Obama approval ratings by state 1/31/10

www.politicsdaily.com...

Two things stand out in some of these new polls: the percentage of people opposing the health care reform proposals who say they are "strongly" opposed and the number of those who believe the economy is getting worse or staying the same.

Finally, people are starting to wake up.
These numbers do not look good for Obama.
Most states are over the 50 percent disapproval ratings.
I would do the math on all of this, but Math really isnt my strong suit.

It's virtually impossible for Obama to keep the rating he had at the beginning of his term, just as it's impossible for him to actually deliver on all his promises.

However this is far more worrying than you realise. The last time the approval rating nosedived, the only way out was for the President to stage 911 and be the knight in shining armour.

Hopefully history doesn't repeat itself.


[edit on 31-1-2010 by kiwifoot]

reply to post by Misoir


The Obamanation has been defecating on this country for over a year now, and the stench is beginning to awaken the sleeping giant. Hopefully, the Lilliputians will drown in their own excrement before it's too late.
Star and Flag

[edit on 31-1-2010 by Violater1]

I have to post this comment from your link, it could be a hell of a thread here on ATS-

A lot of times the comments hold more jems than the articles themselves!

From the link-

Richard 6:33PM Jan 31st 2010

"In my own life in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this country that has given me so much," she said. "See, that's why I left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service, "... Michelle Obama

No, Michele Obama does not get paid to serve as the First Lady and she doesn't perform any official duties. But this hasn't deterred her from hiring an unprecedented number of staffers to cater to her every whim and to satisfy her every request in the midst of the Great Recession. Just think,

Mary Lincoln was taken to task for purchasing china for the White House during the Civil War. And Mamie Eisenhower had to shell out the salary for her personal secretary from her husband's salary.

Michele Obama: Twenty-two


How things have changed! If you're one of the tens of millions of Americans facing certain destitution, earning less than subsistence wages stocking the shelves at Wal-Mart or serving up McDonald cheeseburgers,prepare to scream and then come to realize that the benefit package for these servants of Ms Michelle are the same as members of the national security and defense departments and the bill for these assorted lackeys is paid by YOU, John Q. Public:

Michele Obama's personal staff:
One.. $172,200 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
Two.. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
Three.. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary for Mrs. Obama)
Four.. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady)
Five.. $100,000 - Winter, Melissa (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
Six.. $90,000 Medina , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady) Seven.. $84,000 - Lilyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
Eight.. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
Nine.. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Project for the First Lady)
Ten.. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
Eleven.. $64,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B.(Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
Twelve.. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady
) Thirteen.. $60,000 Fitz, Alan O.(Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
Fourteen.. $57,500 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
Fifteen... $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady)
Sixteen.. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady)
Seventeen.. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
Eighteen.. $43,000 - Tubman, Samanth a (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
Nineteen.. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
Twenty.. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
Twenty-One.. $35,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
Twenty-Two.. $35,000 - Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)

(total $1,591,200 in annual salaries)

One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense. Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and "First Hairstylist" Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom traveled aboard Air Force One to Europe . .. Copyright 2009 Canada Free Press.Com canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652 Yes, I know, The Canadian Free Press had to publish this, perhaps because America no longer has a free press and the USA media is too scared that they might be

Hmmm, they really know how to spend our money don't they!

edit to delete past first ladies staffs because skunknuts showed the number of staffers for previous first ladies was in error-but the list of staffers for Michelle seem to be correct.

Now, where is my government supplied beautician at? I have to fly to Monaco for a poker game.

[edit on 1/31/2010 by endisnighe]

Here's Obama approval rating by month in August 2009.

www.gallup.com...

reply to post by endisnighe



Why did you repost that debunked chain email about the first lady?? Why the drive to spread disinformation?

You usually seem to value being taken seriously, so I suggest you should at least edit your previous post, or, perhaps start a whole new thread getting to the bottom of who (besides you) is spreading this false chain email.

Perhaps you should review my thread here (that also covered this specific slander, as well as generally discussed the disservice of breathlessly reposting of the latest chain emails or partisan blog entry):

Disinformation Vaccination

As for this specific tripe:

The combined annual salaries for the 22 staffers we can specifically identify as working for Michelle Obama come to $1.6 million. For the 18 we could identify as working for Laura Bush in 2008, the total is $1.4 million.

www.factcheck.org...

