Confidence in Obama, economy still dropping

posted at 4:41 pm on July 8, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Yesterday, I noted that the Rasmussen poll with a Barack Obama “passion index” of -3 still had yet to fully poll after last week’s unemployment figures were published.  Today’s rolling approval index is the first to have all of its data taken after the announcement that joblessness continues to increase, and the passion index has hit its lowest level yet.  Obama’s approval has come close to statistical parity, too:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 32% of the nation’s voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-seven percent (37%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of –5.

The number who strongly disapprove inched up another point to the highest level measured to date and the overall Approval Index is at the lowest level yet for Obama (see trends).

In the wake of last week’s disappointing report on job loss, consumer confidence has fallen to the lowest level in two months. The Rasmussen Investor Index shows investor confidence falling to the lowest level in three months. The number of investors who say the economy is getting worse jumped from 43% before the jobs report to 51% today.

Barack Obama still has a 52% approval rating, but his overall disapproval rating has hit 48%.  There are no more undecideds at the moment.  That four-point range is just outside of the three-point margin of error, although to be accurate, that MOE applies to both numbers individually, which would make the overall MOE six points.  That would already put Obama in a dead heat on approval, but even with the more modest application, he’s heading there quickly.

Rasmussen is not the only pollster noticing that consumers have lost confidence in this administration’s ability to deal with the economy.  ABC says that consumer confidence has hit a new low for the past 24 years and looks as though it will continue dropping, corroborating Rasmussen (via Yid with Lid):

Consumer confidence is within striking distance of its worst in weekly polls since late 1985 for the third straight week.

The ABC News Consumer Comfort Index stands at -52 on its scale of +100 to -100, 2 points from the lowest on Jan. 25. The index has spent the last three weeks below -50, territory it’s seen only 14 times in over 1,220 weeks of polls, with eight of those coming this year alone.

Positive ratings of the buying climate dropped this week, down 4 points to 22 percent, matching the largest one-week drop ever. In 23 years of weekly polls it’s fallen this far this fast only eight other times. The other two components of the index – ratings of the economy and personal finances – held near their historic lows.

Continued weakness in the job market isn’t helping confidence. The unemployment rate increased in June to 9.5 percent, the highest in 26 years. In a separate measure, the government reported that 467,000 jobs were lost last month, surpassing analysts’ expectations. In the first half of the year, 3.4 million jobs have been cut from the nation’s payrolls.

ABC has this handy chart in its PDF analysis of consumer confidence levels:

If the Obama administration plans to argue for a bigger stimulus, they will find a highly skeptical audience for the plan.  Their $800 billion master plan has already failed, and unlike Obama, most Americans know better than to throw good money after bad.  As unemployment rises and Obama attempts to expand government, expect to see these linked numbers crater in the weeks ahead.

Update: Gallup has Obama at 56%, down sharply since the beginning of the month. (h/t Desmond L)

Update II: Fred Bauer looks at some state polls and sees Obama losing independents rapidly.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

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

Just to illustrate.

Women got the right to vote in 1920. Before then, the party in power in the House went back and forth.

From 1931 until Newt was Speaker in 1995 there were only 4 years of Republican control of the House. And over those years, the Democrats have gotten more and more liberal. And so have alot of Republicans lately. I’d take an old school Democrat over a current RINO any day.

Elisa on July 9, 2009 at 12:47 AM

Elisa on July 9, 2009 at 12:21 AM

Brava, well said.

I have been thinking that the rise of socialism in the West in the 20th century coincides with women’s suffrage.

They don’t call it the nanny state for nothing.

atheling on July 9, 2009 at 12:49 AM

Elisa on July 9, 2009 at 12:24 AM

I think the term was “landed”.

Also, I thought the age was 30, not 21.

atheling on July 9, 2009 at 12:51 AM

Liberal economists. “Damn the deficit full speed ahead !

Pull back on government spending now, the argument runs, and condemn an already hobbled American economy to years of mass joblessness and anguish. Indeed, some economists are already arguing that with unemployment near double digits, the government must consider giving another dose of stimulus spending now, despite the fact that this will add to the deficit.

William Amos on July 9, 2009 at 12:57 AM

The democrat party has been radicalized, Elisa.

I fear the republican party will radicalize to answer that.
I’m so sick of division in this country.
It affects me more then most because so many people that I know are not conservative/republicans.
The sense of division is stifling. That’s what I resent most of all. If you disagree with a liberal you are worthy of contempt.
It didn’t used to be like that. Ya you could disagree, but it wasn’t personal. Today, it is.

You try to talk sense and all that good stuff, but in the end, you have to fight fire with fire.
You think Palin will make progress talking to the liberal media over the next 2-3 years? No, they will always HATE her. So, unfortunately, you have to go nuclear on them.
I’m sure Truman didn’t take pleasure out of dropping 2 bombs on Japan, but what choice did he have?

I don’t think the dems respect their constituents. I sometimes see Olbermann on tv and think he MUST think his viewers are really stupid.
When your constituents are sheep, you can say and do pretty much anything and not suffer for it in your own party.

There is SO much brainwashing and indoctrination on the left it’s crazy. When people are surrounded by that 24/7 they’ll vote the way they do.

B Man on July 9, 2009 at 12:59 AM

Elisa on July 9, 2009 at 12:21 AM

That is why the Left fears Palin. She blows the whole Fem=Left meme. They are utterly freaked that women will wake up see the light. Anyway it took a lot of courage to say what you said. You are an independent thinker with a good mind.

Geochelone on July 9, 2009 at 1:04 AM

My confidence in CrockObama has not wavered a bit, it remains at none of the above.

dthorny on July 9, 2009 at 3:32 AM

Elisa
Wow. So you wouldn’t mind depriving all women of the vote, simply because most vote liberal? That’s so authoritarian, you could be a lefty. Sounds like you’ve got a touch of the overemotional hysteria you’re complaining about.

Fortunata on July 9, 2009 at 5:00 AM

trigon on July 8, 2009 at 6:48 PM

I hate to say it, but, the idea of universal sufferage is very flawed. There are three things that should get you the right to vote.

I’m not sure you are joking or not, but just in case you are serious, let’s consider the consequences of the following restrictions you mention:

Military Service with an honerable discharge.

Would this mean only honorably discharged volunteers get to vote? Like it’s an incentive? Or would this mean a return to the draft? In either case, what about those of us who are disabled or too old to serve? So, who among us supports denying voting rights to disabled and elderly people?

Ownership of private real property.

Real property can be inherited, so this would not only be an earned voting right, but an inherited right to vote. So, who among us supports an inherited royalty governing our country?

Providing a regular job for someone else.

So, it doesn’t matter if you work or even if you are self employed, if your business isn’t large enough to employ someone else, you can’t vote? So, who among us supports an aristocracy ruling our country?

Let’s have a poll and vote. In case this isn’t a joke and just to be clear, I vote no, no and no. Any takers for “yes” on any of these ideas?

Loxodonta on July 9, 2009 at 5:40 AM

trigon on July 8, 2009 at 6:48 PM

I’d add a minimum voting age of 21 unless you’re married or have served in the military.

And literacy should be required. And passing the citizenship test.

I could probably think of a few others.

jazz_piano on July 8, 2009 at 6:51 PM

Do you really support the restrictions on voting rights mentioned by trigon, and want to restrict voting even further?

There are many causes of illiteracy. Some people may be illiterate due to our incompetent public education system. Others may be illiterate due to learning disabilities, even though they are quite capable of oral communication and are able to work with their hands. Should such people be punished? I hope not.

Loxodonta on July 9, 2009 at 6:16 AM

jazz_piano on July 8, 2009 at 6:51 PM


I would gladly give up my right to vote, if it would go back to when women weren’t allowed to vote.

Not the women here, obviously, but most women are not as interested in politics and they only pay attention right before an election. So they are succeptible to all the propaganda and lies.

And they usually vote with their feelings and heart and not their head and logic. And they don’t want to hear the details. Not that they are stupider than men, but they are not as interested (in general) as most men (in general). Obviously there are a good number of men who shouldn’t be voting either.

But most mature men don’t vote for someone simply because they seem “nice” or are good looking or they like the candidate’s wife. I have heard intelligent women say these things. Reasons for their vote.

And most women vote more liberal than most men. The old “gender gap” thing. And you can see the increase in liberal politicians being elected almost at the beginning of women’s right to vote. Increasing as more and more women began to vote and not vote like their husbands.

I know this will never happen, and probably shouldn’t, but it does pop into my minds sometimes.

Elisa on July 9, 2009 at 12:21 AM

Which governments in the world take away the peoples’ right to vote for the government’s political opponents? Iranian mullahs and communists. This shouldn’t happen in America. Ever.

Loxodonta on July 9, 2009 at 6:43 AM

Do you really support the restrictions on voting rights mentioned by trigon, and want to restrict voting even further?

There are many causes of illiteracy. Some people may be illiterate due to our incompetent public education system. Others may be illiterate due to learning disabilities, even though they are quite capable of oral communication and are able to work with their hands. Should such people be punished? I hope not.

Loxodonta on July 9, 2009 at 6:16 AM

For the illiterate, the Democrats can hold up a smiling donkey and a frowning elephant to make their point.

Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 6:48 AM

Face it, since women were allowed to vote in America, we’ve been auguring in as a country ever since.

Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 6:50 AM

OMG! Obama should just resign. If he can’t turn this country around in 6 months, after 8 years of the trainwreck Bush left him, he’s not qualified to be president. Hey Ed, maybe you should worry more about the fate of the gop and the conservative movement, then Obama’s poll numbers. The gop is the trainwreck Bush left you. Citing Obama’s poll numbers is just a “wag the dog” trick. Pull the spike out of your own eye before you comment on the speck in Obama’s. Your little Queen Sarah jumped ship, you better find some stiff to run in 2012 before you bury Obama.

athensboy on July 9, 2009 at 7:19 AM

The sense of division is stifling. That’s what I resent most of all. If you disagree with a liberal you are worthy of contempt.
It didn’t used to be like that. Ya you could disagree, but it wasn’t personal. Today, it is.

I think it has gotten this way because the Left has politicized just about everything – from the weather to what food we eat to what cars we drive to what we do with our garbage. Since the Left has brought its political views into every aspect of our lives, contempt becomes a natural response.

pearson on July 9, 2009 at 7:22 AM

athensboy on July 9, 2009 at 7:19 AM

We agree. Obama should resign because he is uqualified to be President. It’s nice to see that eventually even the mentally challenged are realizing what a tremdous mistake it was to elect an utterly incompetent street thug.

highhopes on July 9, 2009 at 7:34 AM

OMG! Obama should just resign.

athensboy on July 9, 2009 at 7:19 AM

That’s the first thing I’ve read you post with which I agree. The rest is drivel, but that first part is spot on.

Loxodonta on July 9, 2009 at 7:36 AM

Confidence in Obama will rebound as soon as he sends out those checks to pay for the house payments, car payments, and gas and groceries that the DEM voters were expecting.

Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 7:37 AM

Since the Left has brought its political views into every aspect of our lives, contempt becomes a natural response.

pearson on July 9, 2009 at 7:22 AM

It’s not the views that breed contempt it is the massive intrusion “for our own good” that causes contempt. It seldom is for our own good but, rather, to fit some leftist ideology like global warming. Oftentimes “for our own good” is codeword for hidden taxation. For example, DC just passed a .05 tax on plastic shopping bags (like some other cities have). They have all sorts of “green” reasons why this is a good thing but the reality is that it is just another way that DC is trying to generate revenue “for our own good.”

highhopes on July 9, 2009 at 7:42 AM

Confidence in Obama will rebound as soon as he sends out those checks to pay for the house payments, car payments, and gas and groceries that the DEM voters were expecting.

Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 7:37 AM

I thought Obama was going to give me a house, car, and job. The only reason to elect a street thug is to efficently redistribute wealth from the producers of society to, well, people like athensboy. If he isn’t going to give me a house I will be very disappointed.

highhopes on July 9, 2009 at 7:45 AM

Headline from the Washington Examiner, too good not to share:

Admiral Obama dithers on the poop deck

highhopes on July 9, 2009 at 7:50 AM

Political correctness has wimpified the country.
But the sad fact is, at least in the media, everyone -including Fox- gets their ratings from being divisive.

There’s no one in this country so far as I know that both sides look up to equally.
The only person I can think of who was like that was Tim Russert.
We aren’t really the United states of America anymore, really. That sounds melodramatic but I think it’s true fundamentally.
There are so many people on the left who hate this country.
They act childish around people they don’t agree with.

GOP’ers try to act more adult but they’re almost as full of sh*t as the left is.
You got two sides that hate each other. You got the middle that goes where the wind blows.
I mean, when 9/11 happened this country wasn’t really one.

The left wants america to turn in the USSR. Simple as that really. I see it and hear it. I know how they think.

I’m pretty sure that if FDR and JFK were alive today (Especially JFK) they’d be disgusted with what the democrats have become.
I think if Reagan were alive today, he’d love Palin.
I think if the founding fathers were alive they would be outraged over politics today.
People like Sarah Palin are the kinds of people the founding fathers wanted in politics.

I think the Left felt contempt for americans before our society became so PC. It’s a lifestyle. A mental state of mind.

Maybe this country needs someone like Obama to show it what socialism and communisim is all about.
11% unemployment? The gov’t trying to run everything?
If things get much worse, it could hurt liberalism for decades. People will remember what Obama brought.

B Man on July 9, 2009 at 7:51 AM

Maybe this country needs someone like Obama to show it what socialism and communisim is all about.
11% unemployment? The gov’t trying to run everything?
If things get much worse, it could hurt liberalism for decades. People will remember what Obama brought.

B Man on July 9, 2009 at 7:51 AM

A couple of points. First, at least half of all Americans are MORONS. They don’t think really, they let the media think for them. Second, the media won’t blame Obama for anything. In two years it’ll still be Bush’s fault. Third, people want something for nothing, which is the DEM mantra, and fourth, and most important, only 20-25% of Americans know U.S. history, so they have nothing to compare today to the past.

Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 8:02 AM

Geez..the way I write I’d say I’m the moron….LOL

Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 8:07 AM

Well that’s kind of my point. Obama will teach them about what socialism really means, and most people won’t like it.

On a positive note, the media isn’t as powerful as people may think. Everybody including me complains about the lib bias. But why aren’t all of Obama’s numbers in the 75% range?

Why did Bush win by 3 million votes in ’04?
If this country was as stupid as dems like to think, all of his numbers would be at least in the 70s.
I’m actually surprised how fast his numbers are falling.

I still believe in this country, I get alot of snide looks when I say that to liberals I know.
They don’t believe in this country. I think I’ll be proven right.
I used to get into alot of arguments with some people, but I’ve laid off of that lately because I’ll just let the numbers do the arguing for me.

You can already see the deer in the headlights look on libs on tv now. They’re so scared. They know Obama’s in trouble that’s the main reason they attack Palin.
They would give 2 sh*ts about her if everything was going fine with their guy.

B Man on July 9, 2009 at 8:11 AM

I’m glad he’s failing.

bluelightbrigade on July 9, 2009 at 8:18 AM

SIMPLY PUT OBAMA IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN EVIL,SINSTER,CORRUPT PERSON THAT LIES EVERY TIME HIS LIPS MOVE

rone5847 on July 9, 2009 at 8:37 AM

So the conservative movement now has people within it complaining that too many people have the right to vote.

Marvelous. ACORN would be proud.

Face it, since women were allowed to vote in America, we’ve been auguring in as a country ever since.

Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 6:50 AM

Hey atheling, I’m beginning to buy your argument about conservative men being misogynists.

MadisonConservative on July 9, 2009 at 8:37 AM

PBS bs interview last night, congressional member convoluting his way through responses posed as answers to questions.

Progressive Taxation that Congressional Democrat SOCIALISTS are preparing will come in either or both forms:
1. Taxation increases on products per amount sold;
2. Taxation is applied to each and every stage of manufacturing process.

That equates to usury loan shark interest rates, adding a tax to one product at each stage of its creation.

The federals aren’t ever going to create the infrastructure they presume as the cause requiring all of these new and raised forms of TAXATION.

Obama and his Pelosi-Reid congressional monster already coerced TARP and Stimulus and are coercing more illiterate monster illegitimate legislative bastard bills into law. There will NEVER be anything but further debt, corruption and lack of service production to show for all the taxes we’re paying.

maverick muse on July 9, 2009 at 9:00 AM

Face it, since women were allowed to vote in America, we’ve been auguring in as a country ever since.

Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 6:50 AM

Hey atheling, I’m beginning to buy your argument about conservative men being misogynists.

MadisonConservative on July 9, 2009 at 8:37 AM

So you’re saying that statistically the DEMS would be in power if only men voted?

Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 9:09 AM

B Man on July 9, 2009 at 8:11 AM

I’m pretty much with you, man. You’ve summed it up well.

LibTired on July 9, 2009 at 9:11 AM

Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 8:02 AM

Lol.

And of that 20-25% of Americans who “know” anything about American history, what they know is limited to three points:
1. Revolutionary Independence;
2. Civil War (revised for politically correct “accuracy”);
3. their own generation’s experience.

Today’s Americans have little or no concept of anything in the world prior to America’s conception. Sure, they’ve heard of Christopher Columbus and the Pilgrims, but would be hard pressed to expound. And what of that vast spans of time between Jesus’ life on earth and the birth of America? And what of the vast world history prior to the Romans?

Most Americans haven’t a clue, including the Ivy League (IL) mass of elitists and their monkey imitators in higher education and their monkey imitators in elementary and secondary education. We’ve witnessed this from the IL members who’ve blazed their way into the Oval Office. The elitist Socialist Pres.Wilson was a moron who meant to erase all memory of our founding fathers, to dismiss the Constitution as completely outdated and irrelevant. To hell with the Ivy League, as if THEY are made of better clay than all others. They are made of more money and moronic power; that is all.

