Politico reports that this latest Gallup poll shows that Obama’s job approval among white people has dipped below 40%. Previously his support among white voters was over 60%. Black voters rate his job approval at about 90%. His loss of support appears to be largely due to dropping support from white voters.
My question: Does this racial breakdown really matter in any significant way?
PrairiePopulistsAndProgressives.net 
I find this interesting due to the many reports of racial emails being sent out by white Republicans after the election and inauguration. And let’s consider all the racial overtones that is being said on Fox News about Obama being a racist.
With soundbites like these, I would be surprised if his approval rating by whites did not take a tumble.
Our society has the attention span of a gnat. The 30-second soundbite is what is remembered – not the entire story – just those 30-seconds and usually the first story we hear is the one we remember.
The answer is yes and no, yes in that it takes a majority to be elected and to stay in the office.
Its has a lot to do with P.O.V. with the economy in the tank there is a segment of the population that is being touched in a way they have not been since the Great depression.
While non-whites are use to being downtrodden so another down turn is nothing new and taken in stride.
They are use to being cut and losing a job while Whites are not and suddenly they are feeling pain and discomforted.
People who are feeling discomfort do not look with rational thoughts they only see the discomfort.
The only way it could be worse for the President is if there was a undeniable up sway for non-whites.
It does not sound fair but as I said people in pain do not look at it with rational thoughts.
Its not about fair or just the way it is, its about you feeling that life and the World are not being fair to you.
The No comes in that people’s opinions tend to be circular, if the World starts being better for them then the President will deserve a place on MT. Rushmore!
The only real opinion of him that will count will be in 2012, how people feel then will be what effects the election. People voted for Obama in 2008 because they saw a hope, he seems smart and level headed.
But is failing at taking the lead when there needs to be a leader.
It does not help with the mad hatter’s tea party that is going on with health care reform.
I think Obama was helped by the economy sinking when it did because the people blamed Bush and Gang for the disaster – and that, in turn, got McCain blamed for the economic disaster.
Of course, it did not help when McCain dissed Letterman to rush down to Washington DC to fix the economy when Letterman’s staff had video of McCain sitting in the chair opposite Katie Couric and the video of McCain at Bill Clinton’s thing the next morning in New York – so why all the rush to get to Washington?
McCain made himself look to be the fool with that one and Obama looked like the cool and collected guy that got to Washington DC the next day at the same time McCain showed up for the same meeting.
I swear, a fiction writer could not make this stuff up any better.
LOL McCain was a throw-a-way from the beginning. After Bush the GOP knew that there was no one who could win.
That is why Hank voted for Ron Paul. He knew it would not matter who he voted for.
The other side is that the Huckabee supporters really were that delusional. They actually thought he would win.
I just found this on the Cox online home page when I was checking my email this morning.
Perhaps incidents like this is why Obama’s approval rating with whites is dropping?
I wonder, did Google ever have to apologize for an offensive image of Laura Bush??
Hatred breeds more hatred – and the Republicans pushing this kind of thing know exactly what they are doing….
11-25-2009 08:28 AM CST
SAN FRANCISCO (Associated Press) —
Google Inc. is apologizing for a racially offensive image of the first lady that appears at the top of the list when users search for pictures of Michelle Obama on its site.
Google placed a text ad above the image titled “Offensive Search Results” that states “Sometimes our search results can be offensive. We agree.”
Users who then click on the ad are directed to a letter from Google that explains its results “can include disturbing content, even from innocuous queries” but notes that Google doesn’t endorse content on these Web sites.
Google says its search formula relies on thousands of factors to rank a Web page’s importance, and says it doesn’t eliminate search results simply because of user complaints. However, Google says it will take down images in certain cases, such as when required by law to do so.
“We apologize if you’ve had an upsetting experience using Google,” the company wrote.
Mountain View, Calif.-based Google also posted about the issue in a user support forum.
Spokesman Scott Rubin would not elaborate on how the image ended up as the number-one result for the first lady.
The Google letter says “a site’s ranking in Google’s search results relies heavily on computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page’s relevance to a given query.”
Rubin said the company did remove one site displaying the image from its results because it included viruses, which Google policy prohibits. But a different Web site later posted the same image, he said.
The White House declined to comment.
This is not the first time Google has apologized for content in its search results. The company issued a similar response in 2004 when the top result for the term “Jew” pointed to an anti-Semitic Web site
Search engines often will list first those sites and images that have the most hits.
This is actually a tactic that some use to get their information and images to appear first of close to the top of the lists.
If you make a search for information on the Health care reform, those opposing it can lead you to their distortions by repeatedly hitting their website. So when your search is done then their distortions will be the first you read. It works the same with many of the Conservative books, printed by a Conservative publisher.
The book is then sold to large Conservative groups for the purpose of knocking up the number of sales.
So the book will appear on the top sellers list.
Selling books is one thing but a racially offensive image of the first lady (or anyone else) is a different story – or I hope it would be.
Isn’t our society sick enough without all that crap going on?
Like I said, if it was a racially offensive image of Laura Bush, then I doubt we would hear the end of it being ‘reverse discrimination’.
tosmarttobegop
November 25, 2009 at 10:10 am LOL McCain was a throw-a-way from the beginning. After Bush the GOP knew that there was no one who could win.
That is why Hank voted for Ron Paul. He knew it would not matter who he voted for.
—
So all the yammering all the Conservatives did for months on end on the WE blog about McCain being the winner was all just a lie? I thought good Christians were not supposed to lie?
What is more delusional than the Huckabee supporters are the Palin supporters who thought she could actually win.
And, if I remember correctly, those same Conservatives on the WE blog that were yammering about McCain were also holding Palin up on that pedestal.
Or, was that a lie also?
While I don’t take issue with previous comments here, I don’t find the statistics surprising. It’s only natural that people who have some sort of commonality with another support that person even when others don’t. This not only applies to race, but also to family, religion, ethnic background, school and most any other peer group. In this case, Obama is the first president that most African Americans have had much in common with, except for perhaps political party affiliation.
It’s also not surprising that for many others the glow of excitement and hope that Obama presented has now dimmed. Rather than the “change” that was promised during the campaign, in so many areas, Obama’s policies are more like those of Bush, just with lipstick and mascara applied, so that they appear different.
Also where is the presidential leadership? Even on health care reform, which he touted so highly during the campaign, Obama and his administration have seemed to sit on the sidelines and let congress duke it out, rather than push for the program that had been promised to voters in 2008.
Obama the president, so far, hasn’t shown himself to be the same person as Obama the candidate. Where is the push for congress to act? Where is the personal contact and concern for those who are suffering through economic hard times?
It should be remembered that before the Democratic primaries and national convention, many voters preferred another candidate; they supported Obama in the general election because he was a better choice than the McCain/Palin ticket. It’s not difficult to see though why many of those who voted for him would now give a thumb’s down on his approval.
I have to say that’s the direction my own thumb is pointing.
And do you think Hillary Clinton would have done anything differently than Obama has?
Hillary would have had the problem of ‘old baggage’ when it came to the Republicans but make no mistake – Hillary is a politician and a seasoned one at that.
When it comes down to it, politicians will do whatever politicians do and that is to watch out for their own – on both sides of the aisle.
I like Hillary Clinton , don’t get me wrong, but I think she would have done things about the same as Obama has.
I sadly must agree that Obama has not lived up to the promise of change. Some things have changed, such as diplomacy, but most have not. And, as far as the diplomacy goes, it is to be expected because little Georgie’s administration will always be the exception rather than the rule in that department.
Obama’s administration has been a major disappointment so far, not because of the things he tried to change and failed, but because of the things he just kept the same after he got into office despite his promises of change. Especially in the financial/economic department, we really needed someone who was not in bed with Wall Street. His cabinet picks betrayed his alliances almost immediately. I keep trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I’m one white person that is just not seeing the promised change.
I think Hillary has a more assertive approach and would have taken on opponents more forcefully. She would have been equally ineffective, but for an entirely different reason. But a more satisfying reason for me, personally.
I feel very strongly that America needed (and still needs) a Democratic president that adheres more to traditional party platforms concerning economic policy making. Clinton was a fiscal conservative and I believe Hillary would be as well. Obama seemed more conservative than I would have liked during the campaign but has turned out to be even more conservative since he took office. We need a lot of these economic policies changed to reflect the FACT that conservative economic policy has proven a failure for this nation. Traditional conservative economic policy is not an answer to the problems that have been caused by conservative economic policy on steroids (which is what has been implemented over the past ten years). I don’t think Hillary would have handled the economy much differently than Obama has. Frankly, I don’t believe there would have been much difference between what we have now and what we would have had under Hillary.
My conscience forced me to go with Kucinich for as long as that ride lasted and I only starting working for Obama when I saw that Kucinich was out for sure (though many told me he was out from the beginning). We need some progressive ideas to pull ourselves out of the mess that conservative ideology put us in.
What I don’t understand is when someone is elected as decisively as Obama was, why couldn’t he get in there and just ride that pony. After Bush, the people whether they voted for Obama or not expected a president who would be “out there” and take charge, unlike all the behind-the-scenes governing that was part of the Bush administration. Even though this administration has a majority in both houses, what we get from the Obama White House is almost a timidity in leadership, rather than putting forth strong proposals and using leverage to get Congress to pass them. They appear, to somehow, still fear the far right, even after they won the election by a strong margin. And that really makes them look weak to everyone.
I have never understood why we all seem to fear the far right, but I acknowledge we all do.
Is it because we can’t stop feeling for everybody? Maybe because we really know what intolerance feels like, and we honestly don’t want that for any human?
Sometimes it makes me want to learn to be mean. Then I know the world needs peaceful people.
An eye for an eye will make a blind world…