Obama loses 20 points in approval/disapproval gap in new WaPo/ABC poll

posted at 8:45 am on June 7, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

What a difference a month makes!  Or, rather, what a difference one extraordinary event can make for a very brief time in polling, as well as some ridiculously skewed survey samples.  Five weeks after scoring a +18 in approval in the Washington Post poll from the killing of Osama bin Laden, Barack Obama’s approval rating returned to its pre-OBL mission underwater status — although you’d need to get to the sample data to learn the extent of the fall:

The public opinion boost President Obama received after the killing of Osama bin Laden has dissipated, and Americans’ disapproval of how he is handling the nation’s economy and the deficit has reached new highs, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The survey portrays a broadly pessimistic mood in the country this spring as higher gasoline prices, sliding home values and a disappointing employment picture have raised fresh concerns about the pace of the economic recovery.

Obama’s approval rating from the last poll in the series (when the Post partnered with Pew rather than ABC) was 56/38.  Today’s rating is 47/49, almost identical to the mid-April 47/50 Obama received.  The mid-April approval rating was Obama’s worst in the series since the midterm elections, when likely voters gave him a 46/52 approval ratio.  Today’s number represents a drop in the gap of 20 points, a dramatic decline, but it’s more likely just the electorate shrugging off the OBL bump and returning to Obama’s chronically poor performance as President.

And you know who that helps?

New Post-ABC numbers show Obama leading five of six potential Republican presidential rivals tested in the poll. But he is in a dead heat with former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who formally announced his 2012 candidacy last week, making jobs and the economy the central issues in his campaign.

Among all Americans, Obama and Romney are knotted at 47 percent each, and among registered voters, the former governor is numerically ahead, 49 percent to 46 percent.

Actually, it helps pretty much all Republicans.  In another question, the poll surveyed on Obama’s re-election prospects, and once again Obama hit new post-midterm lows.  Only 24% of the overall sample will definitely vote for a second Obama term, while 45% will definitely not do so; among registered voters, those numbers go up to 25/47.  That’s actually worse than last November, when the definite support hit the 24% low mark but Obama only had 41% definitely opposed to a second term.  Against specific Republicans, Obama lost ground to Romney as well as Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty, but in all three cases, the changes were within the margins of error; there were no changes in Obama versus Palin or Bachmann.

On the issues, Obama didn’t move all that much from the post-OBL mission poll — which is not good news for the President:

  • Economy – 40/59, was 40/55
  • Deficit – 33/61, was 39/58
  • Afghanistan – 52/41, was 60/29
  • Terrorism – 60/34, was 69/21

Republicans in Congress took the lead on public trust on the economy, 45/42 over Obama, for the first time since December.  The outlook on the economy remains doggedly pessimistic, with only 11% rating it as positive at all, and 89% rating it negatively, the highest since the midterms. Eighty-one percent now rate the economic recovery as “weak,” up from 75% in February 2010.  A large majority, 57/42, do not feel the effects of a recovery on their personal economic situation.  These are not re-elect numbers by any stretch of the imagination.

Finally, let’s look at the sample.  The D/R/I in the April poll sample was a ridiculous 32/22/41.  This sample has a slightly better split, although still skewed at 31/25/39, which still undersamples Republicans.  In a sample more reflective of reality, Obama’s job approval would be lower than the 47% shown here, and he’d be in deeper trouble against Republican challengers than this shows.

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

With this stagnating economy, Barry’s numbers have no where to go but down.

GarandFan on June 7, 2011 at 11:13 AM

I see we have a robust infusion of mobys trying to spread Romney fevah.
No doubt “lifelong concerned Republican Christians who voted for Ronald Reagan 96 times”
You’re pretty transparent , kids.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on June 7, 2011 at 11:13 AM

What president would give the order to open fire?

slickwillie2001 on June 7, 2011 at 11:04 AM

If you are speaking literally, I’m there with my Texas brothers defending our borders. The president be d@mned!

csdeven on June 7, 2011 at 11:14 AM

This is why I did not believe yesterday’s poll for one minute!

