Bloomberg poll shows 4 in 10 Obama supporters now opposing him

posted at 3:35 pm on October 12, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Disillusionment has set into the one-time supporters of Hopenchange, according to a new Bloomberg poll of likely midterm voters.  Nearly 40% of those who previously supported Barack Obama now disapprove of his job performance.  The number grows among women and independents, where majorities of both have abandoned the President:

Hope has turned to doubt and disenchantment for almost half of President Barack Obama’s supporters.

More than 4 of 10 likely voters who say they once considered themselves Obama backers now are either less supportive or say they no longer support him at all, according to a Bloomberg National Poll conducted Oct. 7-10.

Three weeks before the Nov. 2 congressional elections that Republicans are trying to make a referendum on Obama, fewer than half of likely voters approve of the president’s job performance. Likely voters are more apt to say Obama’s policies have harmed rather than helped the economy. Among those who say they are most enthusiastic about voting this year, 6 of 10 say the Democrat has damaged the economy.

The worst news comes from two constituencies that lifted Obama and the Democrats to victory in 2008.  Among likely-voter women who supported Obama in 2008, more than 60% have changed their minds, portending a very difficult battle in Obama’s re-election in 2012.  Fifty-three percent of independents who voted for Obama now disapprove of his performance.

Interestingly, the perception of Obama as anti-business hasn’t resonated, with only 36% of likely voters professing that belief.  There is a significant perception on the Left that Obama has been too pro-business, as Bloomberg reports from anecdotal comments.  That doesn’t let Obama off the hook for the economy, though, as 47% believe that Obamanomics has damaged the economy, and 53% saying that Congressional Democrats have damaged the economy as well.

We’ll see how the damage to the Obama brand impacts Democrats in three weeks.  With numbers deteriorating like this, and with economists predicting high unemployment and economic stagnation for the entirety of 2011, Obama seems destined to tread the same path as Jimmy Carter by the time Iowa holds its binding caucus in January 2012.


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

Bayam- as someone pointed out …why do you act like the dems did not run congress going on 4 years now? I know why because you are a friggin assss kissing dem apologist. Idiot.

CWforFreedom on October 12, 2010 at 5:58 PM

That’s great, you’re able to read slanted propaganda from a right-wing think tank. You’re really on top of the facts and have a deep, objective understanding of how capitalism works.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 5:58 PM

Wow way to just crush their reasoning. Nice work you lazy punk. Your intelligence or lack of came back with that remark? Too funny.

CWforFreedom on October 12, 2010 at 6:00 PM

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 5:49 PM

That would be much more impressive if you included Obama’s proposal to spend $3.8T for FY 2011. For.One.Year. The fact is that Obama’s spending surpasses Bush’s by a mile.

volnation on October 12, 2010 at 6:00 PM

Bayam you are just a little person not able to handle differing views . See Heritage gives you the real numbers but you like the dishonest idiot you are just dismiss then thus you don’t have to confront them. Oh and tell us about the Dems control of Congress going on 4 years. What ownership do they have? You are the reason this country is hurting. You are willing to do the bidding of Obama and liberal screw ups. Enjoy paying for it.

CWforFreedom on October 12, 2010 at 6:02 PM

BAYAM pssst under Obama the spending has gone up over 20 percent in two years with no cuts or hike to pay for it. You are such a sad little lapdog.

CWforFreedom on October 12, 2010 at 6:03 PM

Odd how since 2007 under the Democrat/Marxists the deficits grew exponentially!

It doesn’t take Phd to understand the when tax revenues drop hard during a deep recession, the deficit goes up. It happens not sometimes, but always.

Read up idiot

CWforFreedom on October 12, 2010 at 5:56 PM

You’re the kind of idiot who fails to understand the deficits increase during a deep recession due to increased demand for social services like unemployment subsidized by the federal government.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 6:04 PM

That would be much more impressive if you included Obama’s proposal to spend $3.8T for FY 2011. For.One.Year. The fact is that Obama’s spending surpasses Bush’s by a mile.

volnation on October 12, 2010 at 6:00 PM

Shhhhhh that ruins the narrative. /

CWforFreedom on October 12, 2010 at 6:05 PM

You’re the kind of idiot who fails to understand the deficits increase during a deep recession due to increased demand for social services like unemployment subsidized by the federal government.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 6:04 PM

You have an excuse for everything. Keep it up toady. Have fun paying for it. What an idiot. You really are one dumb fool.
Please AGAIN dipshite explain what the DEMS were doing the last 3-4 years. You know they won control of COngress two years prior to Obama winning the white house right??you’re laughable Krugs.

