.”
Good news in the Gulf? “As BP announced it had successfully attached a new cap on a runaway well in the Gulf of Mexico, the company prepared on Tuesday to test whether the gusher could be stopped completely,” the New York Times writes. “‘For the duration of the test, which will be a minimum of 6 hours and could extend up to 48 hours,’ a BP press release said, the cap will be closed, ‘effectively shutting in the well.’”
“‘It is expected, although cannot be assured, that no oil will be released to the ocean for the duration of the test. This will not, however, be an indication that flow from the well bore has been permanently stopped,’ the press release said.”
Leave a Comment:
Four months before midterm elections that will define the second half of his term, nearly six in 10 voters say they lack faith in the president to make the right decisions for the country, and a clear majority once again disapproves of how he is dealing with the economy.”
OUCH!!!!
That's gotta hurt.
And nearly 8 in 10 distrust the Republicans to govern !!!
Joe:
Seems to me that the majority of Americans are saying they dont have the confidence in anyone to make the right decisions for the country: 58% say they lack confidence or have none in Obama; 68% say they lack confidence or have none in the Dems and; 72% say they lack confidence or have none in the Republicans.
A strengthening majority of voters are telling Obama and the Democrats they are not better off then they were two years ago.
Reference please. Other then you just making it up of course.
What that means is that the people want a smaller, less intrusive, less controlling, and less expensive government. Obama and the Democrats have staked their claim to having a huge all controlling government. Every move Obama and the Democrats have made have caused the government to grow and the private sector to shrink. Americans see the results of those actions, and don't like those results at all. These polls are very bad news for Democrats this election year, and unless Obama changes his big government agenda, he'll suffer the same defeat many of his friends in Congress will suffer this year.
Joe & JoAnna - From what I can see and have read, I really don't think that President Obama is too concerned about this 'development'. If the Republicans do manage to take over Congress (and that is a BIG 'if' because we are still 4 months out), we will have gridlock like we have never seen before. Maybe this is what everyone wants; maybe it is a means to 'slow down' the Obama agenda. In any respect, we will have paralysis in our government at a time where we will need our government to act on our behalf.
So Joe and JoAnna - is legislative paralysis REALLY what you want?
The question is, Pietro...
Does the electorate prefer gridlock to what they've seen so far from a Congress and White House controlled by Democrats?
What does the recent polling suggest to you?
Mixed Bag - I am NOT convinced that the electorate wants gridlock - ESPECIALLY from a Congress and a White House controlled by Democrats. From the numbers that have been posted, it seems that the electorate is pretty sick and tired of EVERYONE in Congress.
I will also stipuate that the national debt is a real sticking point for many in the electorate. Many cannot get thrugh their heads that NO spending will cause MORE spending! I think that if we REDUCE SOME of our spending we may be better off, and that may be more palatable to everyone.
But I digress.
The interesting part about this debate is that although everyone is tired of the 'same ol' s**t' from our elected officials, there doesn't seem to be a CLEAR alternative. The Republicans have their Tea Partiers to further their agenda. The 'real' progressives and some liberals are sick to death of President Obama because he does not go far enough left for their tastes, and they will most likely stay home in November.
I see no other alternative than legislative paralysis/gridlock if the current mood of the electorate stays as sour as it is.
Is everyone happy? OF course not. They never are nor will they ever be. Could the Democrats be doing better? Sure they could. Could the Republicans do worse? Could we ALL be much worse off?? My God yes- think McCain-Palin. How would that have worked out for us by now? (well, the monied interests would be doing ok- like they still are today...)
JoAnna
See Question #4 for 7-11-2010
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_07132010.html
Gridlock? Perhaps. It's just another step on the path, the path to smaller government, the path to fiscal responsibility. Another brick in the wall as it were. The Republicans had lost their way to these things while Bush was in office. Hopefully they have learned their lesson. We're about to find out now, aren't we.
Pietro-
I agree with you, that as a general concept, the public does not want gridlock.
However, it would appear that, despite its dim view of the GOP, the public is prepared to vote them back into office.
