Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: National Survey (PPP 1/18-19)


Public Policy Polling (D)
1/18-19/10; 1,151 registered voters, 2.8% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(PPP release)

National

Obama Job Approval
46% Approve, 47% Disapprove (chart)
Dems: 81 / 15 (chart)
Reps: 11 / 83 (chart)
Inds: 43 / 45 (chart)

Do you support or oppose President Obama's health care plan, or do you not have an opinion?
40% Support, 49% Oppose (chart)

Are you happy or unhappy with the current direction of...
The Democratic Party: 30% Happy, 51% Unhappy
The Republican Party: 19% Happy, 56% Unhappy

Has Barack Obama lived up to your expectations as President so far?
41% Yes, 49% No

Party ID
36% Democrat, 35% Republican, 29% independent/other (chart)

 

Comments
JMSTiger:

I have never seen a time where the American people are so disgusted by both political parties. Not only that, they are suspicious and angry at government and large institutions in general, whether it be corporations, Wall Street, the media, etc. There is rage out in the land and all these political hacks (no matter the party) better watch out. Enough is enough!

____________________

LordMike:

That Dem approval is going to start going down, too, with Obama and the dems completely capitulating on health care reform. The base is not happy at all at the moment, and they will be LIVID as more of this news comes out.

And those Indies that don't approve of the health care reform plans. They won't be happy very long, either, when they find out that the status quo will not change for another 30 years.

____________________

Stillow:

Lordmike - The indies wanted "real" reform, not back room special deals with big unions and certain states getting huge kickbacks....the best thing for the Dems to do now is to start over, do it right. Open the door, get input from all sides and actually get real reform done....and not just try to jam thru some highly ppartisan piece of junk no one wanted.

JMSTiger

Very very true. The disgust for both parties is alive and well. It started with the GOP and when the Dems took ove rit was the same thing. People don't trust g'ment or wall street right now.

There is real anger out there right now on both sides and its growing. At some point soemthing has to give......dunno when or what it will be, but soemthing will eventually have to give way here.

____________________

LordMike:

Start over... whatever... in 30 years, maybe. If reform dies now it dies forever... No politician will touch this with a ten foot ppole ever again. What, do you think GOP legislation won't have "backroom deals" either? Please...

As for people not liking it... no one knows even what's in it or how it helps people... You certainly like to spout out untruths about the bills.

I guarantee that once this would have passed and people had benefited from it, NO ONE would want to go back to the old way, which is why the GOP wanted it dead... it would reduce their clout. That's the only thing they give a damn about is power.

The only way "reform" will ever happen is under a GOP president who might have some compunction to care a bit (unlikely). Then Fox News won't be going off smearing everything about the plans being developed. In the end, there won't be much to it, though... GOP "reforms" are all about sick peopel paying more for health care... not much "reform" in that, is there...

When Bush lost congress in 2006 over the Iraq war, his response was to escalate it. Here we lose one Senate seat in a freak special election, and the response? Total capitulation and abandonment of the people that got you there...

I should have voted for Hillary... She wouldn't have collapsed like this...

Ans, you're right, Stillow... this country is absolutely ungovernable with the filibuster being used on every bill possible... No wonder peopel are angry at government... it's incapable of getting anything done!

____________________

LordMike:

I should have said, government is structurally incapable of getting anything done.

As for doing HCR right... there is only one way to do it "right" and that's single payer, but since that's "off the table", we have to create 2,000 page bills to work through an inherently unworkable system.

____________________

Stillow:

There ya go again with your liberal arrogance...you know better than everyone else. And you ugys wonder why HCR is near death and why you keep getting your butt kicked in elections. People are NOT as stupid as you libs want them to be.

You gaurantee everyone woudl just love it huh.....again, pure liberal arrogance.

Your hopeless, keep up htis mindset and you will have no seats left anywhere. This attempt to push thru a partisan hack of a bill is going to fail. Fro mthe LA purchase to the cornhusker kickback....people reject it.

Keep thinking your sleezy tactics are pure and noble....keep thinking americans are just to dumb and stupid.....this new wave of liberal arrogance is really working wonders for you at the polls on election day.

____________________

Stillow:

LordMike - oh and the ironyis had Dems not been corrupt and changed the law AGAIN after TK passed away....Coakley probably would have wo nthe seat months ago.....karma, its a wonderful thing. Your own sleezy tactics cost you what you wanted most.

____________________

LordMike:

Conservative arrogance... that one can just lie and lie and lie and mean it's the truth. Medicare had 25% approval rating when it was passed, and now even the GOP defends it.