CWforFreedom on October 12, 2010 at 6:07 PM

I’d be curious to know the percentage of Jewish voters who voted for him who have since soured on him.

My 87 year old dad is a die hard democrat who briefly flirted with the idea of voting for McCain before changing his mind. I gave him hell over it, especially since he used to hate Jesse Jackson and was convinced he was an antisemite. Then the media spent the next 20 years portraying Jackson as mainstream and respectable and my dad fell for it. I told him that Obama’s association with Jeremiah Wright was worse than Jackson’s “Hymietown” remark
(and my dad’s name is Hymie!), but he wouldn’t hear any of it.

Now he’s totally disillusioned with Obama. I have cousins who also voted for Obama. Now their sending me mass emails criticizing him.

ardenenoch on October 12, 2010 at 6:08 PM

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 6:04 PM

PUt your fingers in your eyes and pretend that the Heritage blogs information does not matter. Just like the little kid you are. You will always be a lapdog. Does that make you feel wanted?

CWforFreedom on October 12, 2010 at 6:08 PM

If you think that Obama is to blame for the current economic conditions, you’re out of touch a brainwashed Democrat like I am. Today’s economy is a product of the Democrat-created 2007 economic crisis and the O’bama-created 2009-10 destruction of capitalism. There’s no silver bullet for the broad capital destruction that occurred when the Democrats crashed our economic system to get O’bama elected.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 3:45 PM

Fixed.

Del Dolemonte on October 12, 2010 at 6:08 PM

See Heritage gives you the real numbers but you like the dishonest idiot you are just dismiss then thus you don’t have to confront them.

I’ve read those numbers and the are in on way objective. I read everything on this blog site. Do you read everything on left-wing blog sites?

BAYAM pssst under Obama the spending has gone up over 20 percent in two years with no cuts or hike to pay for it.

Stimulus spending has been used by every single Republican and Dem presidents in every serious recession over the past 50 years. You don’t raise taxes during a recession for the same rationale.
If you think it’s just some kind of liberal thing, you just don’t know any better.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 6:11 PM

Its’ hard to see how Congress was responsible for 2007 financial crisis. Not even Wall Street has tried to make that claim.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 3:51 PM

1. Barney Frank (D-MA)

2. Chris Dodd (D-CT)

3. As for Wall Street, they’re Democrats themselves. Why would they impugn their own people?

Del Dolemonte on October 12, 2010 at 6:12 PM

What an idiot. You really are one dumb fool.

Better let you get back to work. A brain like yours must demand a high salary. Watch out Warren Buffet and Bill Gates- the real capitalist is here.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 6:13 PM

I’ve read those numbers and the are in on way objective.
bayam on October 12, 2010 at 6:11 PM

Were you educated in the United States?

CWforFreedom on October 12, 2010 at 6:15 PM

Its’ hard to see how Congress was responsible for 2007 financial crisis. Not even Wall Street has tried to make that claim.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 3:51 PM

Really? Remind us what was the #1 reason of foreclosures- by a long shot.

Chuck Schick on October 12, 2010 at 6:16 PM

2006 United States federal budget – $2.7 trillion (submitted by President Bush)
2005 United States federal budget – $2.4 trillion (submitted by President Bush)
2004 United States federal budget – $2.3 trillion (submitted by President Bush)
2003 United States federal budget – $2.2 trillion (submitted by President Bush)
2002 United States federal budget – $2.0 trillion (submitted by President Bush)

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 5:49 PM

And now put that in perspective to Obama:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png

Chuck Schick on October 12, 2010 at 6:18 PM

Bayam you cannot write or read. Where did I say stimulus spending was a liberal thing?

CWforFreedom on October 12, 2010 at 6:18 PM

but I did study economics at a top university
bayam on October 12, 2010 at 5:18 PM

Which one?

Chip on October 12, 2010 at 6:19 PM

Really? Remind us what was the #1 reason of foreclosures- by a long shot.

Chuck Schick on October 12, 2010 at 6:16 PM

Heh.
You already know you will get no answer from this apologist.

