FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Obama down in polls





jmi256
For those of you who put so much reliance on polls. It Bush years to drop below 50% in the polls while Obama has managed to do it in six months.







Below are some excepts, but you can read the full report here:

Quote:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 30% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-eight percent (38%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -8 (see trends).



Quote:
Just 25% believe that the economic stimulus package has helped the economy.



Quote:

Overall, 49% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Today marks the first time his overall approval rating has ever fallen below 50% among Likely Voters nationwide. Fifty-one percent (51%) disapprove.


Quote:

Fifty-three percent (53%) now oppose the Congressional health care reform package.



Quote:

Nationwide, 72% don’t want the federal government determining what type of light bulbs they should purchase.



Quote:

Thirty-one percent (31%) now say the U.S. is heading in the right direction. That’s down nine points from the 2009 peak. Republicans continue to enjoy a slight edge on the Generic Congressional Ballot.


Source for all = http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Roald
Maybe that Obama was a bit too much in the media and that the Americans are a bit tired of his appearance. The other reason could be that people don't trust him any more because of his 'inability' to resolve the financial crisis. And Bush did not have to solve one of the worst financial crisis ever.
deanhills
Obama is showing too much of himself. It's like a picture that has no space around the main subject and lacks a background to it. He is trying to do too many things much too quickly. On top of it there really is no money, and to artificially create money has to be an art as well. I wonder how long the trillions in loans are going to last? It just does not make any sense. First a bail out session based on an economy that is in trouble, then trying to put a healthcare bill through, a few months after when clearly the economy is not out of the red yet.
Da Rossa
Well but that was predictable... Obama was and is nothing. What has he done in the past? What do you know about his life? Please don't say he was a Senator, he stood up in office for 173 days. He is just a vehicle of false hope.

YES WE CAN...

You don't actually know how he is. Why are his studies in college, his phd work sealed? No one could see what that writings are really about. If you get, please post in here.
Where did he grow up? Did he really applied and got dismissed from army?
One last thing: where exactly was he born? If you say it was Honolulu, I would understand, that's what you'vê been told, and, unless there is a suspicion, there is no point in asking him or anyone to prove which city did he see the light for the first time... but please, not even his birth certificate has been seen by anybody!

So this can't explain it all, but helps to understand why he's a flaw in so short time.
liljp617
Da Rossa wrote:
Well but that was predictable... Obama was and is nothing. What has he done in the past? What do you know about his life? Please don't say he was a Senator, he stood up in office for 173 days. He is just a vehicle of false hope.

YES WE CAN...

You don't actually know how he is. Why are his studies in college, his phd work sealed? No one could see what that writings are really about. If you get, please post in here.
Where did he grow up? Did he really applied and got dismissed from army?
One last thing: where exactly was he born? If you say it was Honolulu, I would understand, that's what you'vê been told, and, unless there is a suspicion, there is no point in asking him or anyone to prove which city did he see the light for the first time... but please, not even his birth certificate has been seen by anybody!

So this can't explain it all, but helps to understand why he's a flaw in so short time.


Do you think any President would have a good approval rating right now? *Not an excuse, not a defense; sheer curiosity*

You know as much about him as the rest of us do (how could you know more, according to you everything that would say anything about who he really is has been kept sealed), so the arrogance doesn't seem too well placed. The implication that he's a brainless, empty vessel spouting random junk from his book of "100 Optimistic Things To Say As US President" just because you haven't personally seen his academic file or birth certificate is pretty goofy to say the least.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
Da Rossa wrote:
Well but that was predictable... Obama was and is nothing. What has he done in the past? What do you know about his life? Please don't say he was a Senator, he stood up in office for 173 days. He is just a vehicle of false hope.

YES WE CAN...

You don't actually know how he is. Why are his studies in college, his phd work sealed? No one could see what that writings are really about. If you get, please post in here.
Where did he grow up? Did he really applied and got dismissed from army?
One last thing: where exactly was he born? If you say it was Honolulu, I would understand, that's what you'vê been told, and, unless there is a suspicion, there is no point in asking him or anyone to prove which city did he see the light for the first time... but please, not even his birth certificate has been seen by anybody!

