Some like to describe Obama as in a "tailspin" currently, with rapidly falling poll numbers. However, that is not the case. Depending on which poll collection site you choose to chart-watch with (Pollster or Real Clear Politics), Obama has either declined slightly or increased slightly in his approval rating. Even so, poll numbers are very volatile, and depending on the success of his health care plan on achieving its goal of expanding coverage while lowering the cost burden to families and the general health of the economy, his numbers could go up or down sharply from now. Most people do not understand that the president has little to do with the economy. The best a president to ensure economic growth can do is interfere little with the economy in terms of raising taxes or utilizing tariffs and subsidies.
Obama, so far, has done okay in this regard. I do not see the stimulus so much as a bad thing. I feel that it may just help an already recovering economy recover faster than it would have without such a bill. Whether that is worth the money they spent on it is up for debate. I personally see Obama's numbers remaining stable, and trending upward over the next year as the economy improves and the average person gives him credit for things he did not do, and does not give him credit for things he did.
I will make the folloowing proclamation: On January 13, 2011, Obama's average approval rating will be 53 approve, and 45 disapprove, with Rasmussen, of course, claiming Obama is tied at approve and disapprove based on their bogus calculations that always differ about 10-15 points from the pack. It seems suspicious that they are always more pessimsitic than the rest of the pollsters when it comes to predicting Obama's numbers.
I have no real formula or methodology behind this post... it's just an educated guess.
1 comment:
You're right. Obama can and will win even with a neutral or worse approval rating. You can't beat somebody with nobody, and he will run well against the eventual GOP nominee, who will arrive bleeding.
And you were right in your NYT comment about Ron Paul's underperformance in IA. I was wrong.
I counted too much on his strong GOTV, which was worth only ~1%, not 5%, as in the old days. Romney, with money, and Santorum, with enthusiam, did almost nearly as well in dragging voters to the polls.
And you may be giving Paul too much benefit of the doubt when you call him a "borderline" white supremacist.
Post a Comment