Gallup: Majority says Obama doesn’t deserve to be reelected

posted at 7:36 pm on April 16, 2010 by Allahpundit

Shameful. We should be thanking him, you know.

The 46% who say Obama deserves re-election is similar to his recent job approval ratings, which have been running just under 50%. The current results also echo what Gallup found recently when it asked voters whether they would be more likely to vote for Obama or the Republican candidate in the 2012 presidential election…

The current numbers for Obama are similar to what Gallup found for Bill Clinton at almost precisely the same point in his presidency, in late March 1994. In that poll, 46% of Americans (the survey did not identify registered voters) said Clinton deserved to be re-elected and 48% said he did not…

In late 1991 and early 1992, Americans were more inclined to say the elder George Bush deserved than did not deserve re-election. However, over the course of 1992, his approval rating dropped and voters ended up voting him out of office in favor of Clinton.

Consider this a reminder on why I think Romney’s still in contention for the nomination, RomneyCare notwithstanding: Stuff happens. A lot of stuff, and very quickly. That said, I do think these numbers are significant for two reasons. First, the split here among Democrats is a robust 84/12, which makes the poll of Jewish voters that I flagged yesterday seem that much more significant. They split 42/46 on the similar question of whether they’d vote to reelect Obama today or whether they’d consider someone else. Not an identical query to the one Gallup asked, but close enough to make me think there really, truly are some deep misgivings about this guy among Jewish Democrats. Second, it may be a long time until 2012 but it’s just six short months until the midterms, and numbers like these are bound to weigh the Dems down. The latest temperature check: Charlie Cook and Stuart Rothenberg both see gains of 25-30 seats in the bank, but both note that considerably larger gains are possible if current political trends continue. In fact, so gruesome are the Dems’ prospects that heretic pollsters Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell are now encouraging them to … woo the tea-party movement. Harry Reid in a Thomas Paine costume? Dare to dream, my friends.

Update: Meant to flag this ominous point from Cook. A sweet November could mean a bitter 2012:

Despite all of this disagreement over whether the House will flip, there is pretty much of a consensus in the political community that President Obama’s chances of getting re-elected will rise if his party loses the House or Senate. (In my book, the latter is quite unlikely.)

There are two arguments supporting the notion that the president might benefit from divided government. First, a GOP-controlled House would provide Obama with a foil. Republicans would have some governing responsibility; Democrats wouldn’t “own” Washington and automatically get the blame for everything that does or doesn’t happen. A strong case can be made that President Clinton would not have been re-elected in 1996 had Democrats not lost control of Congress in 1994.

The second contention is that losing control of the House would allow (or force) Obama to take a more centrist approach, to replicate the “triangulation” that worked well for Clinton in 1995 and 1996. Positioning himself and his administration as less liberal than congressional Democrats and less conservative than congressional Republicans, Clinton became the moderate honest broker in policy, riding that course to victory over Republican Bob Dole.


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

Just emailed to me today:

VERY QUIETLY OBAMA’S CITIZENSHIP CASE REACHES THE SUPREME COURT

AP – WASHINGTON D.C. –
In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama’s qualifications for the presidency, the group “Americans for Freedom of Information” has Released copies of President Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College . Released today, the transcript school indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship.
This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama’s detractors have been seeking. Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama’s legitimacy and qualification to serve as President article titled, “Obama Eligibility Questioned,” leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama’s first official visit to the U.K. In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama’s legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey . This lawsuit claims Obama’s dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio’s case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama’s citizenship or qualification to serve as president.

Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama’s campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U..S. Attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter…

LET OTHER FOLKS KNOW THIS NEWS, THE MEDIA WON’T !

Subject: RE: Issue of Passport?

While I’ve little interest in getting in the middle of the Obama birth issue, Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the issue can be resolved by Obama answering one simple question: What passport did he use when he was shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ?

So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?

And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi , what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration?

The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama’s citizenship a rather short and simple one.

Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A : Yes, by his own admission.

Q: What passport did he travel under?
A: There are only three possibilities.
1) He traveled with a U.S. .. Passport,
2) He traveled with a British passport, or
3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.

Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. .. State Department’s “no travel” list in 1981.

Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.

If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.

Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a “natural born” American citizen between 1981 and 2008..

Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.

thught others might like to see it

Vntnrse on April 17, 2010 at 12:07 AM

Cook can forget it. Obama is not Bill Clinton. He’ll never be a moderate.

America lost her mind once. She will never repeat her error. If she would, she’d deserve complete (self)-destruction.

Schadenfreude on April 17, 2010 at 12:35 AM

The jackass thinks we should be THANKING HIM for LETTING us keep our own hard-earned money

hillbillyjim on April 16, 2010 at 8:03 PM

You are forgetting that if we like our doctor we can keep our doctor. So says Obama the Beneficent.

Americans are such ingrates.

Lily on April 17, 2010 at 12:38 AM

Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. .. State Department’s “no travel” list in 1981.

No, it wasn’t. There was no ban on travel to Pakistan. And that’s why this will go nowhere, as there’s no telling what else they’ve gotten wrong, or just flat out made up. Not that I don’t think there’s something fishy in Denmark in regards to Obama, but making stuff up doesn’t help things.

xblade on April 17, 2010 at 1:12 AM

Vntnrse on April 17, 2010 at 12:07 AM

Hey, I’ve got a bridge in Manhattan I’ll sell to you cheap. You interested, pal?

Oh, say, what’s this: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/carter.asp

Inkblots on April 17, 2010 at 1:49 AM

thught others might like to see it

Heh, I’ll bet.

Inkblots on April 17, 2010 at 1:50 AM

Inkblots on April 17, 2010 at 1:49 AM

thanx, I didn’t see anything on snopes but I was not looking in the right place it seems…..I’ll send this link to my friend

Vntnrse on April 17, 2010 at 3:35 AM

Obama did not deserve to be elected the first time. If you were paying attention to substance — if you cared about having a Commander in Chief who had knowledge about and had experience in military matters, foreign policy and national security — if you cared about restraining federal spending — if you have supported the pro-life movement — if you watched the Saddleback Forum debate and remembered the contrast between McCain talking about fighting evil and Obama equivocating — if you cared about a high value placed on patriotism and military service, then you voted for McCain without hesitation.

Phil Byler on April 17, 2010 at 3:36 AM

Can’t say I voted for McCain ‘without equivocation’. His own campaigning was gut wrenching. Every time he was asked about Obama he said Obama was qualified to be Pres. He punked the financial meltdown and gave credence to the dems that it was Wall Street (republican) fault. He refused to go all out on Obama’s radical past and what it would mean for America. Also he couldn’t call Obama on his progressivism since McCain is also a progressive, though in a slower mode-frog in warming water vs. Obama’s frog in boiling water.
We truly had the lesser of two lessers in the last election. Now we have to recover whatever is left of this country during the next two election cycles.

eaglewingz08 on April 17, 2010 at 8:35 AM

The Obama Occidental College story would be great if true but I have not been able to find the original story and Factcheck.org claims its a hoax. Lets stick to the truth and not reprint unproven nonsense.

Dennis D on April 17, 2010 at 10:21 AM

The second contention is that losing control of the House would allow (or force) Obama to take a more centrist approach, to replicate the “triangulation” that worked well for Clinton in 1995 and 1996. Positioning himself and his administration as less liberal than congressional Democrats and less conservative than congressional Republicans, Clinton became the moderate honest broker in policy, riding that course to victory over Republican Bob Dole.

Yes, this is very possible.

But I’ve come to the opinion that Obama isn’t as skilled a politician as Clinton was, and that he’s just too damn idealogical and arrogant to really move too much to the center. He’ll stay on the left out of pure pique.

Vyce on April 17, 2010 at 10:55 AM

I care about November way more than I care about 2012. A sweet November means the President is rendered largely impotent.

That’s more important to me than whether a bunch of people get to idolize their idol another four years.

Alana on April 17, 2010 at 1:47 PM

Bill Clinton never won a majority. His election was mostly a result of Ross Perot’s run.

TallDave on April 17, 2010 at 3:20 PM

I care about November way more than I care about 2012. A sweet November means the President is rendered largely impotent.

That’s more important to me than whether a bunch of people get to idolize their idol another four years.

Alana on April 17, 2010 at 1:47 PM

Three words: Supreme Court vacancies

I would rather have a small-government, Constitution-honoring, fiscally responsible American as President.

Where to find such a person?

sirnapsalot on April 19, 2010 at 12:55 PM

Comment pages: 1 2