CWforFreedom on October 12, 2010 at 6:19 PM

So Bayam where does this whole the Dems won Congress back 4 years ago fit into this mess anyway?

ahhahahhaa

You are an idiot.

CWforFreedom on October 12, 2010 at 6:21 PM

it was actually CDO’s and securitized mortgage products that infected the worldwide financial system with a cancer that nearly ended capitalism as we know it. You can buy any number of books on this subject.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 4:01 PM

LOL. You’re shoveling with 2 hands now. Where did those mortgage products come from? PS, I am in that particular industry so be careful.

And as for “buying any number of books”, you can also buy “any number of books” that say the US attacked itself on 9/11.

Oh, well. Shovel away. Or dig deeper, perhaps?

Del Dolemonte on October 12, 2010 at 6:22 PM

Oh and Bayam you did not read the Foundry article on Obama’s deficits. You are such a liar.

CWforFreedom on October 12, 2010 at 6:25 PM

And as for “buying any number of books”,
Del Dolemonte on October 12, 2010 at 6:22 PM

Hmmm that game on top of :

“you’re able to read slanted propaganda from a right-wing think tank.”

———-

Alinksy would be proud.

CWforFreedom on October 12, 2010 at 6:27 PM

Tell us all, Skippy. Who controlled Congress in 2007?

kingsjester on October 12, 2010 at 3:47 PM

Gosh. Who wudda thunk that a simple question would have led to a such a Troll rant?

kingsjester on October 12, 2010 at 6:34 PM

By far the biggest percentage-gain revenue winner for the taxpayer in 2010 was . . . the Federal Reserve. Thanks to the expansion of its balance sheet with riskier assets, the Fed earned $76 billion during the year, a 121% increase. The Fed’s windfall is a perfect symbol of our current economic policy. The government is making money because it now controls so much capital, but it is robbing that money from the private economy in the process. It is never a good sign when your central bank is a national profit center.

FROM the WSJ

Nice work Obama but hey dupes like Bayam will ALWAYS have your back.

Bayam funny still no comment on the whole Dems won Congress in 2007 thing. Hmmmmm. Dupe . You are laughable. Sadly so.

CWforFreedom on October 12, 2010 at 6:35 PM

And now put that in perspective to Obama:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png

Do you know what % of GDP means? Do you know what happens to GDP and tax revenues in a deep recession? Do examine the numbers, but you need to look at the right numbers- the raw numbers- not the percentages, to get an accurate picture.

And as for “buying any number of books”, you can also buy “any number of books” that say the US attacked itself on 9/11.

Our Founding Fathers were extremely well-read and would strongly disagree with your minimizing the value of books. Then again, they were a bunch of ‘elitists’, so perhaps you don’t trust them either.

The cause of the financial crisis is only an issue among people who turn to Rush and Glen for economic analysis. The role of subprime loans isn’t something that Alan Greenspan and other people with his background even find interesting to discuss. The problem wasn’t risky loans- it was that Wall Street didn’t understand systemic mortgage risk and infected our financial system with derivative ‘weapons of economic mass destruction’.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 6:37 PM

but I did study economics at a top university
bayam on October 12, 2010 at 5:18 PM

Which one?

Shades of crr6?

Chip on October 12, 2010 at 6:38 PM

By far the biggest percentage-gain revenue winner for the taxpayer in 2010 was . . . the Federal Reserve. Thanks to the expansion of its balance sheet with riskier assets, the Fed earned $76 billion during the year, a 121% increase. The Fed’s windfall is a perfect symbol of our current economic policy. The government is making money because it now controls so much capital, but it is robbing that money from the private economy in the process. It is never a good sign when your central bank is a national profit center.

Do you understand that the President has no role in setting Fed policy? This article has nothing to do with Obama. You seem to be very, very confused.

One exception to that rule might be Fed policy under Paulson, when the Fed and Treasury coordinated their actions carefully at a time when it looked as though the system might collapse. But I agree that the Fed should not be in the business of buying so much debt.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 6:41 PM

And as for “buying any number of books”, you can also buy “any number of books” that say the US attacked itself on 9/11.

Our Founding Fathers were extremely well-read and would strongly disagree with your minimizing the value of books. Then again, they were a bunch of ‘elitists’, so perhaps you don’t trust them either.

Too much. Great way to argue. You really are dishonest.

Oh and when did the Dems win Congress?

CWforFreedom on October 12, 2010 at 6:42 PM

Shades of crr6?

