President Obama’s approval ratings are plummeting, and the timing is terrible for the White House.
Even as Obama skewered Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and the House GOP budget plan, his approval rating dipped in a Gallup poll to 41 percent, the lowest number yet of his presidency.
A Washington Post/ABC News poll released Tuesday shows Obama at 47 percent, down seven points since January.
Worse yet for the White House, Gallup shows the president in a nosedive with independents, who are coveted by the Obama-Biden 2012 campaign.
From April 12-14, independents’ approval of Obama fell to 35 percent, 9 percentage points off his average for the year, according to Gallup.
Rising gas prices are no doubt a problem for the White House, and may be a main factor in the plummeting poll numbers. The higher gas prices generally rise, the lower a president’s approval ratings tend to be.
Still, it is disconcerting for the White House and Obama’s new campaign operation in Chicago to see falling poll numbers just after the president launched his reelection campaign with a strategy of focusing on the economy and the contrasting economic visions of the president and the GOP.
White House officials insist they are focused on the long run and do not put much stock in short-term polls. With time, officials say, the arguments Obama is laying out will work to his advantage.
But there are trends at play that should give even a long-ball player like Obama political adviser David Plouffe some concern.
The White House has repeatedly angered its liberal base by seeking compromise with Republicans, increasing the importance for Obama of attracting independent voters next year.
If anything, the deal to avert the government shutdown should have helped Obama with that bloc. Instead, polling showed that the president didn’t get noticeable credit or blame.
The trouble started, according to the polls, when Obama went nuclear on Ryan and the GOP, inviting them to a speech on fiscal policy that turned out to be a public kick in the pants.
While White House advisers pushed back hard on the idea that Obama was giving a campaign speech, a subsequent campaign email from Obama campaign chief Jim Messina that night and Obama’s incorporation of the theme into campaign events in Chicago seemed to put that point to rest.
The concern for the White House is that voters don’t like their president to be acting like a candidate when they want him focused on the economy.
With just a few days of hindsight, it’s not difficult to imagine that Obama’s advisers saw the Ryan plan, and particularly its proposed reforms to Medicare, as a political gift. The White House could not resist the temptation to go for a knockout punch.
In swinging for the knockout, the president might have gone too far.
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
6 Responses
I HATE you for turning the largest Arab country with the most powerful army, into an ally of Iran.You have not only put the lives of 6 million jews in danger, but through your nativity and amateurism have made Iran the biggest winner of the Arab uprisings.
Anytime there is a dip in his numbers its a good time! That means more people are waking up to his horrendous policies.
The only time a dip in poll numbers matters is when the poll is in November of a leap year, e.g., 2012. So, No. 2, do your celebrating now, as I presently expect that you will have nothing to celebrate when the polls count.
Confidential to No. 1: Please take some time out from your busy life to learn the difference between “naivete” and “nativity.” The latter term usually refers to an event sacred to Christians. The former term is a polite way to characterize your blissful ignorance of facts that are important to your political beliefs, as a result of which you subscribe to unfounded notions that the US controls or could control all events in the Middle East.
Right billions of dollars each year to the Egyptian army, and they have no control. Ignorance? I have been following the events in Egypt for decades because I disagree with you, you just resort to name calling.
I will not respond further to a despicable person like you who compares terrorist groups to news organizations you do not like.
To poster no. 1/no. 4: Is the “you” in comment no. 1 the same person as the “you” in comment no. 4, first paragraph, and the “you” in comment no. 4, second paragraph? When you finish boning up on the difference between “nativity” and “naivete,” perhaps you learn something about “antecedent.”
I will respond to all your comments with the same line from now on:
I will not respond further to a despicable person like you who compares terrorist groups to news organizations you do not like.