The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread

[Democratic Hawk]

Many of our current problems result from having held Dubya too long to low standards of achievement, rationality, and moral conduct as President. We see the consequences -- consequences that won't vanish quickly.

Now that is what I do consider to be telling it like it is

[Democratic Hawk]

This is a stupid statement on so many levels. Obama is still fairly popular, and is still extremely popular among the base. We have no idea what his approval ratings will be in the next year There are too many things that no one knows about that makes this a dumb statement.

Before blinking on health care reform, Obama was already upside down amongst independents in New Jersey and upside down amongst registered voters in Virginia. And all indications are that things will be getting worse instead of better.

I don't know for sure where his approvals will be even three months from now, but given the last seven months of his administration, I can make a pretty good educated guess.

Still more confidence in this president than I ever had the dogmatoid arthritic who preceded him

Obama is being held to a higher standard. That's how it should be. No Democrat could make an arse of things through bad policy decisions and get a pass four years later. Bush abused the ideological nature of America to the point that he thought he'd never be held accountable - misruled, accordingly, and with near catastrophic consequences

The starting point of the Bush presidency was way prettier than the end point. Why didn't he build on the prosperity of the Clinton era? He was a compassionate conservative alright - and the bigger your wallet, the more compassion he had. Clinton, on the other hand, was fair; just as this president will endeavour to be

Can't be easy being for Obama attempting to seek consensus when so many on the other side remain dogmatically recalcitrant. They just aren't that interested in working with him on the major issues of the day. So invested in him failing, they are itching for the moment to perpetuate more of their own - and they would, you mark my words

[Democratic Hawk]

You keep repeating that over and over again, and it isn't any more convincing than the first time you said it.

Well it's there

[Democratic Hawk]

It's funny how hate can get conservatives so excited. (Honestly, they won't be able to do much beyond that for quite a while.)

Just like hate of Bush got conservatives so excited.

Shouldn't that read liberals

[Democratic Hawk]

Florida(Rasmussen)

Approve 42%
Disapprove 57%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_state_toplines/florida/toplines_election_2010_florida_senate_august_17_2009

Well considering he was under 50 approval before the healthcare debate it doesn't surprise me.
He basically lost most seniors with healthcare. Sucks for him.

What's the matter with seniors like? Worried about something that isn't going to happen. Medicare was an LBJ (Democratic) achievement. Seniors wouldn't have had such programs that have improved their quality of life were it not for Democrats. No doubt there were Republicans in favor - but the party was a way more benevolent beast back then with many Northeastern and Midwestern pragmatic moderate types. Aye, the very people who are now, for the most part, Democrats. Even I'll concede that now there are some pretty good reasonably moderate Republican from those regions, relative to most of their Southern and Mountain West peers, at least. They are some moderates in Florida. The Diaz-Balart brothers and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, spring to mind

Should healthcare reform pass, perhaps it will all become too apparent that the Republicans have been peddling porkies. As far as Medicare goes, it's not the Democrats they should be worried about. Must really stick in the throats of rightwing dogmatoids that they have been unable to roll back Social Security (FDR) and Medicare (LBJ) - those bid bad evil government programs

Is it really in Obama's best political interests to inact policies that are going to have the opposite effect on their quality of healthcare? I think not

[Democratic Hawk]

You all are idiots if you think current polls are in any way indicative of what the political climate will be like by November of 2012.

The current polls at most say what the political situation is on the day of the poll. There will be history made before November 2012 -- and there will be politics. Some people will make big blunders, and some will capitalize from them. Strong political skills and favorable events will give Obama a sure re-election in 2012. Big stumbles on his part -- stumbles that he can't rebound from in time -- will ensure his defeat. It's that simple.

Yes, he has to be astute enough not to make major stumbles

Florida(Rasmussen)

Approve 42%
Disapprove 57%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_state_toplines/florida/toplines_election_2010_florida_senate_august_17_2009

Based on that approval rating, Obama would lose Florida by about 60%-40% if the election was held today.

I think Florida probably wont go for Obama again in 2012.  Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia were all probably a one time deal for Obama. 