Chip on October 12, 2010 at 6:38 PM

Bayam is the spawn of Crr

CWforFreedom on October 12, 2010 at 6:43 PM

Bayam you are the best. Let me see someone challenges your joke of an argument about any number of books and because they did that they don’t trust the founders. You are hilarious.

CWforFreedom on October 12, 2010 at 6:44 PM

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 6:37 PM

And the CRA, Freddie and Fannie had nothing to do with the melt down, right?

Chip on October 12, 2010 at 6:52 PM

Let me see someone challenges your joke of an argument about any number of books

CWforFreedom on October 12, 2010 at 6:44 PM

When someone says you can’t generally trust books because some books are untruthful, it’s unfortunate. It’s one reason why this country has a massive trade deficit.

Still waiting for you to explain how Obama was involved in the Fed’s decision to buy government debt. Please enlighten us.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 6:55 PM

Do you know what % of GDP means? Do you know what happens to GDP and tax revenues in a deep recession? Do examine the numbers, but you need to look at the right numbers- the raw numbers- not the percentages, to get an accurate picture.

Hahaha. You have got to be kidding me.

Bayam you are a complete dolt.

Chuck Schick on October 12, 2010 at 6:58 PM

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 6:55 PM

Still waiting for you to answer one of my questions. Please enlighten us.

Chip on October 12, 2010 at 6:58 PM

Under Bush they had WTC attacks, 2 wars, Katrina, Prescription Drug Benefits, and he still got the budget deficit down to $150b in 2007. Yes, the 2007 was a budget written by Republicans and Bush in 2006. Dems cant take credit for it. Their reign began with tripling the budget deficit the first year.

WoosterOh on October 12, 2010 at 7:04 PM

Shades of crr6?

Chip on October 12, 2010 at 6:38 PM

They’re one in the same – and they both really like the powdered donuts and java in the placement office (y’know it’s a T14 thing) in the mornings. And, they’re both completely unemployed.

volnation on October 12, 2010 at 7:26 PM

Hahaha. You have got to be kidding me.

Go ahead, focus on those Heritage deficit numbers as a percentage of GDP. You’re right, the deficit isn’t artificially inflated by low tax revenues during a recession. Right.

It’s too bad that you have to resort to name calling. You can’t actually give any kind of meaningful reply based on facts, so I guess it’s a defense mechanism.

And, they’re both completely unemployed.

Didn’t notice that things were that bad in silicon valley. Hows’ your job at Google?

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 8:26 PM

“I won.”

Onus on October 12, 2010 at 8:54 PM

Under Bush they had WTC attacks, 2 wars, Katrina, Prescription Drug Benefits, and he still got the budget deficit down to $150b in 2007. Yes, the 2007 was a budget written by Republicans and Bush in 2006. Dems cant take credit for it. Their reign began with tripling the budget deficit the first year.

No one in their right minds would take “credit” for the spending or deficits over the last 9 years. There was no major achievement in 2007 with a $150 bil deficit. That number was based on peak activity during a bubble economy, with artificially inflated GDP and tax revenue numbers that you won’t see repeated for a long, long time.

This is one major reason gold prices have gone so high. When you realize just how large the deficit actually is- even without any Obama stimulus spending in place- then you realize that the risk of US insolvency are real.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 9:28 PM

Hahaha. You have got to be kidding me.

Go ahead, focus on those Heritage deficit numbers as a percentage of GDP. You’re right, the deficit isn’t artificially inflated by low tax revenues during a recession. Right.

It’s too bad that you have to resort to name calling. You can’t actually give any kind of meaningful reply based on facts, so I guess it’s a defense mechanism.

And, they’re both completely unemployed.

Didn’t notice that things were that bad in silicon valley. Hows’ your job at Google?

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 8:26 PM

Follow my link. Average revenue levels dropped 10% from Bush but under Obama spending increased 25%.

Since you like raw numbers so much maybe you can tell us which is bigger- 25 or 10.

Chuck Schick on October 12, 2010 at 9:39 PM

This is one major reason gold prices have gone so high. When you realize just how large the deficit actually is- even without any Obama stimulus spending in place- then you realize that the risk of US insolvency are real.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 9:28 PM

Yeah no kidding. Because the bill for every failed program you little parasites created is now coming due: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, pensions and soon ObamaCare.

