1. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

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

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Little-Acorn, Sep 14, 2011.

  1. Little-Acorn

    Little-Acorn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    151
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    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.
     
  2. Alias

    Alias Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    Messages:
    585
    Likes Received:
    50
    Location:
    Washington State, up in the hills hiding out
    It's all Bush's fault.
     
  3. Pandora

    Pandora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    11,790
    Likes Received:
    257
    Location:
    The people's republic of Eugene
    He needs someone to challenge him in the primary
     
  4. Dr.Who

    Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,776
    Likes Received:
    251
    Location:
    Horse Country
    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.
     
  5. bododie

    bododie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,639
    Likes Received:
    27
    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.
     
  6. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    10,591
    Likes Received:
    595
    Location:
    The Golden State
    The red state, blue state paradox

    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!
     
  7. bododie

    bododie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,639
    Likes Received:
    27

    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.
     
  8. Alias

    Alias Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    Messages:
    585
    Likes Received:
    50
    Location:
    Washington State, up in the hills hiding out
  9. Dr.Who

    Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,776
    Likes Received:
    251
    Location:
    Horse Country
    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.
     
  10. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    10,591
    Likes Received:
    595
    Location:
    The Golden State
    Are you sure about that? California must get quite a bit of defense spending back.
     
  11. Dr.Who

    Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,776
    Likes Received:
    251
    Location:
    Horse Country

    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.
     
  12. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    10,591
    Likes Received:
    595
    Location:
    The Golden State
    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?
     
  13. Dr.Who

    Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,776
    Likes Received:
    251
    Location:
    Horse Country
    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.
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice