At least he's still ahead of Palin!

Rasmussen's polling sucks, they've jumped the shark, and look at that House Effect!?&#$!

Oh wait, this is PPP, a Democratic pollster who finds that Obama has landed squarely behind:

He trails Mike Huckabee 47-45 and Mitt Romney 45-44, ties Newt Gingrich at 45-45, and leads Sarah Palin 47-45.

PPP gives the rationale, and its basically that Obama is now owning it (ie, the job, the economy and the brunt in this partisan atmosphere):

It's not that any of the Republican candidates are particularly popular, or even that Obama's approval numbers have declined. But whereas in previous months a good number of the voters disapproving of his job performance weren't ready to commit to voting Republican in 2012 yet, now 85-89% of them do in each of these hypothetical contests. That suggests that even if Obama's overall unpopularity has not increased, the intensity of it has.

Watching the unfolding of the HCR trainwreck, the misidentification of the Tea Party as the target, and the readily apparent tone-deafness of DC, is misery enough without having to pretend that its working.

Tags: 2010 (all tags)



essentially tied with all GOPers

Palin a near dead heat--it's a rejection of HCR.  Palin will still lose, and Gingrich is still too toxic for swing voters.  But Obama would lose to almost everyone else.

I actually think if someone can emerge, Obama is vulnerable to a primary challenge.  But who can that be?

Hmmm....The generic ballot, unemployment claims moving in the wrong direction since passage of HCR.  A coincidence?


by esconded 2010-04-15 02:41PM | 0 recs
RE: essentially tied with all GOPers

Its hard to imagine, because it would be very difficult for any public Democrat to emerge out of the all-encompasing '08 primary whereby any and everyone had to align so tightly with Obama that it makes it near impossible to break from it.

I'm sure you can imagine too, the amount of reckless harm that would be cast upon anyone politician that challenged Obama from within the Democratic Party too-- all hell would break loose.

But, that said, if we sustain losses that make us no longer have an effective majority (greater than 30 seats in the House and 7-8 seats in the Senate), Obama continues the Bush middleeast occupation/invasion strategy, and the economy continues to side on the wealthy at the expense of the middle class, then whom?

Like I said, I don't see it happening; it seems much more likely that an independent movement/candidate is going to happen (which might actually benefit Obama) in '12. Am having dinner tonight with Bill Hillsman tonight while he's in town-- I'll ask him about it.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-04-15 03:05PM | 0 recs
RE: At least he's still ahead of Palin!

Yes, who will challenge him?

by spirowasright 2010-04-15 02:43PM | 0 recs
RE: At least he's still ahead of Palin!

I repeat, who will challenge Obama in the primaries?

The nervous nellies at MyDD need a candidate and they need one NOW.

by spirowasright 2010-04-15 02:44PM | 1 recs
RE: At least he's still ahead of Palin!

Presidential polls this far out are meaningless. 

Unless it's all a secret ploy to make Newt, Huckabee & Romney commit to run in '12. Oooh, I hope so! 

by vecky 2010-04-15 02:52PM | 0 recs
Obama rocks

His awesomeness may not have increased, but the intensity of his awesomeness has!

by QTG 2010-04-15 02:46PM | 1 recs
if unemployment has come down noticeably

by 2012, Obama will be in a somewhat stronger position. It's way too early to know how hcr will play two years from now. A bunch of people will benefit from the new laws, but a bunch of other people will still be getting jerked around by insurance companies and will wonder why the Democrats couldn't fix it.

by desmoinesdem 2010-04-15 03:42PM | 0 recs
You know what

I am just gonna whistle past the graveyard on this one, because common sense tells me that the chance of Obama losing the 2012 election to Newt Gingrich is pretty close to zero.

If some enterprising Republican wants to masquerade as a compassionate conservative, who knows, maybe.  But I cannot imagine that the American people are longing for the return of the same hardcore Republican approach that they rejected wholesale in both 2006 and 2008.  It is unpossible.  Check back down the road and we'll see who was right.

by Steve M 2010-04-15 05:25PM | 1 recs
How did i know

you were going to be pimping this poll Jerome. and ignoring this one;

You could've been fair and pointed out that another poll said the exact opposite of this one, but that would require actually being fair. I mean the excitement of the possibility of Obama being a one-termer (and you getting to say i told you so) was too great to prevent you from seeing the OTHER poll.

Oh, I get it, you didn't see the CNN poll, right?

Try to sound less excited next time.

BTW, you're still wrong.

by ND22 2010-04-15 10:36PM | 0 recs
RE: How did i know

Thanks for the link. I regularly visit two other web sites and all I read about there for the most part are about the things Obama's doing as President.

A fourth one complains about "Wimpy Dems" in a manner that makes it sound like a real-life version of David Letterman's Osama Bin Laden holiday tapes.

But when I come here, it's all gloom and doom, all "inside baseball", all horse race, all the time.If it's not Jerome, it's Jonathan Singer, if it's not Jonathan singer, it's Chris Lemos, if it's not Chris Lemos, it's Nathan Espenall, if it's not Nathan Espenall, it's nate Silver, if it's not Nate Silver, it's desmoinesdem, if it's not desmoinesdem, it'severybody's favorite defeatist weasel, Upstate Kent.

Jerome,, just what has the President done to hurt you, anyway?

I'm not a liberal Democrat, I didn't vote for Obama, but I think he's tryiing and I'm getting a little tired of the knives in his back with the "MyDD" and "" logos on the handle.


by spirowasright 2010-04-15 11:03PM | 0 recs
What's the Difference between Now and Then?


President William Jefferson Clinton:

  • Approval: 47% (May 1, Average)
  • HCR: Failed
  • Inherited: 258D in House, 56D in Senate
  • Midterm Results: GOP +54 House, +8 Senate
  • Effect? GOP takes control of both houses
  • Primary Opponent? No. (okay, Lyndon LaRouche, but that doesn't count).
  • Ever talk of a primary opponent…? No.


President Barack Hussein Obama:

  • Approval: 48% (Today, Average)
  • HCR: Passed
  • Inherited: 257D in House, 59/60D in Senate
  • Midterm Results: Um, it's still 6+ months away.
  • Effect? The best the GOP can reasonably hope for in the Senate is +4 (+5 tops), and thus insufficient to grant control to GOP. So GOP taking control of the Senate is outlandish at this point. The GOP could make huge gains (> 54 unlikely, but only 39 needed to take control) in the house to achieve a bare majority.
  • Talk of a Primary Opponent? Yes.
by NoFortunateSon 2010-04-15 11:27PM | 1 recs
RE: What's the Difference between Now and Then?

Spot on, except in 1993 the Dems actually had 57 Senate Seats - Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas) was appointed Tres. Sec. and his seat was subsequently won by a Republican (KBH).

And they currently have 58 seats - I wouldn't call Liarman a Democrat (big tent notwithstanding).

by vecky 2010-04-16 12:43AM | 1 recs
Another Difference...


Not the race of the President, but the racial composition of the base support for Obama and democrats.

Democrats have been hemorraging white voters since well before Clinton, and that trend hasn't subsided. My theory has always been that the puma movement was fundamentally based on Democrats ceding working class white voters to the GOP. These people, from my experience, were predominantly of this demographic.

And thus the cries of "Obama can't!": "Obama has disenfranchised FL and MI". "Obama can never carry FL, PA, and OH in the general election." "Obama's base will abandon him!" And so on.

And I think some people are still uncomfortable with the Democrats no longer making an effort to retain working class white voters and instead persuing minority voters, because this demographic was such a fundamental part of the party.

There is an interesting article from Alan I. Abromitz on Larry Sabato's site, on how there simply won't be enough republican demographic in the population to elect Republicans to a majority on a national scale by 2020. The Republicans will have to start reaching out to minorities. And that would be quite the dance on the head of a pin!

I think some people are just frightened by this change. True, there is no real history to support the gamble on no longer courting working class whites. Minority voting intensity did increase as with the same trendline from 2004 to 2008.

But it is working class whites who left the democratic party, not the other way around.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-04-16 03:04PM | 0 recs
RE: Another Difference...

Well I don't think it's quite so doom and gloom for the GOP:

It has been noted that 'older seniors', i.e: born before 1925 vote democratic, while 'younger seniors', (born after) vote more Republican. Of-course as time goes on there more seniors born after '25 than born before... so if the younger block of voters is becoming more democratic/liberal, the older block is becoming more conservative, and in mid-terms the older block tends to vote at a much higher rate.

But this means that the New Deal and Great Society programs are fully secure. Republicans elites can hardly go around advocating cutting these programs when their base is heavily dependent on them. (Or with the general conservative intellectual dichotomy, maybe they can).

by vecky 2010-04-16 03:46PM | 0 recs
RE: Another Difference...

Another difference is that in 1993, it had been roughly 40 years since the last time the GOP controlled the House of Representatives.  Gingrich could show up and say all sorts of shit because nobody knew just how bad he'd be once he was in power.

Now everybody knows.  It's important to look at the approval ratings for Congressional Republicans, which are historically low. 

Basically, the GOP has been trying for the past 15 months to recreate 1994. 

Hadn't visited MyDD in a while.  I used to read it often, but the anti-Obama sentiment in 2008, even after he won the nomination, was a bit hard to stomach.    I see you guys are still running schadenfreude central.  Glad to see you're all team players.

by RickD 2010-04-17 01:51AM | 2 recs
As I said before...

