Maybe some of you noticed that the poll yesterday was a repeat of a poll I did last April.
In April, the results were 38% yes, 62% no (with 5,519 votes). Yesterday, it was 25% yes, 75% no (with 2,478 voting).
Obviously, the poll is unscientific, but for what it's worth, that's 13 points of slippage for Obama in 4 months. Note that the poll was asking readers only to predict what will happen, not to say what they want to happen.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
33 comments:
Charging 35+K to sing Happy Birthday to him at a Chicago fundraiser is being tone deaf. Who are these rich masochists trying to assuage their guilt after being insulted by Obama for being rich? Then they pony up more money than most of the population makes in a year to bask in his glow?
These people are pathetic losers in need of serious therapy.
Is there an enthusiasm gap as well? ;) You only got half as many votes yesterday.
"pm317 said...
Is there an enthusiasm gap as well? ;) You only got half as many votes yesterday."
The first poll spanned a greater period of time it appears.
People are angry.
And, we're still in DEFLATION. Which wasn't what the banksters and obama wanted.
True, too, in europe. Where their bankster also stole all the money. Through the euro.
Outcomes? Who knows?
But yesterday, over at the Belmont Club, someone posted on Libya. (Where Rommell and the Brit's 8th met and fought. And, Rommel lost. Ah, this time NO WINNAH! The only thing battling in Libya will bring is a SEIGE ... for a long time to come.)
Not the only seige we're in.
And, the stupid party is NECK DEEP IN THE BIG MUDDY.
"Note that the poll was asking readers only to predict what will happen, not to say what they want to happen."
Not so much what they want to happen as what they're praying will happen.
And I include the atheists in this.
There are no non-believers in foxholes and we're taking heavy fire.
WV "dumshen" Make up your own.
The current administration is synonymous with slippage.
Curious George said...
-------------
Yeah, I wanted to ask if the polls were up for the same length of time but was impatient to make my comment.
I agree Obama is slipping. But do not underestimate the ability of certain voters to justify a bad pick and make the same mistake.
Since it was mentioned in the other post that the current Intrade prediction of Obama winning is 55%, looking back at end of March it was 64%, peaked at 70% in May.
Wonder if this is a trend that will gain momentum?
He is over his head, out of his shallow depth.
vet66: Those are not rich masochists, they are the connected, the insiders. How do you think they made all those billions? Bribing(I mean campaign contributing) to politicians, such as attending $35,000/plate birthday party, in return for earmarks. Whom do you think those earmarks go? You? Where is the "stimulus" money? (How many mils to stimulate Goldman Sachs's bonuses? Who is a big GS investor? That sainted Warren Buffet. Those billions to Soros' Patrobra to find deep sea oil, and billions to subsidize a small Spanish green energy start up, conveniently bought up by Al Gore.)
Those are not masochchists, those are predators.
The share wealth supporters quite stupidly ignore with whom our wealth is shared, a mesealy few bucks for them, a huge sum for the ultra rich.
By the way, when are we going to hear from America's Politico? I love satire - he/she does it best!
Obama came off looking a lot less than presidential in the recent debt-ceiling negotiations.
Voters can tolerate many faults, but not a national leader who appears to lack the stature to match the office.
What ic said.
Most of these donors are not true believers. They are paying money to either get government largesse or paying in the hope the government will leave them alone.
THings are gonna get worse, and the 2012 election season is going to be the nastiest in history. Most of what's left in Congress are the uber liberal's, and like Obama can't turn back. They have nothing to run on.
Attack, attack, attack.
Plus the race card.
When I read the comments at librul papers like the Wapo, I notice how many commenters seem way more conservative than the Wapo and its reporters/ columnists. To me, that is a barometer of voter sentiment and suggests Prez Obama & big govt lovers will lose big in 2012.
The likelihood Obama will be reelected sort of depends on who the Republicans select. Romney leads him in the polls, Perry likely will lead Obama as well if he gets in the race.
Ron Paul is so pure and all that, but has no shot...some 30 points behind Obama. Tea Party Goddess Palin is 26-16 points behind Obama. And fellow Goddess of old white male conservatives with little education...Michelle Bachmann..trails by 10 points.
================
WV - If Dennie Wasserman Shultz is the female Anthony Weiner, then Michelle Bachmann is the Republican analogue to the camera-loving Wasserman-Shultz. Only beloved by a certain segment of her base, always good for rushing to the cameras to get in sound bites, and getting piles of money from that base...but not loved at all by people outside their bases.
How about another poll. Will The Althouse Woman vote for obama again?
O Yes
O No
I agree Obama is slipping. But do not underestimate the ability of certain voters to justify a bad pick and make the same mistake
This from someone who thinks Fred Thompson would make a good president. You really have no credibility if you continue to call your self "Fred4Pres" three and a half years after he dropped out of the race after being beaten like a rug in the South Carolina primary.
We will see soon.
Palin will run and become the only story in town.
Obama will pull out all the stops and run to eliminate the Washington crowd that has mis-ruled everything the past 3 years.
The media will agree that Obama needs to become President so that he can purge the Rich people plague.
The delusion will not work against Palin's superior verbal skills. So Obama loses in a landslide.
I got all of this inside info from America's Politico by promising him the job as Palin's Press Secretary where his skills will be valued.
And, we're still in DEFLATION. Which wasn't what the banksters and obama wanted.
