Obama as the "Comeback kid" is a figment of the Marxist Media's imagination. Here is proof.

Beginning with January 15 of 2011, Obama's approval numbers rose on a steady 9 day incline from a poor showing of 44% approval to a 16 month high of 52% on January 25, the day of his State of the Union speech.

Immediately following that speech, and we mean within two hours, ABC released polling results showing Obama scoring a 92% approval rating for the speech. The Marxist Media was in a full court press, trying to improve Obama's disastrous numbers. CNN came out with a poll showing an 80% positive response for the speech and the point was made over and over that Obama was on the comeback trail. Heck, 41 million people watched the State of the Union performance. Wow.

Nine days of improving numbers, 41 million people and, then, this "wonderful, Reaganish type speech" and we have an Obama on his way back to the popularity he once experienced. Shazam !!

Problem: if all of the above is taken in context, none of it presents a popular president. 41 million viewers??? That is the lowest number of viewers for any of his three similar speeches; down 10 million from his 2009 address and down 6 million from last year's. Secondly, no major poll scored the kind of numbers the Marxist Media polling presented --- not even close. And that 9 day approval increase? The day after the speech, his approval rating fell from 52% to 50% and the next day, it stood at 47%. He lost 5 percentage points within 48 hours of the State of the Union. Finally, since the speech, his seven day average has fallen a point and a half (to 48.5%) and those who strongly oppose Obama have increased from 38% to 41%.

Point of post: his State of the Union speech did him absolutely no good whatsoever. In fact, just the opposite has been the case. Be thankful for the alternative media such as this blog. Understand that Midknight Review uses established media outlets, most of which "lean to the Left." We publish absolutely nothing that is not from the Accepted Media.

Our references for this post, for example, are ABC News, CNN and the Rasmussen Reports here. The analysis is ours.

Note: I use the word "proof" [in our headline above] knowing full well that the preferred term is "evidence." If I am not writing political script, I seldom use the term "proof." It implies a absolute point of evidence that cannot be interpreted differently by intelligent persons. In matters political, all conclusions rise from evidential material. None of it is concrete in nature, hence the preferred term "we have evidence" rather than "here is proof." Still, I have decided to go with "proof."

I have chosen to use "proof" for two reasons: first to irradiate the liberal reader and , two, to make clear the degree of passion implicit in my theory and political conclusions.
m