PDA

View Full Version : Elections CNN Poll .... Obama Doesn't Deserve 2nd Term


Stinger
02-17-2010, 07:19 AM
CNN poll: 52% say Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012
By Michael O'Brien - 02/16/10 01:35 PM ET

52 percent of Americans said President Barack Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012, according to a new poll.

44 percent of all Americans said they would vote to reelect the president in two and a half years, less than the slight majority who said they would prefer to elect someone else.

Obama faces a 44-52 deficit among both all Americans and registered voters, according to a CNN/Opinion Research poll released Tuesday. Four percent had no opinion.

The reelection numbers are slightly more sour than Obama's approval ratings, which are basically tied. 49 percent of people told CNN that they approve of the way Obama is handling his job, while 50 percent disapprove.

Still, the 2012 election is still a long way's away, with this fall's midterm elections looming large. Republicans are hoping to make inroads into Congress, while Democrats are hoping to hold onto gains won in the 2006 and 2008 cycles.

Respondents to CNN were split at 46 percent as to whether they preferred a generic Republican or Democratic candidate in this fall's elections.

At least one retiring lawmaker is confident Obama will sail to reelection, with Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) predicting Monday the president would win "overwhelmingly" in 2012.

The CNN poll, conducted Feb. 12-15, has a three percent margin of error.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/81213-52-say-obama-doesnt-deserve-reelection-

Poll Results here:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/02/16/rel4a.pdf

BigRedChief
02-17-2010, 07:34 AM
Republicans shouldn't count their chickens before they are hatched. The poll in 2012 is the one that matters. A little historical prespective is needed.

Reagan and Clinton's #'s were at or below the Obama #'s after one year. People were writing them off as one termers. What happened? Teh economy improved and they were re-elected. Same thing will happen here. If the economy improves, Obama will get re-elected. It doesn't? He's a one term president.

fan4ever
02-17-2010, 08:21 AM
Republicans shouldn't count their chickens before they are hatched. The poll in 2012 is the one that matters. A little historical prespective is needed.

Reagan and Clinton's #'s were at or below the Obama #'s after one year. People were writing them off as one termers. What happened? Teh economy improved and they were re-elected. Same thing will happen here. If the economy improves, Obama will get re-elected. It doesn't? He's a one term president.

It's kind of interesting; he'll quite possibly benefit by the 2010 elections although they'll sweep many of his party out of office.

In 2012 I think he'll suffer from the Palin syndrome; too much exposure in too short a time...his campaign slogan used against him...but I haven't seen him on TV in the last 20 minutes, so maybe he's learning something. Didn't watch the NBA Allstar game...did he make an appearance there or give a TV message like the SuperBowl???

BigRedChief
02-17-2010, 08:24 AM
It's kind of interesting; he'll quite possibly benefit by the 2010 elections although they'll sweep many of his party out of office.

In 2012 I think he'll suffer from the Palin syndrome; too much exposure in too short a time...his campaign slogan used against him...but I haven't seen him on TV in the last 20 minutes, so maybe he's learning something. Didn't watch the NBA Allstar game...did he make an appearance there or give a TV message like the SuperBowl???You will see a President more and more visible in the future. With the 24 hour news coverage and more people paying attention if you just stay in the White house and remain "above the fray" you let others control the dialog and define your "message". Politics 101 from here on out.

BigChiefFan
02-17-2010, 08:28 AM
The problem is, besides Ron Paul, I can't see many on the Republican side, doing what it will take to lead the country back to greatness, either.

Garcia Bronco
02-17-2010, 08:43 AM
I don't have a problem with Obama as much as I have problem with the idiots in Congress.

LOCOChief
02-17-2010, 08:53 AM
Republicans shouldn't count their chickens before they are hatched. The poll in 2012 is the one that matters. A little historical prespective is needed.

Reagan and Clinton's #'s were at or below the Obama #'s after one year. People were writing them off as one termers. What happened? Teh economy improved and they were re-elected. Sae thing will happen here. If the economy improves, Obama will get re-elected. It doesn't? He's a one term president.

How in the hell is the economy going to improve during an administration that is:
1. Anti small business?
2. Growing govt. sector jobs and shrinking private sector employment?
3. Spending fed $'s at an unprecedented rate?
4. Implementing bureaucracy at every turn.
5. Catering to the lobbyists.