It depends on who is nominated and how much the economy recovers. If it is Huckabee vs. Obama, then prepare for a ridiculous blowout in Virginia and Florida.

The way I see it is if the economy has rebounded nicely, unemployment has fallen, there are no unpopular foreign wars, major scandals, or as Pbrower points out, major stumbles, I see little reason why the president shouldn't carry those states he did in 2008 - and a few more. Hopefully, that's the trajectory moving forward. He wins re-election and things stay on track

My advice would be to stear well clear of the hot-button wedge issue cultural stuff, only moving forward as attitudes change. I'd also advise that, as soon as feasibly possible, Democrats' rein in spending. Wouldn't it be a right smack in the mush if the Democrats could prove themselves, at the federal level,  something the Republicans never were, alone in government, fiscally responsible . Republicans may have been in a bygone era (pre-FDR)

But can things improve, sufficiently, to avoid major GOP gains in the mid-terms? Obama and the Democrats need time and patience but will they get it? Can a president be cautiously bold? Was the stimulus a damp squib or is it yet to really kick in? Maybe if voters felt that was working, perhaps healthcare reform wouldn't be as much of a hurdle

If there is a strategy to Obama, I'd say it was an investment strategy (be it education, energy, healthcare), seemingly short on short-term fruits but with potentially big dividends over time but that's best left to the policy wonks around him to work out

Poor as the state of affairs he was bequeathed was, any one expecting quick instant fixes can think again

[Democratic Hawk]

I think it might be potentially a good thing for obama's presidency that his poll numbers have fallen back down to earth...

It should also be remembered that most President's approval ratings drop during the early part of their presidency.    Reagan's approval ratings dropped to something like 40%  as the economy tanked in his first two years.

As of January 1993, Reagan was at 35% approval in Gallup. Of course, the economy rebounded and unemployment sharply fell between then and November 1984. The supply side tax cuts of 1981 were projected, by computer simulation, to see the economy grow by 5% in 1982, but it contracted by 2.2%. Keynesian economists, no doubt, would credit deficit spending with the recovery

[Democratic Hawk]

Just for the record, favorables among 18-29 year olds from PPP's latest poll:

Huckabee 45/19
Romney 32/34
Gingrich 30/32
Palin 30/53

I'm not surprised Huckabee is doing so well among the youth.

And, according to PPP, Obama would carry them against Huckabee (51-40); Gingrich (53-40); Romney (58-28); and Palin (60-28)

[Democratic Hawk]

Democrats have a serious choice to make.  Will they simply cut Obama off from them much like they did to Carter in 1978 and blur the differences between themselves and Republican on most issues, or will they tie themselves to him, hoping that he recovers? 

Democrats do have a serious choice to make. They either support the president's "investment" strategy on healthcare, education and energy or they don't. I mean what have Republicans to offer beyond "austerity" and $3 trillion in new tax cuts biased in favor of, surprise, surprise, the wealthy

The political 'problem' with the "investment" strategy, of course, is that much of it is short on reaping instant fruits. Nevertheless, there is no doubt in my mind that investment and a tax policy that rewards WORK and job creation is the way forward

Obama may yet still prove to be an effective president when it comes to the economy and jobs, but I don't see him being a transformational president unless he liberates himself from the "cult of neoliberalism" - that has reigned supreme with near catastrophic consequences - and starts championing the virtues of positive freedom over the vices of negative freedom

Capitalism needs to work for the well-being of all - and the fact that it hasn't of late (obviously, given that median incomes have fallen under George W Bush) - has only contributed to the severity of this recession. The spiralling costs of healthcare, for a start, can only have suppressed wages for millions of Americans. The middle class are the backbone of the economy and it is they, through consumer spending, who drive economic growth and spur job creation. I doubt its by "luck", that in the post-Depression era, it has been Democrats, rather than Republicans, who have tended to preside over more robust economic growth and job creation, as well as a more even rise in prosperity across all income quintiles. Policy preferences, surely, affect outcomes

That said, there just isn't any realistic going back to pre-Reagan tax rates; a welfare policy that was perceived as rewarding idleness over work, and that is where the Democratic Party went wrong in that it served to alienate much of the white working class, one of the founding pillars of the 'New Deal' coalition, into the arms of the Republicans; or a mixed economy

Maybe Independents, right now, are weary of all the spending, but it's pretty clear to me that government activism, through the AERRIA and TARP - and yes, I'm giving George W Bush some credit here - may well have prevented a reprisal of the 'Great Depression'. Would they have preferred that I wonder?

Surprising, as it may seem, I don't think the president is a state of terminal decline ... yet.

Nevertheless, this president is going to have to make tough choices on taxes and on spending that GWB neither had the sense nor the guts to confront. Any one can cut taxes; politically, I can't think of anything easier to accomplish, but raising them, however modestly, is going to take guts. The right decisions to make are not always, by any means, going to be the most popular ones

As far as healthcare reform goes, the public option is a hard sell given the deficit, and if that means, the libertarian-left non-profit "cooperative" plan or Wyden-Bennett getting a closer look then so be it. The president has his goals, expanding coverage to the uninsured and reducing costs, and he has set the fiscal parameters, deficit neutrality and no tax increases on those earning less than $250,000. He's not George W Bush, and he "gets it" that programs just can't be run-up on tick ... the never-never. I'm only dismayed with Democrats because they failed to achieve "unity" - on the best way forward - in caucus before any of it reached committee stage in the House. Division and disarray as only served to help the Republicans

Part of me would like to see a public option, if only to prove the lies, smears and scares coming from those invested, for stank political reasons, in it failing. Salivating at the thought of a re-run of 1994, no doubt. Moderate Republicans seem are scared sh*tless of seeking common ground out of fear from retribution from the dogmatoid Right

Still, there could be several factors driving a fall in Obama's approvals other than the economy. Could be the perception that the war in Afghanistan isn't going too well or it could be the decision to investigate CIA "abuses" - and I have strong reservations about that. Bush has gone, what happened under his watch happened - but, in all fairness to the man, there were no more 9/11's. All that should have done was draw a line in the sand - and move on

As far as 2012 goes, as a rule, voters vote prosperity. Shame they rolled the die on that back in 2000 . Well, most Americans didn't but that's another story ...

Nevertheless, this president deserves his fair shot. He wasn't bequeathed the best of starting points on which to build. And as the ol' saying goes "Rome [the economy] wasn't built in a day". If he's held to the same standard as Reagan, he'll start owning the economy from around the end of the Q1 2010. The rightwing dogmatoids, of course, started to blame Obama... well the day after he was elected, just as they were blaming Jimmy Carter for Reagan's woes long beyond the date their "sainted-one" took office. Speaking of Reagan, he actually signed off on tax increases in six of his eight years as president, alarmed by the deficits his supply side tax cuts spurred. It was them very same tax cuts that were supposed to see the economy grow by 5% in 1982, when in fact, it contracted by 2.2%

Republicans aren't the daddies when it comes to economic growth, jobs and prosperity

It may also be time for Obama to make an effort to rebuild the Bill Clinton coalition. It is time that he starts appearing in West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, and Oklahoma -- yes, Oklahoma with its two fascist Senators -- and telling people in states that rejected him so thoroughly in 2008 what they have to gain from liberalism.  Visiting states that were on the margin in 2008 may not be enough. He surely maxed out in places like Indiana and North Carolina, and he won't be able to count on them in 2012.

It's time for him to bring out the fact that poverty greatly reduces not only the quality of life, but also the length of life, and that poor whites and poor blacks in fact have something in common. Poor people are cheated in America, whatever their region and ethnicity.

Obama may not be the model of a fiery populist -- but he might be wise to prepare to become one just to push his favored programs -- the ones that will have him remembered as a great figure in American or a tantalizing figure in American history.

Obama needs to champion WORKFARE, rather than WELFARE, if he is to reach those voters given that it was the perception that welfare rewarded idleness over work that drove much of the white working class (one of the founding pillars of the 'New Deal') into the arms of the Republican Party, the tax policy of whom in the post-Reagan era, has been one of WEALTHFARE

[Democratic Hawk]

Does anyone else think that a Dennis Kucinich run is possible?

yes I think him and a blue dog ala Ben Nelson will challenge Obama

If the Democratic Party chooses to cannibalize itself like it did in 1968 and 1980, it would lose the presidency in 2012

Besides isn't a bit early to be writing the president off seven months into his presidency?

