* Barack Obama won Illinois last year with about 61 percent of the vote. After he was inaugurated, his approval rating here shot up into the stratosphere. Now, it’s down to about where his election totals were, according to a Chicago Tribune poll, which has him at 59 percent job approval and 33 percent disapproval.
A Rasmussen Report poll earlier this month had the president’s approval here at 56 percent and his disapproval at 42. So, he’s actually doing better in the Trib poll than in the Rasmussen poll.
From the Tribune…
Obama’s standing with home-state voters could create problems for Illinois Democrats, if it continues into next year’s general election. Democratic officials have frequently cited their connections to and affinity for the president to try to offset the political fallout from the arrest and removal from office of disgraced former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who faces federal corruption charges.
That’s quite an overstatement. The trend obviously isn’t favorable at the moment, but he was at an unsustainable high at the start of the year. The fall was entirely predictable.
* Everybody wants to believe, it seems, that 2010 will be like 1994. There are some eerie similarities, but keep in mind that Bill Clinton tried and failed to pass his national health care plan during the election year. People freaked out, pretty much like they are now, and didn’t have time to settle down. If Obama can get that off the table in the next few months by passing something there will be a long breathing space before November.
From the Tribune’s poll on Obama’s health plan…
About one-third think any health proposal will pay for abortions — even as lawmakers have stripped that measure from key bills wending their way through Congress. And one in five think the health plan will make “end-of-life” determinations for elderly patients, often referred to as “death panels” by opponents of Obama’s health-care reform proposals. This is not the case.
Graphic…
They ain’t exactly siding with the Republicans, either.
* Back to the job approval…
Among the potentially troubling signs for Democrats that surfaced in the survey was the fact that only about half of voters who describe themselves as independents approved of Obama’s job performance. Illinois has voted Democratic in recent elections, but independents remain a key swing block.
Additionally, 58 percent of independent voters believed that Obama’s handling of the economy had done little to help the job picture in a state that has seen unemployment rise from 6.7 percent since the presidential election to 10.5 percent in July. On health-care reform, 53 percent of independent voters disapproved of Obama’s actions. […]
The poll found Obama’s job approval remains strongest in his home base of Chicago at 85 percent, among Democrats at 91 percent, and among African-Americans at 94 percent. Voters outside the Chicago area lean slightly more toward dissatisfaction with his job performance, and he has the support of a narrow 52 percent majority of white voters.
The Tribune refuses to post crosstabs, so we’re supposed to just trust their analysis. It’s a maddening habit, but they’re the Tribune.
Thoughts?
Please, try to stay civil. National politics brings out the worst in people. Do your utmost to remain above the fray. As always, resist posting regurgitated national talking points. They’re boring and stupid, for the most part. And try to keep it focused on Illinois.
Thanks.
…Adding… Progress Illinois makes a couple of good points…
The Tribune did not release the survey’s cross tabs, so we can’t see the exact figure Pearson is referring to here. (Does “about half” mean slightly more than 50 percent? Slightly less?)
But it’s worth noting that, according to Illinois exit polls, 55 percent of self-described “Independents” supported Obama last November, compared to 43 percent for John McCain. Dropping a few percentage points is hardly definitive, let alone “potentially troubling.”
LIVE session coverage...
- wordslinger - Friday, Sep 4, 09 @ 10:49 am:
Right or wrong, good or bad, every president wears the jacket for the economy. The honeymoon’s over, and it’s now his economy. His ratings will rise and fall with it.
- SpfldJimbo - Friday, Sep 4, 09 @ 10:52 am:
And this, my friends, is why we’re “Illinois”.
- trafficmatt - Friday, Sep 4, 09 @ 10:52 am:
As a pretty hard-bitten conservative, I’ll try to stay within the guidelines.
Agree with you, Rich, on what this means for next year only in the degree of the tide for Republicans. However, pretty much every “off-year”, the Party that holds the White House loses seats in Congress. It depends on the degree. The trend is not promising for the Obama White House. If the jobless rate continues (which most economists have predicted - unemployment lags general economic recovery), it will get worse for the Democrats.
For the graphic health care debate and if the public trusts the congressional Republicans, I would contend that many of those in the group “Neither” are probably conservatives that will tend Republican who are still upset with the spend-thrift Republicans of the last Congressional Session.
- Skeeter - Friday, Sep 4, 09 @ 10:56 am:
I don’t expect President Obama’s performance to have much of an impact at all in 2010 (with the possible exception of the race for his old seat). It is easy to like President Obama, but still be upset about how things are going at home. Instead, local issues will dominate, especially the question of whether the Democrats have performed well with nearly full control of the state.
Given Blagojevich, made worse by things like Rep. Dunkin calling his impeachment a witch hunt, and even worse here in Cook County with the tax issues, I would have expected numbers for any Democrat to have completely tanked.
It will be interesting to see how much of an anti-incumbent feeling is there in Feb. If the Dems can replace some of these problem incumbents — Stroger, Sims, Dunkin — November might be pretty good. If people like that are on the ballot though, it is going to be ugly.
- MrJM - Friday, Sep 4, 09 @ 11:00 am:
I call “Obama/Biden ‘12 Illinois Field Director”!
– MrJM
- Capitol View - Friday, Sep 4, 09 @ 11:03 am:
It’s not health care reform, it is health care financing reform. Identifying the issue for what it truly is, is the first step towards resolving it.
But miss-stating it is part of the insurance industry’s tactics.
And are we rushing to address this issue? It has been around since the Nixon era, as has been the heavy lobbying against it. Get ‘er done!
- Shore - Friday, Sep 4, 09 @ 11:06 am:
As I’ve said before, they tried a similar thing with democrats and bush-to make a strike behind enemy lines in 2002 in texas. It didn’t work. The national republican party doesn’t understand how damaged its brand is in the suburbs. I was there in 1994 on GOP campaigns on the north shore. Republicans were still liked in moderate areas like the north shore and somewhat more conservative areas, that’s no longer the case. To be successful Republicans are going to have to regain the trust of people who were with them for a long time but have been put off for years by policy failures and leadership failures.
The other thing about 2006 was that it wasn’t just democrats that were mad as hell and ready to turn out, it was republicans that just turned on the party-people you’d knock on their doors, they’d tell you they had been republicans and conservatives their entire life but were voting for democrats or staying home. I don’t see the left abandoning obama like that in 2010-a big part of what the GOP needs to have a blowout.
And remember I’m considered one of the biggest drinkers of Mark Kirk/GOP koolaid on here.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 4, 09 @ 11:19 am:
===I would contend that many of those===
You should change “contend” to “guess,” since we don’t know who they are.
- Anon - Friday, Sep 4, 09 @ 11:21 am:
This is no time to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This needs to get done soon, not for political purposes, but because the system has been broken for too long and too many people have gone without coverage and needed care.
- 2010 - Friday, Sep 4, 09 @ 11:33 am:
Prediction - November of 2010 Republicans Win Big!
- the Other Anonymous - Friday, Sep 4, 09 @ 11:40 am:
First, a 59% approval rating is pretty high. The Republicans can’t run against Obama in Illinois with those numbers.
Second, the most dangerous item from the poll is that only about half the indepedendts approve of Obama. Here’s where the crosstabs become crucial: is the number of independents stable, or have a bunch of independents who like Obama become self-identified Democrats?
- trafficmatt - Friday, Sep 4, 09 @ 11:48 am:
Rich,
I’ll stand by what I wrote. After I posted, I noticed that I made some typos in the second paragraph. That wasn’t one of them.
- Cassandra - Friday, Sep 4, 09 @ 12:00 pm:
I don’t think bad polls are going to hurt him where it counts–in his re-election bid–unless some Democrat challenges him, which seems extremely unlikely.
The Republicans are having the same problem nationally as they do here in Illinois–a combo of right wing craziness and the difficulty of finding modern, moderate national candidates.
We need to get past Mitt Romney, Huckabee, et al.
We won’t, this decade. Probably not in Illinois either.
- Angry Chicagoan - Friday, Sep 4, 09 @ 12:05 pm:
I don’t place any stock in Rasmussen polls except for up-and-down candidate-on-candidate polls at election time. Everything else with Rasmussen, and I mean everything, has a Republican spin on it. That said, there’s no question Obama is losing support. There are a couple of problems — the liberal base of the Democrats see themselves being sold out by the president and Congress, while moderates see keystone cops who can’t deliver and won’t really challenge the status quo.
- counterpoint - Friday, Sep 4, 09 @ 12:27 pm:
Just change “Illinois” to “Texas” and “Obama” to “Bush”. No surprise at all in this Rasmussen poll; the only real surprise is anyone believing Republicans are electable in IL.
- Holdingontomywallet - Friday, Sep 4, 09 @ 12:46 pm:
Wasn’t the rasumussen poll one of the most accurate in the last election?
- Bruno Behrend - Friday, Sep 4, 09 @ 12:59 pm:
While 2010 has certain factors pointing to even bigger benefits for the GOP than 1994, the fact remains that two key factors for success are still missing - A Newt-style leader and a cohesive agenda.
Like it or hate it, the Contract worked.
Today’s GOP has the opportunity (but little time) to provide;
a) a better health care solution (HSAs, pricing transparency, Wyden-Bennett)
b) propose 100% budget transparency along with spending caps,
c)transition from the failed model of high progressive taxation (look at how fast revenues collapse during a downturn) to more broad energy and consumption taxes (which are far more stable)
Option (c) is even more green than the Crap and Trade nonsense, which nothing more than a transfer of wealth from citizens to Goldman Sacks. (spelling intentional)
3 broad policy options, held together by themes f returning to principles of honest, open government….what’s not to like?
Too bad America no longer has a party committed to such an agenda.
- Bubs - Friday, Sep 4, 09 @ 1:19 pm:
Bruno-
“Too bad America no longer has a party committed to such an agenda.”
Ah, there’s the rub! If that is what the GOP stood for, Moderates would have no problem with it and the Democrats would be running for political bomb shelters. It’s the OTHER things the GOP advocates that get the party into electoral trouble - i.e. the “Social Conservative Agenda.”
I for one doubt that Obama’s ratings in Illinois will fall more than three points lower, even with a defeat on health care and the looming trouble over Afghanistan.
GOP candidates, expect President Obama to campaign hard for Democrats in Illinois in 2010, and plan on it having real effect. That guy is just plain magic on a campaign trail.
- dupage dan - Friday, Sep 4, 09 @ 1:21 pm:
2 observations.
Obama seems to be losing support in the independent voter sector. This group seems to go with the wind. They should be aware that Obama told us he would revamp health care once elected. Now that he is there and he is moving forward, everyone takes potshots at him and the support he has had from independents seems to vanish. Anytime a leader takes a strong stand on something (Bush-Iraq, Obama-healthcare) you will see multitudes attacking from various points. Nature of the beast.
Obama will not convince me that his plan has merit until he addresses some important issues - tort reform being a big one. Apparently, no mention is made in the most talked about 1000 page bill. Also, if insurance can be bought across state lines this could bring about more competition. There are more things that can be done, or at least should be part of the debate that are missing.
I don’t care who proposes the best solution but I can’t support one that ignores some fixes that have the potential of some substantial cost savings. This is part of why Obama is losing support amongst many people. The plan as proposed is so convoluted and opaque that people are becoming more skeptical.
Clear the air, Mr President, and take your lumps along w/agreeing to some useful compromises. Shake the trial bar off your back and do what’s right!
- Skeeter - Friday, Sep 4, 09 @ 2:09 pm:
Tort reform?
Du Page Dan, what exactly are you advocating?
Miller’s note talks about regurgitating national talking points. “Tort reform” is exactly that. It is meaningless, since it potentially everything from damage caps to changes in jury instructions.
Asking for “tort reform” is like asking for “a fair system.” Ask 1000 people what it means, and you get 1000 answers.
- dupage dan - Friday, Sep 4, 09 @ 3:41 pm:
Skeeter,
I have read about tort reform that puts questions of malpractice and/or personal injury awards into the hands of a board similar to workmen’s comp situations. I am not saying we adopt that model totally but to consider removing decisions re awards for injury/loss from the highly emotional and manipulative jury system we have now where trial lawyers game the process using venue and jury consultants to win over huge awards. I am not even saying we have to get rid of all high awards. If the medical community can trust that only those incompetent are penalized then it is possible that doctors may begin to reduce the number of unnecessary tests that are frequently administered (I have had such) in order to protect the doctor from civil actions. Just ask neurologists and OB/GYNs about liability insurance. Those higher risk types of medical situations bring about some of the highest uses of tests and procedures (highest rates of c-sections in the developed world) bring about astronomical insurance costs.
Why can’t the current administration even entertain discussion of tort reform? Anything to do with the fact that trial lawyers have much influence over the democratic party? Why not even one page out of the 1000 pages? People far more knowledgeable about this than I are clamoring for this yet not a peep from the other side. Bring in serious discussion of alternatives and cost saving measures that don’t require the gov’t getting further involved in our health care.
- wordslinger - Friday, Sep 4, 09 @ 7:28 pm:
–While 2010 has certain factors pointing to even bigger benefits for the GOP than 1994, the fact remains that two key factors for success are still missing - A Newt-style leader and a cohesive agenda.–
By all means, Bruno, bring on that Newt-style leader (anybody in mind, brother?).! And that cohesive agenda, too!
Keep in mind — that “cohesive” agenda needs to get a plurality. You’ll have to stop the auto de fey to come up with that
Auto de fey, what’s the auto de fey? It’s what you oughtn’t to do , but you do anyway!
- Skeeter - Friday, Sep 4, 09 @ 9:02 pm:
Dan,
Your note shows how meaningless the phrase is. It can mean ANYTHNG, including the bizarre (not to mention completely unconstitutional) idea you tossed out.
And do some reading. President Obama has in fact made moves on tort reform. So get your facts straight before you whine about the issue.