Do you or anyone for that matter really think this economy is on the mend?

petegz28
02-17-2010, 08:57 AM
How in the hell is the economy going to improve during an administration that is:
1. Anti small business?
2. Growing govt. sector jobs and shrinking private sector employment?
3. Spending fed $'s at an unprecedented rate?
4. Implementing bureaucracy at every turn.
5. Catering to the lobbyists.

Do you or anyone for that matter really think this economy is on the mend?

Not on the mend but we have for the moment, eased the pain...a little.

BigRedChief
02-17-2010, 08:59 AM
How in the hell is the economy going to improve during an administration that is:
1. Anti small business?
2. Growing govt. sector jobs and shrinking private sector employment?
3. Spending fed $'s at an unprecedented rate?
4. Implementing bureaucracy at every turn.
5. Catering to the lobbyists.

Do you or anyone for that matter really think this economy is on the mend?I wasn't determining or saying the economy is fixed. I thought I was pretty clear.

If the economy improves, Obama will get re-elected. It doesn't? He's a one term president.

Brock
02-17-2010, 09:08 AM
I don't think he'll be re elected no matter what the economy does. His numbers are only going to get worse.

BigChiefFan
02-17-2010, 09:11 AM
I don't think he'll be re elected no matter what the economy does. His numbers are only going to get worse.Depends on who the Republicans run. I can't see Palin beating out Obama.

Brock
02-17-2010, 09:12 AM
Depends on who the Republicans run. I can't see Palin beating out Obama.

It won't be Palin.

Radar Chief
02-17-2010, 09:13 AM
Depends on who the Republicans run. I can't see Palin beating out Obama.

Agreed. Without Kerry, Bush isnít a two term president.
No matter how bad The Empty Suitís numbers may appear without a clear alternative he could very well get elected again.

BigRedChief
02-17-2010, 09:15 AM
The problem is, besides Ron Paul, I can't see many on the Republican side, doing what it will take to lead the country back to greatness, either.I think you are going to be waiting a while. WTH do we make? What do we export? We are losing all the "green" jobs building wind turbines/blades to China and Europe. Yeah, we are still the big dogs in tech but then we ship those good paying jobs off shore for a fraction of the price here in the USA so we can improve stock price at the expense of the american worker.

Please tell me what is needed to restore this greatness? What is there to be built/sold/exported thats going to restore our greatness?

fan4ever
02-17-2010, 09:17 AM
You will see a President more and more visible in the future. With the 24 hour news coverage and more people paying attention if you just stay in the White house and remain "above the fray" you let others control the dialog and define your "message". Politics 101 from here on out.

He's not a rock star; he's a politician, although he got elected for being more the former. I disagree with you; I believe people want a president to be somebody who goes to work and isn't making special appearances or "in-depth" interviews on the TV twice a week or twice a month for that matter.

BigRedChief
02-17-2010, 09:19 AM
He's not a rock star; he's a politician, although he got elected for being more the former. I disagree with you; I believe people want a president to be somebody who goes to work and isn't making special appearances or "in-depth" interviews on the TV twice a week or twice a month for that matter.We will see, but, I know I'm right. The times they are a changin

Brock
02-17-2010, 09:19 AM
This dude comes across like a weakling. He's always got somebody to blame. They need to keep him off of TV.

BigChiefFan
02-17-2010, 09:19 AM
It won't be Palin.That's what I originally believed, but she's stayed in the spotlight, I believe to test the waters, so-to-speak.

She was vetted by Henry Kissinger. She's already trying to Hijack the Tea Party movement, and recently, she indicated she would CONSIDER running.

I believe the Republicans, are keeping her, as their "grass movements" candidate and haven't determined which direction, they'll take, yet.

Brock
02-17-2010, 09:21 AM
That's what I originally believed, but she's stayed in the spotlight, I believe to test the waters, so-to-speak.

All that means is that she's a famewhore.

fan4ever
02-17-2010, 09:22 AM
I don't think he'll be re elected no matter what the economy does. His numbers are only going to get worse.