Queen0fCups on June 7, 2011 at 11:21 AM

I’ve been in and out, but what’s Obama been up to?

ProudPalinFan on June 7, 2011 at 11:22 AM

To understand his ability to win, you only have to remember that he was ran like he was the closest thing to beat Teddy Kennedy…

RedSoxNation on June 7, 2011 at 9:15 AM

Which will come up in the primary, and is why I don’t think he’ll win the nomination and be in a position to select a VP candidate.

cs89 on June 7, 2011 at 11:29 AM

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on June 7, 2011 at 11:13 AM

Actually I voted for Reagan twice while you were apparently working toward getting your Doctorate at Clown College.
Sorry if I’m not guzzling whatever Kool-Aid you’re selling….Dr.

jjshaka on June 7, 2011 at 11:41 AM

Rush hasn’t been wrong; he said he hoped Obama would fail, not that he would.

Midas on June 7, 2011 at 10:14 AM
So you actually think 9.1 % unemployment, $4 per gallon gas, 2 Marxist supreme court justices, and being involved in an addition “kinetic” action is not a success? Obama has successfully destroyed this country so far. Our next president will have to undo all that AND walk us back from the nonsense GWB left us with.

csdeven on June 7, 2011 at 10:58 AM

Your reading comprehension is extremely poor, to put it nicely.

I was saying nothing other than correcting your incorrect statement that “Rush was wrong”. Rush’s statement wasn’t a prediction to be gauged as having been correct or incorrect – it was the expression of a hope for the future.

And how you leap from that correction to your subsequent comment and presumption about my personal thoughts on what constitutes ‘success’ or ‘failure’ from Obama’s perspective is a mystery – perhaps you started hitting the bong a bit early today?

Midas on June 7, 2011 at 11:59 AM

I am a long time Romney supporter. I voted for Ronald Reagan 132 times. However, while I really,really,really like Romney, I do not think he can win. I don’t think that Romney is intellectually curious. If Romney were to study up on Conservative principles, and speak out about policy issues instead of platitudes and talking points I think he could be ready in 2016.

At this point, Romney is unelectable.

portlandon on June 7, 2011 at 11:59 AM

Yaaawn… so Romney is now appealing to all those lite commies disappointed by 0bama policies?

This only shows that many leftards and “independents” are perfectly comfortable with a RINO – now that their little idol lost his aura – knowing that none of the grave issues like entitlements or border security or repealing 0bamacare will be addressed with a strong hand, but rather with an “across the aisle” attitude.

Rookie on June 7, 2011 at 12:01 PM

You want to see lack of gravitas? Look at the tapes of the debates between Romney, McCain and Huckabee. Romney couldn’t even make eye contact with his antagonists. Total loser. Obama would drink his milkshake then wipe his mouth on Romney’s sleeve.

rrpjr on June 7, 2011 at 12:09 PM

24% would re-elect him?
C’mon

cmsinaz on June 7, 2011 at 8:48 AM

Who are these 40% who give him good marks on the economy?

We are screwed.

DavidM on June 7, 2011 at 8:49 AM

This is the problem in America.
However, considering that so little of the populace actually votes, that can vote, we could nip all of this crap in the bud if people actually did their civic duty & effing voted.
That makes me more angry than anything else.
Lazy a$$ people who don’t vote.

Badger40 on June 7, 2011 at 12:12 PM

At this point, Romney is unelectable.

portlandon

Despite the sarcastic tone of your post, you’re right, he can’t win. That doesn’t mean Palin can.

xblade on June 7, 2011 at 12:15 PM

portlandon on June 7, 2011 at 11:59 AM

LOL.

Yeah. He just doesn’t have the experience, simply being a governor.

kingsjester on June 7, 2011 at 12:18 PM

Despite the sarcastic tone of your post, you’re right, he can’t win. That doesn’t mean Palin can.

xblade on June 7, 2011 at 12:15 PM

I didn’t mention Palin.