As a conservative independent, I can only conclude that the reasons for that are first, the public's belief that the Obama Administration's economic policies are not working in any significant way to improve the economy and the job creation environment; and secondly, a general unease with a political agenda that the electorate is not enthusiastic about.
Since there is no viable "third choice", the public appears to, worst case, prefer gridlock.
Best case, maybe they hope that split government will function the way it did with Bill Clinton and Congressional Republicans after 1994.
That's just my take, Pietro.
It's funny how the teabaggers can read the number about the Democrats but can't see the republicans are in worse shape than the Democrats in this polls.
Mo-
"We're a little better than the GOP" isn't going to cut it with this years' mid-term electorate...not with Democrats possessing the White House, and large majorities in both Houses of Congress.
And...do you really think the use of an obscene epithet reinforces the strength of your argument?
I find that the use of obscenities in lieu of a persuasive argument says far more about the one who has no choice other than to employ them...
Than the ones at whom they're directed.
MB
Mixed Bag - in a perverse sort of way, I think that gridlock will be great for ths country. Why? Its because there will be a DIRECT cause-effect dynamic that will be plain and obvious for ALL to see.
Vote in the GOP, get gridlock. There will be more people hurting in this country and the direct cause of that pain will be the ones who voted FOR the gridlock.
MAYBE then - and only then - will Americans stop the incessant bickering and work TOGETHER to make their country better. Right now, Americans are content to throw out the baby with the bath water.
And then complain that there is no baby.
The news from the NFIB's monthly survey of its members is not good news either:
Small businesses grew more pessimistic about their economic outlook in June in the face of weak sales and political uncertainty, the National Federal of Independent Businesses said on Tuesday.
"The performance of the economy is mediocre at best, given the extent of the decline over the past two years," the NFIB survey concluded. "Pent-up demand should be immense, but it is not triggering a rapid pickup in economic activity."
Very few small businesses plan to create new jobs, according to respondents. The survey showed that only 10 percent of firms plan new hiring, that is down 4 points from May, the NFIB said. About 8 percent of firms plan to reduce their workforce, up one point from the previous month, the group said.
And yet, the White House and the DNC would appear to have settled on a strategy for the mid-term elections built around the verbal gaffes of Michael Steele, Joe Barton, and John Boehner.
After all that's what the public REALLY cares about.
Voters aren't focused on the economy and jobs.
Mixed Bag - you are right and WRONG (again).
You are right in the fact that the verbal gaffes of the GOP leadership is where the mid-term strategies/fights will be waged.
You are WRONG in the fact that voters are NOT focused on the economy and jobs. Even the most rabid right-wingers (especially in the Gulf States, now that their livelyhoods have been destroyed for decades to come) are concerned about jobs and the ecomony. They just do not want President Obama to fix the problem for them.
Sorry, Pietro-
I tend to have an extremely dry sense of humor. Of course, jobs and the economy will be the primary focus of voters on election day in November.
That was my point, actually.
Mixed Bag - I just like pointing out that you are wrong... you should know that by now!!
to Pietro, how the hell is obama helping the gulf states when he is putting forty thousand people out of work by doing all he can to keep 32 oilrigs with good records shut down asif the people on the gulf didn;t have enough problems. how many vacations is he going to take after promising over and over that he will not rest until this is fixed. the man is nothing but lies. Obuma just stay on vac. and leave these people alone so they can work and support their families the courts have shut you down twice but here you come again,your suppose to create jobs not destoy them. you need to move to mexico after your one term is over I mean hell you back them instead of your own states.
carlyss man - hi, I know we have talked before. Look - the situation in the Gulf is dire. I am not going to sit here and defend President Obama - he is well able to do that for himself on his own. However, I fail to see the logic of you complaining about president Obama when BP has wiped out your entire livelyhood with their recklessness. I see you want to blame President Obama for wanting to see that ALL of the rigs are compliant with Federal Regulations; I get that, and I am OK with that. Obviously, you have forgotten abut the 100 million dollars that President Obama has secured - from BP - for the 40,000 workers while the moratorium is in place. Frankly, President Obama is the best chance you have in the Gulf right now because if BP was left to its own devices, you would be tough out of luck with NO MONEY.