On economic and quality of life issues, I've every confidence. He's a Democrat

[Democratic Hawk]

Does anyone else think that a Dennis Kucinich run is possible?

yes I think him and a blue dog ala Ben Nelson will challenge Obama

If the Democratic Party chooses to cannibalize itself like it did in 1968 and 1980, it would lose the presidency in 2012

Besides isn't a bit early to be writing the president off seven months into his presidency?

On economic and quality of life issues, I've every confidence. He's a Democrat

I think Democrats need to lose the Presidency if they fail on healthcare. 

Something will pass, whether or not it includes a public option or not, is any one's guess given all the irrational fear of government out there. Aye that big bad evil government - the intervention of which appears to have averted a reprise of the 'Great Depression'. Them Tea Bagging loons, of course, would have guaranteed that

Modern liberalism premised on postive freedom could save capitalism yet. It was the original 'Third Way', occupying the center ground between socialism, on the left, and classical liberalism (and contemporary neoliberalism and conservatism), on the right. Both extremes of which have inevitably led to disaster or near disaster, in different parts of the world

As president's go, it can't be easy being blue . How any pragmatically center-left Democrat can attract such vitriolic hatred, so soon into his presidency, is shameful, especially when he is having to fix a Right ol' mess

Democrats must be a class above Republicans, in so far as they tend to be more willing to give a new president of the opposite party a fair go - and they did George W Bush, especially in the wake of 9/11. This president deserves the same given the magnitude of the challenges he was bequeathed

[Democratic Hawk]

Why weren't these people more vocal back in 2007 or 2008, when Obama's health care plan was first proposed?

Obama had a health care plan in 2007 or 2008?  Actually, Obama has a health care plan now?  Must've missed something.

I'm not going to necessarily brag about what I've said for many years, but it is the truth and gets proven "more truthier" every day.

Health care is to the Democrats what immigration reform is to Republicans - an issue that can be campaigned on, but must never be legislated on, otherwise it ends up destroying you.

This is so mainly because the polls lie.  Everyone says they want "universal health care" but the moment when you get into the specifics as to what is required, the people (and your base) turn against it and you.

Yeah, passing and protecting Medicare has been a pain for Democrats to run on the last 40 years.

Medicare?  You have to go back that far for a reference.  You do realize my comparison issue - immigration reform - was not really on Republican radar screens until the last 15-20 years or so.  So, my comment is really not intended to go back that far.
Alright, I'll grant you health care reform bit the Dems in the ass once about 15 years ago. Not much of a harbinger compared to the decades they've had to run as the protector of medicare and medicaid.
Also, the comment refers to passing legislation, not protecting or whatever euphemistic term you want to come up with.  Which reminds me, the present legislation in front of Congress does not protect Medicare one bit.  Go read it.
So how does the proposed legislation actually threaten Medicare?
Btw, if we're going to get real technical about it, LBJ signed Medicare into law in 1965.  And then examine how Democrats performed in the 1966 or 1968 or 1970 or 1972 elections.  Not that it was about Medicare, That, is just a tad bit an understatement. but I'm really growing tired of the stupidity around here. Yep.

Reactionary rightwing dogmatoid Republicans would have rolled back Social Security and Medicare if they could have by now. That's what they fear most about a public plan. Not being able to roll it back should it pass and 1) expose their lies, scares and smears for what they are and 2) prove itself enduringly popular, once in effect, in the eyes of the American electorate

There is nothing radical about wanting to expand healthcare coverage and reduce costs

Indeed, the House GOP alternative to the CBR committed them to 1) means-testing Social Security; 2) replacing Medicare with vouchers; and 3) turning Medicaid into block grants. Not to mention rolling back the tax cuts for WORKERS in the stimulus

In the wake of the 'Great Society', the white working class - a longtime pillar of FDR's 'New Deal' and WORKFARE started to bolt the Democratic Party because of a perception that WELFARE was rewarding idleness over work (and it was) and send them into the arms of the Republican Party, which, of course, in the post-Reagan era has championed WEALTHFARE

Left: WELFARE .................... Center: WORKFARE .................. Right: WEALTHFARE

No gold stars on which path, I suggest, President Obama and congressional Democrats follow, emphatically, moving forward. WELFARE and WEALTHFARE ferment resentment

[Democratic Hawk]

I think it goes without saying that Obama's approvals are more pertinent to 2010 than 2012. If he tanks badly enough (as most polls are suggesting) then the GOP retaking the House and moving to within throwing distance of control of the Senate (especially with the 2012 Senate Geography, the only GOP member that can be considered vulnerable is Ensign and only becuase of his scandal or he would have been safe too). I realize that info has all been posted and hashed over repeatedly but some here seem to need a reminder that these numbers mean more to the midterms than the Presidential election.

The only hope for Obama and the Democrats moving through 2010 is for the economy to have rebounded nicely with falling unemployment. They can then charge Republicans with standing in the way of the recovery - and they will have

If meaningful healthcare reform does not pass, that will serve to demoralize Democrats. The Congressional Progressive Caucus - long advocates of single-payer - have already compromised, while any bipartisan tradeoff, according to former Sen. Bill Bradley (D-NJ), should be to combine universal coverage with malpractice tort reform in healthcare

[Democratic Hawk]

The president is clearly being held to a high standard, unlike Bush. It's not like Obama was bequeathed a robust economy that had generated 23 million jobs, on which to build, or a federal government living within its means. If there were any standards whatsoever the Republican Party would have hit 1932 levels by now and President Obama would still be riding high

The rightwing dogmatoids were blaming Obama for the economy the day after he was elected; just as they blamed Carter for Reagan's Recession, well after Reagan took office. The supply side tax cuts passed in 1981 were supposed to see the economy grow by 5% in 1982, when, in fact, it contracted by 2.2%. Reagan, actually, signed off on tax increases in six of his eight years as president. If Obama is to be held to the same standard as Reagan, he should own the economy no sooner than the end of Q1 2010

As for big bad evil govenment, intervention through TARP (supported by a majority of House Democrats but not a majority of House Republicans) and the stimulus (opposed by the Republicans, en masse, essentially because there was nothing there for those unto whom they are dogmatically beholden, in other words no WEALTHFARE), if nothing else, appear to have averted a reprisal of the 'Great Depression'. Indeed they hated the WORKFARE tax cuts in the stimulus so much that their alternative Congressional Budget Resolution would have rolled them back

Many Independents may well be alarmed by the spending and the deficit - but only 10% of the projected deficit can be attributed to Obama's policies, according to non-partisan Concord Coalition. The rest being a consequence of fiscally reckless tax cuts; unfunded increases in expenditure - on the part of George W Bush - and the 'Great Recession', during which time tax revenue receipts have fallen and unemployment has risen, meaning more welfare expenditure

The deficit peaked following World War II at 30% of GDP - to be expected following the 'Great Depression' and the war - but for much of the modern liberal era it hovered around 1%-2% of GDP. On the other hand, save from 1998-2001 when a budget surplus was built on the back of an economic boom and increased tax revenues - yes, Clinton raised taxes - the neoliberal era has been marked by higher deficits

A crisis of this magntitude was inevitable sooner or later

I don't think its by "luck" that in the post-Depression era, it has been Democrats who have tended to preside over more robust economic growth and job creation. Not to mention a broader increase in prosperity. Policy preferences, surely, affect outcomes

[Democratic Hawk]

If there were any standards whatsoever the Republican Party would have hit 1932 levels by now and President Obama would still be riding high

Lawl.  To "ride high" you need to be capable of doing something. People were very lenient when judging Obama (and continue to be, to some extent) in the first 100 days, but as time goes on, we're expecting action.  The most memorable aspects of the Obama administration thus far have been a stimulus package whose funds will mostly be spent after the economic downturn has subsided, and a cash-for-clunkers program that shifted most planned new car purchases from late 2009 and 2010 to the month of August at great public expense.

