Gallup: Obama's job approval tumbles

[Torie]

7 points in 7 days, says Gallup. Why do you think that might be? 

[traininthedistance]

Trekkies mad that he mixed up his sci-fi franchises with that "Jedi mind-meld" quote.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

7 points in 7 days, says Gallup. Why do you think that might be? 

[Lief 🗽]

People still pay attention to Gallup?

[jaichind]

Regardless of what one can say about Gallup, the rating has fallen a lot the last few days. Also on Rasmussen Generic Congressional Ballot is now 43-40 Dem where it used to be a 6-8 point lead back in Jan 2013.  Rasmussen seems to have changed their DRI weighting in light of the 2012 elections and if anything is weighting D too much.  Also on Rasmussen Prez Approval Index is now -9 to -10 where it used to be 0 back in Jan.  We can argue if these numbers reflect the absolute level of support for Obama and D, but the trends are not good for them.   It seems the sequester battles are working against Obama and Dems.

[bballrox4717]

Sure, let's blame the guy who has no control in letting legislation get through and is actually willing to compromise.

I swear, politics here is making me incredibly cynical.

[You kip if you want to...]

Also on Rasmussen Generic Congressional Ballot is now 43-40 Dem where it used to be a 6-8 point lead back in Jan 2013. 

Logical.

[Blue3]

The sequester fight just makes everyone look bad, and the American people are just plain TIRED and bored and beyond-annoyed of budgetary politics.

[Sopranos Republican]

The sequester fight just makes everyone look bad, and the American people are just plain TIRED and bored and beyond-annoyed of budgetary politics.

I know I am! And I'm annoyed with both parties about this.

[jaichind]

The sequester fight just makes everyone look bad, and the American people are just plain TIRED and bored and beyond-annoyed of budgetary politics.

From my very cynical point of view, I like this.  Since I reject government solutions, a situation where the population views politics and government as dysfunctional will lead them not to look to government for solutions to problems is the political situation I very much would like. 

[Brittain33]

What rating did Gallup find for President Romney?

[TJ in Oregon]

The sequester may be part of it, but I think much of it is just a post-inauguration reversion to the mean. After being elected his approval shot up to the mid50s and now it's back where it was before the election. I'm not convinced many people are paying enough attention to the sequester for opinions to be changed in either direction beyond the marginal.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Sure, let's blame the guy who has no control in letting legislation get through and is actually willing to compromise.

I swear, politics here is making me incredibly cynical.

Obama has some responsibility for this situation. He should have made getting rid of the sequester a precondition for a fiscal cliff deal back in December. He had a much better hand back then and could have forced the Republicans into a much better deal than whatever comes now if a deal is reached. And even if that failed, I would rather have gone over the cliff (which would have led to higher taxes for the wealthy) than fix the revenue part of it without addressing the cuts, like the democrats did.

[Maxwell]

Yeah there was no way that his approvals were going to be too tall for too long.

[King]

The sequester may be part of it, but I think much of it is just a post-inauguration reversion to the mean. After being elected his approval shot up to the mid50s and now it's back where it was before the election. I'm not convinced many people are paying enough attention to the sequester for opinions to be changed in either direction beyond the marginal.

No.  It's the sequester.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Sure, let's blame the guy who has no control in letting legislation get through and is actually willing to compromise.

I swear, politics here is making me incredibly cynical.

Who's willing to compromise?  I haven't seen anyone put forward a compromise.  Obama is insisting on a tax hike and the GOP is insisting on using only spending cuts.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Sure, let's blame the guy who has no control in letting legislation get through and is actually willing to compromise.

I swear, politics here is making me incredibly cynical.

Who's willing to compromise?  I haven't seen anyone put forward a compromise.  Obama is insisting on a tax hike and the GOP is insisting on using only spending cuts.

You say it as if the two positions were equally sound. In fact there is one that is perfectly sound and another that is pure insanity.

[King]

I wouldn't even say it's GOP proposes one thing, Dems propose another.  Neither side is even writing bills on the issue anymore.  They're both in a standoff of waiting to see the other side's first.

[Obamanation]

Awful polling firm is awful.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Sure, let's blame the guy who has no control in letting legislation get through and is actually willing to compromise.

I swear, politics here is making me incredibly cynical.

Who's willing to compromise?  I haven't seen anyone put forward a compromise.  Obama is insisting on a tax hike and the GOP is insisting on using only spending cuts.

You say it as if the two positions were equally sound. In fact there is one that is perfectly sound and another that is pure insanity.

The economic impact of only spending cuts vs.a mixture of tax hikes and spending cuts that both result in the same amount of deficit reduction is about the same.  Both will decrease the flow of money through the economy.  One can argue that this isn't a good time to be pursing deficit reduction, but that's not even being discussed right now.

