Pollster: Press Is Wrong About Obama's Poll Numbers

I can't believe that obama’s political associates dare to say that there is a press driven effort to find a negative story about the White House. The democratic socialist party controls ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, and a host of newspapers. If anything the CNN, ABC, MSNBC, and CBS polls are rigged in favor obama.

The only polls you can rely on are Rasmussen, Quinnipiac, and Zogby. They seem to be un-biased.

Frank Ani of WA 5:07PM August 12, 2009

There are those who say 'have faith in Obama,' however that is easier said than done given his stances. I'd have faith in him if he actually was doing things which were economically sound, as opposed to spending money like there is no tomorrow, most of it not being spent on work related programs. Some may say that such an opinion is pessimistic, it isn't, it is based on history--the history of what works and what fails.

It would also be helpful if he actually appointed people with good records to his cabinet....his secretary of education coming from a school district where only 17% of the students are reading and writing on their grade-based level, having tax evaders in his cabinet, Geithner being but one and having 70s era radicals appointed along with people who openly describe themselves as Socialists and Communists.

Flying in the face of logic, he seeks to raise the minimum wage, raise taxes, overhaul the healthcare industry, which is the best in the world and make us 'pay for China's emissions' all during a recession. If you raise taxes during a recession, you reduce the money that business owners of all types have and thus reduce the amount of jobs they can offer--thus keeping unemployment up. If you raise the minimum wage the same thing happens, as it costs more to hire people, and thus not as many can be hired. If you implement both at once, you are asking to prolong the recession because their negative effects compound one another. Add the cap-and-trade junk to this and the rising costs of energy and people will have less money to put into the economy and get it rolling again.

All of those suggestions are time proven failures. Using history as a guide, under these policies, the US economy will stagnate, China will surpass us earlier than predicted, unemployment will soar and large corporations will flee to China and India where they are actually tax-friendly. It's pathetic that China, a half-Communist country is engaging in better capitalism than the US is. It's also sad that Chinese have a better work ethic than us here in the land of opportunity.

Also, most of those who say 'have faith in Obama' also say that it was 'the past 8 years which got us here,' something which is completely false, as Bush successfully fixed the 2000 tech bubble recession (which nobody gives him credit for), however it was his second term which messed the US up. Then again he was going against Kerry, who changed his mind back-and-forth on a daily basis so things could have been worse. The truth of the matter is that following 2004, the majority of Republicans went wayward and abandoned their core principles, effectively becoming moderates and caused the US economy to collapse on their watch. Some, such as Bush were never all that fiscally conservative to begin with. In short, the past 4 years got us here.

As a history major, all I can say is "those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Stephen of WI 4:31PM August 03, 2009

You are still living in Hope and Change. His poll numbers are worse than reported. People are waking up. They are seeing what the media has done to promote this guy. It's going to get worse.

thora of MA 4:40PM July 29, 2009

I don't want to hear more that is negative about the President who is trying, in the most horrible of circumstances to make things better.

How, exactly is he trying to make things better? The stimulus bill was passed and did nothing. Then he attempts to overhaul healthcare--during a recession--and pass a cap and trade bill, again during a recession. Those bills would raise taxes, including indirect taxes as well as cut jobs--as the private healthcare industry would suffer with a giant government counterpart which eventually everyone who is not in congress needs to be part of. Not to mention there is talk about raising the minimum wage and taxing 'the rich,' again during a recession. Economically all of these are suicide as they all prevent economic recovery, from taxes limiting the funds of businesses, and thus limiting their ability to hire people to a higher minimum wage which makes that problem worse--ultimately keeping unemployment up in.

As for saying 'negative things,' what exactly are these 'negative things' you speak of, aside from on Talk Radio and Fox News? Is it because the 'mainstream' media is becoming more critical of Obama, even though they still back him? I mean honestly, he has been getting a pass from virtually everyone in journalism and when people raise doubts they are being 'negative?' This is beyond insane, albeit that Obama is working to help the US is insane in and of itself. I suggest you quit watching MSNBC (which is as left-bis as Rush is right-bias, save they refuse to admit it) and look into the history of US recessions and how they were ended. WWII spending ended the Great Depression, Reagen ended the Carter recession, while Bush, using Reagen's model ended the 2000 Tech Bubble recession, though he abandoned that model when this recession started in 2007. Now do to ideologies which conflict with fact, this recession is likely to persist for years as I eluded to in my previous posts.

As for Rasmussen polling...they use random samples of 'likely voters' as the base of their calculations and conduct such polls regularly to track any trends in the figures. Such methods are superior to simply sampling random chunks of the population--as those who don't vote (40% of the electorate) are not likely to start voting, while someone who voted on an election, say 28 years ago but not since, is not likely to vote again. Someone who has voted in every presidential election so far, and even rarer someone who votes on every off-year election (around half of the electorate) are likely to continue to in the future.

However Rasmussen should adjust it's headlines to stating that it's shows "voter opinion" as opposed to "public opinion," but then again it's the opinion of voters which matter the most, as someone who doesn't vote really doesn't make their opinion count. And as for Obama's numbers--all polling shows them continuing to slide.

Stephen of WI 8:56PM July 25, 2009