CNN Poll: Independents disapprove of Obama (0bmam tanks in another MSM poll!)

He still at 53% overall approval, But he's lost the Independents. To get a 53% you know Dems were once again over sampled.

How many Dems did they oversample to come up with 53% positive?

2010 and 2012 are not looking too good for the dims (thankfully so).

I can't believe that nine out of 10 dems. support him. This poll is bull crap. The far left do not like what he is doing, and everything I read says that the far left is leaving him(at least for a while).

Doesn't say. Only states that 1,010 ADULT AMERICANS were surveyed by telephone.

Not likely voters, just generic adults,

I checked as well.

Usually, they sample about 20% GOPers in these polls, which is laughable.

by telephone.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&

By land line? This poll is unbelievable!

Tee-hee. By landline! LOL

Even CBS's telephone survey of generic adults included random dialing of landlines and cell phones.

Conservatives comprise the majority ideology in America but the Democrats enjoy a plurality in party identification. Democrats have succeeded brilliantly in converting the independents into Democrats in November. In fact, Gallup says was that it is the independents combining with the Democrats that yield the overwhelming majorities that we see coloring the map blue and which present Republicans with such a daunting challenge every cycle.

It is the structural anomaly of American politics in which conservatism as an ideology is in ascendancy but where Democrats have acquired control of virtually everything.

In a companion thread from the New York Post the headline describes the extent to which this victorious combination for the Democrats is coming unraveled:

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S POLL NUMBERS CONTINUE TO TUMBLE (independents disapprove by a whopping 66%)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2329922/posts

Rasmussen says that Obama's approval among unaffiliated voters is now down to 38%.

I confess I do not understand what motivates an independent. I am a party ideologue and conservative to the core, in fact, I describe myself as a "foaming at the mouth, flopping on the floor conservative." The airy detachment of an independent is simply unfathomable to me. It is incomprehensible why someone would vote for someone else to rule over them because the man said he was for "hope" and "change?" Even less can I understand why someone would want someone to be Commander in Chief at a time when we are engaged in two wars, an Economist in Chief at a time when the country faces the most ominous economic crisis in generations, because the man is African-American. I am unmoved by a political movement which seeks to assuage white guilt for vicarious sins and I am nonplussed when it succeeds.

I am acutely sensitive to that which so many independents evidently are oblivious. I am jealous over our Constitution and resent whoring after false ideologies. I treasure our constitutional rights and actually resent intrusions. I cannot understand indifference to these things. I want small government and the rule of law and I cannot understand the mindset which is so easily seduced by personality. I do not understand a voter who votes on personality or other than principle, the video image rather than party, slogan rather than substance.

Like soldiers in our civil war or in the trenches in World War I who spontaneously make a Christmas truce with the enemy, I can understand the leftist. The leftist knows that we are engaged in a struggle to the ideological death. He is our mortal enemy and must be defeated or he will kill us but I do not understand the Scooby- Doo- ism of the detached Independent. Don't they know that politics is what determines who gets what and who is made to pay for it at the point of a gun? Don't they realize that this election might determine whether their children live or die in a foreign war or in a domestic "human catastrophe?" How can they decide these issues because they like someone's smile?

It is damned frustrating to know the people who think this way are the ones who decide our fate. It must be equally frustrating to leftists when the power of their boy' s smile is wearing thin. But our job is not to curse the independents but to find the key to whatever it is that motivates them.

I think that the Independents that voted for the chosen one did so to prove they are color blind. That is wearing thin quickly due the chosen ones constant use of the race card. I can only imagine the filth that will flow from his mouths when he is booted out in 2012. The saddest part of this is there are probably lots of good black men and women out there who could be President. J.C. Watts comes to mind. But the chosen one has spoiled the apple barrel so badly that it will be 50 to 75 years before another black person has an opportunity to be President.

I am much happier being the "airy detachment independent" who, for the record, happened to vote Republican in 08, due to Palin being on their ticket

than being a Republican ideologue, who voted for McCain 'cause he was their guy...

Then again, I must confess I do not understand what motivates someone to walk lock-step with any political party these days.

"But our job is not to curse the independents but to find the key to whatever it is that motivates them.
wow, only 300+ words maligning independents before suggesting you may actually need their support.

quite possibly you are mistaking independents as the perplexing 'undecided' voters of election cycles?

nathanbedford your post was truthful and eloquently written.

In a more simple terms..

The flaky Independents either bought into the Hopey Changey crud and/or disliked Bush so much they threw a temper tantrum and decided to break for Obama.

He signaled more than once throughout the campaign what his ideology consisted of but “nooooo” the dullards thought they knew better.

I do not know Nathan as yet, however I know how we Southerners of Conservative persuasion think...it is up down, right wrong, left right, good evil, we leave Nuance to the light headed elites that think they make the world go around...we are not biased against independent thinking, hell Logic and common sense is what attracts us all to Sara Palin...she is just like my family from the Old South...Strong, INDEPENDENT, Brave, Clean and Reverent...Common Sense with Independent thought in todays world leaves the communist dims party out of any reational discussion if you want to keep your personal liberty~!!!

“Strong, INDEPENDENT, Brave, Clean and Reverent”

You Betcha!

http://womensissues.about.com/od/genderwarriors/p/SarahPalin.htm

I infer from your reference to Sarah Palin that you are an independent who is estranged from the Republican Party because you consider it not to be conservative enough. So you and I as conservatives have only one quarrel: how best to achieve conservative government? I stipulate that you might also be a libertarian but for the most part our views are nevertheless congruent unless you are opposed to national defense, or unless you are in support of abortion. So my assumption probably holds that we both seek the same kind of governance.

I cannot agree that abandoning the Republican Party as the vehicle to carry us to that end is the prudent path. Some time ago I drafted this reply, but I cannot be sure that it was posted:

Governing is about exercising power. Political parties are about appropriating that power to one's own purpose. The founding fathers created a government containing many checks and balances in an effort to frustrate human tendency to consolidate power in one tyrant or, on the other hand, to concede power to the mob. Political parties in America are designed to overcome the checks and balances put by the framers into the Constitution.

The peculiar architecture of the American federal system with its bicameral legislatures, tripartite "coequal" branches of government, staggered elections for various branches, Constitutional limitations of government power especially freedom of the press and speech, are designed to make government impotent in the absence of a general consensus. The purpose of political parties is to provide that consensus for its constituents' point of view, to provide a consensus about how power should be wielded across the various competing entities of government.

The peculiar architecture of the American federal political system with its checks and balances means that it functions properly as a two-party system. Any successful attempt to form a third political party invariably condemns the political party from which it shoots off and to which it is most closely ideologically aligned to oblivion. Since it is human nature to entertain incessant arguments over the proper application of political power, political parties in America have developed a survival mechanism, they co-opt the principle grievances of the splinter group and make the dissidents' platform their own. This has been the history of political parties in America since the beginning. When a new ideology becomes popular, one party or the other seeks to absorb it.

If the party misjudges the public mood and embraces a splinter ideology in an effort to co-opt when that ideology is too radical to be palatable to the general public, the party loses the next election because it moves out of the mainstream. If the party misjudges the other way and declines to co-opt a movement which happens to be of sufficient strength, the party loses the next election because it has fractured its base. If a party attempts to absorb views of the other party, or approaching that of the other party, it risks losing the next election by alienating its own base. If it fails to absorb views approaching the ideology of the other party, it risks losing the next election by isolating itself to its own base.

Political parties are eternally faced with the same dilemma: should the party dilute its core message to attract less ideologically motivated voters or should it confine itself to a pure message and energize its core constituents? In attempting to solve these tensions, political parties are like amoebas or yeasts, everlastingly dividing or growing.

These realities which have been laid out above are regarded to be descriptive not necessarily desirable. The first reality is that America functions with a two-party system. Any deviation from that dialectic means that the system is wrecked and the dissidents almost always engage in self-defeating behavior which brings governance to the other end of the political system and accomplishes precisely the opposite of what they intend. This is of course not always the case as when the nation is confronted with a tectonic issue such as slavery. But it was the case for example with many other movements in America. Strong movements are absorbed by one or the other of the political parties and unpopular dissident movements simply die off.

The question is how does the conservative movement seize the Republican Party and exploit that vehicle to bring conservative governance to the country and save the republic from Obama? Despite what I wrote above concerning the eternal give-and-take between absorption and rejection of splinter movements by a political party, I nevertheless believe that a political party, especially one that enjoys ideological agreement by a 60+ percent of the country, wins elections by the purity of its message. Anyone who can find an inconsistency between the prior post and the following post can make the most of it.

Here is a portion of a post which I published in response to a Politico article calling for Republicans and conservatives to move left to fill the big tent:

As we conservatives drag the remnants of our movement into the wilderness with no idea how we will emerge or whether we will ever emerge as an electoral force in America which is recognizable by my generation, we must inevitably engage ourselves in the most soul- searing inquiry of what went wrong. This will be an agony but equally it will be effective only to the degree that it hurts. It will not succeed without bloodshed. There must be finger-pointing and bloodletting. We must carve to the bone. The process must be Darwinian. Those whose ideas are false must be bayoneted on the trail.

The object is to find our soul - nothing less. In a come to Jesus sense we must get absolutely clear what it means to be a conservative. Only at this point do we look to the tent flaps and open them. Those who cannot subscribe to the hard-won consensus, to a confession of faith as to what is a conservative, should walk out through that flap. Those who are attracted from the outside to the core message of conservatism should be encouraged to walk through the flap and enlarge the tent. What the left wants us to do is to expand the census in the tent prematurely and thus turn a movement into a menagerie.

The Soul-searching must be conducted by conservatives without the earnest ministrations from liberals like those of Politico. This article, of course, has nothing whatever to do with explaining why Republicans lost 2008 election across the board, it has everything to do with first efforts by the left to sabotage the rebuilding process on the right which must be done exclusively by the right.

We have not lost the 2008 election because we were excessively partisan while Obama was enlightened and transcendental. We actually lost the election because George Bush and Karl Rove betrayed the soul of conservatism. A party without its soul is like an army which does not believe in itself, it cannot win the next contest. A party which had abandoned its principles and so lost the last two elections and frittered away both its power as the ruling coalition and its status as the majority philosophy of the nation, cannot expect to swell its ranks by recruiting to a lost cause. The party must first know what the cause is and only then can it recruit. To again borrow the military analogy, a party like an army disintegrates without a mission. Armies are assigned missions but a political party finds its mission only through soul-searching.

As this process occurs we will be told by the left that only a big tent party can win and that to become a big tent one must move to co-opt the center. That is not how it works. That is the reverse of the way it works. The center is not peopled by voters with fixed notions about the exercise of power who wait for one of the great political parties to surrender their values and embrace the tempered and resolute opinions of the middle. That happens with splinter parties but not with the mushy middle. When an unaffiliated voter bestirs himself to enter the polling booth he is confronted with one of two options: right or left. He does not consider who has moved the farthest geographically from right to the left or left to right any more than he commits because of his own long held political beliefs. He votes for the fella who best tickles his fancy at the moment. Put more charitably, he votes for the candidate who persuades that he is the best, and has the best to offer.

If we as conservatives do not believe that we have the best to offer we should get out of the business. A candidate, like a party, who is centered on his philosophy has integrity and is persuasive. And that philosophy must first have a vertical spiritual component which finds expression and out working in a horizontal governing philosophy.

Because of his race, Obama was asked only to demonstrate that he could walk and talk like a president. Obama has won the middle, not because he pandered to them, which he did, but because he had the wind at his back.

As John McCain reverts from titular head of the Republican Party to United States Senator, it falls to the rest of us to contrive a governing philosophy which he, unfortunately, did not own and therefore could not bequeath to us. We had such a legacy from Ronald Reagan but we squandered it. We must construct our own. We must do it in the wilderness. We must do it unaided by intermeddling liberals. Their's is the serpent's way, the easy way, a pander to the superficially popular, the accommodation to the middle. The bed of birth has always been a bed of pain. The pain must be embraced if we are to receive a new life.

Notice when the Democrat controlled media reports bad numbers they write them out and separate the written numbers from the news as far as they can. Just take a quick look and notice how your eyes are drawn to the 43% approve.

"Losing their support makes it more difficult for Obama to govern from the center."

Funny, but I have never noticed him doing this. When did it happen?