Fixated?

portlandon on June 7, 2011 at 12:19 PM

Like my father says, “Anyone who is ‘conservative’ enough to get elected in Massachusetts is not Conservative enough for me.” I’d stay home. Yes, even if it means four more years of Obama. $50 taxpayer subsidized abortions will never get my vote. Ever! No more votes for lesser evils. We can do much better. If we can’t win without a social lib/moderate, then the USA deserves what it gets and better to get it over with fast. /repeating self

pannw on June 7, 2011 at 12:20 PM

jjshaka on June 7, 2011 at 11:41 AM

Actually, from reading your particular posts , I wouldn’t be referring to you, but it’s interesting that you’re the one that responded -the mobys didn’t.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on June 7, 2011 at 12:26 PM

* Romney – 49%
* Obama – 46%
_____________________________________

* Obama – 55%
* Palin – 40%
_____________________________________
So much for the bus tour.

hanzblinx on June 7, 2011 at 11:11 AM

Your right, why do we even need to have elections…brilliant, the election has been decided…

right2bright on June 7, 2011 at 12:32 PM

Like my father says, “Anyone who is ‘conservative’ enough to get elected in Massachusetts is not Conservative enough for me.” I’d stay home. Yes, even if it means four more years of Obama. $50 taxpayer subsidized abortions will never get my vote. Ever! No more votes for lesser evils. We can do much better. If we can’t win without a social lib/moderate, then the USA deserves what it gets and better to get it over with fast. /repeating self

pannw on June 7, 2011 at 12:20 PM

I’m with you.

davidk on June 7, 2011 at 12:34 PM

Wait…didn’t National Journal have O’Bozo at 1987 Reagan level approval?

Heh.

Jaibones on June 7, 2011 at 12:43 PM

I am a long time Romney supporter. I voted for Ronald Reagan 132 times. However, while I really,really,really like Romney, I do not think he can win. I don’t think that Romney is intellectually curious. If Romney were to study up on Conservative principles, and speak out about policy issues instead of platitudes and talking points I think he could be ready in 2016.

At this point, Romney is unelectable.

portlandon on June 7, 2011 at 11:59 AM

He would, however, make a pretty good Sec of the Interior. Or GOP Chair. Or Head Cheerleader. One of these.

james23 on June 7, 2011 at 12:57 PM

As the WH is so fond of pointing out in another context: It’s not the absolute numbers that are important it’s the trend:

Economy – 40/59, was 40/55………..Approval = 0% change
Deficit – 33/61, was 39/58…………..Approval = -6% change
Afghanistan – 52/41, was 60/29….Approval = -8% change
Terrorism – 60/34, was 69/21…….Approval = -9 percent change.

And with 18 months to go, the trend is DOWN. Now, that’s change we can believe in!

Fred 2 on June 7, 2011 at 1:20 PM

So much for the bus tour.

hanzblinx on June 7, 2011 at 11:11 AM

Hilarious. She hasn’t even declared herself a candidate yet and she places quite handily on this biased push poll.

long_cat on June 7, 2011 at 1:34 PM

BBBBBbbbut the gals on the View said they would hate to be running against Obama after the Bin Laden raid….

Political Whore (sold to the highest bidder) Ed Rollins is trolling for Bachmann now.

Nice going there Michelle. Bringing the sleaze on board.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0611/Bachmann_strategists_blasts_Palin_Not_serious.html?showall

PappyD61 on June 7, 2011 at 2:01 PM

So what say the Palin fanatics now? I thought Romney was unelectable while Palin was the great hope of the party?

“Almost two-thirds of all Americans say they “definitely would not” vote for Palin for president.”

“Romney owes his relatively good standing against the president to support from independents. He and Obama garner roughly equal percentages from those in their own parties. But independents split for Romney 50 percent to 43 percent.”

Time to get a grip on reality.

matthewbit07 on June 7, 2011 at 2:20 PM

The Democrats are pushing for Romney…

LeeSeneca on June 7, 2011 at 9:06 AM

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that is flat out wrong.

Obama would not be trying to undermine Romney with cynical veiled swipes if Mitt was the candidate they “want” to run against.

They wanted to run against Huckabee or some other no name.

scotash on June 7, 2011 at 2:25 PM

“Almost two-thirds of all Americans say they “definitely would not” vote for Palin for president.”