I guess some people can subsist on a diet of nothing but sour grapes for years on end.

I wasn't here then, as I was a campaign worker. I have heard stories like this from posts.

I didn't even know there were entire puma web pages that are still active. It's not like they are popular or anything, but they are more hysterical and delusional than the teabaggers. It's scary to see.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-04-20 12:49AM | 0 recs
RE: As I said before...

Not only are they active, you were even quoted in one of them ;)

by vecky 2010-04-20 02:03AM | 0 recs
Oooh! Where?

Please tell me!

by NoFortunateSon 2010-04-20 09:42AM | 0 recs
RE: Oooh! Where?

scroll down to just below the lettermen videos. I had no idea they even read MyDD. :)

by vecky 2010-04-20 11:40AM | 0 recs
What a train wreck!

Although I like this "web site" better ;)

That's some nice screed there; the true ravings of a lunatic. I wonder if it's the same guy? He takes exception to Obama too (search for "Obama")

And to support my earlier hypothesis, that race can be a factor in the puma bubble and other manifestations of Obama Derangement Syndrome on the left, what is the first thing I am greeted by at the top of the page you linked?

Mistake In ‘08, Part IV – The White Working Class And Health Care » 

* * *

I'm not surprised they come here, whoever "they" are. MyDD seems to be a crossroads on the left, which is what makes it so interesting in my opinion. I like to think of MyDD as the last sane outpost on the left, between the rational progressive blogosphere (i.e., DailyKos, HuffPo) and various fringe "progressive" blogosphere movements that flare into existence and then extinguish just as quickly in defeat, such as bill killers and firebaggery in general.

I have postulated all along that these movements have very little to do with Obama himself. With these bubbles, disaffection seems unbounded even by President Obama, and routinely spills over onto "dimocrats" [sic.] in general, as seen on Hillary is 44 (as an aside, something alarms me about the familiarity in which they address the Mdme. Secretary, a title she has most certainly earned...).

I think this irrational, misdirected anger is another symptom of the broader disease within the democratic party caused by moving away from hopelessly courting white working class voters and towards latinos and young voters.

You can't blame Obama for this forever, although as a minority, he is the poster for this fundamental shift.

* * *

As for the particular comment, I always believe that nothing hurts like the truth. Bill Clinton was a smart man, a genius, but he was very good at playing the everyman. Barack Obama is very much an intellectual. Do I believe in n-dimensional chess? No. But there is also substantial evidence that Obama is not simply fumbling, bumbling all the way from obscurity to the democratic President with the most number of achievements in how ever many decades. The truth lies somewhere in the middle, and implies that he is still smarter than you or I. And I think many in the punditocracy are put off by that.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-04-20 05:40PM | 0 recs
RE: What a train wreck!

Ya, it's a crazy site alright, however I don't think it's particularly leftist. It's a right-wing front group that only became active late in the primaries when the GOP was trying to play interference. The ideology, beyond the blind hatred, seems to be for the Democrats to become more like the Republicans and their fealty to Hillary is pretty much just lip-service because they don't seem to stand for any policies she herself is known for (incl. her current role as SecState).

by vecky 2010-04-20 06:04PM | 0 recs
That makes it more diffiicult to pass progressive legislation

when the demographic that needs to support it, does not.

Let's be real here, this has a lot to do with the inherent racism and xenophobia that exists among the white working class and the thought that the Democratic Party is only out to help minorities and immigrants (also why immigration reform will only hurt, not help, the party).

And just passing bills that will help doesn't seem to work since most people still think Obama is/will raise their taxes despite the fact that they actually GOT a tax cut.

People believe whatever they want to believe, doesn't need to be fact.


by ND22 2010-04-17 08:03PM | 0 recs
Easy Answer

Jerome,, just what has the President done to hurt you, anyway?

he won.

by ND22 2010-04-16 09:09PM | 2 recs
RE: Easy Answer

quite being a tool, troll, or whatever you are...

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-04-16 09:43PM | 0 recs
RE: Easy Answer

Why not? Is the fact that Obama won the reason you'r ticked at him?

Hey, it happens, especially with people who follow politics for any extended period of time.

by spirowasright 2010-04-17 02:43AM | 1 recs
RE: At least he's still ahead of Palin!

Not a chance in hell at a primary challenge...   the one fact that you missed is that Obama's popularity within the party remains high.  High enough that a primary challenger would fail.   Hillary is the ONLY one who could do it, and if she did and failed, it would destroy any chance she has in 2016.

