Posted on 07/24/2012 4:02:29 PM PDT by Hojczyk
His personal favorability, once a strong point for Obama, has vanished and is now being replaced by a personal dislike that is dragging him down.
These data, buried deep in the latest NY Times/CBS poll (of registered voters, not likely voters) are both stark and important. In April, Obama had a 42-45 favorable/unfavorable rating, itself a shock given his vastly higher favorable ratings only a few months before. Now, he has a favorable rating of only 36% and an unfavorable rating of 48%.
The NY Times poll showed Romney getting 47% of the vote compared to 46% for Obama (again, this poll is of registered voters, likely voter polls are more pro-Romney). So that means that one-quarter of Obama’s voters do not give him a favorable rating – a danger sign for the president.
What is most notable about this statistic is that it is not due primarily to the bad economy. While the Times poll showed that the percent of voters who feel he is doing a good job in handling the economy has dropped to 36%, Obama’s ratings in this category have been low for some time. The drop in favorability is new.
Rather the cause of his decreased likeability is his negative campaigning, both in person and on the air. He is now no longer the sunny, optimistic, friendly person he portrayed himself as being in 2008. Instead, a nasty, surly, angry image has taken over.
This change is at the heart of Obama’s dilemma. The more he goes negative, the more he hurts himself in the process and undermines the reservoir to good will that has sustained him through tough economic times.
As recently as one year ago, Obama’s personal favorability was ten points above his vote share in most polls. Now it is ten points below it presaging further a likely further drop in his poll number
I agree. Liberals love for their leaders to go negative. They lap it up, and it has proven to shore up their vote.
So the question becomes what is it then, that is lowering his personal favorability?
If we look at things from the perspective of those who placed so much "hope" in him-liberals who suck on the government teat and the anti war faction (sometimes one in the same), then we can begin to see what's wrong. Remember, there were even some who believed he was going to pay their mortgage. Expectations of Obama on the left were far higher than he could possibly deliver.
His promises to the left have largely not been kept-Guantanamo, getting out of Afghanistan, he couldn't rescind the Bush tax "cuts", Obama failed in nearly everything the left expected of him.
I think his troubles derive from the high expectations the left had, and he's now being seen as a loser.
Losers blame everyone else for their shortcomings. Losers make excuses. Losers gamble. And gamblers lose. He backed OWS, he backed green energy, he backed the Harvard professor, he backed Trayvon. Losers all.
Drone killings are not appreciated by the left.
Obamacare was not on the average leftists voter's wish list when they elected him, and now they're asking "What's in it for me" and the answer is "not much".
Though those of us on the right see the Republicans in Congress as having failed us, the left sees that they have effectively blocked Obama's plans, and it's become one of his many excuses for failure.
Barack Obama has always been a loser, and now this fact is being recognized by those who expected so much more of him.
“Romney needs to hire the people that did this great ad for Scott Brown:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqDIjGsBEP8";
fyi, scott brown’s people are romney’s people.
You don’t think Brown came up with a statewide campaign organization on his own within weeks of Kennedy’s death do you ?
If you watched Brown’s victory speech, the first person he thanked was Mitt Romney who was on the stage with Brown.
I have two sisters who are delusional nutcases.
GREAT IDEA!
that works in Massachusetts?
Time will tell..
Oddly enough, this is conventional wisdom campaign-wise. You don't have your candidate do the real attack-dog negative campaigning.
This is for surrogates (think Sununu for Romney) often the VP. IMHO, what happened was Obama tried surrogates at first. Biden bombed. Corey Booker pulled his anti-Obama/Bain ad stunt and was sent to the woodshed. Clinton did something similar. Axelrod was sent out in a major effort and blew it too.
I believe it was then that Obama stepped more into this role of attack dog.
And I think you are right on Romney not making the same mistake.
Another disadvantage, besides not looking presidential, is that when Obama goes negative, his personality of a snarky, sarcastic, angry man is revealed.
The master, as usual, was Ronald "there you go again" Reagan.
The left is apparently trying to turn it around on him and act like his comments are over the top.
Of course, ignoring and or covering truly nutty comments oozing from B.O.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-under-fire-comments-london-olympics-160305180.html
I believe it was then that Obama stepped more into this role of attack dog.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I suspect Obama is narcisistic enough to think that only he is able to do the job.
I further suspect that other’s around him suspect that and are allowing him, at risk to himself, do the attacking.
They know he is teetering on nutso?
Ever watch a Face in the Crowd with Andy Griffith.
It seems like there has to be some of that going on..?
I have seen Face in the Crowd.
I noticed a bit of difference in Obama’s look here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gS5FJR34C5U
I noticed a bit of difference in Obama’s look
Yep, delusional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder
I bet he is standing on the balcony at the WH giving the ‘best of’ Obama speaches every night and then playing the applause machine after each sentence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.