You can't say you like it or not until you try it? Right? But, no we can't have that... and you know why? 'Orrin Hatch made it clear, he said that HCR would be the death of the GOP. That's his own words. Take with it what you will.

I guess Orrin is just an arrogant liberal.

Enjoy your ever shrinking access to healthcare...

____________________

Field Marshal:

Stillow,

They were talking about that yesterday on the local news here. Dems sleaze tactics cost them big time. From the manipulation of Teddy Kennedy (the people's) seat to union giveaways but most of all, to the outright bribes given to Nelson and Landrieu.

LordMike's post is exactly why the Dem party is in serious trouble. They are fundamentally incapable of compromise and non-vitriolic banter. I mean, look at his post. There is a ton of classic liberal talking points that are completely false lies but that he and his other myrmidons completely agree with.

The arrogance and superiority that the liberals perceive that they possess is amazing. From education to health care to helping the poor. All of their initiatives end as miserable failures.

If this bill passed, nothing would have changed. Real reform wasn't happening here as much as you think it was. And the more people know what is in the bill, the more they are against it.

____________________

Field Marshal:

"Enjoy your ever shrinking access to healthcare..."

Bitter much???

HAAA! HAAA! HAAA!

____________________

Stillow:

Its true. Had Dems not changed the rules yet again in Mass and allowed a speical election right away the Dems would have won. They did it at TK's request...so i na funny way we owe the failure of this horrible HCR bill to TK himself. Thank you Senator kennedy!

____________________

LordMike:

Don't be an jerk... Millions of people are going to die or go bankrupt due to lack of access to care. One of them may end up being you! So, your laughter may soon turn to tears when your insurance companies denies your $200,000 annual treatment costs.

So, enjoy yourself... just don't get sick!!

You don't think this will affect you, but it will... it will...

____________________

Field Marshal:

Well, since the government is more likely to deny me care than my private insurance company would, the Dems bill doesn't improve my situation at all.

____________________

Porchnik:

Every time a new poll comes out on this website, the same two rightwingers spend hours posting comment after comment. They spend more time on pollster.com than most people spend looking at porn.

____________________

Stillow:

Well go back to your porn then...............

____________________

Xenobion:

People are dancing in the streets because the status quo is maintained. Tort reform and being able to buy across state lines REALLY helps that person who absolutely has no care (i.e. me who works a full time job).

But NOOOOoooooo we suddenly want transparency in every place possible because it will apparently matter or not what people are saying behind closed doors about these Sweetheart deal Pork projects to the bill that any Republican would include in their bill. Yeah the system works if you don't want it to do anything. Republicans have been pretty smart to never really do anything in congress other than a tax-cut and sit back and legislate nothing or start failure things like No Child Left behind. The best government is one that doesn't do anything because I can't be bothered with Global Warming, Immigrants, or HCR. All those things scare me and as the faithful Republican that I am I'm going to put band-aids on hemoraging programs, War spend like its no tomorrow, and dance in the streets because the market and Adam Smith's invisible hand will give me that soothing massage of ignorance and bliss. Republicans have no balls to fix anything really. I wouldn't expect them to touch a controversial project when their own party is hemoraging its leadership.

____________________

bigfoot9p6:

Field Marshal Said: "Bitter much???

HAAA! HAAA! HAAA!"

Your average republican would say the same thing to someone dying because an economically induced lack of health care.

____________________

bigfoot9p6:

Field Marshall said: "Bitter much???

HAAA! HAAA! HAAA!"

I imagine he would say about the same think to a person dying because of an economically induced lack of health care.

The difference between the two parties comes down to one major thing. The democrats care about people, the republicans care about money. Dems get in trouble because they spend too much trying to help people. Reps get in trouble because they could care less, as along as the money keeps flowing in. Win, lose or draw, my conscience requires that I fight the republicans in any way possible.

____________________

Field Marshal:

"The difference between the two parties comes down to one major thing. The democrats care about people, the republicans care about money. "

Suuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeee!! The only thing Dems care about is power and the expansion of government and rarely does that equate to the helping of people other than a few votes that they need to buy. (see: unions, Nebraskans, and Louisianians)

____________________

bigfoot9p6:

So getting 30000 people insured is just an accidental side product a grab for some kind of nebulous power? Right in touch with reality I see.

____________________

bigfoot9p6:

Lets say for the sake of argument that your cynical point of view is correct. Nothing good for the people will ever get done by those we choose to represent us, and anyone who believes so (such as myself) is a naive, wild eyed idealist. I am sure of two things: 1) For my own personal happiness I would much rather be naive (which may be true) than cynical (which is demonstrably true of you). 2) The discovery of America, the idea of democracy, the abolition of slavery, womens sufferage, civil rights, the eradication of small pox and other devastating diseases, etc etc were accomplished by idealists, while the cynics told them not to bother.

____________________

Napoleon Complex:

@porchnik:

Yeah, it is a drag that a couple of arrogant, conservative trolls ruin these boards by sitting on them all day trying to pick fights based on the drivel they picked up from O'Reilly and Hannity the night before.

But there are other places where you can find intelligent discussions of polling techniques and other topics. I'd provide links, but I wouldn't want Still-No-Credibility and his butt boy Meadow Muffin to find out where they are.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Stillow,

Its a shame that left wing, arrogant, liberal trolls run these boards by sitting on them all day writing asinine drivel they picked up from Matthews, Olberman, and Shultz the night before.

There are a bunch of other places where you can get intelligent discussion about the implications of recently released polling on other sites. I wouldnt want to post them here because the no critical thinking and his French surrender monkey would go there.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Bigfoot,

And all the things you cite as well as 99% of all advances in humanity have been accomplished by idealists who relied on themselves and no one else. They also thrived in places that allowed people to invent, produce and think of new ideas and inventions. It wasnt big government or statist ideals that allowed those advances to percolate.

Creating nanny states and government control just reverses or slows considerably the advance of our country and humanity.

____________________

bigfoot9p6:

Field Marshall,
All of the things I cited, + 99% of advances in humanity were considered liberal ideas at the time, and are now considered common sense. Your attitude, and that of the right in general is "government can't and shouldn't do anything for the peopl." Which is a fine philosophy. However, I will not vote someone into government who holds this philosophy anymore than I would go to a doctor who believed "modern medicine can't and shouldn't work for patients" or hire an employee who told my "the job you may hire me for can't and shouldn't be done." Its ludicrous (from my perspective).

____________________

Bigmike:

Lots of arrogance on both sides of the aisle in DC. If both would budge a little there could be meaninful HCR done next week. Dems would have to give up on their single payer pipe dreams and Reps would have to be OK with spending a little extra.

Lets make a deal. I'm conservative, never tried to hide it. Give me:

Tort reform (Cuts cost)

One national set of rules. This is tied to buying across state lines. Right now insurance companies have to deal with regulations from 50 state boards or commissions. How about national rules to simplify things. (Cuts cost)

Here is what I will give libs in return.

No more pre-existing conditions. (Expands coverage)

No more drop you when the bills get too high (Expands coverage)

Make more people eligible for MedicAid (Expands coverage)

This could have been done months ago. How many people have died because BO, Pelosi, and Reid are not willing to compromise?

____________________

Bigmike:

And how did I get left off the arrogant, conservative troll list.

Y'all sure know how to hurt a guy.

____________________

bigfoot9p6:

Field Marshall,
In continuation of my last post, its also a bit absurd to imply that the idea of democracy, the abolition of slavery, womens sufferage, civil rights, the eradication of small pox and other devastating diseases and in addition space travel, nuclear power, the computer and internet, most breakthroughs in the field of natural science and an incredible number of additional innovations were accomplished without a role for government. I certainly agree that the free market of ideas has contributed a great number of innovations, and should be preserved and protected. However, I am an organic chemist (which allows me insight into the pharmaceutical industry) so let me give you an example thats close to home for me. When you watch tv, you see all these exciting commercials for drugs to cure acid reflux, genital herpes, and new forms of contraception because those are the drugs that make money and therefore lead to innovation in the treatment of those diseases. But you do not hear about innovation in the treatment of malaria, dysentery, AIDS, and other diseases that effect those without money for exactly that reason. So the free market provides innovation where it can make money, government funded research provides innovation for important problems that may not be economically rewarding but certainly are serious problems.

____________________

LordMike:

"This could have been done months ago. How many people have died because BO, Pelosi, and Reid are not willing to compromise?"

The GOP will NOT AGREE TO ANYTHING! Not even if you tried to pass Boehner's bill. They will not give Obama a "win" of any sorts.

The Senate bill was practically written by Chuck Grassley, and yet they were pushed by leadership not to support it.

The GOP refuses to compromise... Obama has tried and tried again, stupidly, IMO to work with people who want to see him fail.

____________________

Pluoticus:

We're all arrogant unless we bow down and become subservient to an all mighty all encompassing government that has it's corrupt little fingers into our lives whether we like it or not...
That's how it works...right bigfoot,LordMike, etc?

