A Quinnipiac poll today has Barack Obama's approval rating tanking in Ohio: he's now at 49 percent approve and 44 percent disapprove in the Buckeye State, according to Quinnipiac, whereas back in May, they had him at a healthy 62-31.
Obama's approval ratings have declined nationwide by perhaps 3-5 points since early May. I have little doubt that this has mostly to do with the flagging economy. Each day, a few more voters are going to blame Obama for the economic troubles that we're in. If the economy seems to be showing some "green shoots", as it did in March and April, then Obama will be fine -- voters don't expect the economy to turn around overnight. But if the economy isn't showing any signs of life -- and most of the economic news for the past 45 days or so has been pretty grim -- he'll fail to keep pace with those modest, but ever-increasing, expectations, and his approval ratings will decline.
Ohio, of course, has suffered more than most states from the recession. It's employment rate, at 10.8 percent in May, is the eighth-highest in the nation, and has increased by 3.5 points (and counting) since Election Day:
States with Largest Increases in Unemployment Rate since November
What Ohio hasn't done, though, is suffer uniquely from the recession. It doesn't have it nearly as bad as its neighbor, my native state of Michigan, where unemployment is now at 14.1 percent. And what are Obama's approval ratings like in Michigan?
Not so bad. A Rasmussen poll in mid-June put Obama's approval there at 59-39, including 39 percent strongly approving (and remember, Rasmussen has tended to have very bearish numbers on Obama overall). An EPIC-MRA poll of Michigan in late May, meanwhile, had 61 percent rating his job performance as "excellent" or "pretty good".
The point is not that Obama's approval ratings aren't suffering because of the economy, nor that they might not be suffering more in states where the economy is worse. (Whoa, too many double-negatives there). I just doubt that there any problems Obama has that are so unique to Ohio that you wouldn't also see them manifested in Michigan or Pennsylvania (where Obama's approval numbers have also generally been fine). As such, I think the headlines this poll has generated have been a little overwritten. It's not that, "Oh no, Obama is going to lose Ohio in 2012!". It's more just another indication that voters won't have an infinite amount of patience with Obama on the economy, and if by 2012 the economy still hasn't improved (in which case, we'll be referring to the recession as "GD2"), or has double-dipped, or has improved sluggishly at the cost of a huge run-up in the national debt, Obama is going to be in trouble in Ohio as well as most of the other 49 states.
7.07.2009
Oh No, Ohio?
by Nate Silver @ 5:35 PM...see also approval ratings, economy, obama, ohio
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

87 comments
Nate - Get back to the tables! How can you have time for this and poker too right now?
"Obama is going to be in trouble in Ohio as well as most of the other 49 states."
That might depend on who he is running against?
I see a bleak future for any GOP candidate - so far.
Nate - I just read the previous thread. Nevermind!
Ohio, of course, has suffered more than most states from the recession. It's UN***employment rate, at 10.8 percent in May, is the eighth-highest in the nation, and has increased by 3.5 points (and counting) since Election Day:
Of course the problems in the economy are all Obama's fault, and if not his, then Clinton's. Apparently nothing happened between 2001 and 2009.
So how long before our resident trolls appear (from underneath what ever bridge they domicile at) and let us know this is the first sign of the conservative comeback!
On the serious analysis side: I think the economy will start to turn around this fall, but unemployment won't fully recover for another year. This will set up an interesting political dynamic. The GOP will harp on high unemployment, democrats will tout a return to growth. This will be an interesting test.
My opinion is that the GOP started blaming Obama too early. People still figure Bush "own" the down turn, by seeming to NOT want to work with Obama they loss a good chance to seem like responsible leaders.
I could see the GOP picking off a few blue dog democratic districts (is that really a bad thing?) but I just haven't seen any indication that swing districts are buying what they are selling yet. If after the 2010 elections the economy is still week all bets are off for Obama, but I doubt we are in for a 4 year recession.
By the way Ohio to me was always the hardest of the big swing states for Obama. Penn, VA, CO, FL, then Ohio (you could add MO after Ohio in that list). So I'm not surprised. Ohio has a lot of Appalachia in it, and a lot of rural to midsized Midwestern cities.
Ohio barely went for Obama last Fall so it's not surprising that his numbers would head below 50 first in a state like this.
Obama is not in a good spot with unemployment at 9.5 percent. Especially when his economic team expected it to be at 8 percent.
Bottom line is that events are going to dictate what happens to Barack. If unemployment rises much more and stays high then there is not much NBC News and friends are going to be able to do to save him. If the economy turns around and unemployment plummets then the Republicans won't be able to touch him.
It's got to be troubling that Obama's faring poorly in a critical swing state at this point though, because the economy is likely to get worse before it gets better.
My opinion is that the GOP started blaming Obama too early. People still figure Bush "own" the down turn, by seeming to NOT want to work with Obama they loss a good chance to seem like responsible leaders.
It doesn't matter. No one will care. If unemployment is 10, 11 percent in 2010 then Obama WILL get the blame. It makes no difference what Republicans say or do. Republicans have no power.
What's interesting about this Ohio poll is not that it predicts the next election. Rather, that it indicates (contra most commentators on this site) that the blame Bush strategy will not work going into 2010 or 2012. In one crucial state, it is already failing to protect Obama. He needs to turn the economy around. This is HIS stimulus, and his budget, and his debt, and his eschewing tax cuts as an alternate model of growth. If it fails, it is his failure. The jury is out. But right now, the economic policies don't look good.
@Adam you missed my point
There are two points I was trying to make.
1st the degree of the GOP comeback will depend on how they play it. If they picked up 2-3 senate seats, and 7-10 house seats because they played their hand badly, Obama will still have strong hand. If they run everything perfect (which at this moment they seem unable to do) they could return to power in congress. That's a big difference, which leads to my 2nd point.
2nd I am more interested in what happens in a mixed bad scenario. If unemployment peaks at 10% this fall, and is DROPPING but is at 8.5% in October 2010. Or if the economy is growing at a robust rate, but unemployment is still high. If one region of the country is in recovery, but not another. I the economic situation could be much more complex, I would actually like to see Nate address this. Because I'm in fact predicting that the economy in 2010 will be some combination of these things.
Lastly, if one party isn't trusted people won't turn over control to them no matter what. There are quite a district (both Red ones nad Blue ones) that are so gerrymandered that even when the party is power are screw up, the opposition party can't ever win, because the residents of those areas don't trust the other party. If the GOP doesn't show some degree of for wont of a better term "grown upness" they may gain seat, but not return to power in congress.
jeff,
Right on. Bottom line is that in terms of strategy, Democrats have gotten lazy. It was easy to nationalize the 2006 election by blaming Bush. 2008 was Act II of that (How many times did we hear, 'John McCain voted with Bush 95 percent of the time'?)