However, I agree that one of the proposals is insane.  Obama's.  Trading a permanent tax hike for some fiddling with the discretionary portion of the budget is pure insanity.  For changes in the entitlement programs perhaps, but I haven't seen Obama or the Democrats do anything more than say, Republicans give us a proposal on those entitlement cuts so you can take the blame.  Changes in entitlement programs are so politically fraught that there is no way they will be part of the sequester solution.  If the GOP were foolish enough to take the bait and put a proposal like what Obama says is acceptable to him forward, there would be a bait and switch with non-enforceable in the future discretionary cuts being used on a "temporary" basis.  Supposedly it would be temporary until the entitlement cuts were negotiated, but more likely they would be temporary cuts until they could be scrapped, while the tax hikes remained.

If I were a Republican, I'd want no part of such a deal.  The sequester, as bad as it is , is better from the Republican POV that what Obama is offering.

[Blue3]

Obama and the Dems aren't insisting on a tax hike, that's the GOP's current spin.

Obama and the Dems now want tax reform... closing loopholes, getting rid of or limiting some deductions and credits. You know, what Romney and Boehner and McConnell and Coburn etc have been saying they want. Obama has said before that he could agree to lowering the corporate tax rate if the loopholes he particularly doesn't like are closed.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Sure, let's blame the guy who has no control in letting legislation get through and is actually willing to compromise.

I swear, politics here is making me incredibly cynical.

Who's willing to compromise?  I haven't seen anyone put forward a compromise.  Obama is insisting on a tax hike and the GOP is insisting on using only spending cuts.

You say it as if the two positions were equally sound. In fact there is one that is perfectly sound and another that is pure insanity.

The economic impact of only spending cuts vs.a mixture of tax hikes and spending cuts that both result in the same amount of deficit reduction is about the same.  Both will decrease the flow of money through the economy.  One can argue that this isn't a good time to be pursing deficit reduction, but that's not even being discussed right now.

Sure, slightly raising the insignificant amount of the wealth the super-rich pay has the same impact as slaughtering social programs upon which millions of people live and which which actually have a social utility.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Obama and the Dems aren't insisting on a tax hike, that's the GOP's current spin.

Obama and the Dems now want tax reform... closing loopholes, getting rid of or limiting some deductions and credits. You know, what Romney and Boehner and McConnell and Coburn etc have been saying they want. Obama has said before that he could agree to lowering the corporate tax rate if the loopholes he particularly doesn't like are closed.

Call it a tax hike or a tax reform, the fact is that the Dems want to increase total tax revenue.  If the loophole closing were used to reduce tax rates in a revenue neutral way, they wouldn't be of any use in resolving the sequester.  The GOP wants to eliminate the loopholes for the purpose of making the tax system fairer.  The Dems want to eliminate the loopholes to increase tax revenues.  To me what the GOP wants sounds like tax reform while what the Dems want is a tax hike.  Granted, it's a better way of hiking taxes than raising the rates, but it is still a tax hike.

Sure, slightly raising the insignificant amount of the wealth the super-rich pay has the same impact as slaughtering social programs upon which millions of people live and which which actually have a social utility.

The sequester cuts are not a slaughter.

[Sbane]

Sure, let's blame the guy who has no control in letting legislation get through and is actually willing to compromise.

I swear, politics here is making me incredibly cynical.

Who's willing to compromise?  I haven't seen anyone put forward a compromise.  Obama is insisting on a tax hike and the GOP is insisting on using only spending cuts.

I don't understand how they are equivalent. The GOP is saying no tax hikes on anyone, whereas the Democrats are asking for both taxes and spending cuts. Now, some on this forum don't want any spending cuts at all, but that is not the position of the national Democratic party. They are moderates. The current GOP party is extremist.

Oh yeah, the GOP should be the ones proposing the entitlement cuts, if they really want it, just like the Dems should propose the tax hikes/reform/whatever the hell you want to call it. The GOP ran against the Dems for cutting Medicare in 2010. Why should the Dems just bend over and take it again?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Sure, let's blame the guy who has no control in letting legislation get through and is actually willing to compromise.

I swear, politics here is making me incredibly cynical.

Who's willing to compromise?  I haven't seen anyone put forward a compromise.  Obama is insisting on a tax hike and the GOP is insisting on using only spending cuts.

I don't understand how they are equivalent. The GOP is saying no tax hikes on anyone, whereas the Democrats are asking for both taxes and spending cuts. Now, some on this forum don't want any spending cuts at all, but that is not the position of the national Democratic party. They are moderates. The current GOP party is extremist.

Oh yeah, the GOP should be the ones proposing the entitlement cuts, if they really want it, just like the Dems should propose the tax hikes/reform/whatever the hell you want to call it. The GOP ran against the Dems for cutting Medicare in 2010. Why should the Dems just bend over and take it again?

You're reminding me of the infamous Monty Python SPAM sketch.  That's not got MUCH tax hike in it.