Majority Oppose Obama Second Term In Latest Investors Business Daily Poll

Tyler Durden's picture

Another poll, another blow (for Obama). While it is no surprise that the president's rating has tumbled to record lows over the past few weeks, courtesy of his inability to fix the unemployment problem, and to fix the bank loan situation (whether that is a function of lack of supply or demand is unclear, but it is broken dammit, the punchliners will say), according to the latest IBD/TIPP poll, "a majority of Americans now oppose giving President Obama a second term." And while this means that our chart which calculates how many jobs Obama will have to create by the end of his second mandate to get back to December 2007 unemployment will have to be scrapped, it still leaves the question open of which Republican is more qualified than Obama to preside over the Wall Street bribes collection agency. Oh and running the country every now and then.

From IBD:

By 51%-41%, respondents in October picked "someone new deserves a chance" over Obama "deserves to be re-elected." Among independents, it was 54%-36%. Back in September, the readings were 50%-44% and 53%-38%, respectively.

 

Americans are frustrated over the continued sluggish economy, says Raghavan Mayur, president of TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence, which conducted the poll. As Vice President Joe Biden recently admitted, after nearly three years in power, the Obama administration owns the economy.

 

Half of Americans give Obama poor or unacceptable marks in creating jobs and economic growth vs. 24% who say he's doing well.

 

Among independents, it's 51%-18%. 33% of swing voters give him an "F" vs. just 2% who give an "A".

 

That underscores Obama's intensity problem. In addition to his deteriorating support among independents, just 77% of Democrats say Obama deserves re-election while 88% of Republicans say he doesn't.

 

The Occupy Wall Street movement, while directed at fat cat bankers, also reflects broad dissatisfaction among Obama's political base.

Who does IBD foresee on the other side:

Still, while Obama may be losing by double digits to "somebody else" ultimately he will face off against a real rival. The GOP nomination race is fluid, with Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and Herman Cain the current top contenders.

 

If the election is a referendum on Obama and the economy, he faces an uphill fight. So he will try to convince voters that his eventual opponent is unacceptable.

Gee, no mention of Ron Paul. How original.

As for the poll itself...

The IBD/TIPP Presidential Leadership Index fell 0.2 point in October
to 46.3. That's the eighth straight month below the neutral 50 level,
signaling disapproval. Obama hit a personal low of 45.1 in August, near
the peak of the debt ceiling standoff. The IBD/TIPP poll of 909 adults was conducted from Oct. 1-5, with an error of +/- 3.3 percentage points

Whether Obama stays or goes, one thing is certain: America will, as it always has, elect precisely the president it so richly deserves.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
GeneMarchbanks's picture

Good luck with the Pizza guy America. Eventually Romney/Perry will look like the same candidate canceling each other out. So it'll be Cain...

RP will continue to be shunned like a leper, sadly.

Careless Whisper's picture

he's got a 9-9-9 plan; 9 inch pizza, 9 toppings, for $9

the sheeple will go for that

GeneMarchbanks's picture

Charming. If the sheeple only had $9.

redpill's picture

Paul > Cain > Pomney/Rerry

 

whstlblwr's picture

You want Cain, if you want more bailouts! Reward corruption.

He rob employees but give the bonus to his big corporate boss!!

"Cain served on the board of directors throughout Aquila's ill-fated trading misadventure and the subsequent collapse of the company's retirement fund. In fact, he chaired the board's compensation committee, which, according to the lawsuit, had direct oversight of the push to get employees to invest more and more in Aquila stock….Aquila and other companies would buy energy from California at a lower capped price, move that energy out of the state, then re-sell it back to California at a higher price for a tidy profit.

Richard Itteilag, a plaintiff in the Aquila class action, lost 87 percent of his savings. Robert Goodson, a 20-year Aquila employee, lost 75 percent. Michael Reinhardt lost a staggering 94 percent. All told, thousands of employees saw their retirement funds eviscerated thanks to Aquila's Enron-esque activities.

Cain also saw fit to dole out $30 million in bonuses, not including stock options, to the top five execs at Aquila in 2002, with the company's stock plummeting. A month after the Kansas City Star reported on the hefty bonuses in July 2002, the company laid off 500 employees, and the losses to employees holding company stock had reached hundreds of millions of dollars.

The suits alleged that Cain and top company officials violated a 37-year-old federal law requiring that employers manage employees retirement programs responsibly. (Cain's presidential exploratory committee did not respond to a request for comment.)

http://atlantapost.com/2011/05/25/a-real-reason-to-be-mad-at-herman-cain/

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/05/herman-cain-aquila-lawsuit-2012

Haywood Jablowme's picture

 

As I mentioned time and time again, Obummer will go down as the worst President in both USA and USSofA history. 

Not only was he played by Big Corp & the Banking Cartels, but the idiot played himself in the process.  The sheep are finally waking up.   BAAAAAAHHH!  BAAAAAH!  BAAAAAHHHHH!

 

 

 

kito's picture

hows them postal layoffs coming along there spas?

Spastica Rex's picture

Excuse me? Was there news that they were tabled? I missed that.

CompassionateFascist's picture

There will be no "next one". This beltway ZOG-bankster regime is unendurable. Expect Ron Paul (or another TP'r) to go 3P, split the Repube vote, and give B.H. a narrow win in the EC while losing >55% of the popular vote. First Tuesday in November, 2012. Then: 60 days to Fort Sumter.

jeff montanye's picture

ron paul will win the republican nomination and be elected president.  the only thing that can stop him is the cia/mossad.  gary johnson for v.p.

AllegoryOfTheCave's picture

israel/mossad will be helping him get elected. 

Pants McPants's picture

Obama has been/is a disaster, but he's nowhere near the bottom for worst US presidents (IMO).  Plenty of time remains for Obama to make a splash, and I think he will be re-elected, because as the above states the US gets what it deserves.

FWIW here are my bottom 5, all of whom are much much worse than Obama:

1.  FDR

2.  Lincoln

3.  Wilson

4.  TR

5.  LBJ

Hugh G Rection's picture

Lincoln worse than Wilson???

Ok I understand FDR #1 but #3 for the guy that sold America to the banksters?

Pants McPants's picture

Um, yes.

The Civil War is a disgusting pockmark upon US history.

But really, we're arguing semantics - ALL of the presidents on my list were monsters....so I guess it really doesn't matter where they are placed (so long as FDR remains #1)

Long-John-Silver's picture

It was a legal secession too. It was never about slavery. Once you get past the historic revisionism it was all about States Rights. Look around today and see for yourself how many rights States have. Obamacare is the tool that will/has completely eliminated all States rights. As for the Slavery issue, we still have it. Blacks still live on the Democrat Plantation and vote for their White Masters at a 90% rate. You can't be free and expect 90% of a people to agree with anything unless they truly are Slaves.

Freddie's picture

The south was making good money on agriculture and tobacco.  They did really need NE banksters money.  The house of roth (euro bankers) wanted that tobacco business and agriculture.  The war of economic domination.  As you said blacks never have been let off the plantation.  

UBIGDummy's picture

First cockgobbler to start the executive order BULL shit.  Like dictatorial powers.

hivekiller's picture

You forgot Clinton and the Bushes. They were the ones who put the nail in the coffin for America.

nyse's picture

They may have thrown the first bits of dirt on the coffin, but America was already in the ground, or at least in the coffin by then.

Spastica Rex's picture

You left out that Papist JFK, and that flaming homosexual Ronald Reagan.

You sound like you should run for President.

Yeah, I'm trolling.

BoNeSxxx's picture

republicans already blew it when they let the dems co-opt #ows... i just saw that assclown eric cantor whining about #ows on fox news.  in what parallel universe will 'we stand with the bankers' get you elected?  hopefully not this one. 

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Obama voted for TARP and he got elected.

Dr. Richard Head's picture

It's amazing to see the posturing of politicians on Capital Hill, their respective TARP vote, and their support or denial of the OWS movement.  On one hand you have TARP Yes Cantor telling the OWS people to buzz off (which is at least consisten with his pro-banker baiouts) but Pelosi and Obama (Yes TARP men) want to support OWS.  I guess every movement needs a party to take it over. 

OWS and the TeaParty were anti-establishment in the beginning.  TP became a faux Republican front soonafter the beginnings.  Will the Democrats do the same to the OWS operation?  Sad thing is that most of the TP concerns initially and the OWS concerns are one in the same. All politics needs to advance the false left/right paradigm is to get those movements talking about the 1% emaotional issues that would never be tended to anyway.  Gotta get the people to fight amongst themselves you know?

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

TP became a faux Republican front soonafter the beginnings.

 

The real Tea Party is still out here, politicians in populist drag notwithstanding.

mr_T's picture

What we need is CHANGE
What we need is more HOPE

Did I mention I am insane...

RichardENixon's picture

There was no need for you to mention it.

espirit's picture

Pretty much any Republicrat fits the bill of "which Republican is more qualified than Obama to preside over the Wall Street bribes collection agency."

So the question becomes whether anyone would win based on the people's vote, as most feel "by the oligarchy-for the oligarchy. 

Dr. Richard Head's picture

I disagree with your Pretty Much Any Republican Fits the Bill, unless you meant the bill to be the status quo.  Romney, Cain, and Perry have identical fiscal, monetary, foreign, and social positions ACROSS THE BOARD. 

The attitude of anyone but Obama is precisely how Obama got into the White House. The chant of ANYBODY but Bush was the mantra and all we ended up getting what a slightly darker skin-colored Bush that speaks a bit better. Same fiscal, monetary, foreigh, and social positions have been emitted from Barack W. Bush, as George Bush. 