It's amazing how ill-informed some of the commenters on this site are--or rather believe things that they hope are true.
Although inflation is low, we are not in a deflationary situation. Although if the Republicans continue upon their apparent course of deliberately trying to sink the economy and create more unemployment, it is a possibility.
". . .fellow Goddess of old white male conservatives with little education. . ."
And horny. You forgot "horny trailer trash," Gruppenfuhrer.
Just sayin', as Trooper would put it.
Although if the Republicans continue upon their apparent course of deliberately trying to sink the economy and create more unemployment, it is a possibility.
if only we could get some tax hikes, more regulations, and more penalties for hiring people, things would turn around.
Freder Frederson @ 11:13 PM. I chose DEFLATION to mean prices aren't going up. And, housing prices went too high too quickly. And, they are not approaching the price at which they will sell.
Back in 1927, (when there was also a period of bubble. And, you could buy on margin. My grandpa bought, in Brooklyn, a semi-detatched 8 unit complex. And, immediately lost one to the "crash.")
My grandpa died before I was born. But my grandma lived in one of the 4 remaining apartments. This is how old age was once planned out.) My grandma died in 1958. And, the home was sold. Surprisingly, at about what my grandpa had paid for it.
What I learned, then, is that housing prices don't necessarily move up every month. They could stay at the same level for a very long time!
When there was a housing boom after WW2, and it began in the early 1950's. People still weren't buying units in Brooklyn! They went out to Long Island. As Levitt was building boom towns. And, people with kids wanted their kids to play in their backyards.
Then, starting in the late 1980's ... (at least out here, in California), housing prices moved through the roof. People who bought could sell within a year. And, pocket profit. And, they covered the costs of selling, as well.)
When I say DEFLATION ... this is what I mean. Housing prices aren't coming back up. There is NO NORMAL! And, they are sinking. Still sinking.
Meaning that anyone who buys a home can't sell it, and make a profit. Or even cover costs.
I also believe the day our Congress got involved with setting minimum wage ... was the day we began shedding manufacturing jobs.
Even though it's more complicated than that. It was an "after-produc" to the Vietnam war. Where we had container ships of military equipment going TO Vietnam. And, coming back empty.
And, it was filling these container ships that gave Japan, and then China, and then Indonesia, ALL legs UP.
I did NOT read about DEFLATION in an economics textbook. Because I don't read them at all.
You want another word? Be my guest.
But IF we had INFLATION ... not only would basics like eggs cost more. You'd have truckers rolling on our roads in droves. Where, here, too, inventories have been cut back.
We're not on the road to a healthy recovery.
Word games just don't work for me.
And, you, sir, are the one who is ignorant.
And, you, sir, are the one who is ignorant.
When you choose to change the ordinary meaning of words to a definition of your own, I guess I am ignorant of what you mean.
I also believe the day our Congress got involved with setting minimum wage ... was the day we began shedding manufacturing jobs.
You are so wedded to your ignorant view of what is causing the problem that you can't or won't even do a little basic research.
The Federal Government first established a minimum wage in 1933. It was invalidated by the Supreme Court, but it was back again and stuck in 1938. The peak spending power of the minimum wage occurred in 1968.
So according to your bizarro theory, American manufacturing began shedding jobs in 1938.
Why don't you do a little basic research before you make belief statements that are predicated on indisputable facts?
Revenant said...
I'm assuming Perry gets the nomination and wins easily.
If it is Pawlenty or Romney I think they will still win, but it is a close run.
Otherwise, Obama wins
=========================
I am not sure Perry will be welcomed by the country as "another great Texan" leader!! After LBJ, Tom DeLay, Dick Armey, Phil Gramm, and Dubya. I think other parts of the country are still hoping we don't have a new Texan mafia riding into town.
I think he is a strong candidate, but will voters see him as Dubya II?
Who ever emerges, be it Romney, Perry, Pawlenty (unlikely)- would be well-advised to steer clear of making Palin, Bachmann, Condi their VP. Pick someone with experience and competence. Especially in business and budget cutting. Pawlenty would be a good VP for Perry, Bobby Jindal as a budget whiz for Romney. Both would help balance the ticket by appealing to different voters than Romney or Perry do.
Nikky Haley and Marco Rubio have the Palin problem - charisma but lack of executive experience that they are now building..
Well, it's all too early, anyways. Lets see how far down free trade with China and our fiscal mismanagement brings us before the Primaries start. Things might be deperate enough you have a moderate, highly experienced Dem governor willing to switch sides. MIchelle Bachmann may not become as reviled as Palin is outside "The Base" and show while she isn't experienced, she just might be up to being a VP....but the assumption has to be based on her performance up to date, she would be VP poison on the ticket.
I'm not even sure he will be the Dim's nominee.
Lest we all forget, The One took out the Clintons in 2008. He will raise his billion, spend it in the handful of battleground states and blame Bush. Media, entertainment and academia will fall in line. Neither Romney or Perry can compete. Jus sayin. Love ya Ann, but he fooled you.
Forgot to say he will dump CrackedHead Joe for Cuomo!
Unscientific? Hell, it's just a representative sampling of the witless yahoos who visit and post on your blog.
Irony.
Notice the Lefties like Cedarford
trying to give Republicans "helpful" advice--like
they did last time when they helped put John McCain on the ticket.
What makes a poll scientific? My guess: nothing.
Post a Comment