The Palinites will soon wake up to reality.

rickyricardo on June 7, 2011 at 2:27 PM

I am a long time Romney supporter. I voted for Ronald Reagan 132 times. However, while I really,really,really like Romney, I do not think he can win. I don’t think that Romney is intellectually curious. If Romney were to study up on Conservative principles, and speak out about policy issues instead of platitudes and talking points I think he could be ready in 2016.

At this point, Romney is unelectable.

portlandon on June 7, 2011 at 11:59 AM

Who is it exactly you think is going to believe this?

You are a big time, kool-aid making and passing around so everyone gets a big swig… Palinista.

You hate Romney and everything to do with him. So why would you say this?

petunia on June 7, 2011 at 2:36 PM

Like my father says, “Anyone who is ‘conservative’ enough to get elected in Massachusetts is not Conservative enough for me.” I’d stay home. Yes, even if it means four more years of Obama. $50 taxpayer subsidized abortions will never get my vote. Ever! No more votes for lesser evils. We can do much better. If we can’t win without a social lib/moderate, then the USA deserves what it gets and better to get it over with fast. /repeating self

pannw on June 7, 2011 at 12:20 PM

I’m with you.

davidk on June 7, 2011 at 12:34 PM

Don’t think we are going to need you folks anyway.

You Palin people have marginized yourself. But there are really very few of you, so you don’t worry me.

There are going to be enough disenchanted Independents to more than make up for you.

petunia on June 7, 2011 at 2:40 PM

Like my father says, “Anyone who is ‘conservative’ enough to get elected in Massachusetts is not Conservative enough for me.” I’d stay home. Yes, even if it means four more years of Obama. $50 taxpayer subsidized abortions will never get my vote. Ever! No more votes for lesser evils. We can do much better. If we can’t win without a social lib/moderate, then the USA deserves what it gets and better to get it over with fast. /repeating self

pannw on June 7, 2011 at 12:20 PM

I’m with you.

davidk on June 7, 2011 at 12:34 PM

These are the same idiots who voted for Christine O’Donnell. What a bunch of morons.

Chudi on June 7, 2011 at 2:50 PM

So what say the Palin fanatics now?

matthewbit07 on June 7, 2011 at 2:20 PM

I say we let the game play on. Declaring one electable or not at this point is ridiculous. I am for Palin. I am not for Romney. But if he wins the nom, he gets my vote. Nuff said?

Tennman on June 7, 2011 at 2:59 PM

Time to get a grip on reality.

matthewbit07 on June 7, 2011 at 2:20 PM

The reality is that Mitt has to win the GOP nomination first. What if that doesn’t happen?

littleguy on June 7, 2011 at 3:09 PM

Who is it exactly you think is going to believe this?

You are a big time, kool-aid making and passing around so everyone gets a big swig… Palinista.

You hate Romney and everything to do with him. So why would you say this?

petunia on June 7, 2011 at 2:36 PM

Romney believes in the global warming hoax and would enact policies to curb fictional greenhouse gases

fossten on June 7, 2011 at 3:24 PM

The reality is that Mitt has to win the GOP nomination first. What if that doesn’t happen?

littleguy on June 7, 2011 at 3:09 PM

From what I have seen of the Romney fans, and like all other rational people, we will vote for whomever is the GOP nominee.

csdeven on June 7, 2011 at 3:28 PM

Time to get a grip on reality.

matthewbit07 on June 7, 2011 at 2:20 PM

The reality is that Mitt has to win the GOP nomination first. What if that doesn’t happen?

littleguy on June 7, 2011 at 3:09 PM

Easy. He raids his mad money cookie jar to finance a 2016 run.

whatcat on June 7, 2011 at 3:39 PM

So what say the Palin fanatics now? I thought Romney was unelectable …

matthewbit07 on June 7, 2011 at 2:20 PM

He is. This is playing out according to a script we’ve been predicting for 2 1/2 years: yet another squish gets talked up as “the most electable” and yet another gaggle of goofy GOP types buy into it yet again.

Don’t think we are going to need you folks anyway.