See “Lost In The Meritocracy” by Walter Kirn.

During Kirn’s recent interview on C-SPAN, he expressed horror at having revisited Princeton to find all of the endowments FURTHER donated (all the IL have abundant endowments that make their tuition an outrage) spent on structures enshrining the donor. None of the IL endowments are ever spent on increasing size of the student body or the educational outreach of the IL institutions or decreasing tuition.

maverick muse on July 9, 2009 at 9:20 AM

During Kirn’s recent interview on C-SPAN, he expressed horror at having revisited Princeton to find all of the endowments FURTHER donated (all the IL have abundant endowments that make their tuition an outrage) spent on structures enshrining the donor. None of the IL endowments are ever spent on increasing size of the student body or the educational outreach of the IL institutions or decreasing tuition.

maverick muse on July 9, 2009 at 9:20 AM

That’s pretty much true. If you want your kids to get a job in the elitist class, send them to an Ivy League school, if you want them to actually learn something, send them anywhere else.

Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 9:29 AM

-8 for today.

Phoenician on July 9, 2009 at 9:32 AM

Drudge is now posting his rating at -8

_________________________________
hee hee hee….

cmsinaz on July 9, 2009 at 9:32 AM

Thursday Rasmussen -

Wow. Oneterma is now at -8. Just in a political death spiral:

“The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 30% of the nation’s voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-eight percent (38%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of –8. The President’s Approval Index rating has fallen six points since release of a disappointing jobs report last week”

ChrisB on July 9, 2009 at 9:33 AM

Drudge is now posting his rating at -8

_________________________________
hee hee hee….

cmsinaz on July 9, 2009 at 9:32 AM

When it gets to -10,BUY!

Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 9:33 AM

Iran probably has something to do with it.
Just wait for that 10% jobs number.

B Man on July 9, 2009 at 9:41 AM

Thursday Rasmussen -

Wow. Oneterma is now at -8. Just in a political death spiral:

“The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 30% of the nation’s voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-eight percent (38%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of –8. The President’s Approval Index rating has fallen six points since release of a disappointing jobs report last week”

ChrisB on July 9, 2009 at 9:33 AM

Yikes. Looks like 6 months may be the grace period the public was willing to give him. The 9.5% unemployment rate likely isn’t help matters either.

What’s scary is that the high unemployment coupled with his plummeting poll numbers will likely prompt even more cries for a 2nd porkulus bill. So now we’re tripling down on a disastrous policy.

Doughboy on July 9, 2009 at 9:44 AM

When it gets to -10,BUY!

Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 9:33 AM

With what?

NebCon on July 9, 2009 at 9:44 AM

Iran probably has something to do with it.

B Man on July 9, 2009 at 9:41 AM

You mean they’re polling Iranians? Nah, Oneterma is probably more popular in Iran now than in America, – what with not wanting to meddle in the mullahs’ affairs and all.

ChrisB on July 9, 2009 at 9:45 AM

Nah, Oneterma is probably more popular in Iran now than in America, – what with not wanting to meddle in the mullahs’ affairs and all.

ChrisB on July 9, 2009 at 9:45 AM

I wish he’d stop meddling in OUR affairs.

Daggett on July 9, 2009 at 9:54 AM

I don’t trust Dick Morris when he is in ‘Clinton Vendetta’ mode, which has been for the last 8-10 years and lasted right up to the D Convention. As soon has he dropped the vendetta agenda he started sounding sensible and that is damned scary. I don’t like his support of Odinga in Kenya, and bringing memes there that are now boomeranging into the US. I think he sees that, too, and is trying to counter it as that set of memes winds up in no good place. Many grains of salt with Morris analysis, and you have to chuck stuff that is Clinton oriented on current politics.

I do feel like its 1977 again. Now where are the turtleneck sweaters, leisure suits, disco balls and the last of the bell bottom jeans? I need another pair of Nike Oceania II’s, damn it!! My last pair from ’82 are wearing out after being re-soled, twice. My ’80 pair are fit only for swamp work. Give me decent sneakers that fit… otherwise I really will get a bit perturbed in having none of the benefits of the Carter Administration and all of the negatives, ten fold.

ajacksonian on July 9, 2009 at 9:55 AM

I just mean how weak and indecisive he was.

B Man on July 9, 2009 at 9:56 AM

DOWN TO -8 TODAY!

Joe Caps on July 9, 2009 at 10:00 AM

+1 miss, -2 miss, -4 miss,-5 miss, -8 hit…you sunk my battleship

Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 10:08 AM

So you’re saying that statistically the DEMS would be in power if only men voted?

Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 9:09 AM

Wasn’t Woodrow Wilson a democrat? And a fascist, at that? Oh, and a white supremacist?

I’m sure he’d have liked to limit who could vote, especially after backing the American Protective League.

MadisonConservative on July 9, 2009 at 10:11 AM

I think Obama’s gonna need a poll czar.

Rational Thought on July 9, 2009 at 10:12 AM

There is a polling crisis we can no longer ignore. The time to act is now. The status quo is unsustainable and unacceptable. It is time to nationalize the polling industry.

There are some who are against this plan of mine. My question to them is — what is their plan to deal with this crisis?

/Barry

Joe Caps on July 9, 2009 at 10:15 AM

Joe Caps on July 9, 2009 at 10:15 AM

Oh I forgot the cost of doing nothing is like way higher than reforming the polling industry. It would be unfair to our children to leave them with a polling environment such as this.

/Barry

Joe Caps on July 9, 2009 at 10:17 AM

Slant and Change!

ChrisB on July 9, 2009 at 10:19 AM

So you’re saying that statistically the DEMS would be in power if only men voted?

Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 9:09 AM

Wasn’t Woodrow Wilson a democrat? And a fascist, at that? Oh, and a white supremacist?