Things would have to change dramatically, and that would be just great with me; I'd rather see this country rebound and have 'Bama around another four years than have two more years of this economic stagnation...especially if we have a conservative congress...but he's really got to have an awfully steep learning curve for that to happen and right now it seems he's either unwilling or incapable.

banyon
02-17-2010, 09:24 AM
At this point, I would vote no as well. He has squandered his first year in office and turned over tasks that were far too important to the grossly incompetent and ineffectual Reid and Pelosi, who proceeded to drag him down with them.

fan4ever
02-17-2010, 09:24 AM
We will see, but, I know I'm right. The times they are a changin

Well it must be comforting to "know you're right". :drool:

BigRedChief
02-17-2010, 09:25 AM
Well it must be comforting to "know you're right". :drool:It's obvious to me. No intelligence is needed, IMHO.

Amnorix
02-17-2010, 09:26 AM
Neither Clinton nor Bush would've done any better at about this point in their respective first terms.

BigRedChief
02-17-2010, 09:27 AM
At this point, I would vote no as well. He has squandered his first year in office and turned over tasks that were far too important to the grossly incompetent and ineffectual Reid and Pelosi, who proceeded to drag him down with them.No chit, I understand that Clinton did the opposite and said heres your health care reform take it or leave it. So they went the totally opposite way. It may have worked if Pelosi and Reid were different people but they are who we thought they were.

Norman Einstein
02-17-2010, 09:27 AM
Neither Clinton nor Bush would've done any better at about this point in their respective first terms.

Got any data to back that one up? Considering there is some history there I'd think you might find it appropriate to validate your comment.

Brock
02-17-2010, 09:27 AM
It's obvious to me. No intelligence is needed, IMHO.

It's not like you've ever been wrong.

LOCOChief
02-17-2010, 09:27 AM
Not on the mend but we have for the moment, eased the pain...a little.

Not from where I'm sittin. Thereís a lot of commercial REO's that are about to go south and when that happens everyoneís confidence will waning.

wild1
02-17-2010, 09:28 AM
I think Romney could beat him today. You can make a credible case that Romney might well be president right now if Mike Huckabee had never entered the race. And maybe by 2012 Pawlenty will be ready.

Think about what a tough time Obama would have if there were a presidential debate today and he had to defend in specifics all his policy initiatives and his "results" so far. He just wouldn't have anything to work with there. Even his sycophants here have dwindled to a precious few.

Pawlenty has a unique item he can put out there for the electorate, that he's cut waste in his state's government, despite wailing and gnashing of teeth from the big government types. His pedigree as a fiscal conservative is in my opinion a big strength.

BigRedChief
02-17-2010, 09:28 AM
Neither Clinton nor Bush would've done any better at about this point in their respective first terms.And especially McCain. We'd be at war in Georgia, maybe Iran and who knows where else and all we would have got was tax cuts.

fan4ever
02-17-2010, 09:29 AM
It's obvious to me. No intelligence is needed, IMHO.

Well in that case....:p

BigRedChief
02-17-2010, 09:30 AM
It's not like you've ever been wrong.Just stating my opinion.

BigChiefFan
02-17-2010, 09:30 AM
I think you are going to be waiting a while. WTH do we make? What do we export? We are losing all the "green" jobs building wind turbines/blades to China and Europe. Yeah, we are still the big dogs in tech but then we ship those good paying jobs off shore for a fraction of the price here in the USA so we can improve stock price at the expense of the american worker.

Please tell me what is needed to restore this greatness? What is there to be built/sold/exported thats going to restore our greatness?


1. Restore tarrifs and level the playing field. We've let slave labor, dictate global pricing. China and India need to bring their poor, up to 21st century levels. Stop supporting slave labor and refuse to do business with them, until the practices are stopped. They have an unfair advantage, based on inhumane conditions. We need to call them out on it.

2. Restore Pride in America's companies. Made in the USA, should be the slogan of the politicians, after all, their jobs depend on it.

3. End the FEDERAL RESERVE and the roller-coaster FIAT System.

4. Give tax cuts for corporations, that come back and bring their companies back to U.S. shores.

5. End personal property tax. How can a person truly own something, when it's paid in full, and yet, they still have to pay taxes?

Those are a few things, I can think of, off the top of my head.

LOCOChief
02-17-2010, 09:31 AM
I wasn't determining or saying the economy is fixed. I thought I was pretty clear.

If the economy improves, Obama will get re-elected. It doesn't? He's a one term president.