So this can't explain it all, but helps to understand why he's a flaw in so short time.


Do you think any President would have a good approval rating right now? *Not an excuse, not a defense; sheer curiosity*

You know as much about him as the rest of us do (how could you know more, according to you everything that would say anything about who he really is has been kept sealed), so the arrogance doesn't seem too well placed. The implication that he's a brainless, empty vessel spouting random junk from his book of "100 Optimistic Things To Say As US President" just because you haven't personally seen his academic file or birth certificate is pretty goofy to say the least.
With respect Da Rossa and liljp617 if his ratings dropped it has not been because of his qualifications and experience before he was elected, but his experience after he got elected. I still maintain he is talking too much, he is too much of a visible commodity right down to the new puppy in the house. If he wants his personal life to be detailed by the media as he obviously is allowing them to do, then one has to accept that his ratings will vary a lot. Having said that, I don't want to nix him completely, as those same ratings have a chance to go up again, and his progress will be progress for the United States as well, since he is in the leadership position right now. He and his wife are super intelligent people (I have my money more on his wife than I do on him), somewhere along the lines I hope they can figure this out. One of the issues is that he is doing too much at the same time. Instead of healthcare his focus at this time of the year has to be the budget. He probably needs an indaba with his advisors, i.e. congregate on a mountain top somewhere private and work through the priorities. He got behind on Healthcare, and really should drop it for now, until the budget and economy are under control. The latter two have to be the highest priorities.
liljp617
If he drops the health care efforts, it's not as if people are just going to let it slide like nothing happened. They'll say he's not dedicated to his policies, or whatever other random stuff people convince themselves of constantly. More stupid spinning of issues will continue. People (his opposition) wouldn't let the health care stuff just die immediately even if he dropped the issue for the time being.
Vrythramax
Popularity polls vary so muc according to whatever the latest highlighted news item is. If any official does something worthy of note, and it is popular...they go up in the polls. The obverse is also true.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
If he drops the health care efforts, it's not as if people are just going to let it slide like nothing happened. They'll say he's not dedicated to his policies, or whatever other random stuff people convince themselves of constantly. More stupid spinning of issues will continue. People (his opposition) wouldn't let the health care stuff just die immediately even if he dropped the issue for the time being.
He does not have to drop this, all he needs to do is go back to the drawing board and rethink it. Time out for now. This is a huge battle and perhaps it is going to take a number of drafts before he can get to one that is acceptable to the legislators.
Nick2008
I believe Obama is trying to do too much at one time. He needs to slow down and take his time, he's got 4 years to make things work.
liljp617
Nick2008 wrote:
I believe Obama is trying to do too much at one time. He needs to slow down and take his time, he's got 4 years to make things work.


A number of citizens do not have 4 years of patience. Nor 4 years of trying to live paycheck to paycheck while trying to support a family of five.

deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
If he drops the health care efforts, it's not as if people are just going to let it slide like nothing happened. They'll say he's not dedicated to his policies, or whatever other random stuff people convince themselves of constantly. More stupid spinning of issues will continue. People (his opposition) wouldn't let the health care stuff just die immediately even if he dropped the issue for the time being.
He does not have to drop this, all he needs to do is go back to the drawing board and rethink it. Time out for now. This is a huge battle and perhaps it is going to take a number of drafts before he can get to one that is acceptable to the legislators.


The same people who oppose his current universal health care proposal would oppose just about any proposition. They simply do not believe it's the government's responsibility to provide health care to everyone who desires it.

I don't know what change he could make that would convert people to his point of view if the overarching theme remains that the government is going to foot the bill.
Nick2008
liljp617 wrote:

A number of citizens do not have 4 years of patience. Nor 4 years of trying to live paycheck to paycheck while trying to support a family of five.


We had 8 years of patience with George Bush, I can wait for 4 years for a health care system that truly works instead of a horrible system that fails within a year.
Da Rossa
Quote:

You know as much about him as the rest of us do (how could you know more, according to you everything that would say anything about who he really is has been kept sealed), so the arrogance doesn't seem too well placed. The implication that he's a brainless, empty vessel spouting random junk from his book of "100 Optimistic Things To Say As US President" just because you haven't personally seen his academic file or birth certificate is pretty goofy to say the least.