I’m sure he’d have liked to limit who could vote, especially after backing the American Protective League.

MadisonConservative on July 9, 2009 at 10

My point being, the present, and perhaps last 30 years (the feminist years) the reason we have had a good deal of power on the liberal left side, is statistically because in most races, women vote Democrat, and let’s face it, the present Democratic party plays to the woman, (needs govt. instead of a man)as their power base.
It’s incorrect of me to go back to the years when women were first given the vote, as in those years they usually voted for whoever their husband or father told them to.

Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 10:21 AM

My point being, the present, and perhaps last 30 years (the feminist years) the reason we have had a good deal of power on the liberal left side, is statistically because in most races, women vote Democrat, and let’s face it, the present Democratic party plays to the woman, (needs govt. instead of a man)as their power base.

It’s incorrect of me to go back to the years when women were first given the vote, as in those years they usually voted for whoever their husband or father told them to.

Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 10:21 AM

Fair enough. Explain the Republicans holding power in Congress and the White House from 2000-2006, or the Contract With America. Explain the Reagan 80′s, including his landslide victory in 84. Explain Nixon’s two terms(with another landslide the second time around), well after Betty Freidan’s The Feminine Mystique was a bestseller.

I would also point out that the fastest growing demographic of gun owners is women. They sure seem interested in the second amendment, while “men” like Obama are chomping at the bit to tear it down.

If the Democratic Party plays to women, how come Hillary Clinton didn’t get the nomination, but Sarah Palin was put in the VP slot?

You’re arguing in favor of the reversal of suffrage over the Democrats’ claim that they represent women. If you are a conservative, you know damn well that they don’t.

Oh, and if only men had voted, Obama would still be president, and on a side note, if only white women had voted in 2004, Bush still would have won.

Your point is moot, and your implied solution, along with all the others proposing such measures, is appalling.

MadisonConservative on July 9, 2009 at 10:51 AM

Your point is moot, and your implied solution, along with all the others proposing such measures, is appalling.

MadisonConservative on July 9, 2009 at 10:51 AM

Well, I’m glad you liked it.

Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 10:54 AM

Well, I’m glad you liked it.

Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 10:54 AM

Were you going to explain any of the occurrences I pointed out?

MadisonConservative on July 9, 2009 at 10:59 AM

Loxodonta on July 9, 2009 at 5:40 AM

How about…

If you are currently receiving government assistance, you should not have a say in how taxpayer money is used.

dominigan on July 9, 2009 at 10:59 AM

If you are currently receiving government assistance, you should not have a say in how taxpayer money is used.

dominigan on July 9, 2009 at 10:59 AM

Does that include people collecting unemployment or food stamps if they have lost their job? What if they lose their job right before an election, but get another one a month after?

MadisonConservative on July 9, 2009 at 11:00 AM

Well, I’m glad you liked it.

Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 10:54 AM

Were you going to explain any of the occurrences I pointed out?

MadisonConservative on July 9, 2009 at 10:59 AM


Women’s Vote Clinches Election Victory: 8 Million More Women
than Men Voted for Obama
Gender Gap Large in Key Battleground States Where African American
Women Make Their Voices Heard

First, the above is the TITLE of the link you noted, the actual numbers, 49-48 for men’s votes, was a statistical dead heat. That hasn’t been the case of men voting for a DEM candidate, in general, for a couple of decades.
Secondly, if I’m saying NO female votes, than it means NO female votes, not just no black female votes.

Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 11:06 AM

First, the above is the TITLE of the link you noted, the actual numbers, 49-48 for men’s votes, was a statistical dead heat. That hasn’t been the case of men voting for a DEM candidate, in general, for a couple of decades.

…you asked if Dems would be in power now. If men were the only ones that voted, yes, they would. Kay?

Secondly, if I’m saying NO female votes, than it means NO female votes, not just no black female votes.

Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 11:06 AM

And by doing so, you’re ignoring the glaring possibility that it’s a racial issue, not a gender issue, when it comes to the election of one party over another. The difference is that eliminating blacks from the electoral roll is NOT the first thing coming to mind.

MadisonConservative on July 9, 2009 at 11:10 AM

By the way, it’s yet another frightening omen that people who call themselves conservative are actually discussing the possibility of revoking the right to vote from those who vote for their opponents, rather than figuring out a way to win them over. It could be understood as an elastic response to the fact that ACORN is getting votes for our opponents from dead or nonexistent people, or people who, by law, are not allowed to vote, but it’s still no better.

Keep on ACORN, keep the investigations going until that skidmark is gone. Keep showing how Obama is not only limiting the potential of all Americans to prosper and create better lives for themselves and the ones they love, but how he is assaulting the liberties of those people as well.

MadisonConservative on July 9, 2009 at 11:22 AM

…you asked if Dems would be in power now. If men were the only ones that voted, yes, they would. Kay?
MadisonConservative on July 9, 2009 at 11:10 AM

I’ll go S L O W E R.. I’m NOT saying necessarily in THIS Presidential election, I’m saying, in general,
over the last 30-35 years,in all levels of elections from dog catcher to President, , if women were not voting, the DEMOCRATIC PARTY would NOT have the power they have had, in general, over that time period.

Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 11:22 AM

Apparently my post is waiting to be approved since it contains a link to CNN(why does it still do that?), but I wanted to add an addendum to it. Obama lost the white woman vote, with a lower percentage than Gore did. Again, it seems the problem is not sexual, but racial. Dare you argue that?

MadisonConservative on July 9, 2009 at 11:39 AM

Can’t be, when you figure Blacks make up something like 12% of the population in TOTAL, I’d say gender, over 50% being female, would make a better cause to withhold voting right.

Then again, I guess you can forgive a black guy for voting for a black guy, how often will that happen, but how do you fight and entire gender, when many women admitted they liked Gore because of how he kissed Tipper on stage.

You MUST see what we’re up against.

Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 11:47 AM

How about…

If you are currently receiving government assistance, you should not have a say in how taxpayer money is used.

dominigan on July 9, 2009 at 10:59 AM

Do you mean you want to take away the voting rights of all the disabled who can’t work, or just disabled veterans?

