Rasmussen: Obama strong disapproval at peak

posted at 11:40 am on August 30, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

If Barack Obama hoped to gain some breathing room with his vacation, or perhaps even pick up some sympathetic vibe for eulogizing Ted Kennedy on Friday, Rasmussen’s latest poll shows that nothing has changed in the direction of his approval ratings.  With one of the three days in Rasmussen’s presidential tracking poll after the wake, Obama has hit his highest level of strong disapproval yet, at 42%.  The “passion index” has now hit -10 — not the worst of his term thus far, but certainly not good:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 32% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove. That’s the highest level of Strong Disapproval yet recorded for this President and it gives Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -10 …

Overall, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. That matches the lowest total approval yet measured for Obama. Fifty-two percent (52%) now disapprove.

Support for the health care reform package proposed by the President and Congressional Democrats has stopped falling, but most voters are still opposed.

The polling on ObamaCare has frozen at 53%-43% disapproval.  That’s unchanged from two weeks ago, which indicates that the big push from unions, AARP, and other advocates in the wake of the town-hall meetings has had little effect.  They may have arrested the free-fall, but they’re not changing any minds.

Congress has a mighty challenge in front of them when they return, and not just on health-care reform.  They also have to convince a strong majority that they belong on Capitol Hill:

If Americans could vote to keep or replace the entire Congress, 57% would throw out all the legislators and start over again. Just 25% would vote to keep the Congress.

Before anyone gets too giddy about that result, it’s just about the same as it was in October, when Democrats gained a large majority in both chambers:

Overall, these numbers are little changed since last October. When Congress was passing the unpopular $700-billion bailout plan in the heat of a presidential campaign and a seeming financial industry meltdown, 59% wanted to throw them all out. At that time, just 17% wanted to keep them.

Unsurprisingly, a plurality of Democrats (43%) want to keep the Congress they have.  Unfortunately, few Democrats in the House and none in the Senate can get re-elected just on the basis of party-line votes.  Independents, who broke hard for Democrats in the last two Congressional elections, are much less sanguine about their leadership.  Seventy percent would vote to throw out Congress, as opposed to just 15% that would keep them, another indicator of big trouble ahead for Democrats in 2010.

No one has been terribly impressed with the performance of Congress lately, which drives those numbers.  A solid majority, 54%, believe Congress doesn’t understand bills before voting on them.  That wins pluralities or majorities across almost all demographics, but especially independents, who go 65%-20% for lack of comprehension.  Only 38% of Democrats think Congress understands the bills, as opposed to 32% who think Congress hasn’t a clue — hardly a vote of confidence in their own leadership.

The consensus seems to be that we have a collection of Fools on the Hill. Unfortunately, it’s not in an ironic sense, as the Beatles song had it (a tribute to their guru, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi), either. Here’s my favorite version of the song, by Sergio Mendes & Brasil ’66, shown here performing it live:


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

Been to many TEA party rallies, have you? Or are you merely engaging in rectal speak?

As usual…

JohnGalt23 on May 24, 2013 at 1:46 PM

As I just posted HotairLib has their whole head up their six o clock.

hamradio on May 24, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Who wrote the speech? Or are you just praising the messenger?

mixplix on May 24, 2013 at 2:57 PM

MSNBC consensus: Obama’s speech was historic, amazing, “one of the best of his presidency”

Connect the dots: journolist meeting by invitation only at the White House on, what Tuesday?, “big”speech by Obama on Thursday, lame stream media fawning over speech on Friday. Who would have seen that coming, huh?

parke on May 24, 2013 at 2:58 PM

They need the “war on terror” in order to further erode our Constitutional freedoms and to deflect criticism from the administration’s and Federal government’s ongoing corruption.

They are just trying to massage it so that they don’t offend the Muslims, international Libtards and their own sensibilities anymore than necessary.

A few Muslim terrorists here and there are quite expendable to this Administration despite their sympathies for them. These drone attacks also do much deflect any potential criticism that the Administration is weak in dealing with such matters.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 24, 2013 at 2:59 PM

MSNBC is nothing but a left wing propaganda machine serving their master, Obama.

rplat on May 24, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Nobel Peace Prize that he totally earned a mere nine months into his presidency? Yeah, that one.

I believe that he was officially nominated 10 days after he was sworn in. Wow! The WON really worked long hours that week and a half to earn that POS medal. During those ten days he ordered NO DRONE STRIKES to keep his peaceful record clean.

fred5678 on May 24, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Obama: Don’t worry about that Ben Ghazi guy. I killed Bin Laden, and Bush didn’t!

And Obummer still wants to close Gitmo? Good luck with that–not even Upchuck Schumer was willing to hold trials in New York!

Steve Z on May 24, 2013 at 3:24 PM

They need the “war on terror” in order to further erode our Constitutional freedoms and to deflect criticism from the administration’s and Federal government’s ongoing corruption.

They just changed the definition of terrorist. They used to be jihadis from the Middle East–now they’re Minutemen in Arizona and Tea Partiers in Ohio.

Steve Z on May 24, 2013 at 3:29 PM

…bromides about what we’re told are President Foreign Policy’s miraculous yet still oddly unmaterialized abilities to move us drastically closer to world peace.

Erika, sometimes your writing shows signs of rivaling even the Master of Snark himself, Allahpundit. Good work!

KS Rex on May 24, 2013 at 3:45 PM

I love how crazy Al invoked the Nobel Peace Prize in praise of a speech that spoke about dropping bombs on people’s head. Maybe it was the “fewer” bombs than before that raised this to historic levels.

Do they even know or care that they are morons.

marnes on May 24, 2013 at 3:46 PM

His speech made less sense than Bluto’s Animal House Speech and was far less entertaining. Nothing less than base rallying time. Never thought I would say this, but Code Pink was the best part.

DDay on May 24, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Sperling posted this at the Examiner on May 23 about this “historic speech of Obysmal’s:

During his foreign policy speech Thursday afternoon, President Obama warned that domestic terrorism would increase in the modern age of the Internet.

“[T]his threat is not new,” Obama said. “But technology and the Internet increase its frequency and lethality.”

Obama warned Americans that materials on the Internet could influence people to commit terrorist acts.

“Today, a person can consume hateful propaganda, commit themselves to a violent agenda and learn how to kill without leaving their home,” he said.

To combat domestic terrorism, Obama reminded Americans that it was important to reach out to Muslim communities.

“The best way to prevent violent extremism is to work with the Muslim American community — which has consistently rejected terrorism — to identify signs of radicalization and partner with law enforcement when an individual is drifting towards violence,” he said. “And these partnerships can only work when we recognize that Muslims are a fundamental part of the American family.”

You see, we are just not working hard enough to “work with the Muslim American community” who are a “fundamental part of the American family.” Watch out, too, because Obysmal is again trying to limit the impact of the Internet.

onlineanalyst on May 24, 2013 at 4:22 PM

That Chris Hayes is a bit of a twink, isn’t he?

onlineanalyst on May 24, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Obama apparently gave two speeches yesterday and I watched the other one.

myiq2xu on May 24, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Didn’t take you that long to inject the man’s race into this didn’t it? And you wonder why blacks will never accept you tea billies hate the man simply because he’s a black man occupying the “people’s” house.

HotAirLib on May 24, 2013 at 1:00 PM

Nah. I’d detest the little pissant s.o.b. if he was white…or Asian…or any one of the myriad of made-up racial divisions.

Solaratov on May 24, 2013 at 11:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 2