____________________

Stillow:

Some of you libs just cannot accept other opinion. Anyone who doesn't think like you, you want to silence. Anyone who does not put all there faith in g'ment must be stupid. You lcaim to thrive on diversity, but its the last thing you want. You want no opposition at all.

The HCR was a perfect example, you tried to ram this thing thru on a purely partisan basis and it backfired on you, BIG.

I've noted several times there are many blogs out there which only allow liberal comments and opinion....if you cannot handle a back and forth debate, then I would suggest you head over to one of those sites where everyone drinks the same kool aid.

I'm sure you will find people just like yourselves who say Dems are for people, repubs are for money and other total crap like that.

____________________

saywhat90:

I hate to say it but Phil Gramm was and is right. We are nothing but a nation of whiners. We expect the government to fix our problems(and we do since we keeep crying for the government to find the jobs they didn't lose us.) Then we whine about how dare they interfere or spend money to fix a problem. We expect thing to be fixed almost immediately without having to pay the cost or we have a temper tantrum(Tea Party).

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"I hate to say it but Phil Gramm was and is right."

I agree, it's sad but true. It's very hard to implement any domestic reforms. Clinton succeeded in reducing programs - welfare and defense, which saved money, but he failed at reforming anything significantly. G.W. Bush failed at both social security and immigration. Obama got health care 95% of the way but it wasn't enough, although the problem is the senate, where MORE than 60 votes are needed to do anything. I actually place the bulk of the blame with Baucus and Reid. And Ted Kennedy, simply because he picked the wrong time to die. If it had been Kennedy and not Baucus crafting the bill, things probably would gone better in the senate.

It seems to me that presidential success is largely based on foriegn policy now. Pretty much the only thing people can agree on are 1) cutting taxes, 2) going to war, and 3) taking away or denying people rights (gay marriage). Oh, and security. Polls show more than 80% of people would give up a lot of rights just to feel safe from terrorism. Makes you have some more respect for the intestinal fortitude of Israelis (or Palestinians for that matter); they deal with stuff everyday that would cause us to shut the country down.

____________________

polls_apart:

I have to respond to Stillow's comment about the change in the special election laws delaying the election and preventing Coakley from winning it.
The change in the special election was the appointment of an interim Senator to hold the seat until the special election was held.
The special election was NOT delayed on account of the presence of the interim Senator. It would have been held at the same time (early Dec. primary, mid Jan. general) whether or not an interim Senator had been appointed. Kennedy died in late August. For filling an important position like Senator, it takes time to determine who is running and then allow them to campaign in their primary races.
The interim Senator kept the seat filled until the election could be held. That is all.
What IS true is that the Democrats originally changed the law to prevent Mitt Romney from appointing a replacement for a Senatorial vacancy (in case Kerry won the 2004 election). That appointment would have served until the next election in an even-numbered year, whereupon an election would have been held to serve out the remainder of the term (if any).
If that system had remained in place, Patrick would have appointed a (democratic) replacement for Kennedy who would have served until the end of Kennedy's term in 2012.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Democrats originally changed the law"

Talk about counting your chickens...in more ways than one.

____________________

farleftandproud:

Big Mike: You know this doesn't sound like a bad idea you have. Unfortunately the GOP in the senate other than Snowe or collins would consider it, but perhaps if they do, All is not lost.

(In response to Big Mike's statement"

Tort reform (Cuts cost)

One national set of rules. This is tied to buying across state lines. Right now insurance companies have to deal with regulations from 50 state boards or commissions. How about national rules to simplify things. (Cuts cost)

Here is what I will give libs in return.

No more pre-existing conditions. (Expands coverage)

No more drop you when the bills get too high (Expands coverage)

Make more people eligible for MedicAid (Expands coverage)

This could have been done months ago. How many people have died because BO, Pelosi, and Reid are not willing to compromise?

____________________

Field Marshal:

"All of the things I cited, + 99% of advances in humanity were considered liberal ideas at the time, and are now considered common sense."

Wrong BigFoot. You're equating liberalism with liberal ideology. They aren't even close to be the same. In fact, i would think they are polar opposites. Liberalism promotes freedom and the pursuit of happiness while liberals promote the idea of the collective with equal outcomes.


"So the free market provides innovation where it can make money, government funded research provides innovation for important problems that may not be economically rewarding but certainly are serious problems."

I would agree that basic government funded research is helpful for society. Its one of the few areas where i think the government can add value. That and rural utilities and power generation. But in most other aspects, government gets in the way of progress by picking winners and losers through tax policy and subsidies. They pick these winners and losers not based on value but on politics.