The liberal entitlement black hole makes the national debt look like a parking ticket.

Chuck Schick on October 12, 2010 at 9:42 PM

This is one major reason gold prices have gone so high. When you realize just how large the deficit actually is- even without any Obama stimulus spending in place- then you realize that the risk of US insolvency are real.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 9:28 PM

And it’s headed higher thanks to Obama’s crusade to make all things “fair”. If we implode it’ll be on his watch but then again, he does like to be involved in things that are “historic”.

volnation on October 12, 2010 at 9:54 PM

Follow my link. Average revenue levels dropped 10% from Bush but under Obama spending increased 25%.

Since you like raw numbers so much maybe you can tell us which is bigger- 25 or 10.

Chuck Schick on October 12, 2010 at 9:39 PM

I agree with those facts. Given the stimulus and other spending related to the recession, yes the government has increased its spending a lot. But my point was that it’s hard to compare deficit spending during an economic boom (which should never occur) with deficit spending during a deep recession (which is the norm). I’m not going to go into the merits of deficit spending during a recession, according to Barrons, or point to the experience of Japan during its balance sheet recession last decade.

If you don’t think that the public sector should step in to fill the economic vacuum during a recession, then you’re going to believe that the current levels of government spending can’t be justified. Point taken.

The US level of stimulus spending, small in comparison to stimulus in Germany and China, is only a problem because the US built up such a massive national debt during a period of strong growth. In contrast, China’s years of budget surplus has given it far more runway to use government spending to quickly rebound its economy. The countries that saved up for a rainy day are in much better shape.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 9:56 PM

NRO: Obama’s Radical Past.

Egfrow on October 13, 2010 at 7:11 AM

Those 4 in 10 are the exalted “independents,” who, if left to their own devices, will fall for the next socialist con man down the road.

The other 6 in 10 are the commited socialists who make up the Dem base.

james23 on October 13, 2010 at 8:32 AM

Hot Air foolishness knows no bounds! At least half those disappointed in Obama are on his left flank, dipsticks.

You think that means they’re going to vote for clone teabaggers and their Wall Street sugar daddies? You think that means they’re going to stay home Nov. 2?

Hahahahahaha.

bifidis on October 13, 2010 at 11:10 AM

Yeah… But getting them to admit it is like getting a 3 year old to admit he was playing in the pottie. And yes… today is pottie humor day.

RalphyBoy on October 13, 2010 at 12:55 PM

And it’s headed higher thanks to Obama’s crusade to make all things “fair”.

Meaning what- health insurance?

bayam on October 13, 2010 at 1:06 PM

I was never great at math but the basic arithmetic shouldn’t be too daunting, here:

Obama got 69,457,000 votes or so. If 4 in 10, or 40% of those people have figured out he’s a socialist and an a$$hole, then he’s down to about 41,675,000. McCain got about 59,000,000 votes, and one would think that just about any Republican would get the same, unless she was a witch* or something.

Huh. That would seem to make re-election for O’Bozo pretty unlikely.

Jaibones on October 13, 2010 at 1:28 PM

I marvel at people who still support this idjit. They railed against Bush, still blame his admin. for the economy, yet are completely blind to the fact that everything done wrong during the Bush years–deficits, unbridled growth of government, failure to control borders/immigration, etc.–are just being pentupled down under <0.

Ay Uaxe on October 14, 2010 at 2:47 PM

I agree with those facts. Given the stimulus and other spending related to the recession, yes the government has increased its spending a lot. But my point was that it’s hard to compare deficit spending during an economic boom (which should never occur) with deficit spending during a deep recession (which is the norm). I’m not going to go into the merits of deficit spending during a recession, according to Barrons, or point to the experience of Japan during its balance sheet recession last decade.

If you don’t think that the public sector should step in to fill the economic vacuum during a recession, then you’re going to believe that the current levels of government spending can’t be justified. Point taken.

The US level of stimulus spending, small in comparison to stimulus in Germany and China, is only a problem because the US built up such a massive national debt during a period of strong growth. In contrast, China’s years of budget surplus has given it far more runway to use government spending to quickly rebound its economy. The countries that saved up for a rainy day are in much better shape.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 9:56 PM

So why did you say before the increase in spending in Bush’s first term was greater? There’s zero truth to that.

Chuck Schick on October 14, 2010 at 3:08 PM

Comment pages: 1 2