And, do you mean you want to take away the voting rights of all the elderly on Social Security?

And do you want to take away the voting rights of every employee of every private non-profit that receives government grants, e.g. to conduct medical research?

Or, have I misunderstood your intent?

Loxodonta on July 9, 2009 at 11:48 AM

Can’t be, when you figure Blacks make up something like 12% of the population in TOTAL, I’d say gender, over 50% being female, would make a better cause to withhold voting right.

Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 11:47 AM

Um, it is. If the overall female vote was for Obama, but the white female vote for him was only 39%, then there is a serious racial swing. Are you going to address that, or ignore mathematics?

MadisonConservative on July 9, 2009 at 11:55 AM

Um, it is. If the overall female vote was for Obama, but the white female vote for him was only 39%, then there is a serious racial swing. Are you going to address that, or ignore mathematics?

MadisonConservative on July 9, 2009 at 11:55 AM

Once again, you’re trying to take stats from this one election, because he was black, and try to make it seem as if women voting DEM isn’t the problem. If you want to try and make a case, that it’s a racial thing, for THIS ONE ELECTION, I might support that, given that even supposed Republicans like Powell ended up endorsing Obama, but MY point is NOT racial, but gender when you’re looking at an overall trend the last 30-35 years.
To say that the female gender, both black and white, has generally voted Republican on all levels of election over the last 30-35 years is just plain wrong.

Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 12:05 PM

Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 12:05 PM

I’ve got a post that has not yet shown up for some reason, right after your 11:22 post, that provides links to info which shows that white women elected Bush in 2000 and 2004, as well, and that non-white races swung the other way. Here’s another article showing that this has been consistent for the last few decades, except with Clinton:

In that respect, Palin seems to have done her job. But while women as a whole vote Democratic, white women don’t. George W. Bush smoked John Kerry with them in 2004 after edging Al Gore in that group in 2000. He beat the Massachusetts senator by 11 points—or roughly what McCain is beating Obama by at the moment, according to the Post. Bill Clinton won 48 percent of white women in 1996, to Bob Dole’s 43 percent, with Ross Perot claiming 8 percent, and he tied George H. W. Bush among the demographic in 1992, with 41 percent each (Perot took 18 percent).

But Clinton’s appeal was unique: The elder Bush took 56 percent of white women in 1988, and Ronald Reagan took 62 percent in his 1984 landslide. Reagan won 52 percent to Jimmy Carter’s 39 percent (John Anderson pulled 8 percent) in 1980. Gerald Ford won the group in 1976, with 52 percent to Carter’s 36.

To say that the race of said females has not historically shown party divides is just plain wrong, and to assert that this is a sexual issue rather than a racial issue in the face of this evidence is intellectually dishonest.

MadisonConservative on July 9, 2009 at 12:13 PM

atheling on July 9, 2009 at 12:51 AM

“landed” so it was land then? No other personal property? See, the point to me is that voters should have a stake in the economy and everyone should pay something. If someone doesn’t have a stake and doesn’t pay any taxes, then they don’t care how high taxes go. That is what is going on now. And just because someone has no assets now, doesn’t mean they can’t earn them later. Well, I’m glad that everyone can vote, property or no, but I see the point that the founding fathers had.

I didn’t know it was once 30 years of age. Thanks. That would be even better. lol but I could live with the 21 we had before the ‘70s. 18 is usually too young. Especially with the lack of education today and with the immaturity that we allow our youth to revel in with no responsibilities or consequences.

Elisa on July 9, 2009 at 12:20 PM

B Man on July 9, 2009 at 12:59 AM

I agree totally. And with all your posts that followed.

Candidate Barack Obama: “I want to fundamentally change this country.” Most people did not understand what he meant by that. But he is well on his way to fulfilling that one campaign promise.

Elisa on July 9, 2009 at 12:22 PM

maverick muse on July 9, 2009 at 9:20 AM

So true. And anything they have learned about history is slanted with an anti-Western, anti- Christian slant.

Rush likes to mention the story of the first Pilgrims. The first year each was allotted a parcel of land and everything grown and raised was put in a public storehouse. Everyone went and took from it according to their needs. They starved that first year. Why should people work hard it they and their children did not benefit. Charity is voluntary and another thing all together. And done in the name of God and goodness. But some benefited who were lazy, because they knew they didn’t have to work to eat.

The next year the governor of the settlement said every keeps what they raised. They had an abundance that year and they shared it.

Elisa on July 9, 2009 at 12:23 PM

Once again, Madison Conservative and his ilk prove that one cannot have a discussion unless it meets their politically correct agenda.

Apparently, in their world, one is not allowed to discuss or criticize the deficits in women’s thinking when it comes to politics. They jump to conclusions and make straw men arguments instead of engaging in an honest debate.

Unless the problems are brought to light, they will remain problems, and the rest of the country suffers. Until women realize that many of their own sex are severely lacking in objectivity, an understanding of this country’s principles, and a sense of responsibility for their own lives, they will continue to vote for a nanny state government.

atheling on July 9, 2009 at 12:25 PM

MadisonConservative and Loxadonta

I know what you are saying. I’m not really advocating taking away women’s right to vote. It will never happen, and in my heart of hearts I don’t want it to. But I have been very frustrated over the years listening to idiot comments of my gender.

I am not saying everyone has to agree with me to vote. There are many intelligent AND INFORMED liberals who certainly in a free society I want voting, even if they disagree with me. But there are far too many women and young people who think they are informed, but aren’t. Because they have little interest in politics. So they only scratch the surface in learning about the candidates and issues. Yet their votes count the same as yous and mine. At least young people don’t vote in huge numbers. Even the last election.

You are right. We need to inform them. Not take away their votes. But I was frustrated.

What Jeff is saying is absolutely right.

over the last 30-35 years,in all levels of elections from dog catcher to President, , if women were not voting, the DEMOCRATIC PARTY would NOT have the power they have had, in general, over that time period.

Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 11:22 AM

We aren’t talking about one or two elections. We are talking about a definite trend in this country. Republicans, as well as Democrats, are becoming more liberal. And woman voting, the famous “gender gap” has a lot to do with it. Many care more about having a “green” society and recycling than foreign policy and terrorism. It was only after 9/11 that our collective maternal instinct kicked in and they cared about defending their young and worried about terrorism. 9/11 has been forgotten now. Short attention span by all Americans, men and women.

And the only reason we got Reagan was because of the enormous disaster of Carter. We got Newt because people were afraid Clinton would go too radical after they saw him his first 2 years and heard about Hillary’s socialize medicine. But in general, the trend of women voting liberal has continued. Overall. Unless they are scared into really looking at the issues in detail.

And Obama’s election was different. People were sick of Bush and the war. We had a Democrat lite candidate in McCain. But mostly everyone, including conservatives liked the idea of there finally being a black president. It moved people. It moved me if I just forgot who Obama really was. That was unique to his election. So those statistics on who voted for him are not applicable to this discussion.

In general, women vote more liberal than men and this country has gone more liberal in the last 40 years. When women stopped voting like their husbands. It’s just a fact. We aren’t going to do anything to change voting rights.

But as you said, we need to get women interested and informed.

Elisa on July 9, 2009 at 12:26 PM

Elisa on July 9, 2009 at 12:20 PM

Yes, according to Madison Conservative, et al, the Founding Fathers are equal to the mullahs of Iran.

That’s the kind of idiocy we see from purported conservatives here.

atheling on July 9, 2009 at 12:28 PM

Until women realize that many of their own sex are severely lacking in objectivity, an understanding of this country’s principles, and a sense of responsibility for their own lives, they will continue to vote for a nanny state government.

atheling on July 9, 2009 at 12:25 PM

Yup Way too often vote with their “feelings” and because someone seems “nice.” Or they seem like they would be a good husband. I don’t need another husband. I like the one I have.

Elisa on July 9, 2009 at 12:28 PM

Once again, Madison Conservative and his ilk prove that one cannot have a discussion unless it meets their politically correct agenda.

atheling on July 9, 2009 at 12:25 PM

Um…so you are ignoring mathematics as well, or are you too afraid to acknowledge the far more impacting effect of votes by minorities?

MadisonConservative on July 9, 2009 at 12:31 PM

Yup Way too often vote with their “feelings” and because someone seems “nice.” Or they seem like they would be a good husband. I don’t need another husband. I like the one I have.

Elisa on July 9, 2009 at 12:28 PM

So do white women have different feelings than nonwhite women? Their voting patterns certainly seem that way.

MadisonConservative on July 9, 2009 at 12:32 PM

We aren’t talking about one or two elections. We are talking about a definite trend in this country. Republicans, as well as Democrats, are becoming more liberal. And woman voting, the famous “gender gap” has a lot to do with it.

Elisa on July 9, 2009 at 12:26 PM

Again:

But while women as a whole vote Democratic, white women don’t. George W. Bush smoked John Kerry with them in 2004 after edging Al Gore in that group in 2000. He beat the Massachusetts senator by 11 points—or roughly what McCain is beating Obama by at the moment, according to the Post. Bill Clinton won 48 percent of white women in 1996, to Bob Dole’s 43 percent, with Ross Perot claiming 8 percent, and he tied George H. W. Bush among the demographic in 1992, with 41 percent each (Perot took 18 percent).

But Clinton’s appeal was unique: The elder Bush took 56 percent of white women in 1988, and Ronald Reagan took 62 percent in his 1984 landslide. Reagan won 52 percent to Jimmy Carter’s 39 percent (John Anderson pulled 8 percent) in 1980. Gerald Ford won the group in 1976, with 52 percent to Carter’s 36.

By latest accounts, the United States is still 2/3 white, so the nonwhite female vote is skewing the overall female vote a great deal. The issue is not sexual, it’s racial.

MadisonConservative on July 9, 2009 at 12:34 PM

To say that the race of said females has not historically shown party divides is just plain wrong, and to assert that this is a sexual issue rather than a racial issue in the face of this evidence is intellectually dishonest.

MadisonConservative on July 9, 2009 at 12:13 PM

Here we go again. I’m saying if NO women,none, zero, nada,
could vote, regardless of race, most political races would not trend toward the Democrats.
If you, in most races, take away the womens votes, from both sides you’ll end up with more Rep./Cons.
You’re trying to interject a point about white women trending, in most races, as Republicans. I’m telling you that, in general, it’s generally known to not be true. How do I know that? Because EVERY feminist organization out there supports DEMOCRAT.

Look, it’s like the religion I belong to, they have boards, they have voters meetings, there’s not much trouble. Why? Because women CAN’T be on the boards and can’t vote.

Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 12:34 PM

I remember after Bill Clinton won his first term, I saw some Hollywood bimbo on TV, gushing about how she had to vote for him because he is so “cute”.

That’s when I started thinking, “Oh my God, this is how we women vote?” I do remember hearing my grandmother saying she voted for someone because she “liked his face”. Knew nothing about the guy’s politics, but she sure thought he had a nice face.

I talk about Cap and Trade to some of my female acquaintances, and they all start blathering about how it’s going to “save the environment”, and when I ask if it’s okay to save the environment if the law encroaches upon their freedoms, NONE of them agreed! They all thought that “saving the environment” trumped ANY freedom we have.

I talk to a group of Democrat-voting ladies in my church, and NONE of them could tell me who the Secretary of the Treasury is. NONE of them could tell me who chairs the Federal Reserve. NONE of them could tell me who is the House Minority Leader. NONE of them could tell me who is the Attorney General.

And the politically correct wing of HotAir thinks they deserve the vote?

atheling on July 9, 2009 at 12:35 PM

By latest accounts, the United States is still 2/3 white, so the nonwhite female vote is skewing the overall female vote a great deal. The issue is not sexual, it’s racial.

MadisonConservative on July 9, 2009 at 12:34 PM

You’re beating a dead horse. No women voting, no problem. PERIOD

Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 12:36 PM

the far more impacting effect of votes by minorities?

