Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

Thu Jun 24, 2:28 pm ET

The White House has been fond of citing turning points lately, most recently when describing the administration's handling of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Now President Obama faces a turning point of his own — and not for the better.

A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll finds Obama's approval rating to be the lowest it's been since he took office 18 months ago. According to the poll, only 45 percent approve of the job Obama is doing in the White House, compared with 48 percent who disapprove. And the numbers only get worse from there: Sixty-two percent of respondents believe the country is on the wrong track — the highest number recorded since just before Election Day in 2008 — and just one-third believe things are going to get better, a 7-point drop since a month ago and the lowest such number in the Obama presidency.

The fallout from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill appears to be the biggest drag on Obama's numbers. Fifty percent disapprove of his handling of the crisis — including one in four Democrats. But generally, the poll finds increasing doubts about Obama as a leader. Just 49 percent of those polled give Obama positive ratings when asked if he has "strong leadership qualities" — that's a decline of 8 points since January and nearly 20 points from when he first took office. Less than half rate him positively when asked if he's "honest and straightforward." In January '09, 63 percent gave him positive marks for "being firm and decisive in decision-making." That number is now at 44 percent. Asked about his "ability to handle a crisis," only 40 percent rate him positively, an 11-point drop since January. You can read the full poll results here.

Obama's biggest problem: He's lost the middle — the so-called independent and moderate voters who are generally given the most credit for his win back in 2008. According to the poll, 52 percent of self-described independent voters disapprove of the job Obama is doing. He's even losing parts of his base. The poll finds Obama with 17 percent disapproval among Democrats — the highest number of his presidency.

None of this is good news for Democrats up for re-election this fall. Beleaguered Democrats had been counting on Obama's coattails to help them, as polls have also showed a historic trend away from the Democratic Party. According to this new poll, the GOP has a 2-point edge over Democrats in the generic congressional ballot — but among voters who describe themselves as most interested in the 2010 midterms, the GOP jumps to a 21-point lead over Democrats.

It's just because people are too stupid to know what's been accomplished because all they see is a stalled out congress due to obstructionists.

Also, Liberals are mad at him too because he doesn't ever appear to fight back. He needs to step up his game.

if it's a straight "approve/disapprove of performance" poll,
I'd have to say "disapprove" - because he's not been anywhere
near radical enough for me; Gitmo is still open, 85% of the
standing army is in various combat theaters, he let the Healthcare
debate spin off into flat-out-insane territory and signed a bill
that will never be implemented, claiming "Mission Accomplished",
both Supreme Court nominees have been as race/gender based
as you can get short of transgender black-asian midget lesbians,
&etc ...

also, Americans always hate their presidents ....

SandRider wrote:if it's a straight "approve/disapprove of performance" poll,
I'd have to say "disapprove" - because he's not been anywhere
near radical enough for me...

Agreed.

Nekhrun wrote:

SandRider wrote:if it's a straight "approve/disapprove of performance" poll,
I'd have to say "disapprove" - because he's not been anywhere
near radical enough for me...

Agreed.

Agreed, even though I'm not even in your country.

He seems to be doing fine, but nothing overly daring or impressive. I guess my expectations should have been lower knowing both A: the messes he was left to clean up, and B: the reality that his party doesn't actually have the power to pass whatever bill they want.

In Canada this is only an issue if we have a minority government, if the ruling party has more than 50% of the seats they can pretty much do as they please, our senate is just for show.

A Thing of Eternity wrote: B: the reality that his party doesn't actually have the power to pass whatever bill they want.

They did before the last Congressional election but they couldn't stop fighting amongst themselfs long enough to get it done.

Freakzilla wrote:

A Thing of Eternity wrote: B: the reality that his party doesn't actually have the power to pass whatever bill they want.

They did before the last Congressional election but they couldn't stop fighting amongst themselfs long enough to get it done.

Ah. I suppose that was dumb of them.

A Thing of Eternity wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:

A Thing of Eternity wrote: B: the reality that his party doesn't actually have the power to pass whatever bill they want.

They did before the last Congressional election but they couldn't stop fighting amongst themselfs long enough to get it done.

Ah. I suppose that was dumb of them.

It was kind of Obama's fault, too. He gave Congress the vaguest of guidelines for the HC bill then didn't step in when they reached impasses.

Obama has been and always will be a legislator. He will negotiate and compromise rather than actually make a decision on his own. It's not realistic to expect him to make decisive action without first building consensus. Healthcare, immigration, the war, etc., everything was and will be handled in a way that tries to make everyone happy before acting. Therefore no one will be.

Bush was decisive and people called him a cowboy. Now the same people are mad that Obama isn't "leading" enough.

I'm not an Obama fan (didn't vote for him) nor a huge Bush fan (didn't vote for him) but that's how I see it.

Well, it's not like he claimed to have any executive experience.

Freakzilla wrote:Well, it's not like he claimed to have any executive experience.

Neither did the other guy. We were going to get the suck either way.

A Little Galach wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:Well, it's not like he claimed to have any executive experience.

Neither did the other guy. We were going to get the suck either way.

He had a TON more experience in Congress, though. Obama was practically a rookie.

SandRider wrote: also, Americans always hate their presidents ....

And not without good reason.

Obama has always been moderate. And way too polite.

Freakzilla wrote:

A Little Galach wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:Well, it's not like he claimed to have any executive experience.

Neither did the other guy. We were going to get the suck either way.

He had a TON more experience in Congress, though. Obama was practically a rookie.

More congressional experience is a positive in your book?

A Little Galach wrote: Bush was decisive and people called him a cowboy. Now the same people are mad that Obama isn't "leading" enough.

Bush wasn't called a cowboy because he was decisive, he was called that because he was an idiot with a shoot first and ask questions later attitude!

So yes, the same people are mad that Obama isn't decisive enough - there is such thing as a middleground between ineffective and completely kneejerk you know.

A Thing of Eternity wrote:

A Little Galach wrote: Bush was decisive and people called him a cowboy. Now the same people are mad that Obama isn't "leading" enough.

Bush wasn't called a cowboy because he was decisive, he was called that because he was an idiot with a shoot first and ask questions later attitude!

So yes, the same people are mad that Obama isn't decisive enough - there is such thing as a middleground between ineffective and completely kneejerk you know.

I know about the middle ground, that's where I am. Glad to see you here.

A Little Galach wrote:

A Thing of Eternity wrote:

A Little Galach wrote: Bush was decisive and people called him a cowboy. Now the same people are mad that Obama isn't "leading" enough.

Bush wasn't called a cowboy because he was decisive, he was called that because he was an idiot with a shoot first and ask questions later attitude!

So yes, the same people are mad that Obama isn't decisive enough - there is such thing as a middleground between ineffective and completely kneejerk you know.

I know about the middle ground, that's where I am. Glad to see you here.

It's a big place, easy enough to miss someone at first.

Give my regards to Frank Walden

Awesome when a cult of personality backfires

Kensai wrote:Awesome when a cult of personality backfires

They've all got the hump after they found out Obarmy couldn't make the oil evaporate by raising his hands, like Moses did with the Red Sea, only with an i-pad instead of a staff of wood.