I didn’t look at the paper cited, but this bit still sounds ambiguous to me.
Maybe those policies weren’t be canceled in any wholesale fashion, but I don’t get the sense that there was any real guarantee of premium stability either. If there’s hard data in the paper that you can cite that gives a clearer perspective on how rate increases were handled for people who developed health issues on such policies, that would certainly be interesting but I’m not sufficiently invested in the discussion to go look for it. Thanks for the cite though.
The thing about the disapproval rating is, you can’t draw many conclusions from it other than people would be unable to vote for Obama again (I know I won’t!). But while many people disapprove of his policies, many also disapprove of his inability to get his policies implemented. I’m frustrated by his lack of progress on Gitmo, his inaction on gun control and immigration, his ramping up of drone strikes, and of course the bungled Healthcare Exchange rollout. It’s not all his fault of course; but I do think that he’s been pretty ineffective in a lot of areas. But these are all things I AGREE with him on (well except the drone strikes). So my dissatisfaction with him is exactly the opposite of someone on the Right who thinks his policies are disastrous.
Even a “big picture” leader expects accountability. People in responsibility are expected to offer their resignations when something this large and important goes this badly.
The support Obama continues to provide to the people who should be resigning is his equivalent of “You’re doing a hell of a job, Brownie”.
If he really wants to begin turning his poll numbers around it is way past time that some people “sought out new opportunities, or explored options in the private sector” or whatever you call getting canned now.
This. How many times have we heard from Obama that “I was just told about this yesterday” or “I found out in the newspaper this morning”. I agree with some of his policies and disagree with others, but everything he touches quickly turns into a giant turd. He seems to be best suited to giving great speeches, is a great campaigner, and is able to inspire people, but as a leader and implementer, he fails miserably.
The fact that there really is no accountability in his administration is very troubling as well. In the real world, if a CEO or executive of a company fails at a project or an initiative, they pay the price and are fired (though often with a golden parachute). But no one in his administration is ever fired. The fact that Sebelius still has a job is exhibit numero uno. It simply boggles the mind.
I believe you read that wrong. Kennedy’s lowest rating was 56%, which was 27% below his highest rating. I didn’t think he could have sunk that low, only being in office such a short time.
The modern lows, at least according to your link, are 22% for Truman, 24% for Nixon and 25% for BushII, and 28% for Carter. How was Carter not below BushII? In any event, there is still room for Obama to fall.
Note: Obama’s approval rating is this low with very gentle treatment by the mainstream media. Bush had to contend with the exact opposite. And unlike Obama and Obamacare, Bush did not CREATE Katrina.
:rolleyes: And Bush’s low approval ratings only was due to Katrina and not due to other factors such as the Iraq War (which he “created” I suppose) and corruption scandals.
Katrina was the moment when the public realized he was incompetent. And then all the other stuff that the public hadn’t blamed him much for, they started blaming him for.
I think we’ll see a similar dynamic with Obama. ACA removes the illusion that he is honest, and also that he is competent. So even if rollout goes better, it won’t help him because with this guy there’s always another part of his administration ready to make headlines, followed predictably by him claiming the first he heard about the problem is in the papers.
That being said, I don’t see him dropping below 35% and I think he’ll stabilize around 40%. Bush lost a lot of conservative support. I don’t see liberals ever abandoning Obama, nor will low information voters who like the way he speaks. But either way, he’s a lame duck now.
And this confidence of yours derives from…? Besides ACA, Obama already has stronger accomplishments than Bush ever did-passing a stimulus bill (thus preventing the recession from growing worse), repealing DADT, passing banking reform, waging the war against Islamist reaction far more efficiently than Bush, and Libya.
Bush lost far right-wing support due to his support for immigration reform. Also I’m amused you think Obama’s supporters are primarily “low information”.
If you’re measuring success by legislation passed, Bush actually passed many more consequential bills, and Obama can’t accomplish anything else on that front anyway. Not that Presidents should get credit for what other branches do. The President is responsible for HIS branch, not the other ones. He has been successful in the war on terror primarily by not making the mistake Bush did of taking prisoners. Makes things too complicated. That’s a doctrine future Presidents will stick to, I hope. Call it the Obama Doctrine: prisoners complicate things.
I do not think they are primarily low information, I only said that low information supporters of his will not be swayed by well, information.
There are certainly “low information” voters who will dependably vote for both democrats and republicans and never waiver. But the power of the press, which overwhelmingly supports democrat candidates, is undeniable. Sure, the mainstream press is losing their monopoly power to the internet, but the major newspapers and TV networks still set the tone and have a huge influence on what is spotlighted and discussed. Add in the larger number of people who are collecting food stamps, unemployment compensation, rent subsidies and other welfare, and there’s little doubt that there is a larger floor for Obama support than Bush had.
One note about the approval ratings mentioned on the last page: Nixon, BushII and Obama hit their big slides in their second terms, while Carter hit his in his first and was voted out. Frankly, I’m still incredulous 13 months later that this didn’t happen to Obama, but the chickens are (finally) coming home to roost. The fawning press and racist guilt propped him up long enough to get reelected, but now more and more are seeing his troublesome deficits in honesty, integrity, competency and humility.
I’ve never really understood why importance of “Approval rating” whether it’s Bush, Obama or the next guy. The only poll that matters is the one they hold every fourth November, and Obama isn’t even in the next one.
In theory (this case is not one of them, but in theory) a President’s approval rating could drop because he’s doing a GOOD job and is doing the right thing, it’s just that the right thing is unpopular.
No disagreement. It’s simply the way the press works. Just as 90 percent of the focus on presidential races is devoted to “who’s ahead”, “who’s rising” and “who’s dropping” in polls, with very little attention to issues and platforms, and even less to candidates that the press has determined have no chance to win. It infuriates me every time, and gets worse and worse. I understand the first amendment prevents it, but I would favor outlawing all polling regarding political races. Let the candidates and issues dominate, not the horse race aspect.
There’s another election before that one, and the “coat-tail effect” is huge. If the President is doing just nobs, and everybody loves him, he can campaign for Congressional and Senatorial candidates. If he’s in the dumper, he pretty much cannot. His popularity will have a huge effect on the makeup of the next Congress.
And since Congress lives day-to-day with the next election in mind, the President’s popularity also has a huge effect on legislation. If he’s hugely popular, he’s much more likely to persuade Congress to favor his initiatives; if not, not.
And you think the average person is going to do all that?? Most people don’t put that kind of effort anything unless its something they actually enjoy it or something they are forced to do so. It’s not that they’re stupid it’s just that they prioritize differently. I strongly suspect that you are the exception rather than the rule.