Now that an actual record is available to pore over it's going to be easy for the Republican opposition to play the same game that Democrats played in the last two cycles. The script is already written. Whether it works or not will be determined by actual results. Obama likes to give speeches - but at some point actions will speak more loudly than words.
Dopper,
I don't see any scenario where the GOP gains senate seats. I don't realistically think that Dodd or Reid are going anywhere, regardless of economic conditions. Plus the GOP has too much turf to defend with the seats in NH, KY, OH, MO. FL will probably stay in GOP hands. Republicans have much better opportunities in 2012 and 2014.
On this, I would be careful:
Lastly, if one party isn't trusted people won't turn over control to them no matter what. There are quite a district (both Red ones nad Blue ones) that are so gerrymandered that even when the party is power are screw up, the opposition party can't ever win, because the residents of those areas don't trust the other party. If the GOP doesn't show some degree of for wont of a better term "grown upness" they may gain seat, but not return to power in congress.
I saw a LOT of Republican operatives assuming the same thing before the 2006 wave election swept a ton of the members of the party out to sea. I don't know what made the Democrats look like grownups in 2006. Even partisan hack Schumer said that the voters didn't vote for the Democrats - but against the GOP.
Bottom line is that Obama and the Democrats need to right the ship some way. Whether they are 1/3 responsible or 1/2 responsible or 2/3 responsible for whatever ails the public won't matter. Results matter. And the party in charge better produce - or they'll be gone.
Sigh.
Only the GOP thinks the economy can be turned around in the less than 6 month Obama has been president. I really think they are placing too much emphasis on the "waiting for Obama" to fail recipe, and not developing "new ideas". But I guess they really are out of ideas. This is the prime example of opposition falling into the caricature of their opponent. In this case the party of NO.
You can disagree with Obama's policies. But he offered a plate of new ideas. But the GOP is so busy spreading a caricature "it was all blame Bush" not support for Obama, that they are believing there own propaganda. 72% of Americans including 40% of republicans, support a public option. That's a policy democrats developed from the last failure of enacting universal healthcare. They develop this while out of power. What new policies has the GOP developed from the failure of the Bush years?
I'm not make a case for an unassailable Democratic hold on power, I'm just not seeing the GOP in a position to take full advantage of Democratic missteps. If the GOP ran a bunch of moderate pro-choice but fiscally conservative candidates, and by run I mean with deep party financial backing, I would be worried. Why hasn't the GOP run a bunch of Latino "Michael Steele"s to try and pick off some Latino districts? Once again I don't mean just have a Latino name running, but a guy (or gal) with a great resume, charisma, and finances? Latinos aren't as blue as blacks you would think it would work, I'm also speaking of outside of FL. Florida's Latino dynamic is completely different. How are they going to pick up swing districts when they seem to be becoming more conservative?
In short what I'm saying is that the GOP doesn't appear to be taking advantage of the situation. They are still in disarray. The Democrats have a sharper election machine (as opposed to the GOP's sharper governing machine). I doubt a "wait for the treasure to fall into our laps" strategy is a good one for 2010. But time will tell.
Forget getting back to the poker tables! Get back to the Senate Rankings table. A lot has happened since June 1st, and curious minds want to know what you think.
On a related note, I'd like to repeat my request to Nate: Could you give some guess as to the absolute likelihood of seat switching, in addition to a relative ranking? Does being #1 on the list mean 50%? Does #5 mean 1%?
Has it been 6 months already? Nate, hook us up with a pie chart on how much of his presidency that equates too. I believe he's through 12.5% of his first term or based on the life expectancy of those in his native Hawaii he's about 9.5 years old and will live t o see the ripe old age of 78.
Looks to me like Ohio watches too much Fox News. Needs some better news channels, apparently.
I don't accept the premise that Americans are clamoring for a public option. They're not. If that 72 percent number comes from that CBS poll it's awfully skewed to the left - as just about every CBS/NYT poll is. In fact, most Americans are happy with their current coverage. It won't take much in the way of advertising to convince Americans that they don't want the system Canada has. I don't believe the public really believes that they would get to keep their own coverage under a universal health care plan. And if they do now, it won't take much effort for GOP lobbying groups to convince them otherwise.
Why would employers keep private insurance for their workers and pay for it when the government offers it for free? I could imagine a general manager calling a meeting and saying, "These are tough economic times. We can either let 10 percent of our workforce go or we can cut our health care plan and go with the government plan." Poof. So much for keeping your own plan. And that opens the door to waiting two months to get your tonsils taken out.
It's not all that difficult to make that case to the public and we'll see whether or not this Obama plan actually ever comes to fruition in the US senate.
What is the "failure of the Bush years?" In retrospect I suspect that Bush is going to look a lot better than he did in the final years of his presidency. Seven years without a terrorist attack was not what we expected to be in our collective future on 9/12/01. The public soured on the war. Plain and simple. And gas prices. More than anything else - that is what caused Bush poll numbers to plummet.
I'm all for running GOP latinos in latino districts. But if those latinos are liberal on every issue then what's the point? The GOP did successfully run a Vietnamese named Cao in a solid Democrat district. Instead of thinking of people as "white" or "brown" or "black" it's better to just think of them as people. Whenever the GOP tries to pander to a constituency it gets them into trouble and alienated the white base. That's what happened when Rove tried to sell big-government conservatism to Hispanics. It bought him one election and turned off the GOP base for subsequent electoral losses.
The GOP doesn't have much choice but to wait for treasure to fall into its lap. That IS what the Democrats did. I don't see anything new that the Democrats have proposed besides repackaged liberalism. Obama was coy about raising taxes. He said that no one making under 250k would have to pay any new taxes under any circumstances. Yet, the climate bill would certainly put that out the window. It's typical liberal wealth redistribution and the same old same old. The public has rejected it before and they'll do so again. In succeeding at governing Obama and the Democrats are sewing the seeds of their own defeat.
Dopper,
To a certain extent I agree that new ideas are needed. For instance, we need a better sense of GOP health care plans. Romney would be very well positioned to voice them if and when they exist.
However, don't put too much stock in this line of argument. Very few of Obama's ideas are "news" in any meaningful way. And they will seem old and tired damn quick if they fail. Likewise, a message of tax cuts won't be hard to freshen up if the Obama economy is in stagflation mode in 2010. There are broadly known policy options in government. Most of the rest is repackaging. One reason why readers of this site are convinced that the GOP is dead is that they think conservative policy ideas are bunk. I disagree. I'm inclined to think the Kennedy/Reagan model for growth work better than then LBJ/Obama. If I'm right, Obama is facing big mid term losses and possible defeat in 2012. If I'm wrong, he'll be unassailable and the Dems will enjoy two decades of dominance. All the chatter about Palin won't change any of this, or save the Dems if their big Krugman experiment goes pear shaped.
Obama does not need to win Ohio in 2012. The state is going to lose 1-2 electoral votes anyway.
All Obama has to do is win the Kerry states + Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, and Iowa.
Obama won Nevada and NM by double digits so he should be good there.
Iowa should be a lock for obama. Iowa is one of the few states thats actually doing really well. Only a 5 percent unemployment rate.
I heard today only 7% of the stimulus has gone out the door so far. I'm thinking the admin is waiting for the natural uptick in the business cycle to really start releasing the stimulus money.
When this economy takes off, hopefully it booms.
Maybe it's not just the economy. Obama has been way too cautious and it shows. Wall Street still owns the White House. DOMA is being defended by the Obama DOJ. Guantanamo is still open. I guess the speeches he gives are prettier than McCain's would have been but I'm beginning to wonder why Obama wants to serve Bush's third term?
"Oh No, Ohio?" - Oh Yes, Wyoming!
I really think this has less to do with economy and more to do with him copying Bush policy on alot of stuff.
The numbers started going down about the same time Bill Maher told him off for all the watered down policies that are comming from there.. Espically the new worthless financial rules.
Lastly, if one party isn't trusted people won't turn over control to them no matter what.
Exactly, even if the economy doesn't recover quickly, the GOP has ZERO credibility.
That seems to be their strategy, do absolutely nothing and pray the economy gets worse.
Right now is the perfect time for a "no neo-cons, no fundie nutbag' middle of the road conservative party to rise. The GOP is damaged goods are incapable of making repairs. They are done.
The only remaining question is: will the democratic party be around in 2016 or will the Greens take over the middle-left to left wing?
The democratic party is not in shambles, so that is not likely. When the voices of the GOP are throwing voices of reason under the bus and moving further to the right, there is no way to win national elections. That is a 10 state strategy-i.e. The racist, redneck, uneducated states.
This is a refreshing thread.
Obama sold the people on the fact that the stimuus bill would solve all the economic problems in a hurry. It was important that the bill be rushed through so quickly that no one had time to read it. An extra day or two would have meant disaster for the economy.
People see through things like that and Obama will pay the price for it. People are beginning to realize that his policies aren't working and are more likely to have devastating effects on the long term health of the country.
Start worrying about mid-terms next year, folks. Until then its all just chatter, since we don't even know who the candidates are in a lot of key races (that NH seat just got interesting, supposedly, for example).
This poll just says folks in Ohio, which is supposedly a pretty fickle state to begin with, aren't seeing the sort of immediate improvement Americans seem to chronically want. Its like the folks on any number of single issue fronts who are convinced they've been betrayed because Obama hasn't dealt with their #1 issue already. There is no pill to make our problems go away or Congress to deal with everything right away, but a heck of a lot can and will happen between now and the next Congressional election, much less 2012.
I'd also like to know what the regional distribution of the sample was, since we know Ohio voted in 2008 in a particular spread, with wide regional differences.
Finally, it doesn't help that Boehner is from Ohio and constantly spreading misinformation - like the fact "no" transportation contracts under the stimulus had been let, when its more like $100+ million in contracts let already and many more pending. Although most people nationally may not think much of him, I'm sure he has somewhat greater clout in his home state.
@Jeff:
You said that Obama would be hurt by "... his eschewing tax cuts as an alternate model of growth.."
WTF!
One-third of the stimulus package was tax cuts! Even some Republicans were calling for more infrastructure spending (but not at the expense of tax cuts, naturally). These same Republicans then turned around and raked the Democrats over the size of the stimulus package.
Care to unwind any of these contradictions?
Record unemployment will erode popularity numbers coupled with the expected erosion of popularity and unrealistic expectations.
The Republicans have failed in their attempt to shift the blame for the problems of the debt and economy to Obama and have surrendered the cache of the Party of responsibility and maturity at the State and National level.
Absent a voice of maturity and clarity the Republicans cannot do serious damage to Obama's popularity and the poll numbers are likely far better than one would realistically expect.
The attempt to paint other prominent Democrats as irresponsibility e.g. Pelosi, Reid as the GOP as a Party goes gone wild. Palin, Sanford, Ensign, Coleman, and the fiasco over the stimulus vote have helped Obama not hurt him.
The conservative republican base has no real leader nor a voice and all Obama has done is to consistently portray an image of maturity and professionalism.
Ohio has its problems and my sense is the electorate will not hold Obama responsible or accountable for what any reasonable person knows he inherited. Absent a spin master to convince the voters the GOP has a better medicine for our ills, Obama will remain strong and win in 2012.
Hey, if things continue to get bad in Ohio for Obama, just send Franken's team up on election day to gin up some more unregistered votes and steal it in classic DNC fashion.
I guess 2 separate Judicial reviews of the election of Franken by a total of 9 judges with no dissenting votes is not sufficient evidence.
The conspiracy theory to explain away all the losses of the GOP is not working and is hurting the Party.
Until Republicans start acknowledging and accepting responsibility for its losses it will never be able to fix what is broken and once again begin winning elections. Minnesota has one of the best records of voting and running clean elections in the US. The continual claim of stolen elections, Acorn, unregistered voters,fraud is doing more harm to the GOP than good.
The public is not buying the line that the Democrats are the unprincipled Party and the conduct of high profile Republicans has not helped.
Coleman blew the election and he lost it. Until the GOP starts acting mature and stops the childish behavior, it will continue to lose support and votes.
Adam: I don't accept the premise that Americans are clamoring for a public option. They're not. If that 72 percent number comes from that CBS poll it's awfully skewed to the left - as just about every CBS/NYT poll is. In fact, most Americans are happy with their current coverage.
Maybe most Americans are "happy," but polls consistently show they still want reform. Perhaps while they're satisfied with what they have, they're still worried that they can lose it if they lose their jobs. Just one possibility to explain the results.
It won't take much in the way of advertising to convince Americans that they don't want the system Canada has.
And who is proposing that, exactly? That's not even on the table.
Why would employers keep private insurance for their workers and pay for it when the government offers it for free?
Who said the government is going to offer it for free? My understanding is that people would have to pay to participate in a public plan. Subsidies would go to those who couldn't otherwise afford to buy insurance and could be used for any plan, public or private.
Really, we should try to keep the discussion to what's actually under discussion.
In any case, I'm not sure why we're trying to buttress employer-based insurance. Fewer and fewer employers are offering it as it gets more expensive, the portion that employees have to pay is going up, and you can't take it with you if you lose your job. Plus it adds to inefficiencies since the employer, not the individual, picks the plan. I don't believe that our peer countries do things this way, and they get far more bang for the health care buck.
Regarding Obama's chances in 2012, it's a long ways away, and if we've learned anything about this administration so far, it's that they don't play to win this week's news cycle; they play to win in the long term. If the economy is on the upswing in 2012, I think he'll be hard to beat. If it's not, he'll be vulnerable. And I think that will be true regardless of whether his policies are responsible for either outcome.
Addendum to my prior post:
Adam: So much for keeping your own plan. And that opens the door to waiting two months to get your tonsils taken out.
Again, I don't know where this wait time comes from. Many European countries have just as short wait times, or shorter, than we do. And it certainly beats not being able to get a procedure done at all, which many Americans forgo or put off because they can't afford it.
When there's ample evidence that other countries get comparable health outcomes to ours while we pay nearly twice as much per capita, maybe it's time to question whether our system puts the incentives in the right places.
I'm a pro-market person for the most part, but that's because of the results it produces most of the time. When it fails to produce those results, maybe it's time to look at other systems that have been shown to do better. Markets are means, not ends. I'll gladly take whatever system gets the best results. If it's the market, fine. But if it's something else, why not?
10.8% unemployment is bad enough; there's no need to bump my state of Ohio down to only 10.8% employment.
(Typo in third paragraph -- "employment" should be "unemployment," at least, I certainly hope it should be!)
Amen to dsimon's point about Obama playing for the long term rather than trying to win every news cycle. That was exactly how they ran the campaign, even when the polls were looking bad.
And that's clearly why the stimulus bill was Obama's highest priority; he knows very well that employment numbers are a lagging indicator of economic growth, and the strategy is to have those numbers on the upswing by September 2010.
Of course, there were fewer variables in play, and Obama had more control over them, during the campaign than in running the country, so the strategy may not work. But whether it worked or not is something we won't be able to judge until more than a year from now. Favorability ratings right now are mostly meaningless, important only if they affect the votes of Congressmen and Senators in swing districts/states.
i am from ohio, i think people here are indefinitely unhappy about one thing or another. also i dont know many people here who voted for mccain who ever "approved" of obama's presidency. people seem pretty partisan one way or the other.
Um, it's an outlier. Nate, you show know better than to take a single poll like this at face value.
On the general subject of Obama's political prospects. People are being incredibly short-sighted here. Go study Reagan's first term. Who remembers now that there was a bad recession in the first half of it? The 82 recession was about as bad as todays. Reagan's approval ratings fell to 40% (though not quite as bad as the worst approval ratings of Carter, on whom Reagan tried to pin the blame for continuing troubles). Republicans suffered major losses in congress in 82 and conservatism was declared dead. Then look what happened in 84. Since we're at a more advanced phase in the business cycle--and an even greater share of the blame will fall on the preceding administration--prospects are even greater for the Democrats. There may be some reverses in 2010 but that will leave Obama in great shape for a comeback in 2012, by which time a degree of economic recovery is likely.
At this point, the Republicans have no alternative plan.
Saying that Obama failed does not make Republicans more attractive.
Let's say one contractor bids on an addition for your house. They underbid, and the addition drags on forever.
Another contractor offers to burn down your house and dump toxic waste there. Since the first contractor let you down, are you now motivated to go with the second contractor's offer? The first contractor failed, after all. The second contractor has a packing crate you can move into for a low monthly rate. What's not to like?
Besides that, we now "know" that all of the current economic problems are Clinton's fault. Let's never vote for him again.
Spell, Nate! It's "Its"...
Chrissie Hynde wrote:
"Eh, oh, way to go, Ohio."
In real NUMBERS news on Palin, from USA Today:
"The findings underscore how polarized opinions of Palin were even before Friday's surprise announcement. Seven in 10 polled say their views weren't affected by her decision. Among those whose opinions shifted, Democrats by a 4-1 ratio and independents by 2-to-1 view her less favorably. Republicans are somewhat inclined to see her more favorably."
Republicans are being whittled down to those who are certifiable.
GOOD NEWS FOR JOHN MCCAIN!
More NUMBERS based analysis of Palin:
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/palins_problem_outside_the_bas.php
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/palins_base.php
Based on real analysis, we might still se Palin against Obama, and that would be GREAT NEWS!
All right, it's the 8th, and I STILL don't have my senate rankings!
For a comparison on unemployment it took FDR 8 years to get unemployment down to pre crash levels, i believe obama will succede but dont expect to see results to late 09 early 2010, maybe spring of 2010, the ecpnomy has kind of stuck at 8000 over the last 2 month, this may because people aren't spending as much, hopefully we can see a turnaround in the fall, with all the new projects approved and begin, for instance they want to extend transit lines where i live and they expect to begin in sept. the only problem is that we have no state funding cause i live in a state where 20 men can hijak you're state budget, poor Arnie, tryed so hard to get a deal with the dems but everytime house GOPers voted him down, when ca passed our first attempt at a budget the minority leader was deposed and all funding for the 6 GOPers who tried to help got cut. Oh well,
It would seem to suggest that the economy isn't the only factor in Obama's approval rating, as you imply.
What are Ohio's demographics like compared to its neighbor, Michigan? Do we (I live in OH) tend to be less unionized, more evangelical, or rural?
Perhaps the economy's woes will be blamed more on Obama in more reddish states (it would seem reasonable). Perhaps certain states - more repub, demographic differences, whatever - were "due" to drop Obama's approval, regardless of the economy. Perhaps it's some complex interaction of factors that's well beyond anything but a superficial comprehension for me :p. But I can still postulate, and have a good time doing it.
...waiting two months to get your tonsils taken out.
The same old outright lie!
I've been on the ultimate Public Option for many years (don't ask!) and i've never waited more than one week for any medical service,including surgery,MRI's,etc.,
I think the employment rate is the most important politically of all the economic indicators. And it does tend to lag. That's potentially bad for 2010, but I think a lot of that can be reduced with legislative accomplishments. A workable health bill, as an example would do a lot of good.
Incidentally on that, conservative posters are fond of saying stuff like 70% of Americans are happy with their health insurance. I disagree that means they don't want change in healthcare. Most Americans would say they are happy with their car. That doesn't mean they wouldn't accept a new one. I think a public option is not something that will always poll well but I think once it's there people will embrace it. The Domecratic Party needs to bite the bullet and get a public option included in the bill even if it means leaving behind the whole of the GOP.
Adam said...
In fact, most Americans are happy with their current coverage.
If you polled employed Americans right now, I'm sure that you'd get a very high poll result showing Americans happy to have a job.
Ask them if they would stay in their current job if another job was available, but would pay twice as much, do you REALLY think they'd state that they would stay in their current job?
Most Americans who are 'satisfied' (the question asked is never 'happy', but almost always 'satisfied') with their current insurance would like even better if they had an option to get the same or better treatment at a lower cost, and/or the same cost or services but a pay raise at work. If the employer doesn't have to shoulder the health insurance costs, it means more money would be available for the employees, AND the stock and bond holders.
And almost everyone would be very 'HAPPY' to see the 'pre-existing condition' clause in most insurance policies ruled illegal.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
"It doesn't have it nearly as bad as its neighbor, my native state of Michigan, where unemployment is now at 14.1 percent. And what are Obama's approval ratings like in Michigan? Not so bad."
Well, yes, but in bailing out GM and Chrysler, Obama has clearly gone to bat for Michigan. Unemployment in Michigan could go to 20% and its residents would still feel that Obama tried to help them. Perhaps this is not so true for Ohio.
markymark:
Most people would say they would be happier with a new car, but at what cost? If they can't afford to pay for it they probably wouldn't want it.
The US couldn't print money fast enough to pay for government controlled healthcare. If the current amount of spending doesn't bankrupt us, this healthcare reform bill surely will.
Besides the cost, health care cost containment will become the catch-all excuse to control almost every aspect of individual lives and the private business sector. I really don't believe that Americans want more government control.
SCREW the frikkin' ECONOMY.
After donating hundreds of dollars to Obama's campaign in five separate donations, and waiting almost six hours in line to vote for him in the primary and two more hours in the general, I am very dissatisfied with Obama's performance.
Honestly, screw the economy. I'd rather discard half our national wealth than see the continued slow motion trainwreck of destroying our Constitition, and Obama is continue the Bush-Cheney erosion of everything this country was founded upon.
Here are the facts about the "economy:" People will find work, sell products, and compete. There will always be people baking cakes and people buying cakes. The economy may have the flu, or some more serious parasitic malady, but it is not a fatal disease. The parasites bringing it down will be rejected from the body economic. (They will not be punished, unfortunately, but will be forced to curtail their exploitation.)
The Constitution, however, is on life support and is not expected to survive. As a regular American citizen you can now be permanently imprisoned and tortured without charge or trial because a government official believes, without proof or evidence, that you are an "enemy".
That can happen due to formerly illegal wire-tapping of your telephone conversations, and reading of your emails, without any warrant or even plausible reason to do so.
The government can abrogate any contract you have signed, with them or with any other party.
This is the totalitarian state Obama is perpetuating. We have been baited and switched; the guy that railed against secret prisons now operates them, the guy that railed against executive signing statements now drafts and signs them, the candidate that vilified the FISA amendment voted for it, and the man that claimed military commissions in Guantanamo were illegal and unnecessary now claims we can employ them. The liar that claimed he would overturn "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is endorsing it, and the con-man that promised to overturn DOMA is now defending it on the grounds that homosexuality is equivalent to incest for Christ's sake.
I don't give a shit about the economy. We lived a century without cable or big screen TV's or even air conditioning.
Freedom is not the right to choose between Cable and Dish TV, or the right to choose between Blockbuster and Netflix.
Our Freedom is derived directly from the Bill of Rights and restriction of the power of government to do whatever the hell it wants and keep it a secret. Freedom is a zero sum game and we are losing it. Obama lied to us to get into power. Not in the conspiracy-nut way; in the old fashioned way: He lied about his core beliefs in the rule of law and the Constitution, and once he got into office he completely betrayed us and became the man we were trying to replace.
I do not disapprove of Obama because of the economy; I disapprove of Obama because I think he is a lying con man.
Polls apart,
You are apparently speaking of the 400$ tax cuts that are due to expire in 2010. Count me unimpressed. These will be swamped by the energy taxes, health care taxes, sugary drink taxes, etc. If you still think of Obama as a "tax cuts for 95% of all Americans guy", you are drinking the coolaid. That was spin. Obama is NOT pursuing growth through tax cuts. He now mulling McCain's ruinous tax of health care benefits.
As for Obama's prospects, perhaps he will enjoy a Reagan like roller coaster. That still means huge losses in 2010. And it would require an actual, real, economic recovery - despite that fact that Obama is pursuing policies that are generally designed to favor distribution over growth.
I find it amusing how many of you really want Palin to dominate the GOP, because you think (correctly) that she would be a very weak candidate. It's revealing of a nagging draining away of confidence on your own part. If Obama were facing a well spoken conservative, like Gingrich or Romney, his rhetorical act would fall apart like a house of cards.
By the way, one of the things that happens to people who hold power is that their moral preening begins to be exposed. I rememeber a time when liberals couldn't complain enough about campaign finance. It was the root of all of our problems. Now, we get this:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24675.html
Jaw droppingly cynical, and grossly self interested. Oh - does this count as "hypocrisy"? Or is that just a label for conservatives caught up in extramarital affairs?
The economy won`t improve much for years. This is a worldwide recession and Obama cannot do much to improve it by himself. In the end the GOP has no ideas to improve the ecomomy except the usual failed policies and no leaders for America to turn to.
If Palin is their idea of the future they can kiss the white house goodbye forever.
Todd Dugdale: At this point, the Republicans have no alternative plan.
Saying that Obama failed does not make Republicans more attractive.
Maybe, but that doesn't mean Republicans won't win anyway. It worked for the Democrats in 2006, and to some extent in 2008.
Going into the 2006 elections, I thought it was the perfect time for Democrats to offer a real, substantive alternative. Republicans were floundering, and there was a chance to put a different, sustainable, long-term vision before the nation.
They didn't do it. They ran essentially on Republican failure. And it worked.
People were tired of the Iraq war, sickened by Katrina, fed up with corruption (Abramoff) and cronyism, and angered by high gas prices. Democrats ran on...what exactly? The DNC door hangers in battleground districts included better access to college (nice but hardly groundbreaking), and "lower gas prices/energy independence," as if there's not an inherent tension between those two items.
In October 2006, Michael Kinsley wrote: "True, people might question your sanity if you were to declare that you were voting for the Democratic Party agenda. The what? If there's anything worse than ignoring that famous elephant in the room, it's imagining a donkey that's not in the room. Even so, a vote for the Democrat is a vote against the Republican. And voting 'no' to a record of failure is more important to the functioning of democracy than voting 'yes' to any number of promises about the future. It was not Newt Gingrich's Contract With America that caused the great Republican sweep of 1994: It was disgust, skillfully nurtured by Republicans, with the Democratic-controlled Congress." http://www.slate.com/id/2152350/
Republicans are, at the moment, running on the prospect of Democratic failure. The problem with that strategy is that we have little insight into what the political landscape will look like one year from now, much less three years from now.
I think he bigger problem for both parties is that waiting for failure fails to put in place a sustainable model of governance, but that's a topic for another post.
With all due respect, many of you are create a false either or. Reagan both ran against Jimmy Carter and offered solutions. The Democrats in 2006 ran against Bush, and offered some solutions/changes. Even if I disagreed with the GOP's plan I would honestly critic them, not deny there existence. But from the budge (with no numbers), to their healthcare ideas, they don't have a coherent plan, just principles, and ideas. Conservatives use to have places like the Cato institute that would publish VOLUMES on ideas they could immediately turn into bills, they seem to be off their game.
One thing anyone who wants do to honest analysis must not do is to say "if I disagree with what someone offers it's nonresistant". By this I mean the following, many of the critics of Obama on the right are saying Obama didn't offer anything new. Well the public option is a new program, yes it's based on traditional liberal philosophy, but I never said that Jack Kemp's school vouchers wasn't anything new because I wasn't a huge fan and it was based on traditional Conservationism. It would be intellectually dishonest for me to say that offering individual tax breaks to purchase healthcare isn't a new idea because conservatives always offer tax breaks.
Now if you want to engage in propaganda, that's fine, but I come to 538.com for analysis.
One last point, one of the Trolls questioned the 72% for the public option. Well there have been several (4) polls that have ranged from 63%-72%, in fact FOX/WSJ claimed they were going to poll this subject, and several weeks later haven't published the results or mentioned it again. That seems to be a classic example of not wanting to publish unfavorable results, why are else are they sitting on them? Not believing in gravity doesn't mean it doesn't exist, same with denying how the American public feels, it is safe to say a majority of Americans are for the public option. A big propaganda war, to be effective should have already started. But the business community is split on this WalMart and many manufacturers are for it, the healthcare community is also split, it would take a united opposition (see Hillary Care) to stop it. In the 3 months left before this passes there isn't enough time.
I agree with Tony C. that the economy isn't the reason for the dissatisfaction.
How about that we're still punting gays out of the military? Didn't Obama promise to stop that? It's been six months! Guantanamo is still open. There's been no attempt to repeal the DOMA. We still allow torture in special cases. After 90 days, I was telling people to be patient. After twice that long, I'm starting to lose patience myself.
If Obama was trying to change this and failing, that would be one thing. But to not even try, well, that's annoying to say the least.
If somebody were to ask if I were satisfied with Obama, I'd say yes. But three more months of doing nothing on these and I suspect my answer will change.
Of course, I'm still not going to vote Republican. Let's not be silly here. But I might find I have more important things to do than vote.
P.S. Unless I move to Connecticut. I don't care if the Republicans nominate a child molester- he's got to be better than Dodd.
RT @swanny88 Rooting For Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight in the #WSOP.I believe he's playing today and wish he would give twitter updates!!! #WSOP57...5 minutes agoRooting For Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight in the #WSOP.I believe he's playing today and wish he would give twitter updates!!! #WSOP57 #NATION
Dopper: The Democrats in 2006 ran against Bush, and offered some solutions/changes.
That's not my recollection. Democrats said "tired of the war? We'll stop the war." "Tired of corruption? We won't be corrupt." There wasn't much more. There was nothing on health care, taxes, Social Security (they stopped Bush's privatization proposal but offered nothing new). If there was more, please remind me; I have no claim to infallibility.
I'm not saying that parties always wait for failure instead of offering substantive alternatives (whether they are "new" or not really doesn't concern me). I'm just saying that it can (and did) work, that one does not need a positive agenda to win elections if things are going badly enough for the party with the responsibility of actually governing.
Matthew H. How about that we're still punting gays out of the military?
There's a good argument that this has to be done by legislation--which is being introduced in the House today.
We still allow torture in special cases.
We do? That's not my understanding. I thought Obama's ban was unequivocal.
Unless I move to Connecticut. I don't care if the Republicans nominate a child molester- he's got to be better than Dodd.
Dodd has handled a couple of recent incidents badly. But he was unfairly tarred with the AIG bonuses. He was among the strongest opponents of telecom immunity regarding warrantless wiretapping. He's been one of the best defenders of civil liberties. So I wouldn't be so cavalier in writing him off.
@ GROG (watered down cheap rum)
"The economy" has a psychological component. While few stimulus dollars have hit at this point, one of the purposes of the stimulus package was to telegraph to people that the only player big enough to do anything -- the government -- was doing something.
I don't recall the Obama Administration representing that the stimulus package would work in a few months. Would you mind backing up today's bullshit with a link to a reliable source? (American Solutions, as an example, is not a reliable source. But it's apparently one place where you get your talking points.)
In 2006- Democrats recruited and nominated credible challengers against weak Republican Incumbents.
PA- Bob Casey Jr. was a top tier recruit against Rick Santorum. Casey knocked of Santorum by a 59-41 margin.
OH- DeWine was vulnerable because of Bush and Taft. Brown was the strongest candidate OH could have recruited. Before 2006 Democratics were in the minority status. They did not hold any Statewide elected office.
RI- Chaffee was facing tough primary challenge against CFG Steve Laffey. It would have been a Safe DEM pick up had Laffey won. Chaffee's party affiliation caused him to lose re-election. I wonder what would have happened had Chaffee switched to Independent during the 2006 Elections. Would he have remain in the US Senate.
MO- Claire McCaskill was the best candidate to take on Jim Talent.
MT- Burns was a weak incumbent. Democrats nominate a strong grassroots candidate Jon Tester to knock of Burns.
VA- Allen's loss had mostly to do with Macaca.
Looking at the 2010 US Senate Election cycle.
On the Democratic Side.
OPEN or Appointed Seats.
CO(Bennet-D)- No major top tier GOP candidate is planning to challenge Bennet.
DE(OPEN-Kaufman-D)- VP Son and DE AG Beau Biden is expected to be the Democratic Nominee for his father's old US Senate Seat. The question is whether DE-AL US Congressman and former GOP Governor 1985-1992 Mike Castle decides to enter the race. If Castle runs. DE becomes the nations closely watched US Senate Race. Biden wins in the end.
IL(OPEN-Burris-D)- Burris is going to lose in the Democratic primary to either Lisa Madigan or Alexi Giannoulias. Madigan or Giannoulias will keep the seat in the Democratic collumn regardless or what Mark Kirk-R does.
NY(Gillibrand-D)- Safe Democratic whether the Democratic nominee is Gillibrand or Maloney.
Other Democratic US Senate Seats in 2010.
AR(Lincoln-D)- weak Incumbent- She is less popular that the other AR Democratic Senator Mark or David Pryor, or Dale Bumpers. The Republican Party bench in AR is weak. Lincoln-D is favored to win re-election.
CA(Boxer-D)- a perenial target for the GOP but always prevails.
CT(Dodd-D)- This is the first election cycle which Dodd is unpopular in his home state and facing a top tier challenge. Dodd has 1 year to rebuild his image.
HI(Inouye-D)- Legend in HI. Safe Democratic.
IN(Bayh-D)- Safe Democratic. Bayh is a household name in IN.
MD(Mikulski-D)-Safe Democratic. Mikulski is a popular figure in MD.
NV(Reid-D)- Republicans don't have any credible challengers against Reid.
NY(Schumer-D)- Safe- running unopposed.
ND(Dorgan-D)- the only Republican that can give Dorgan a race is ex Governor Ed Schafer or current Governor John Hoeven. Dorgan will still get re-elected.
OR(Wyden-D)-Safe Democratic.
PA(Specter-D)-Safe Democratic regardless of whether or not Specter wins the Democratic primary.
VT(Leahy-D)Safe Democratic.
WA(Murray-D)-Perrenial Target but always prevails.
WI(Feingold-D)-Perrenial Target but always prevails.
On the Republican Side.
OPEN Seats.
FL(Martinez-R)- Safe GOP Hold if Governor Crist-R is the GOP nominee. Tossup if Rubio-R is the GOP nominee.
KS(Brownback-R)- Safe GOP Hold-regardless who the GOP nominee is.
MO(Bond-R)- Likely Democratic Pickup due to a top tier Democratic challenger- Robin Carnahan and weak GOP candidate- Roy Blunt.
NH(Gregg-R)- Hodes-D is a top tier generic Democratic candidate in a state trending Democratic. Ayotte-R is running on the GOP side. The race has a potential of becoming competitive but I give the edge to the Democrat.
OH(Voinovich-R)- The race is competitive between the Democratic Candidate(Fisher/Brunner)vs Republican Bob Portman. Portman is a weak and overhyped candidate. He is not well known or popular outside his SW OH base. He has close ties with the Bush 43 Whitehouse. Whoever the Democratic nominee is is favored to win in OH. At worse. It will be a +1 D gain.
I don't recall the Obama Administration representing that the stimulus package would work in a few months. Would you mind backing up today's bullshit with a link to a reliable source? (American Solutions, as an example, is not a reliable source. But it's apparently one place where you get your talking points.)
Oh come on, at least make this difficult. The chart is right here:
http://michaelscomments.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/stimulus-vs-unemployment-june-dots.gif
@dsimon:
Actually Obama has reserved the right to use "enhanced interrogation" at the President's discretion in "unusual circumstances."
Which is the same idiotic word game that Bush-Cheney used. What, precisely, is an "unusual circumstance?" Anything you want it to be. Who decides the current circumstances are "unusual?" The President, of course. What is "enhanced interrogation?" Whatever you want it to be.
The problem is there is no definition of these waffle phrases, they can mean anything, and thus prohibit nothing. Obama's "ban" is only a ban on torture without his permission, it is not a ban on torture. It is a lie.
40% of the ARRA was tax cuts/rebates, many of which are available now. The "spending" has barley even started. If you're calling the stimulus a failure this early, you're really faulting the tax breaks.
Tony C. The problem is there is no definition of these waffle phrases, they can mean anything, and thus prohibit nothing.
I agree that it's useless to get bogged down in semantics. I think "torture" can be hard to define, and that the more important question is "legal" or "illegal." I really don't care what one calls it; if it's illegal, then it's illegal.
As for the ban on whatever it is we're discussing, I thought that the Justice Dept. was tasked with reviewing the relevant procedures and that such techniques were banned pending the report.
Yes, language is inherently vague. But it does not follow from your assertion, if true, that Obama is reserving "the right to use 'enhanced interrogation' at the President's discretion" that "we still allow torture in special cases." We'd have to know first what the administration means by "enhanced interrogation." You could be right that such techniques include "torture," but until we get some more substance behind the words, we can't really know.
What concerns me more is the apparent acceptance of some form of indefinite detention, but that's for another post.
GROG,
You're falling for the Fox News Anti-Obama SPIN. Obama never said the stimulus would fix the economy QUICKLY. It was sold as something to SAVE the ECONOMOY from an almost certain DEPRESSION if NOTHING was done like the GOP party of NO was insisting.
Obama has always said there's more work to do and we're not out of the woods. Get your facts straight before you start getting your facts from Fox News.
From what I see most of Obama's problems and loss of popularity is not from his right but from his much more left base. It is not that they have any other place to go except the huge machine he built was made up of very active and idealistic new voters.
Those that vote will still vote for him but unless there is a substantial Government Health system that threatens to become a single payer system, unless the anti-Constitutional steps of the previous administration are not just eschewed but stopped cold forever, and unless the corporatocracy is pushed back substantially, all that idealism and enthusiasm will not be recreated again.
Nate, your table shows the 10 or so states with the highest increases in unemployment from last fall.
Could you post a table that shows the unemployment delta for all 50 states? Were there any states at the other end of the spectrum with a decreased unemployment rate?
Grog, why exactly does a public option HAVE to cost so much? Its an assumption the right is happy to throw around just to scare people. But its not correct. A public option needs to be competitive but also is not being run, as much private health insurance is, for a profit motive, so actually the pressures on a public option force it to be typically cheaper than private insurance. This is one of those areas where shedding political labels and just trying to figure out whats best for the nation, to make sure everyone has adequate health insurance. (I assume at this point that conservatives do see that as an aspiration.)
it just goes to show you how fickle and dumb and low information voters are in Ohio.. the ECONOMY DIDN'T GET THIS WAY IN 6 MONTHS.. and it sure as hell not going to turn around in 6 months. And voting a republican back into office 2012 is not going to fix the problem. it was the republican ideals that got us where we are.. Now Nate TELL THE DAMN TRUTH.. the reason Obama approval ratings are falling is because he is NOT STRONG ENOUGH ON HEALTH CARE.. HE IS FOLDING TO THE BIG CORPORATE INTEREST AND INSURANCE COMPANINES.. the majority of voters know that the economy can not be fixed overnight.. but this HEALTHCARE THING i what Obama ran on .. if he does not fix that and let these rethuglicans and conservadems which is nothing but repbulican that get voted in because they decided to put "D" by their name.
@TonyC: You really need to read this article.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124699680303307309.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
"The Obama administration said Tuesday it could continue to imprison non-U.S. citizens indefinitely even if they have been acquitted of terrorism charges by a U.S. military commission."
One of my favorite talking points is that Republicans need a "leader" if they are going to do well in 2010. Uh, no. That is just not how voters make choices in mid-term elections.
The key group, as usual, will be independents. When economic issues come to the forefront, they are often decisive (e.g., 1992, 1994, 2008).
A prediction for 2010 boils down to a prediction of the economy. The smart money is on a stagnant economy, pinched by simultaneous deflationary and inflationary pressures. Meanwhile the deficit will be massive- a huge negative among independent voters.
In that environment, Democrats just cannot do well. Absolutely impossible. Losses in the Senate are limited by the low number of contests, but GOP gains there are likely in that economic scenario. And the House? Control would be in doubt on election night, though flipping it would remain difficult.