Most of what has come from the White House since Bush left office has been, frankly, uninspiring.

I've more confidence in the "investment" strategy and WORKFARE than I do "austerity" and WEALTHFARE

Any one who thinks I can forgive George W Bush - and all the damage done - can think again

[Democratic Hawk]

Democratic Hawk is not going to blame Obama or his policies for his low rating.

And why should I? I'm a pragmatic moderate, not some rightwing dogmatoid

[Democratic Hawk]

Democratic Hawk is not going to blame Obama or his policies for his low rating.

And why should I? I'm a pragmatic moderate, not some rightwing dogmatoid

You post an entire speech babbling about the evils of Reactionary Republican "wealthfare" attacking the GOP and nation en masse for their reactions to Obama's doing next to nothing since taking office and we are really supposed to believe you are a moderate?

I beg your pardon

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, the largest tax cut in the stimulus is the "Making Work Pay" tax credit ($116.2bn). What it is that if its not WORKFARE ? The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center deems that a B+ in terms of stimulus effect, along with increasing eligibility for the refundable portions of child credit ($14.8bn), which would help those on low incomes . Problem with those?

But to clarify, he's a Democratic partisan first and a moderate second.

No, moderate first

[Democratic Hawk]

The question I have is, will Democrats ever want control of the White House again after this?  They get into power and then everything falls apart for them.  They should probably just let Obama sink in 2012 and then use the time to rebuild.  

It's but seven months into the Obama presidency. And this president needs to take control of his agenda. Isn't it the job of the president to propose and Congress to dispose? Right now congressional Democrats are proposing and disposing. The party is in grave danger of cannibalizing itself (not that's anything new)

This president was elected, in part, because many voters felt he could transcend the ideological chasm and be something of a consensus-building pragmatist. I accept that "bipartisanship" ain't easy given the recalcitrantly dogmatoid nature of the Republican Party

The ideological 'coalition' which elected Barack Obama was Liberal 19.58%; Moderate 26.40% and Conservative 6.80% (52.78%) And it was support from sufficient enough conservatives in several states that made the difference between a win and a loss. Wouldn't it be more wise to maintain that 'coalition' and expand on it? The president is clearly struggling, approval wise, among Independents, which he carried 52-44

The President needs to leading the Democratic Party - and that means bringing together its disparate congressional factions, so that they can work through their differences and reach a consensus. Maybe, maybe, healthcare reform wouldn't have fallen into such disarray. That only helps the opposition. If there is one thing the Democratic Party is good at, it's scoring own goals . As for taking on 'special interests' and changing how Washington works, that is going to mean taking on some Democratic special interests

If there is one thing that stands in the way of progress - it's the full loaf or no loaf absolutist stance. Why do you think it has been difficult to achieve wider healthcare reform in the past?

There is too much to be done for Congress to be fiddling around like latter day Nero's. And any legislation has to, just has to, deliver on its objectives. Right now, the stimulus is perceived of, at best, as having fallen short of its goals - and there again more proposing and disposing from Congress. If the economy was back on track, healthcare and energy reform would be an easier sell

The thing is much of what Obama wants to accomplish seems big on the long-term ("investment") but small in the short-term. Obama's "investment" strategy makes sense to some, but it may not to others

[Democratic Hawk]

(Kyl being one of the MOST conservative in the Senate and McCain is moving sharply to the right as well)

John McCain does whatever best serves John McCain

[Democratic Hawk]

Democratic party ID advantage down 12 points since January and is now D+5.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/122693/Democratic-Advantage-Party-Affiliation-Shrinks.aspx

Maybe Republicans are coming home now that George W Bush is out of the way. I miss Bush

Seemingly the moderate conservative Democrat that was Carl Hayden is a new recruit. He's sporting a big blue R-AZ avatar. Wonder if he's mounting a primary challenge to McVain

[Democratic Hawk]

Pennsylvania (Franklin & Marshall College)

47% Excellent/Good
53% Fair/Poor

Most people — 55 percent — have a favorable view of Obama, about the same as in February, shortly after his inauguration.