Not so clear, you said "when this happens" referring to the economic improvement.

I didn't know that you were actually stating the obvious.

InChiefsHell
02-17-2010, 09:48 AM
Neither Clinton nor Bush would've done any better at about this point in their respective first terms.

I don't understand what you mean. Bush had a very high approval rating after his first year in office. In fact, it seems Obama joins Clinton, Carter, Ford and Reagan as having a less than 50% approval rating in their first year. Two of those guys had 2 terms, 2 of them had one. So, I'd say right now it's 50-50 on Obama's re-election. I don't think it's a call that anyone can make at this point, it's a stupid poll.

KC Dan
02-17-2010, 09:53 AM
At this point, I would vote no as well. He has squandered his first year in office and turned over tasks that were far too important to the grossly incompetent and ineffectual Reid and Pelosi, who proceeded to drag him down with them.
This. The Congress must be changed. Any incumbent should go down with the express warning that if you don't do the people's work, your'e next. The President is a figurehead, he doesn't write the bills. But, he has a big part to play and he hasn't played it. He needs to lead. That's what great Presidents do - lead. He has yet to prove to me that he is a leader.

InChiefsHell
02-17-2010, 09:59 AM
This. The Congress must be changed. Any incumbent should go down with the express warning that if you don't do the people's work, your'e next. The President is a figurehead, he doesn't write the bills. But, he has a big part to play and he hasn't played it. He needs to lead. That's what great Presidents do - lead. He has yet to prove to me that he is a leader.

Indeed. He had it served up to him on a silver platter, he had the House and the Senate and he could not lead them...and they were all in his party. He's got to make some adjustments in year two or he will indeed be done in 2012.

...which would be fine with me...:D

banyon
02-17-2010, 10:18 AM
I don't understand what you mean. Bush had a very high approval rating after his first year in office. In fact, it seems Obama joins Clinton, Carter, Ford and Reagan as having a less than 50% approval rating in their first year. Two of those guys had 2 terms, 2 of them had one. So, I'd say right now it's 50-50 on Obama's re-election. I don't think it's a call that anyone can make at this point, it's a stupid poll.

That's a pretty big anomaly. Bush had 9-11 after his first year in office. Warren Harding would've had a high approval rating.

InChiefsHell
02-17-2010, 10:23 AM
That's a pretty big anomaly. Bush had 9-11 after his first year in office. Warren Harding would've had a high approval rating.

I realize that, I'm just responding to Amnorix saying that Bush wouldn't have done better...he did. It's a fact, like it or not.

Norman Einstein
02-17-2010, 10:28 AM
And especially McCain. We'd be at war in Georgia, maybe Iran and who knows where else and all we would have got was tax cuts.

Specualtion has no bearing on reality.

banyon
02-17-2010, 10:44 AM
I realize that, I'm just responding to Amnorix saying that Bush wouldn't have done better...he did. It's a fact, like it or not.

It's a fact void of context. Reverse the context and to a large degree it reverses the fact.

BigRedChief
02-17-2010, 10:55 AM
I don't understand what you mean. Bush had a very high approval rating after his first year in officeuhhhhhh 9/11. Helllooo anyone home. McFly?

Norman Einstein
02-17-2010, 12:12 PM
It's a fact void of context. Reverse the context and to a large degree it reverses the fact.

At the same point in time of the Obama adminsitration as compared to the Bush administration the Bush team was in a better position without a doubt. I'm not sure where you have a problem with context. Day for day the comparison shows Bush in a better position and even at that time there had not been the gigantic dip into the negative that Obama has help create.

redsurfer11
02-17-2010, 03:00 PM
How in the hell is the economy going to improve during an administration that is:
1. Anti small business?
2. Growing govt. sector jobs and shrinking private sector employment?
3. Spending fed $'s at an unprecedented rate?
4. Implementing bureaucracy at every turn.
5. Catering to the lobbyists.

Do you or anyone for that matter really think this economy is on the mend?


How in the hell is the economy going to improve? By lying, and more lying.

MahiMike
02-17-2010, 05:12 PM
Vote 'none of the above'

Norman Einstein
02-17-2010, 05:25 PM
Vote 'none of the above'

But prior isn't available! He would be a better choice than anyone we have there.