Free Markets, Free People

Poll: The economy belongs to Obama and it’s not good

Apparently the voters (likely voters) believe, according to this poll, that the economy is bad and, despite all his finger pointing to the contrary, it’s Obama’s fault:

Two-thirds of likely voters say the weak economy is Washington’s fault, and more blame President Obama than anybody else, according to a new poll for The Hill.

It found that 66 percent believe paltry job growth and slow economic recovery is the result of bad policy. Thirty-four percent say Obama is the most to blame, followed by 23 percent who say Congress is the culprit. Twenty percent point the finger at Wall Street, and 18 percent cite former President George W. Bush.

That’s a pretty significant split between those blamed, with GW Bush down to a low of 18%.  And note the reason cited: bad policy.

This is another of those indicator polls.  I point them out because they are a temperature check for the moment.  But what this particular poll indicates is all of the finger pointing, blame shifting and distraction aren’t working.  Voters, and again, I want to emphasize these are likely voters, aren’t or haven’t bought into that nonsense.

If indeed these likely voters actually believe the economy to be suffering from bad policy choices by Obama, it means his chance of winning, with 66% believing he’s the reason we’re suffering economically, are not good.

Again, an indicator – one in a long list of indicators to be considered with all the others. 

This one, like many of the others, aren’t at all favorable for the incumbent President.


Twitter: @McQandO

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

22 Responses to Poll: The economy belongs to Obama and it’s not good

    Forty-two percent said he (Obama) has taken the right actions to revive the economy,

    Utterly clueless!

    almost 6-in-10 are unhappy with the actions of Republicans in Congress who have challenged the president on an array of policy initiatives.

    The US is headed for a decidedly DESERVED economic implosion.
    In my view:
    If Romney wins the election, things are going to get really, really UGLY! [a]
    If Obama wins the election, things are going to get really, really UGLY! [b]
    [a] Race riots, even if the margin is significant.
    [b] Economic collapse followed by feeding frenzy riot, possible act of war against the nation, etc.

    • I never understand the people who want Congress to “do their jobs” and blame them for “doing nothing.”
      Are they not aware of the Senate which seems to not let anything get done?
      Do they really think that Obama and the Senate aren’t “playing games” instead of Congress?
      I think these people must be dolts.

  • Moreover, even the most ardent Obama supporter is confronted with the fact Obama either caused or contributed to the weak economy or he is utterly powerless and too weak to fix it.  Neither of these possibilities scream for reelection.

    • I have to argue that for Obama to get most of the blame he would have had to actually do something to make it better.   I think Pres**ent Obama would agree that he hasn’t done “d*ck” since coming into office, save 100+ rounds of golf, to actually affect the economy, so how could he possibly “be responsible” (something that he has never shown before).

    • Oh … this doesn’t look good …

      The Australian foreign minister has privately warned Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney that foreign leaders see “America in decline.”

      • Merely a statement of the obvious.
        As we know, “Decline is a choice“.  Obama has worked to make it so.

      • With the Bowin Boy Wonder and his moron sidekick Bidenman running things, what do you expect them to think?
        How could they not think those two are a reflection of America as a whole.

  • From WSJ …

    Some Democrats worry that the overhead built by the Obama camp over the past 15 months will prove impossible to sustain. Unless fundraising picks up, the Obama campaign may enter the season’s final stretch confronting hard choices: paring salaries, scaling back advertising or pulling out of swing states in a bid to control costs, these Democrats say.

    The Obama campaign has become a microcosm of the country .. they over spend … they can’t raise any more revenues … what on God’s good Earth makes anybody think that they would go to “confronting hard choices” ?

  • The case Obama will, and has, made, is that the economy is tough right now, but better than it was when he took office, and, most importantly, he blames the dramatic downturn on the policies of the Republicans that preceded him. In essence, he is saying to potential voters, the economy may not be so hot now, but remember how gad it was when they were running things, and they want to enact the same kinds of policies that got us here in the first place.

    He will acknowledge that improvement are not happening fast enough, but that the Republicans would work hard to go the wrong way quickly.

    Objectively, how fast should we recover from the worst recession since the Great Depression? I would expect it would be somewhere between the length of time it took to recover from the Greate Depression and the length of time it took to recover from the next worst recession.

    It’s hard for me to give credit for my success to any President, I did well under Clinton, better under Bush, and even better under Obama. But I credit that to my skills and efforts, not theirs.

    • It’s nationally better?  do you believe that?
      I’m not talking about you personally, I’m talking about nationally.  I’m not doing much different under Obama than I was under Bush, but my line of work, or this particular job, sort of insulates me from that since we do work for companies that are ‘too big to fail!’
      And come on Cap, we all know if you’re doin well, you didn’t do that yourself.   🙂

      • Nationally, I believe we are doing much better than we were in 2008, but in 2008 we were in an economic catastrophe.

        Without the infrastructure that was in place or put in place during my career, I would never have been able to do what I do. I built the part I built, and that part pays me well. I don’t mind paying for the part that I did not build that makes what I do possible.

        Everybody that earns a living in America is benefitted by the infrastructure that, at the heart of it, gives people confidence that the green paper in wallet is worth something.

    • Just like FDR, Obama is making sure we get into a second recession.
      Raising taxes, increasing regulations, ignoring  budgetary realities…its the same old, same old.
      You do know that we almost came out of the Great Depression until FDR raised taxes right?

    • “but better than it was when he took office”
      Right. What is left of GM is allegedly making money, the remaining big banks are all making good bonuses for their executives, the federal government is hiring, unemployment has stabilised, and OWS has pretty much disappeared. We have nothing to fear except fear itself. Happy days are here again. All the important media outlets say so.

  • most importantly, he blames the dramatic downturn on the policies of the Republicans that preceded him.

    Ummm…look at the numbers (all of them)  just prior to when the DEMS took over in January, 2007.
    Most noticeable is that the US was on course to have a balanced budget in 2008. Also, factor out the government portions of GDP (which doesn’t add to wealth; that’s “prosperity” for those with a clue) and we’re essentially in a DEPRESSION.
    And the downturn occurred from the FED pumping the  real estate markets into a bubble, HUD boosting bogus mortgages (CRA on steroids), and Clinton’s Fannie/Freddie pals flooding the financial markets with $$$BILLION of crap securities.
    Here’s a dime, but a clue; and stop barfing Mushroom Media tripe as though you understand what happened and what is happening.

    • Sharpie, I have read many different sources on the causes of the downturn in 2008. I know I will never convince you, but I’ll say it anyway, that yor understanding of the collapse is almost 180 degress from accurate.

      Just once quick example, since you mentions the CRA (Communicty Reinvestment Act), this has been a bogeyman among conservatives since the crisis began. The claim usually goes something like this, “They Put The Guns To The Banks’ Heads, And Said You Have Got To Do These Subprime Loans.” (Monica Crowley actually said this on Cavuto’s show on FOX).

      The fact is that 94% of all sub-prime loans were made by institutions not covered by the CRA (read, they were in no way compelled by govenment regulation to make the loans), and the 6% of sub-prime loans underwritten by CRA covered firms actually outperformed the prime mortgage market with respect to defaults. In other words, they were carefully underwritten.

      Everything else you said is wrong too, but you get the point (or refuse to)

  • You did skip my favorite culprit in the crisis, Barney Frank. I can’t tell you how many cosnervatives have told me that a minority member of the finance committee prevented oversignt of Fannie Mae against the will of the GOP majority. I;ll concede that his relationship with FNMA was way to cozy, but he simply did not have the power, only a willing GOP majority had the power to provider greater oversight, or not.

    Ultimately, my opinion is that these GSE’s used their massive cash and lobbying influence to convince legislators from looking too close, Yet another example of client politics.

    • Rather than plow all that ground over…yet again…I’ll just give it what it deserves…
      You are a lying idiot.

      • Which thing are you accusing me of lying about today, that Barney Frank was a minoity member of the finance committee? You do know who the majority party was in the House from 1995 to 2007, right?

        Are you claiming that a larger number of sub-prime loans were made by CRA covered entities?

        “In total, of all the higher-priced loans, only 6 percent were extended by CRA-regulated lenders (and their affiliates) to either lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in the lenders’ CRA assessment areas, which are the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes. The small share of subprime lending in 2005 and 2006 that can be linked to the CRA suggests it is very unlikely the CRA could have played a substantial role in the subprime crisis. ”

        Are you claiming that the CRA loans did not perform well?

        “studies have shown that loans made to low- and moderate-income homebuyers as part of banks’ efforts to meet their CRA obligations have actually performed better than the rest of the
        subprime market. In an analysis of CRA-motivated loans sold to a community development financial institution (CRL’s affiliate Self-Help), Ding, Quercia and Ratcliffe found that the default risk of these loans was much lower than subprime loans made to borrowers with similar income and credit

        risk profiles.


        A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco found that CRA-eligible loans made in California during the subprime boom were half as likely to go into foreclosure as loans made by independent mortgage companies, which were not subject to CRA requirements.”

        I am sure the limited information you allow yourself peruse has given youu the false information that you have accepted as true. I can’t fix your misunderstandings or force you to avail yourself of accurate information, and in fact, this information is not even intended for you, but instead the people who read this and may have honest misunderstanding of the cause of the crisis.

        To put it bluntly, “Reflecting on the causes of the crisis, Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan testified to the FCIC, “I blame the management teams 100% and…no one else. (Page 18)


        • Yeah, both.
          On the larger lies your OTHER lies support.
          In 2003, while the ranking minority member on the Financial Services Committee, Frank opposed a Bush administration proposal, in response to accounting scandals, for transferring oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to a new agency that would be created within the Treasury Department. The proposal, supported by the head of Fannie Mae, reflected the administration’s belief that Congress “neither has the tools, nor the stature” for adequate oversight. Frank stated, “These two entities …are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”[47] In 2003, Frank also stated what has been called his “famous dice roll”:[48] “I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness [in the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] that we have in the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidised housing.”[49] In July 2008, Frank said in an CNBC interview, “I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward.”[50]
          But there is the OBVIOUS set of facts showing that…LIKE the Great Depression…a new set of Federal policies and powers made the bubble, and made its collapse VASTLY bigger and more pervasive than anything in American history.

  • As the head of the country, Obama will always bear the brunt of the criticism.  But the Hill article seem to spread the blame between Obama, Bush, Wall Street, and the Congress