Obama's approval rating falls below 50%.... in CALIFORNIA???

[Little-Acorn]

When the extreme-leftists in the union's most far-left state are ready to dump him, you KNOW Obama's got a problem.

But, does Obama know?

---------------------------------------------

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/09/14/39...s-sour-on.html#mi_rss=National Political News

Field Poll: Californians sour on Obama

by David Siders
Published: Wednesday, Sep. 14, 2011 - 12:00 am | Page 1A
Last Modified: Wednesday, Sep. 14, 2011 - 12:40 pm

Even in heavily Democratic California, President Barack Obama's job approval rating has plummeted among voters, largely on his handling of the economy, according to a new Field Poll.

Though Obama is strongly favored to win California in his re-election bid next year, the poll suggests many Democrats may vote for him only begrudgingly, and it is yet another indication of weakening support nationwide.

"When you're seeing vulnerability in a state like California, I think that really is ominous for his national standing," Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo said.

For the first time since Obama took office in 2009, less than half of California voters – 46 percent – approve of the job he is doing, just two percentage points more than disapprove, according to the poll.

Obama's decline has been quick and widespread: As little as three months ago, his approval rating in California was 54 percent. Since June, his rating has suffered double-digit percentage drops among Democrats, nonpartisans, Central Valley residents, men, African Americans, Asian Americans and voters over 65.

It has fallen nearly 20 points since Field's post-inaugural measure in March 2009 had him at 65 percent approval.

 

[Alias]

It's all Bush's fault.

 

[Pandora]

He needs someone to challenge him in the primary

 

[Dr.Who]

the poll suggests many Democrats may vote for him only begrudgingly, and it is yet another indication of weakening support nationwide.

Many of us voted for Bush begrudgingly and he won - twice.

As much as there are people who like these stories about who is winning we can never forget the long view. To win the country we must change minds on the fundamental principles.

 

[bododie]

Many of us voted for Bush begrudgingly and he won - twice

For the last few elections, the choice has been between the lesser of two evils, and neither one was exceptionally palatable.


However, the problems with California has a lot to do with Californian's own opinions of being the progressive leader of social consciousness. They see themselves as the "guiding light" and then expect everyone else to provide the money for their "great idea".

Now, The state can't survive without the prospect of massive government handouts. Jerry ain't helping.

THAT is the product of liberal policies, and I totally invite the blathering poll takers of this board to deny this. If they do, then it proves they know nothing about the realities that have transpired over the last 30 years in that state.

Of course, that doesn't stop the idiot libs on this board from claiming things about states that they have never even been to, without taking all of the facts into consideration.

 

[PLC1]

The red state, blue state paradox

When you compare the 50 laboratories of democracy after sorting them based on how their citizens voted in November 2008, only 10 Democratic-voting states are net recipients of federal subsidies, as opposed to 22 Republican states. Only one red state (Texas) is a net payer of federal taxes, as opposed to 16 blue states. One blue state (Rhode Island) pays as much as it gets.

California is waking up, and ready to vote Republican ans suck at the federal teat. How else is this state ever going to balance its budget?

Note: Sarcasm alert!

 

[bododie]

California is waking up, and ready to vote Republican ans suck at the federal teat. How else is this state ever going to balance its budget?

Note: Sarcasm alert!

Are you suggesting that California's failure is NOT the result of failed "tolerant social policy?

Let them suck at whatever governmental body part the 9th circuit court wants for them.

NOTE: Sarcasm alert.

 

[Alias]

 

[Dr.Who]

The red state, blue state paradox

There is no paradox. Red states get more money back compared to how much they put in because they get more of the defense spending. Blue states get money back due to welfare but welfare is presently not large enough to counter the higher defense spending.

Come to think of it. Since blue states get more entitlement funds and also have the highest earners doesn't that also mean that they have a larger wealth gaps? Lets blame the blue states for the wealth gap.

 

[PLC1]

There is no paradox. Red states get more money back compared to how much they put in because they get more of the defense spending. Blue states get money back due to welfare but welfare is presently not large enough to counter the higher defense spending.

Come to think of it. Since blue states get more entitlement funds and also have the highest earners doesn't that also mean that they have a larger wealth gaps? Lets blame the blue states for the wealth gap.

Are you sure about that? California must get quite a bit of defense spending back.

 

[Dr.Who]

Are you sure about that? California must get quite a bit of defense spending back.

Cal is either red or blue.
Cal either gets back more than it puts in or less.
Cal either gets more defense than welfare or more welfare than defense.
On average red states get more than blue states but that may not be true for every state.

I am saying that is due to the combination of defense and welfare spending.


What I found is:

Cal is blue
It gets back less than it puts in (consistent with the average red/blue trend)

"California once was the recipient of 20 percent of national defense spending. That has since fallen to 11 percent." making it one of the lowest per capita recipients of defense spending in the nation.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/08/31/99947/per-capita-federal-spending-in.html#ixzz1Y8yUimvs


"The percentage of residents on welfare in the Golden State is now more than triple that of the rest of the U.S"

http://mangans.blogspot.com/2008/05/california-welfare-capital-of-us.html

I have documented every point I made with regards to cal except whether or not their defense receipts is greater or less than their welfare receipts in terms of total dollars. I have run out of time. But feel free to look it up yourself. I would be surprised if they have high per capita welfare and low defense money recipients and also get more in defense than in welfare.

 

[PLC1]

Cal is either red or blue.
Cal either gets back more than it puts in or less.
Cal either gets more defense than welfare or more welfare than defense.
On average red states get more than blue states but that may not be true for every state.

I am saying that is due to the combination of defense and welfare spending.


What I found is:

Cal is blue
It gets back less than it puts in (consistent with the average red/blue trend)

"California once was the recipient of 20 percent of national defense spending. That has since fallen to 11 percent." making it one of the lowest per capita recipients of defense spending in the nation.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/08/31/99947/per-capita-federal-spending-in.html#ixzz1Y8yUimvs


"The percentage of residents on welfare in the Golden State is now more than triple that of the rest of the U.S"

http://mangans.blogspot.com/2008/05/california-welfare-capital-of-us.html

I have documented every point I made with regards to cal except whether or not their defense receipts is greater or less than their welfare receipts in terms of total dollars. I have run out of time. But feel free to look it up yourself. I would be surprised if they have high per capita welfare and low defense money recipients and also get more in defense than in welfare.

So you have.

and you have supported mine as well: California gets back less than it pays to the feds.

And, yes, that does appear to be due to a drop in defense spending here, and despite the number of welfare recipients.

Now, what do we conclude from all that?

 

[Dr.Who]

So you have.

and you have supported mine as well: California gets back less than it pays to the feds.

And, yes, that does appear to be due to a drop in defense spending here, and despite the number of welfare recipients.

Now, what do we conclude from all that?

What I have earlier concluded is that the red/blue paradox is not an unexplained redistribution of wealth from those who favor welfare to those who oppose it but abuse it by taking too much of it anyway.

There are in fact two (if not more) simultaneous redistributions of wealth occurring at the same time. One moves wealth from rich to poor and one moves wealth from those who need defense to those who provide it. One is a justified movement of wealth that we call trade and the other is the gov misusing taxes in an unconstitutional way.

I conclude that we cannot state that blue states are better than red states because they get back less than they put in. If anything perhaps red states are better because more of what they get back is legitimate.