It appears that instant gratification is the requisite for achievement. It's almost like wanting to lose fifty pounds overnight when it took x-number of years to put on the weight! It took time for us to get into this recession and it will take time to pull us out! We must work together otherwise nothing gets done.
In watching several of the NGA plenary sessions from this weekend, I must say that these governors made a whole lot of sense and demonstrated that they could listen to one another without being unpleasant, make compromises and take advice or use ideas from each other. Each of these governors had to make hard decisions for their state. Will their decisions please everyone in the state? No,! but, they had to think of their state. In their comments, they stated that their decisions were based on the short-term as well as the long-term budgetary needs.
It seems to me that we lack faith in ourselves. Right now, too many Americans are out of work. However, I think that this administration has put incentives in the stimulus package to encourage small business to hire. Seemingly, small business don't think that these incentives are enough to cause them to hire. Don't they have faith in themselves? What is small business waiting for? Perhaps it is waiting for some sort of guarantee! People are looking for jobs and small business wants to make money. Well, ONE HAND WASHES THE OTHER. If people have the money to spend, they will help to stimulate the economy and in this stimulating, small business will get business and reap a profit.
As I said, WE NEED TO WORK TOGETHER! As long as we are in our own corners waiting, NOTHING gets done and we continue to fall further behind. Yet, we don't blame ourselves, we blame anyone and everyone else!
We Americans do not have any patience. Considering the huge messes President Obama walked into, we Americans want him to fix everything NOW. If these polls are true, I feel it's a disgrace that so many Americans aren't supporting our President in such hard, complicated, and difficult times. It took 8 years of neglect to dig many deep holes, and we all need to realize that it will take years to repair all the serious damages. President Obama is not Superman, and with Republicans doing everything in their might to make sure our President - and country - fails, we voters need to be patient and supportive. There is not one person who could be doing a better job than President Obama is doing.
K2m2n:
Oh how right you are.
Think of a CEO and their staff for a large business where decisions are made quickly for the benfit of the company to remain competitive. They know up front that there will be unknown variables that will impact that decision as well as a keen sense that they must remain flexible to make adjustments as any decision is implemented. And such adjustments when needed will also be made quickly. Without such a decision-making process and a quick response to required adjustments the business will fail. But these CEO's and their staff are not held to the fire until the decision is implemented and they are given time to study the workings and the impact of the decision on the company, and to make any adjustments that will improve the same.
In government a Presdient appears to be held accountable the minute a decision is made or a policy is approved. There is no room given for adjustments as unknown variables impact the decision and if adjustments are required government is so slow moving that such adjustments are often made too late to salvage the policy or program whose basis for original implementaton was good decision.
If a major corporation were to decide that they intended to completely change their benefit package for their employees those charged with making such changes would be given plenty of time to make the changes and to tweek the package so that it is beneficial to the employees and the company until it showed promises of running smoothly and in line with the goals of the company. Under the same scenario (Obama's HCR) the man is being condemned by a certain number of the population before a plan that covers an entire country has been fully implemeted and/or adjusted and tweeked after a period of study and adjusted as needed to be beneficial to the people and to the government as a whole.
So you are right. People are impatient. And that impatience is particularly aimed at government and government officials who work in a system that by its very nature (the bureauracy) is slow moving and slow to react.
Wow CA, I have never seen a better written reason why the goverment should be kept to a minimum.
K2mn,
The Bush meme is worn out.
Obama was a senator who campaigned as much, if not more, against Bush than he campaigned against McCain. Obama was aware of the 2 wars. He campaigned on what Bush had done wrong and how he would do better. He campaigned on Bush's "failed economic policies" and how he would do better.
He got into office and said it was worse than he had expected. Yet he was a senator that should have been aware of the issues with Fannie and Freddie, especially since he was the #2 recipient of their donations. Wall Street? He had his guys and he had their donations.
You say it took 8 years to dig this hole. Obama has been in Washington for 5 1/2 years. Obama was a Democrat senator with Democrat control for half the time he was there. He did not just walk into the "huge messes", he was a part of the "huge messes". No excuse.
Obama was graded the most liberal and the most partisan senator in 2007. Yet, he campaigned at the very same time as a bipartisan centrist who would change the way Washington operated. As President, Obama said he would focus on the economy and jobs. He proceeded to focus on his liberal agenda, passing partisan HCR legislation that the majority of Americans were against, not by changing the way Washington operated, but by setting new levels for Washington at it's worst.
The economy, jobs, suing states, states suing, an oil slick the size of Kentucky, debt, etc., etc.
His partisan handling of the above and pursuit of his liberal agenda has him now recognized as the most polarizing and divisive President in Gallup history.
And you feel it's a disgrace that so many Americans are not supporting Obama?
I guess some still don't get it ......
.... some never will.
Bob, I agree that some people don't get it and some never will. Such as you. Such as me. While defending Bush, and apparently blind to all the problems he left behind, is not getting it. Maybe it's just easier for you to blame President Obama for everything (even before he was elected as President?!???) and simply excuse everything that Bush did or didn't do for 8 long years. I just don't understand that mentality. Bush will be remembered as one of the worse Presidents in history - trillion dollar debts, 2 wars, torture, not passing any immigration reform in 8 years!, allowing Wall Street & oil companies to do what they want, tax cuts to the rich, etc., etc. Let's hope that President Obama will be remembered in history as one of the finest Presidents ever. For the majority of us who voted for Obama, I would think that we would want our President to succeed since it would make our lives and country better. Hate uses up so much energy with negative results, while hope is so much easier and gives better attitudes and outcomes. So, yeah, Bob, I guess I don't get it.
K2mn,
1) Actually, in the above comments, I never defended Bush, or excussed anything he did, or didn't do. It's funny, in a sad way I guess, that you read that into my comments.
2) In the above comments, I didn't blame Obama. I generally just removed his excuses from criticism and the excuses of his blind followers by simply stating facts.
3) In summary, by failing to even address any of the points/facts in my post, by trying to marginalize those comments by characterizing me as a Bush defender and by reverting to the typical inane Bush bashing, you prove the detachment from reality and uselessness of so many on the left in trying to resolve the numerous crisis this country is faced with.
Enough with the "Big Government" nonsense already. The cost of every damn thing is going up including goods and services that the government pays for which means that revenue has to increase which always involves a balancing act between controlling spending and tax increases. Now, I am not saying that you tax at will or cut spending on everything but this scare tactic about "no new taxes", "government takeover" has got to stop! Republicans always scare the electorate about "Big Government" until a disaster reminds us all that government has a role to play in our lives. Goofballs Jindal and Barbour decried "big government" and bragged that government should step aside until they realized that neither of their states had the infrastructure or physical or mental capacity to mitigate the disaster; curbing terrorism to keep America safe requires "big government"; regulation on a vast array of services requires "big government" and the list goes on and on. And, yes, sometimes oversight is required to ensure that rampant abuse, misuse or misappropriation does not occur. That requires "big government" too. Now, if we follow the logic espoused by the Republicans we would limit the government's role in each of these areas, transfer some of these to the states and thereby reduce government control and associated costs. If that were to occur think about where we'd be with disparate rules that could adversely impact the flow of commerce and a host of other things that require consistency and seamlessness. And for those of you state rights zealots think about the fact that almost every state in the union has had significant budget deficit in the past few years and the impact that would have on the state's delivery of vital goods and services. Do we really want Louisiana residents be subjected to a numb skull like Jindal making the choice to spend limited reources on either education or hurricane/disaster management? Or do we let Southern white governors and their legislatures set a different standard for determining when discriminatory hiring practices occur? Government by nature has to be large enough to ensure equity, consistency and predictability on a variety of different issues that materially affect our lives, livelihood and human rights. Small government is for small-minded people who desire utmost autonomy to do as they please on every issue from race relations to business relations. To those I say, get over it. You lost the Civil War. For the rest of you I say wake up to the fact that the 21st century requires an effective, vigilant government that, by necessity, has to be big to get things done. There. I said it!
For those who don't like government - go to Somolia and see what life is like in a country with no government. You'd come back to the USA and kiss the soil that our government protects.