These polls are ridiculously stupid.   They mean nothing.  1) They are too far out.   If polls this far out were accurate, then we might have President Guilliani or Lieberman.   2) No one is campaigning... Let's see where these numbers are in a full blown campaign... none of the GOP is being attacked or hammered on.   Palin would be toast, Newt would be toast.   Romney is interesting, but as he flip flops his way around, as prejudice against his mormonism happens (and don't think that there won't be at least 1-2% of traditional GOP voters who stay at home and won't vote for a mormon) and as hopefully tales such as the dog story are repeated.   Huckabee still worries me, but the prison thing should kill him in a primary.

I'm just not sure why the hell anyone cares.  If these were ever a true indicator of performance, then BilL Clinton would have been crushed in 1996 and W would have won by a landslide and I believe the first bush would have been a shoe in as well.  

Polls this early are like jello wrestling at a strip club... fodder for idiots to slather over until the real show begins.

by FUJA 2010-04-15 10:58PM | 0 recs
RE: At least he's still ahead of Palin!

These polls are especially meaningless especially in a time of unpopulairty. But hey, it makes great, er, discussion here, right...?

If they were to poll Sec. Clinton (or bill Clinton or even Jimmy Carter) over any of those three figures, I would guarentee you she would trounce all of them. Why? Voters already made their choice for Obama, but when you aren't governing and aren't campaigning, you don't have any negatives!

Except for Palin (whom he beats), these people are all abstract figures.

Romney's been out for years. And Gingrich's huge negatives aren't the talk of the town these days. This is not a time of critical attention by the public.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-04-15 11:32PM | 0 recs
This PPP poll had 38% Dems and 38% Repubs

So take this PPP poll with a grain of salt.

The CNN polls where Obama is ahead had the percentage right on percentage of Dems to Repubs.

by puma 2010-04-15 11:34PM | 0 recs
RE: This PPP poll had 38% Dems and 38% Repubs

It comes down to who turns out. Which is why we are fucked unless we get our people more riled up. I think a controversial SCOTUS fight could actually help.


I thought PPP had a R house effect, according to Nate Silver?

I saw a CNN poll that had Should Obama be primaried and it was 20% yes, 76% no. Considering 10% of Dems voted against him in 2008, I'm guessing the number of conservative D's who don't like him are higher now. Liberals are fully behind him, just like they were behind HCR.


Indies are a problem though.

by bay of arizona 2010-04-16 11:02PM | 0 recs

may also end up taking a hit to the polls soon given his recent comments on gay marriage and homosexuals adopting kids given his interview with a NJ college paper


During Huckabee's interview with the College of New Jersey's paper, The Perspective, he compared same-sex marriage to incest and expressed his views against gay people adopting children. "Children are not puppies," he said. "This is not a time to see if we can experiment and find out, how does this work?"

by Chuckie Corra 2010-04-16 03:55AM | 0 recs
and about polls this far out

Mondale had a huge lead over Reagan at one point.  

by RickD 2010-04-17 01:54AM | 0 recs
RE: and about polls this far out

No he didn't.  I think you're referring to Dukakis who has a 17 point lead over Bush, Sr. then squandered it.  Mondale came in one point ahead in one poll immediately following the Dem convention, but immediately the media tore into Ferraro and it went downhill from there.

by Drummond 2010-04-17 05:10AM | 0 recs
No Mondale too
Pollsters had a say too, the researchers find. The Iowa Poll, conducted by the Des Moines Register, pitted Mondale against President Reagan in December 1982 (Mondale 52%, Reagan 41%).,9171,952337,00.html#ixzz0lPAjpRIr
Can't find more info, but I know from research in the past that in late 1982, early 1983, which was almost a year later in his first term than Obama currently is, Reagan was getting the shit kicked out of him by Mondale, Hart and John Glenn.
by ND22 2010-04-17 07:58PM | 2 recs
RE: No Mondale too

Thank you!  I didn't know that.  As I think about it, the economy turned around in spring of 1983, and a professor of mine said that he was happy the economy was improving, but lamented the political inevitability of 1984.

by Drummond 2010-04-19 01:09AM | 0 recs
RE: and about polls this far out

No, I meant Mondale over Reagan.

How old are you, BTW?  Do you remember 1983?  I do. 

Please, if you're going to correct me on something, have the decency to not be thoroughly wrong about things that I remember.  I personally never correct somebody unlesss I can provide a citation supporting my point.  Otherwise all you're doing is making noise in the wind.

Read this:

From 1975 through 1991, early leads were a positive indicator of who was _eventually going to lose the race_. 




by RickD 2010-04-19 02:26PM | 0 recs
by Drummond 2010-04-17 05:09AM | 0 recs
Worried about President Obama ... now?

This is laughable!

by kevin22262 2010-04-19 06:00PM | 0 recs
RE: Worried about President Obama ... now?

Hey, there has to be someone on the losing side of the Intrade market.  I feel no guilt taking money from Hillary dead-enders.

by johnsonlong 2010-04-19 11:57PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads