Obama approval down
Obama’s approval was up a fair amount after the election, but now it’s down again somewhat. I can’t get too excited about it one way or the other.
This election only served to underscore something that was already becoming apparent, which is that Obama’s approval rating would hover close to 50% even if he brought a brace of cocker spaniel puppies onto a stage and strangled them to death with his bare hands in front of the audience. Yes, every now and then his rating has dipped down to somewhere in the 40s, but that seems to represent liberals and/or leftists thinking he’s done something that’s too right-wing for them, or not left-wing enough.
Perhaps the left is angry at him now because he didn’t completely wipe the floor with Republicans during the fiscal cliff negotiations, although he did his level best to diss and demonize them. Perhaps some people are a bit miffed at the expense of his Hawaii vacation. At any rate, these up and downs no longer really interest me, except as a reflection of the state of mind of the American public, because in his second term Obama is no longer shackled by any need to be re-elected. So if he wants to he can completely ignore these ratings and do whatever he pleases.
Those of you who think he will try to run for a third term will disagree with that assessment, no doubt. I don’t think he’ll try to do that, although if he or his supporters did, I would not be surprised in the least. However, I would be very surprised if they succeeded by the means outlined in the Constitution. They simply do not have the majorities to do it, either in Congress or in the states.
Extra-constitutional means? I don’t doubt that some on the left would dearly love to. I’ll leave it at that.
I think you are right when you say he could strangle puppies on the stage and still be loved.
What Romney failed to grasp was that he was dealing with a personality cult and not an economic issue. He had to attack Obama directly in the same manner he was being attacked.
Instead, Romney said, “He’s a nice guy. . . .”
Obama already had people saying that about him; Romney did not have to join that chorus.
Romney and McCain both ran pathetically weak campaigns against an opponent who could have been defeated if they fought him instead of trying to sit down to tea and crumpets.
Rachelle: It’s all Monday-morning quarterbacking, but I strongly disagree with part of what you’re saying. I do agree that a great deal of Obama’s support was and is a personality cult. I don’t think McCain grasped the depth of it, nor did Romney, but I think they both were well aware of it. Remember this ad, for example?:
The problem for both of them was that attacking it in the manner you mention would not have made a dent in it, either. McCain’s and Romney’s real problem was that neither was a compelling enough candidate (and personality) in his own right to defeat Obama (not that there was anyone in the running who could have done so, either). They faced a very difficult task.
“They simply do not have the majorities to do it, either in Congress or in the states.”
The states are the ‘battleground’. The states have to reassert their sovereignty, that is the only peaceful means I can see to corralling the behemoth.
His approval rating with me can’t get any lower.
I’d never really thought of him trying to get himself re-elected to third term, and really can’t imagine him doing so.
HOWEVER, I also didn’t see how there was a chance in hell that he would be elected in first place, and with his record — even if he convinced half the country that EVERYTHING bad was all George Bush’s fault, and anything positive (very little, if anything) was to his own credit (of course!) — I couldn’t see rational human beings (read: voters) re-electing him.
I know, I know — the right to vote (or voters without such rights who surely exercised them anyway in some parts as the Dems and campaign team made sure that it would be simple enough to do) has zero relation to rationality, logic, being informed, or caring about being informed!
And then there was — for anyone who remembers way back after O. was first elected — his support of Manuel Zelaya in his attempt to name himself President for Life of Honduras. I was dumbfounded myself then, (not to mention at Hillary’s carrying out her orders like an automaton to punish the Honduran Supreme Court Justices (who prevented Zelaya and sent him off into exile) by yanking all their VISAS to U.S. permanently.
Did that support indicate anything about O? You know, now that I realize there are some of you who think he’ll try to run for 3rd term, and after his win in Nov. against all odds (at least the ones I was looking at), I’m not sure of anything, anymore.
Michelle Obama will be on next President. So much for term limits.
I thought I saw something about a bill introduced in Congress to repeal the 22nd Amendment. I haven’t turned up anything other than a reference in a blog I’d never heard of, so I guess the source is probably a chain e-mail.
However, I found this Snopes page from 2009. Apparently there have been repeated efforts to do this over the years. Bills have been introduced by both Democrat and Republican legislators, during both Republican and Democrat administrations. All of the bills died in committee.
My question is: Why?
Extra-constitutional means? I don’t doubt that some on the left would dearly love to.
But there’s that pesky Second Amendment. Hence the gun control push.
rickl: why? My guess is: the hunger for power. Each party, when there’s a popular president in power, wants to extend that person’s ability to stay in power.
Consider that a constitutional amendment might not be required – a couple more left “living constitutionalists” on the Supreme Court in the next couple of years could simply declare it unconstitutional – this has happened for Vongressional term limits before – and voila! No problem…
fiona: I suppose that ultimately, the Court could do whatever it wants (who would enforce it if the Court oversteps, and the President and Congress agree?). But since term limits for a US president were the result of a duly-passed constitutional Amendment (#22), it’s hard to see how that could be declared unconstitutional.
“who would enforce it if the Court oversteps, and the President and Congress agree?).”
As is happening with so many other issues, Executive Orders, refusal to enforce laws, etc.
We need the senate desperately.
}}} Obama’s approval rating would hover close to 50% even if he brought a brace of cocker spaniel puppies onto a stage and strangled them to death with his bare hands in front of the audience.
Well, I do believe it would drop a few points if he brought the owners’ children on stage, urinated on them, set them on fire with a flamethrower, and laughed gleefully as they ran around screaming…
But it would probably quickly recover amid the comments like “They were probably all the children of members of the Tea Party, anyway…”
:^P
I’m thinking you could argue that there is really a hatred of personalities cult responsible for someone like Obama being defacto elected. Which first required media’s demonization campaign that started full bore in 2005 against GWB and anyone resembling a conservative personality.
Approval polls are meaningless, particularly now that he won’t ever run for re-election again.
Congressional approval polls are meaningless because we vote for individual reps and senators, not a collective body.
The “polls” that matter now are those that measure the liklihood of individual members of Congress being re-elected. That and the individual races that will become toss ups because of the death or retirement of a sitting Rep or Senator.
I never seriously doubted his re-election because of the sheer power of incumbency, but now that he’s in for his final term, we need not focus on what people think of this guy.