Michelle Obama’s Staff

August 5, 2009
Bookmark and Share

Q: Does First Lady Michelle Obama have an "unprecedented" number of staffers?

A: A spokeswoman for the first lady says that Michelle Obama currently has a staff of 24. That may indeed be the largest of any first lady, but Hillary Clinton, with 19 staffers, and Laura Bush with at least 18 and perhaps more, weren’t far behind.

FULL QUESTION:

Is this accurate? And how does it compare to prior first ladies’ staffs?

FULL ANSWER:

The White House published the 2009 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff on its official blog on July 1, listing the title and salary of many White House office employees. A few days later, a fuss began online over the number of people who are assigned to work for the Office of First Lady and how much they earn per year.

A blog post from Chicago Sun-Times reporter Lynn Sweet on July 6 put the spotlight on "What Michelle Obama’s Staffers Earn." The staff of TheLastCrusade.org, a Web site that describes itself as a place "where you can engage in the life and death struggle against the forces of Islam, apostasy, moral complacency, cultural relativity, and the New World Order," then took the information and posted a piece claiming that the first lady had hired an "unprecedented number of staffers" to "cater to her every whim and to satisfy her every request in the midst of the Great Recession." That piece was also posted on the conservative Web site CanadaFreePress.com under the byline of Dr. Paul L. Williams, who runs TheLastCrusade.org. That post has become part of a chain e-mail that some of our readers have passed on to us, and the e-mail expands upon Williams’ post, falsely claiming that some recent first ladies have had only one or three staffers.

How Many?

According to the 2009 White House report to Congress, there are 16 people with a title specifically indicating they work for Michelle Obama’s office. In other words, there are 16 people with "first lady" somewhere in their title, such as Jocelyn Frye, deputy assistant to the president and director of policy and projects for the first lady.

The list reported by Sweet and The Last Crusade, however, includes six other staffers who do not have "first lady" in their title but are a part of the first lady’s office staff, such as Desiree Rogers, special assistant to the president and White House social secretary, and Natalie Bookey, staff assistant.

We contacted Katie McCormick Lelyveld, Michelle Obama’s press secretary, to check the list’s accuracy. Lelyveld told us in an e-mail that the first lady’s current staff size is actually 24, not 22, as the chain e-mail claims. Lelyveld couldn’t provide a list of the staffers at that time.

First Ladies Past

The chain e-mail’s author claims that "[t]here has never been anyone in the White House at any time that has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady’s social life." The author claims that "even Hillary, only had three; Jackie Kennedy one; Laura Bush one." But the counts for those first ladies are incorrect – and they’re way off.

Stephen Plotkin, reference archivist for the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library, told us in an e-mail that Jacqueline Kennedy’s office was "headed" by one person, but said that there were "at least 9 people working for Mrs. Kennedy, with the promise of a great many more" during her time at the White House.

Kim Coryat, an archives technician at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library, told us it can be difficult to nail down a precise count of staff considering "White House staffing for all offices ebbs and flows with time." But she said in an e-mail that White House telephone directory records indicate that Hillary Clinton had at least a staff of 13 as of October 1993; 18 as of April 1997; and 19 as of March 2000.

Lelyveld said that Michelle Obama’s staff was actually no different than that of her predecessor, Laura Bush. "[W]e have exactly the same staff number as Mrs. Bush and our office organization reflects a similar staffing model, so insinuations otherwise are wrong," she said. Lelyveld said that the White House’s "personnel records indicate" that there were 24 staffers for Laura Bush at some point. We were able to verify at least 18 staffers for Laura Bush, as of June 30, 2008, via the 2008 White House staff list published in The Washington Post’s White House Watch column. Sixteen people were specifically referred to as a "first lady" staffer, and Amy Zantzinger and Dorothy Thornton served as White House social secretary and deputy social secretary, respectively. It’s possible that someone with the title of "staff assistant" was assigned to the Office of First Lady as well, as is the case with Michelle Obama’s staff.

The combined annual salaries for the 22 staffers we can specifically identify as working for Michelle Obama come to $1.6 million. For the 18 we could identify as working for Laura Bush in 2008, the total is $1.4 million.


[edit on 1/31/2010 by skunknuts]

reply to post by endisnighe



[edit on 31-1-2010 by Misoir]

its not just Obama the whole New World Order has been exposed to people all over yet i see many here on ATS who still deny the fact that one even exist

thats pretty sad

reply to post by skunknuts


Okay, I looked through your comment and found it enlightening.

I guess the part about the limit of other first lady staffs should be shown to be wrong.

That being said, I will eliminate the other first lady staff numbers.

Also, I will leave the list of Michelle Obama's staff stand. By your own comment and links they show to be valid.

reply to post by endisnighe


So, Monaco for poker, huh? Don't forget to declare your income on your tax filing when you win the tourney, or do you stick to just cash games?

Sounds like fun, I think I'm going to try out Vegas this summer--I've heard if you can't win enough to pay for your hotel stay, you shouldn't really be playing poker....

Best,
Skunknuts

Fact- Obama still has about 3 years later.

All he has to do is end at least one of the wars and get this economy going again and he is in the driver seat toward reelection.

This game is merely in the first quarter and people are already counting him out.

Removed because it was off topic. Sometimes I will ramble, sorry OP.

[edit on 2/1/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by jam321


You are 100% correct on all counts.

While Obama may have acquired some of the problems left behind from the Bush era, he is certainly not innocent in creating his own.
Something tells me the economy would have improved on its own without any help from Obama's StimuPacks, but as always, the President gets the blame/credit for things that happen during his administration.

Even if things begin to improve after Democrats lose control of Congress and the Senate in November, Obama will still get credit, as he should.
But if things don't improve by mid third quarter, the game is over, and the next President will be fixing Obama's mistakes.

It's a vicious cycle.

This chart is extremely interesting:

Obamas approval daily approval rating

Interesting chart shows his approval going strait down and disapproval rating going strait up... it is now almost equal.

Originally posted by Alxandro
reply to post by jam321

 

You are 100% correct on all counts.

While Obama may have acquired some of the problems left behind from the Bush era, he is certainly not innocent in creating his own.
Something tells me the economy would have improved on its own without any help from Obama's StimuPacks, but as always, the President gets the blame/credit for things that happen during his administration.

Even if things begin to improve after Democrats lose control of Congress and the Senate in November, Obama will still get credit, as he should.
But if things don't improve by mid third quarter, the game is over, and the next President will be fixing Obama's mistakes.

It's a vicious cycle.

I disagree with you, the stimulus put a bandaid on it to just make it all drag out. without it there would have been massive fallouts and we would be seeing general chaos in the US with massive unemployment and probably a massive drop of the dollar. Instead we will get massive unemployment with hyper inflation after a little longer!

Polls are all rigged and people should be reminded of bush's approval ratings.

In order to look really good as a president you must have hardship to overcome. Imagine if obama just did all the stuff he said he would. Now picture if he does all of that along with rebounding us out of all our current problems, what will look better?


[edit on 1-2-2010 by whoshotJR]

reply to post by jam321


I only partially agree. I think he certainly still has time to recover, but the problem is that the longer these mediocre approval ratings persist, the more people that will start forming a permanently negative opinion of him. People will only give you a chance for so long. He doesn't have to worry so much about people switching and voting Republican, but that they'll just stay home instead. Considering that he won only 52.9% of the popular vote in a year with one of the biggest voter enthusiasm gaps in modern history working in his favor, he could be in serious trouble for 2012 if this situation persists for another 6-12 months.

He also has another problem on his hands. The Democratic Congress is enormously unpopular, particularly Pelosi and Reid, and the party appears headed for major losses this fall. They may drag his approval ratings down even further this year as the mid-term election campaigns get into full swing.

why do Americans write the date with the month at the begining rather than the day?. It's always confused me surely it should read 31/1/10 as in the 31st day of the 1st month in the year 2010. I cant believe Americans have been doing this for so long.