Nascent_Variable's picture

Precisely.

this poll is irrelevant.  Bush's failed reelection was a foregone conclusion at this point in the '04 election cycle.  Disliking an incumbent is not the same as showing up and voting for someone else, especially if that someone else, especially if the somebody else in question is a guy nobody really cares about.  See John Kerry.

An incumbent president has access to virtually limitless campaign money.  He has a massive operation and in thi case, the advantage of not having to run in a primary.   Make no mistake about it - Obama still has a huge advantage.

But as you said, in the end it doesn't matter who gets elected.  Any candidate other than Ron Paul will simply be a continuation of the status quo.  The only thing that changes is the tone of the discussion.

Dr. Richard Head's picture

Perhaps a no campaign slogan-

No One but Ron Paul

- or -

Ron Paul or No One.

krispkritter's picture

A. Romney

B. Perry

C. Cain

D. None of the Above

E. Ron Paul

wee-weed up's picture

"Charming. If the sheeple only had $9."

 

One word - foodstamps!

LeonardoFibonacci's picture

No to black folk in the White House cause they will only mess things up & leace fried chick'aann bones all over the fucking floor.

Troll Magnet's picture

lol
cain will NEVER get the nomination.
with perry and romney out to eliminate each other, i'm more optimistic than ever for dr. paul's chances.

Dr. Richard Head's picture

No kidding.  Each day that passes with the Republican Party pushing this candidate or that to the forefront is another day I feel a little better about the changes of Ron Paul.

First and foremost, Ron Paul voters will vote for their man on principle alone. We don't view the elections as a fantasy football draft where we can trade our guy for the guys poised to win.  The dedication of his supporters is amazing and quite frankly I haven't seen one Cain, Romney, or Perry sticker anywhere.  Plenty of Ron Paul though.

Secondly, these three candidates are taking swipes at each other and drawing blood on real issues of lack of fundamental principles by these "front runners".  The three will fight and cut each other and draw blood, while they try their best to not give Ron Paul any attention.  The holes the other three cut out of each other leaves any voter paying attention with a great amount of concern about another big government politican taking away the rights of the people. Besides, Romney quit in 2008 and will do so again.  Cain and Perry can battle it out, with Cain coming up on top, but Federal Reserve Chairman Cain has a couple of skeletons that conservatives don't particulalry like.

Finally, I have read some rumblings that the rules for primary delegate allocation has changed for this go around.  Does anyony know if the allocation of delegates is still winner take all or are they awarded proportionally to the voter total now?

CompassionateFascist's picture

One way or another, Ron Paul will not get the repube nomination. He is out of synch with the Israel gang. What he can and I hope will do is go 3P. See above.

baby_BLYTHE's picture

Ron Paul wins Value Voters straw poll by double-digits, so... Let's talk about Hermain Cain! unbelievable

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WorClR-INVE

r101958's picture

Thanks for posting that video. To all those below that lump Ron Paul together with the rest as 'just one of the gang' then you should watch the youtube clip above. It should be very clear to all who watch that they discard the fact that Paul won the vote and move right along to Cain and Perry. If Paul did not worry the establishment then they would not marginalize him as they do. Indeed, if he were part of the establishment cabal, and he achieved these numbers then they would be trumpeting his name on every broadcast. They are very worried about him. Perhaps they hope they can mitigate his influence sufficiently to relegate him to the role of republican spoiler much like Perot in 92. In that case, Obama gets reelected and they can deal with the devil they already know much easier than they can deal with Ron Paul. This is their goal. Either a 'popular' establishment Republican gets elected or Obama stays in office. The only way Paul gets elected is via a well organized grass roots effort. This effort has to be peopled with folks that are tired of being told that they have only two alternatives especially when those alternatives are candidates that have been chosen and vetted by the very establishment that is causing all the problems we seek to remedy. Ron Paul can win - it will just take a lot of effort.

earleflorida's picture

funny thing about Paul is that he's always at the front of the line when earmarks are handed out, but bites the hand that feeds him,... 

don't get me wrong, i like where he stands on the FRB but have this gut feeling that i'm going to be the next mutton dish served up?

damage's picture

If they're going to spend the money anyways, why not get some back to his constituents instead of letting the president spend it on other crap?

 

He votes against the actual spending bills, but he writes in earmarks into the bills he votes against. I personally think it is a brilliant idea... and earmarks were part of how the system was designed anyways.

The whole anti-earmark issue is only pushed by GOP establishment fucks like yourself who like to pretend 1-2% of the budget is the problem, when earmarks aren't even the issue at all. At least some people can get some bang out of their tax money back this way.

Besides, how else do you think he keeps an 88% approval rating in his congressional district?