You Palin people have marginized yourself. But there are really very few of you, so you don’t worry me.

There are going to be enough disenchanted Independents to more than make up for you.

petunia on June 7, 2011 at 2:40 PM

Delusional.

pseudoforce on June 7, 2011 at 3:53 PM

There are going to be enough disenchanted Independents to more than make up for you.

petunia on June 7, 2011 at 2:40 PM

And when Romney loses by 10 points the very first people you’ll blame will be Palin fans.

pseudoforce on June 7, 2011 at 3:54 PM

Honestly, people? You will vote for Obama if his Republican opponent is not your dream candidate?

maryo on June 7, 2011 at 4:16 PM

Honestly, people? You will vote for Obama if his Republican opponent is not your dream candidate?

maryo on June 7, 2011 at 4:16 PM

Strawman alert!!

whatcat on June 7, 2011 at 4:19 PM

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of “reasoning” has the following pattern:
Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself.

whatcat on June 7, 2011 at 4:25 PM

* Romney – 49%
* Obama – 46%
_____________________________________

* Obama – 55%
* Palin – 40%
_____________________________________
So much for the bus tour.

hanzblinx on June 7, 2011 at 11:11 AM

Wait a second. I thought 70% or something say they would never ever under any circumstances vote for Palin, and that gets quoted here as if it came from Sinai. But…70% + 40% = 110%…

pseudoforce on June 7, 2011 at 4:39 PM

Obama needs to appoint a KILL CZAR immediately.

Apparently killing America’s most hated terrorist villains is the only thing between him and ANYONE BUT OBAMA 2012.

Jack Bauer on June 7, 2011 at 5:34 PM

Honestly, people? You will vote for Obama if his Republican opponent is not your dream candidate?

maryo on June 7, 2011 at 4:16 PM

Who say’s Obama will be the nominee?

Roy Rogers on June 7, 2011 at 6:43 PM

And when Romney loses by 10 points the very first people you’ll blame will be Palin fans.

pseudoforce on June 7, 2011 at 3:54 PM

Not likely. There aren’t enough Palin fans that will cut off their noses to spite their face to make 10% in a national election. That is 12 million people.

csdeven on June 7, 2011 at 7:36 PM

Don’t think we are going to need you folks anyway.

You Palin people have marginized yourself. But there are really very few of you, so you don’t worry me.

There are going to be enough disenchanted Independents to more than make up for you.

petunia on June 7, 2011 at 2:40 PM

I realize it is way late in this thread, but fortunately, I have a life and had something else to do with my family. However, I can’t let this pass. I never even mentioned Palin. I have never said I’ll only vote for Palin, and I won’t. Your animosity to Sarah Palin and anyone who might support her is really sickening. I wish you’d just admit you are a Romneybot and be done with it because your little “I haven’t decided” act is fooling no one. However, you may well be correct about not needing us. It seems there are a great many greedy libertines who don’t care about morality and having a government that forces them to subsidize the murder of innocent babies in the Republican party these days. But there are still some of us who don’t want to keep company with people like you, Petunia and whether you need us or not remains to be seen.

Chudi on June 7, 2011 at 2:50 PM

Typical social lib, eh? Call names about people you know nothing about. See, I didn’t vote for O’Donnel. Not from her state and no, I didn’t even send her money. But go on and be an as*. You’re quite good at it.

Honestly, people? You will vote for Obama if his Republican opponent is not your dream candidate?

maryo on June 7, 2011 at 4:16 PM

No, seeing as I don’t have a ‘dream’ candidate. I will never cast a vote for Obama, because he is as pro-abort as one gets. However, I will also never again cast a vote for a ‘lesser supporter of abortion’ like Romney, who I don’t trust at all in light of his post-pro-life conversion support of the pro-abortion RomneyCare bill. I will support any truly pro-life candidate that we put up against the pro-aborts. If I don’t have the opportunity, I will stay home and cast no vote. The social lib/mods like Chudi can call me names all day long. I take comfort in it, really. “Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven.” :)

pannw on June 9, 2011 at 2:09 PM

Comment pages: 1 2