____________________

bigfoot9p6:

Field Marshall said: Wrong BigFoot. You're equating liberalism with liberal ideology. They aren't even close to be the same. In fact, i would think they are polar opposites. Liberalism promotes freedom and the pursuit of happiness while liberals promote the idea of the collective with equal outcomes.

I think its very difficult to argue that democracy (in the 18th century), womans suffrage and civil rights (in the 20th century) along with medicare, medicaid and social security (also in the 20th century) were not proposed by people who had what was considered a liberal ideology at the time, and were railed against by the conservatives of the time. These things are now considered common sense. Now the liberal ideas include equal rights for gays, responsible environmental stewardship, and universal health care. I absolutely promise you that at some point in the future (dont know about timeline) these ideas will be considered common sense. The inexorable trend of history is toward liberalism.

____________________

bigfoot9p6:

Conservatives periodically talk about how such and such proposal is "the biggest expansion of government in history." In reality the biggest expansion of government was going from a monarch (how much smaller can government get) to democracy.

____________________

Field Marshal:

I think its very easy to argue that liberalism is opposite to liberal ideology. The founding fathers espoused freedoms; freedoms of speech, press, RELIGION, and smaller government. These are the anti-thesis of liberal ideology which feature the collective.

I would also disagree about equal rights. Civil rights were bi-partisan in nature. The only disagreement between dems and reps was how to achieve it. Remember, it was the Reps who freed the slaves. You can spin that all you want but it wont change it from being fact.

I would grant you medicare, medicaid, and social security are liberal ideological inventions. But i would also argue with you that there weren't better alternatives to them that weren't liberal in ideology.

____________________

bigfoot9p6:

How do argue that the founding fathers in promoting democracy over monarchy is promoting smaller government? In regard to the other things you named a) freedom of speech/freedom of expression: I would say conservatives are fairly unanimous in opposition to allowing gay couples to express their commitment via marriage. b) Freedom of press: the right loves to hate on the media for having a liberal bias. In a free market media should be able to put whatever spin on the news they want and let the consumer sort it out. c) Freedom of religion means tolerance for people of all religions, and it is ridiculous to argue that there is persecution against christians when 44/44 of our presidents have been christian. As for smaller government, like I said above monarchy is about as small as it gets, and the founding fathers weren't so hot on that idea. Civil rights were opposed by southern conservatives. You can spin it all you like, but the south didn't all of the sudden go from liberal (when civil rights and abolition were passed) to conservative today. And it is absolutely insane to think that a centralized government telling the people to free their slaves is a good example of small government.

____________________

bigfoot9p6:

In the 1860's the southern rallying cry was "states rights." In other words advocating for smaller, decentralized national government.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Bigfoot,

And the south in the 1860's was completely democratic. Go to the website below and in the drop down menu, select 1860. http://www.270towin.com/

I fail to understand your points. Allowing freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and speech does not equate to agreeing with all aspects of it. Gay marriage is not speech. Marriage itself is an institution. I have never heard a conservative attempting to restrict the press, just liberals through Fairness Docterines et al. Yes, all presidents have been Christian. I never said otherwise. I just stated that conservatives believe in freedom of religion, not freedom FROM religion which is what liberals believe. The founding fathers definitely didnt espouse anything close to that. And being for one religion does not make you against another. Liberals are against them all.

Yes, southern conservatives AND southern democrats opposed civil rights. Civil rights was more North against South than liberal versus conservative.

____________________

bigfoot9p6:

I am not allied with the Democratic party, I am allied with liberalism. If I had been alive in the 1860's I would have identified with the fight for equality (a liberal ideal today as always) and fought the folks who were trying to CONSERVE the status quo. As for marriage, having just gotten married I can tell you with it fresh in my mind that it was absolutely an expression, and people should be free to make that expression regardless of race, religion, or sexuality. As for being against all religion, I come from a liberal Christian family and it is pure fantasy on the right to suggest that liberals want to abolish religion. Obviously if 44/44 presidents were christian, and not all were conservative, some must have been liberal christians - no? When you say that conservatives are not for freedom from religion does that mean you believe that government should mandate that all people should be religious in some way?
Southern democrats were conservatives. They were trying to conserve their way of life. It is another of many examples where some people (liberals) said, you know I think we could make improvements to our social structure, and others (conservatives) said, no things are just hunky dory they way they are. Pretty much all the major changes, democracy, abolition, suffrage, civil rights conform to this pattern.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR