Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: National Survey (Quinnipiac 1/5-11)


Quinnipiac
1/5-11/10; 1,767 registered voters, 2.3% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Quinnipiac release)

National

Obama Job Approval
45% Approve, 45% Disapprove (chart)
Dems: 81 / 12 (chart)
Reps: 16 / 74 (chart)
inds: 42 / 48 (chart)
Economy: 41 / 54 (chart)
Foreign Policy: 45 / 46 (chart)
Health Care: 35 / 58 (chart)
Afghanistan: 45 / 45
Creating Jobs: 34 / 59
Terrorism: 48 / 44

Job Approval / Disapproval
Dems in Congress: 32 / 59
Reps in Congress: 32 / 58

State of the Country 27% Satisfied, 72% Dissatisfied (chart)

Do you think Barack Obama's first year as President has been mainly a success or mainly a failure?
45% Success, 45% Failure

Do you think Barack Obama has been a better President than George W. Bush, worse, or about the same as President Bush?
43% Better, 30% Worse, 23% Same

In the Presidential election of 2008, if John McCain had become President instead of Barack Obama, do you think that, in general, the nation would be better off than it is today or worse off than it is today?
35% Better, 37% Worse, 17% Same

Would you say that Barack Obama - shares your views on issues that you care about or not?
46% Yes, 50% No

Do you think that the policies of President Barack Obama make the United States a safer place than the policies of former President George W. Bush, less safe, or about as safe as the policies of former President Bush?
24% Safer, 35% Less safe, 38% Same

 

Comments
CUWriter:

Wow. That is just a brutal, brutal poll. Upside down on every issue except terrorism and tied on Afghanistan. And for the record, even as a big time conservative, I'd approve on his Afghanistan policy.

But what really stands out to me is not the McCain/Obama comparison (I voted McCain, but count me as "same" in this poll) but that 53% of the country thinks Obama is only as good or worse than Bush was. Same "ouch" on the 46/50 split on Obama "sharing your views." Does not bode well for the president or the Dems in 2010.

____________________

Field Marshal:

The creating jobs approval/disapproval is one of particular weakness and one that will/can hurt him big time in 2010 and 2012.

Interesting to note that Quinn has the reps and dems in congress at the same approval. This pretty much debunks the DailyKos poll showing the Dems with a 30 point advantage.

Obama has been decent on foreign policy except for his global apology tour.

____________________

CUWriter:

Pretty fair to say that the people aren't fans of anyone in Washington. While that augurs well for the party out of power, it's not like people will be wholeheartedly embracing the GOP when they vote for it in November.

____________________

Williame123:

These numbers mean little for 2012. Reagan's numbers were similar in the beginning of '82 when unemployment was high but lower than it is now.

In fact Obama's numbers should be worse than they are now if you consider the number of big and unpopular things he has done and is continuing to do.

Think of high spending, HCR, Bank and Auto bailouts, monstrous deficits, 10% unemployment, unified Repub opposition, war fatique, continued determination to close Gitmo, civilian trials for alleged terrorists etc.

In light of these facts, Obama is stronger than Reagan and much stronger than Clinton at the same point in their presidencies. Yet, they were re-elected comfortably. The economy will most likely grow in the next 3 years and Obama will rebound.

____________________

Wong:

These numbers are good for the President, showing remarkable resillience and deep support in very trying times.

____________________

Stillow:

Williame123

Reagan was smart enough to put in place the right policies for recovery, Obama is doign the oppositte. Clinton was smart enoguh to drop HCR when he saw the public did not want the crap he was selling...so in time he receovered. Obama is doign the oppositte, his plan is to pass any bill, even a bad bill.

The tide is working against Big O....it was only a matter of time before the dislike for his policies started to catch up to him, his perosnal likability coudl not sustain him forever. He is quickly becoming a liability to the Dem party. If this keeps up much longer, congressional Dems may start to distance themselves from him in order to save there jobs.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

It's official! Barack Obama is the worst president OF ALL TIME! Take THAT James Buchanan!

____________________

Williame123:

Stillow

We will see. The last I checked Dems are still standing by Obama and HCR despite the tough environment. Also, Clinton didn't abandon HCR. The Dems abandoned him. Part of the reason conservatives are so frustrated with Obama is that he is stubborn and resilient.

See HCR, closing Gitmo, terrorism trials, stimulus and deliberaions on Afgan surge. He speaks softly and carries a big stick with his party. Like effective presidents before him, Obama compromises when he needs to. Reagan significantly increased corporate and payroll taxes because he had to.

You still haven't explained to me why economic growth was more robust in the '50s and '60s than in the '80s despite 70% to 90% top marginal tax rates in the '50s and '60s. Also, why was economic growth more robust under Clinton than Bush despite higher tax rates under Clinton?

I have always found conseratives' desperate attachment to the Reagan myth to be humorous.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"53% of the country thinks Obama is only as good or worse than Bush was."

There were lofty expectations about Obama, as if just his inauguration would make the country better. Many of the policies that conservatives complain about loudest were continuations of Bush policy, so the idea that they are not that much different is valid. On war policy, they are relatively similar. The only real difference that I see is the way Obama treats the international community. Bush treated them with contempt.

A lot of that has to do with the system and institutions. There are only so many changes any president can make and they are not that profound.

Health care was unlikely to be very popular. It had about 55% approval before they started, and once congress started putting things in and taking things out, it has fallen about 20 points.

____________________

Stillow:

aaron - Yes but much of Bush's low approval came from independent conservatives who felt Bush had become way to liberal on spending....that would include myself. To date I see very little difference between Bush and Obama. Neither of them can contro ltheir spending, they just like spending money we don't have on there respective pet projects. Both of them seemto want to be the record holder on running annual deficits.

Obama's drop in approval was to be expected, he is governing what is still a center-right country fro mthe far left. Despite liberal claims, Obama compromises on nothing. HCR for example is all being done in secret behind closed doors where the GOP is not invited to attend to give input.

Williame123

You must be a younger lad. The economy of the 50's was not terribly terrific. It eventually lead to the severe recession under Carter which Reagan reversed. The 1980's also saw one of the biggest and prolonged economic growth cycles in history during peace time. The booms of the 80's and 90's were in part due to Reagan's policies of growth.

IMO, it wa snot until Bush came along and jumped o nthe entitlement bandwagon and started running up the tab on his pet projects. He also did nothing as g'ment got involved i nthe lending industry, etc, which of course lead us in part into the crap we are in now. Bush did, like Clinton, did next to nothing to prevent private and public sector corruption from smacking us.

Nearly every one of O's policies have a negative net approval, from HCR to civilian trials for terrorists. Like Bush, his perosnal likability are keeping his numbers somewhat inflated, but as we saw with Bush, that eventually gives way to your actions. Bush had high likability to early on keeping his numbers up.

I expect a small bump after the stat eof the union speech, but by summer, Obama will be stuck i nthe low 40's. If this race in Mass is close, you will see purple and red state Dems begin to distance themselves from O.

Something has to be done about the deficit....we cannot run this high a deficit like this without serious pain coming down the road. As JFK and Reagan showed us, cutting taxes actually increase revenue to the g'ment. We better get real money into the economy......borrowed g'ment money doe snot sustain growth, it takes eal money to do that...and real money comes from invesment from people who have it. When the Bush tax cuts expire, that will probably be the catalyst which launches usinto a double dip recession.

____________________

Stillow:

PS: I created or saved 2 million jobs today....I can't provite it, but as Obama says, just trust me on htis one.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Excellent post Stillow and right on.

The 50's were not very good at all for the U.S. The reason it was semi-good was because A) There was a lot of pent up demand that came to the table following the war (returning soldiers) and the depression. B) We had no competition. Western Europe was devastated. There was no Japan left. No China or SE Asia. No India. The only competition came from Argentina which eventually collapsed from their socialist revolution.

In any case, if Obama keeps going in this direction, he will eventually start losing some of his ardent supporters. Right now, he simply lost the voters who didn't vote for him and the few percent that didn't like him but didn't like McCain any better. So, getting below the 45-50% level will be slow but if he doesnt mend his wounds, he will eventually get there by November if nothing changes.

____________________

Thaddeus:

Can anyone find a party breakdown?

I always heard people did a lot of drug during the 60's and 70's but do we really just skip from the 50's to 80's in economic history as well?

____________________

Stillow:

That's true, a lot of drugs were used in the 60's and 70's.......you can see the result of that by watching the modern day liberal....

____________________

Bigmike:

@Williame123

It is senseless to compare the US of the 50's and 60's to today. Especially economically. The only things we have in common with those days is that we are still a superpower and still the last, best hope for mankind.

I don't think the phrase "What's good for GM is good for America" is true any more. We are a service economy instead of a manufacturing economy. Of course BO took the opposite tack anyway. "What's good for the UAW is good for America." The best thing for GM would have been for them to be allowed to reorganize under existing bankruptcy law. But some evil judge may have revised their CBA's with the UAW and libs couldn't allow that to happen.

You want to know why economic growth was good in the 90's. Ever heard of a little thing called the PC. How about Moore's law. In economic terms it was an explosion in productivity brought about by technological advances. Nintendo had more to do with the economic growth than Clinton did.

I don't know where you are getting that "speaks softly and carries a big stick" stuff. I won't trash him personally the way libs did Dubya for 8 years. But I would not describe BO as humble. And instead of a big stick I would suggest a little leadership is in order.

@Wong:

"These numbers are good for the President, showing remarkable resillience and deep support in very trying times."

I love your enthusiasm. But I bet there weren't any corks popping out of the champagne bottles at the WH when they read this. Dead even on job approval. Dead even on BO's first year being a success vs a failure. -6 with Independents. Almost three quarters are dissatisfied with the state of the country. Dead even on approval of Dems and Reps in congress. -4 that BO shares peoples views.

While I have the floor, did anyone read the comparison of the items that need to be worked out between the house and senate health care bills. I got it from CNN and according to them it was written by house staffers and released by Pelosi's office. Reading thru that is an eye opener. This is not a health care bill, it is a tax bill. We are going to spend somewhere around $1 trillion in ten years but reduce the deficit by $100 billion in the same time frame. For the uninitiated, that means taxes are going up by $100 billion more than spending is going up. So this is basically a $1 trillion plus tax hike. Nothing else makes it so obvious that this is really about growing govt.

____________________

LordMike:

Where did you get 53%? If you add 43 + 23 = 66%

So, 66% of people think he's as good or better than Bush....

____________________

LordMike:

Tax cuts do not increase revenue, it's matehmetically impossible. In the short term a tax cut increases financial transactions (such as stock selling) which can increase revenue in the short term, but growth has to exceed 3 times the tax cut for it to break even in the long term.

If tax cuts increased revenue, then George Bush's tax cuts should have made us extremely prosperous.

I also love how conservatives rail against deficit spending, yet Reagan's economic policy included MASSIVE deficit spending on a scale we hadn't seen since WWII. The deficit spending had way more to do with the economic recovery in the 80's than any tax cut.

____________________



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