The rightwing echo chamber is throwing around the propanda that Obama's stimulus plan failed. Their claim is absolute nonsense. No one expected the stimulus to take effect this early. Most estimates have the economy starting to hit full recovery mode in the last quarter of 2009 or the 1st Quarter of 2010.
Here's the expected effect of the stimulus: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/bruce-bartlett-misstates-the-problem/
And no honest economist would expect the WORST RECESSION SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION to be fixed overnight. Did the conservatives fool themselves with all their "Messiah" talk and expect Obama to come in, wave a magic wand, and fix everything overnight?
Blogger Freedem said...
From what I see most of Obama's problems and loss of popularity is not from his right but from his much more left base. It is not that they have any other place to go except the huge machine he built was made up of very active and idealistic new voters.
--------------------------------------
I don't see that in the numbers. Obama still has high approval ratings among Democrats- 80% nationally.
Those who are upset with his Bush like policies- myself included in that number- are mostly giving him the benefit of the doubt for now.
Scott said...
Oh come on, at least make this difficult. The chart is right here:
http://michaelscomments.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/stimulus-vs-unemployment-june-dots.gif
Hard to be certain till next month's numbers come out. Really, a lot will come down to what happens in CA with the currently gridlocked budget process, which is a huge wildcard that nobody can reliably predict now muchless could have back in Jan.
But at the moment it looks like they got the timing right and were off on the magnitude.
Don't look now but Public Policy Polling has Obama at 48-46 in Virginia.
He's going to be seriously weakened if his popularity is all coming from sky high numbers in NY, CA, and IL. This is more about his clout and agenda than his reelection, at this point.
Dwight said...
t now muchless could have back in Jan.
But at the moment it looks like they got the timing right and were off on the magnitude.
-----------------------------
That's the same chart I linked to in my post via Krugman's blog.
I agree with you- the Obama team underestimated the depth of the employment issue, but didn't expect the stimulus to start having an effect by now. They estimated an rising unemployment rate of ~8.5% with no stimulus, vs a rate just peaking at 8% with the plan.
There were no scenarios suggesting we'd be back to full employment now or even in the near future. They don't even predict unemployment to drop back to 7% until the end of 2010.
Nate's point at the end is very telling; a sluggish or precarious economy will doom Obama's chances. I also like the fact that unlike many Lib posters here he is willing to look this terrible economy in the eye and call it for what it is: a mess, a lingering mess.
While 2012 seems a long way away what strikes me is that Obama is heedlessly pursuing polices that run counter to the nation's economic interests (esp increased taxes and burdens on business and industry and monstrous deficits) . He may be enough of an ideologue that he doesn’t care about his own political fortunes and has resolved himself to being a one-termer as long as he can socialize medicine and make us all green and the “rich” poorer so as to equalize things.
What is somewhat clearer is that the Dems are going to have a very tuff time of it in 2010. More and more economists are concluding that the jobs picture will remain bleak for a long time. Few are looking for enough of a pick up where it could help the Dems. I expect 2010 to be a bloodbath – 1994 redux.
Even if things start to turn around, with the misery as long and deep as it has been, someone is going to have to pay a price. I think the tipping point will be Christmas 2009. By then this is Obama’s economy and the vectors better look good or else.
petekent01 (on twitter)
Most Americans are happy with their "choices" in health insurance?
My employer offered one plan, costing 40% of my take-home, after-tax pay. The deductible was $5,000, and it didn't cover hospital stays of longer than six days (for the duration of the plan, not in each year).
It amazes me that so many Americans scream bloody murder about taxes while simply accepting exploitative health care insurance hikes and shrinking coverage.
@Scott:
I have been reading; read Glenn Greenwald:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
For a constitutional lawyer's take on that. He is quite entertaining, and by that I mean the outlook is so bleak you have to either laugh or start crying.
One thing though that is certain is that Obama's approval ratings are falling off a cliff -- http://tinyurl.com/5tnd2b --
Now both Gallup and Rasmussen are reporting his tumbling decline in popularity, which mirrors what we are seeing in Ohio from Pew.
Perhaps the President ought to realize that it's the economy, stupid, and we need jobs more than healthcare or progress on “global warming”!
He won't and he will fail.
petekent01 (on twitter)
Oh, and Liz, find yourself a better job with better benefits or buy your own damn health insurance! The kind of plan you describe should be very cheap (family coverage around $400 a month). You must have a shitty job!
70% of us like what we got and want y'all to keep yer hands off it.
If you mess with healthcare there will be a backlash -- I guarantee it.
Those poll numbers are telling you something about the President and his priorities.
They suck.
He is failing.
petekent01 (on twitter)
PeteKent - I should get a better job?
I have a graduate degree and a good job for my field (in this economy).
You, from your post, are enjoying a health care plan that is going the way of the dodo. I wouldn't wish ill on anyone, but good luck holding on to it
My last job had a good plan for current workers, but refused to cover any retirees after the age of 65, and they made it retroactive to cover people who'd retired years ago. I don't know how old you are now, but we all age eventually, and the elderly are the most vulnerable.
. You think your employer hasn't already thought about switching providers? How much choice and control do you really have over your health care right now and in the future?
自慰套,自慰套,自慰器,情趣,情趣,視訊交友,充氣娃娃,AV,按摩棒,電動按摩棒,情趣按摩棒,按摩棒,跳蛋,跳蛋,跳蛋,男女,潤滑液,SM,情趣內衣,內衣,性感內衣,角色扮演,角色扮演服,吊帶襪,丁字褲,情趣用品,情趣用品,飛機杯,自慰套
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 飯局小姐,領檯人員,領台,傳播妹,或者想要到台北酒店、林森北路酒店,私人招待所,或者八大行業當酒店PT,酒店公關,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的禮服酒店,鋼琴酒吧當酒店領檯,酒店小姐,公關小姐??,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、學生兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想找打工、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚,無業績壓力,無脫秀無喝酒壓力,高層次會員制客源,工作輕鬆,可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已,對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有!艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪,不需擔心!只提供最優質的酒店打工,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。
水水們妳有缺現金、有卡債、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學日本打工嗎?妳是工讀生找工作??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,兼職工作日領假日打工的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??整天還在煩腦如何賺錢有什麼賺錢方法,和賺錢最快方法!?,想要打工,日領工作,短期打工,兼差工作,打工兼差工作嗎!?,
請加入我們艾葳酒店經紀公司工作單純輕鬆”高時薪”又可日領徵想要當傳播妹,上班小姐,酒店兼差,酒店兼職,歡迎學生打工,!!!
加入我們實現夢想就從現在開始^__^
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
整形外科|童裝批發|春藥|徵信|清境民宿|機票|隔熱紙|玻尿酸|電波拉皮|美白針|脈衝光|花蓮民宿|徵信社|室內裝潢|指甲彩繪|清潔公司
Post a Comment