MadisonConservative on July 9, 2009 at 12:31 PM

I can understand minorities voting for Obama. It is a sense of justice. An affirming of themselves. Totally understandable and human nature.

But I have hope that one day down the line, when they are free from the race mongers and Democratic plantation mentality, they will wake up and see that liberalism has done more damage to their people than good and keeps them down and in chains. It is already happening quietly little by little as Blacks become more and more middle class. (Note: there were many middle class and educated Black families before the liberalism of the Democrats distroyed them in the last century.)

It needs time. and a few generations. Being a Democrat was part of being Black, Jewish or immigrant Catholic. For many, it still seems like they would be traitors to vote Republican. (even though it was the party of Lincoln and passed civil rights.)

Elisa on July 9, 2009 at 12:38 PM

You’re trying to interject a point about white women trending, in most races, as Republicans. I’m telling you that, in general, it’s generally known to not be true. How do I know that? Because EVERY feminist organization out there supports DEMOCRAT.

Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 12:34 PM

Feminist organizations do not represent the majority of women in this country, nor do the Democrats. You seem to keep acting as if their rhetoric is fact.

You can tell me what you generally believe all you want. If you were to take the nonwhite female vote out of the elections for the last few decades, Clinton would have been the only Democrat voted in by women, and only once where it wasn’t a dead heat. With white women continuing to be the majority in this country, you’re blaming an entire group of people for the actions of the minority.

MadisonConservative on July 9, 2009 at 12:39 PM

I remember reading the news report about Natasha Richardson’s untimely death at the ski resort in Canada. She chose not to wear protective head gear when she went skiing, and died from head injuries (whether she also died from Canadian health care is another issue).

The comments on the article showed a deep divide between men and women. Almost EVERY woman reacted by stating that Canada needs to pass a law compelling all skiiers to wear helmets. That’s their solution: the nanny state.

atheling on July 9, 2009 at 12:40 PM

Elisa on July 9, 2009 at 12:28 PM

I’ve talked to male liberals who were far more excited about Obama than I was (not hard to do). They were educated, highly paid lawyers, totally carried away by their emotions…almost in a Chris Matthews kind of way.
How many men vote for someone because “he’s the kind of guy you could have a beer with”?.
How many male politicians have thrown away promising careers because of their inability to control their hormonal urges? I have a huge list, and it cuts across party lines.

Fortunata on July 9, 2009 at 12:40 PM

I remember after Bill Clinton won his first term, I saw some Hollywood bimbo on TV, gushing about how she had to vote for him because he is so “cute”.

That’s when I started thinking, “Oh my God, this is how we women vote?” I do remember hearing my grandmother saying she voted for someone because she “liked his face”. Knew nothing about the guy’s politics, but she sure thought he had a nice face.atheling on July 9, 2009 at 12:35 PM

That’s my point, in a nutshell.

Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 12:41 PM

Fortunata on July 9, 2009 at 12:40 PM

Girly men. They are metrosexuals. Feminized.

atheling on July 9, 2009 at 12:42 PM

You’re beating a dead horse. No women voting, no problem. PERIOD

Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 12:36 PM

No women voting, Obama still wins. PERIOD. No nonwhites voting, Obama loses. PERIOD. No nonwhites voting, Carter would have lost. PERIOD. No nonwhites voting, there would have been no question about the 2000 election. PERIOD.

Now tell me again that women are the problem voting group for Republicans.

Are you even reading the links I provide, or are you content to merely pull your claims out of your backside and present them as fact with absolutely no proof?

MadisonConservative on July 9, 2009 at 12:42 PM

Girly men. They are metrosexuals. Feminized.

atheling on July 9, 2009 at 12:42 PM

Come to think of it, note how we real conservatives label liberal men? Like women. Kinda proves my point, doesn’t it?

atheling on July 9, 2009 at 12:43 PM

The comments on the article showed a deep divide between men and women. Almost EVERY woman reacted by stating that Canada needs to pass a law compelling all skiiers to wear helmets. That’s their solution: the nanny state.

atheling on July 9, 2009 at 12:40 PM

So comments sections on websites now are a representative example of the American voting public? If so, Hot Air’s comments must prove that the country is 99% conservative! Wow!

MadisonConservative on July 9, 2009 at 12:44 PM

Elisa on July 9, 2009 at 12:38 PM

Elisa, I’m considered a “minority”, but I vote hard core conservative.

atheling on July 9, 2009 at 12:45 PM

I’ve talked to male liberals who were far more excited about Obama than I was (not hard to do). They were educated, highly paid lawyers, totally carried away by their emotions…almost in a Chris Matthews kind of way.
How many men vote for someone because “he’s the kind of guy you could have a beer with”?.
How many male politicians have thrown away promising careers because of their inability to control their hormonal urges? I have a huge list, and it cuts across party lines.

Fortunata on July 9, 2009 at 12:40 PM

Fort..I’ve got to admit you do give me pause with that point. I can’t explain the Democrat male. I really can’t.
He’s not really a man. He’s some kind of a sissy. I mean, can you imagine ANY man saying that his leg tingles because another man gave a speech.

Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 12:47 PM

How many male politicians have thrown away promising careers because of their inability to control their hormonal urges? I have a huge list, and it cuts across party lines.

Fortunata on July 9, 2009 at 12:40 PM

What the hell is your point?

atheling on July 9, 2009 at 12:48 PM

As of today it is -8

rlwo2008 on July 9, 2009 at 12:49 PM

What the hell is your point?

atheling on July 9, 2009 at 12:48 PM

I’m pretty sure that their point is you’re attributing irrationality to women when, in this day and age of feminized men(a point I actually agree with you on), it’s no longer a trait of a single sex.

MadisonConservative on July 9, 2009 at 12:50 PM

Recently I took the PEW News IQ Poll, and the results were dismal for women.

52% of men scored 100. Not too impressive.

35% of women scored 100. Pathetic.

atheling on July 9, 2009 at 12:51 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4