The poll of 643 adults, conducted from Aug. 25-31, has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 3.9 percentage points.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_641271.html

"Fair", of course, ain't necessarily negative. Fair means 'could be doing better'

[Democratic Hawk]

"President Barack Obama will address a joint session of Congress on health care reform in prime time on Wednesday, Sept. 9, a senior official tells POLITICO.

Obama will receive House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at the White House the day before for a previously scheduled sit-down.

The last time a president addressed a joint session of Congress that wasn’t a State of the Union, or the traditional first address by a new president, was Sept. 20, 2001, when President George W. Bush spoke on the war on terrorism following the 9/11 attacks."



This should mean a bump in Obama approval ratings, unless he messes up badly. Obama usually knocks these kind of speeches out of the park, so I'm hopeful.

For reference, when Bill Clinton gave his big health care speech in front of Congress in '93, his approval rating went up 10 points. Keep in mind that the bump Obama likely will receive won't last very long, but it would stop the fall in approval he's experiencing.

For a start, the president needs to assert control of his agenda, instead of Congress doing much of the proposing and disposing. The Progressive Caucus chairs too many House committees relative to it's strength in the caucus. Many progressives think they can draft legislation for America as though the entire nation was as blue as their districts - well, it isn't

The Democratic majority in the House and Senate rests on moderate Democrats and the overwhelming support of moderate voters, not left-liberals from uber safe states and districts . And much of the Democratic success, of late, has meant having to run the right kind of Democrat who can, successfully, challenge and defeat right-wing Republican dogmatoids (certainly outside of the Northeast). Indeed, I lament the decline of more pragmatically-minded moderate Republicans

The biggest threat to much-needed healthcare reform lies in "absolutism" be it on the part of the minority Democratic left and the mainstream Republican right. In all fairness, to the progressives, of course, they have compromised on single-payer, which is more than I can say for the reactionary party, who all the while healthcare costs spiralled were more than content to do nothing; seemingly, oblivious, to any wider negative impact on economic growth, wages and job creation

The middle class are the backbone of the American economy and it is they who drive it through consumer spending. Given that median incomes have fallen is it any wonder the economy hit the crappers to the extent that it did?

And here's something else the Democrats need to get a handle on. They are going to have stop acquiesing to the environmental lobby so much because should the price of gas go through the roof, hurting the middle class, and the Republican solution is "drill, baby drill" it may well be advantage GOP

It was the Democratic Party and the modern liberal era which founded the mass middle class - in the wake of the 'Great Depression' and World War II - and they are under moral obligation, IMO, to champion it

I shouldn't need to remind any one that, during the 1970s, it was the perception that WELFARE rewarded idleness over work that, in part, sent much of the white working class - the founding pillar of the 'New Deal' - increasingly into the arms of the Republicans. Not to mention the effect of the Democratic Party spinelessly handing defense and national security, in wake of the fratricide, which tore the party apart in 1968 and beyond, over the war in Vietnam, to the GOP. I've about as much love for the 'New Left' as I have the 'New Right', which isn't very much

The Democrats, now, at least, have a chance to get it right because, unfortunately, the Republican Party is not as discredited as it was back in 1932

[Democratic Hawk]

Gallup drops again today:

Approve 52%(-1)
Disapprove 41%(+1)

I really think we should ignore these numbers unless there is some really important news.  They fluctuate.

Maybe reacting to the news (Friday) that the rate of unemployment jumped from 9.4% to 9.7%

[Democratic Hawk]

Obama will probably end up getting his public option anyway.

And even then it would only be an insurance provider of the 'last resort' - that is an option for those who have no other alternative. That's the sense I got from the President's address to Congress

[Democratic Hawk]

Um, he is still under 50% on the question, that's not good.

... on his weak spot. He has left responsibility for the legislation to Congress.  Congress did badly. Surely Obama will be judged on other things as well -- like the economy in general.

Congress is far more important than Obama. 

The President should be in charge of his agenda. It's his job to propose and that of Congress to dispose. Many commentators feel that in allowing Congress to do the proposing explains the president's slippage in approval among Independents