Sunday, July 26, 2009

Obama's approval rating goes negative (3)

The accelerating decline in Obama's approval rating, as calculated by polling done by Rasmussen and summarized in my chart here, is big news. The recent decline was likely driven by negative reaction to his prime-time news conference on ObamaCare. Negative feelings towards Obama are rising rapidly: the number who strongly disapprove of his performance has risen from 15% to now 40% in just six months.

This is big news for markets, since it means that passing his legislative agenda will be increasingly difficult. As a supply-sider and libertarian, I think big government, higher taxes, and rising regulatory burdens are bad for the economy and the market. And with Obama's true agenda now completely out of the closet (he's the biggest of the big spenders and tax hikers this country has seen since FDR), bad news for his agenda is very welcome news for the market.

13 comments:

Cabodog said...

Nice to read some wonderful news on a Sunday morning. The trend is good. My fingers are crossed that it continues through to November 2010.

Tom Burger said...

It's great to see Obama lose support, but the important question is: what are people unhappy about? Bush had low support and the result was a bona fide socialist with a near god complex. I am thinking the public will not be looking for a liberty advocating, small government man in their next leader.

This is exactly what Hayek warned about in The Road to Serfdom. People will always become more and more dissatisfied with an interventionist government because it is impossible to fulfill everybody's expectations -- or even a majority's expectations. The danger is that the dissatisfaction eventually builds to anger and people select a real demagogue who convincly promises "action."

Without the masses suddently finding an interest in libertarian thinking, this trend isn't necessarily a happy one. We'll see.

Bill said...

One thing that would help is for libertarians to stop wasting their votes on libertarian candidates and instead vote for the most libertarian minded Republicans possible. This idea of maintaining ideological purity in elections results in losses 100% of the time and is counterproductive.

Public Library said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Public Library said...

Well said TB. I am wondering where all the small government, fiscally responsible people went. On one hand everybody cries "help" for bailout money and then "foul" for anything else. It is no wonder people can't make heads or tails of it.

We should have punished every firm that came to the trough to sip on the Kool-Aid but that lesson was wasted and our government is now looking like the next black hole in our solar system...

djakel said...

Public Library said... Well said TB. I am wondering where all the small government, fiscally responsible people went.

We are at the TeaPartyofWMI.org and at Icaucus.ning.com We are organizing in every state and Congressional District. We are targeting compromised incumbents and have a plan to replace 40% of them in 2010 with vetted candidates who will reduce the federal footprint. No 3rd party candidates will get our support.

We just need more of you libertarians to join us (its free) and volunteer to do the dirty work of becoming precinct delegates, hosting town hall forums, and knocking on doors. If you say "it can't succeed" and you sit on the sidelines, you will be correct. If enough of you say "its worth a try" and get involved, we will succeed.

Scott Grannis said...

I think a big part of the decline in O's popularity has come from the realization that he is pushing a big-government, big-taxing agenda. The Tea Parties are a wonderful response to this and I plan to support my local chapter. The Republicans don't stand a chance, however, if they can't adopt a strong, limited-government agenda and find a good spokesman for it.

Libertarians, in my view, are what Republicans really should be if they were honest. I am libertarian but always try to vote for the Republican that is closest to libertarian principles. Unfortunately, there aren't many of them.

W.E. Heasley, CLU, LUTCF said...

The Obama Adm. policies are the perfect storm for creating high and persistent unemployment.

High persistent unemployment generally unseats the powers-that-be.

djakel said...

Scott-Your voting philosophy is exactly the same as Independence Caucus. We are beginning to vet candidates in many Cong. Districts with 80 questions and 3-10 person follow up interviews to determine their fitness for office. We will have libertarian candidates for you to vote on mostly in the GOP. We might sneek a few into Dem. Districts. Check out the site: http://icaucus.ning.com/

Scott Grannis said...

djakel: What is the difference between Independence Caucus and The Club for Growth? I'm an charter member of the latter, and it seems to me the two organizations share many of the same objectives.

Bill said...

djakel: And this will do nothing except result in more Democrat Congressmen and policies enacted by them which are the opposite of what you prefer. Again, please do not waste your votes on libertarian candidates (except as a protest vote in heavily Dem districts). Vote for the most libertarian Republican possible in the primary and vote Republican in the general election. Better to get some of what you want than to get nothing.

djakel said...

Scott-We share philosphy with Club for Growth, but we are working at the grass roots level building an organization in each Cong. District where we can have an impact on selection of the right candidates rather than back a RINO because he is the lesser of 2 evils. Jason Chaffetz, R. Utah was backed by ICaucus and beat a 6 term RINO in the Primary in 2008. He was outspent by 6to1, but IC volunteers made the difference. The incumbent was exposed as owned by special interests. Almost all incumbents are.

Bill-You did not read carefully. We ARE working within the 2 party system. We will NOT back a 3rd party candidate unless they are the dominant party for the last 3 election cycles.

Scott Grannis said...

djakel: That's good to know, thanks. And good luck! We need lots more of this kind of effort.