I never said I know more than you. I indeed know as much as you do, and that's the problem. And please, if you're bothered with my arrogance, then it seems that you're not concerned about the problem discussed in here. You, thinking clearly, should not even observe the way I say, but what I say. And I never implied that he's brainless either; I explicited, not implied, that his work is concealed so no one can even know what is his real political orientation. And on the contrary, he's indeed an intelligent man.

Quote:
empty vessel spouting random junk from his book of "100 Optimistic Things To Say As US President"
Sorry but I don't know what you're talking about. The thing is that I haven't personally seen his academic file, and I don't wanna see either; the thing is that no one has seen.
About the birth certificate: too bad I don't know even how to find specifics of a ongoing lawsuit filed by a military, in which he asks for the suspension of the obligation to follow the presidential orders on the grounds of the uncertainty of his citizenship. He's not from Hawaii, but from Kenia.
Vrythramax
[quote="Nick2008"We had 8 years of patience with George Bush, I can wait for 4 years for a health care system that truly works instead of a horrible system that fails within a year.[/quote]

Oh sooo true about the patience with Bush. Between the 2 of them I almost gave up voting altogether.
ocalhoun
liljp617 wrote:

The same people who oppose his current universal health care proposal would oppose just about any proposition. They simply do not believe it's the government's responsibility to provide health care to everyone who desires it.

I don't know what change he could make that would convert people to his point of view if the overarching theme remains that the government is going to foot the bill.

Quite so.
Government-run health care is in the opposite interest of anyone who wants small government.

Reform with a minimum of government involvement is the ideal.
Voodoocat
I think that Obama won the election because he made people feel good. Remember: 'Yes we can!" and "Change you can believe in!"? Don't forget how many celebrities publically announced that is was about time we had a black president. Couple this feel good campaign with a brainwashed media desperate to elect Obama and you have our new president.

Unfortuntely, elections have consequences. Now we are finding out that Obama and the Democrats have an agenda that is unsupportable even by the largest economy in the world. His popularity is falling because Americans are finally understanding the Democrat and Obama agenda: spend like there is no tomorrow to create a population dependant on government support. The problem is that America was founded on self reliance and a strong belief in small government.

The Democrats and Obama want a nation of sheeple. Luckily for America, we are not a nation of sheeple, humbly begging the government for our healthcare, lining up for pensions, and willing to turn our lives over to the government.
ocalhoun
Voodoocat wrote:

The Democrats and Obama want a nation of sheeple. Luckily for America, we are not a nation of sheeple, humbly begging the government for our healthcare, lining up for pensions, and willing to turn our lives over to the government.

That's where you're wrong though... The nation is full of 'sheeple'. That's the scary part.
lagoon
It was bound to happen. He is presiding over some of the most fickle people in the world.
Vrythramax
ocalhoun wrote:
That's where you're wrong though... The nation is full of 'sheeple'. That's the scary part.


Sheeple and Microserfs. Very Happy
liljp617
Voodoocat wrote:
The Democrats and Obama want a nation of sheeple. Luckily for America, we are not a nation of sheeple, humbly begging the government for our healthcare, lining up for pensions, and willing to turn our lives over to the government.


We are very much a nation of sheeple, on all points of the political spectrum (yes, even the beloved Republicans) and on a great number of things outside of politics. Politicians, not just Democrats and not just a single individual as Obama is, want sheeple. They get elected primarily through that method alone, as most people are too lazy or incapable of doing any research of their own. To my somewhat limited historical knowledge, that's how it's been for a hell of a long time.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
Voodoocat wrote:
The Democrats and Obama want a nation of sheeple. Luckily for America, we are not a nation of sheeple, humbly begging the government for our healthcare, lining up for pensions, and willing to turn our lives over to the government.


We are very much a nation of sheeple, on all points of the political spectrum (yes, even the beloved Republicans) and on a great number of things outside of politics. Politicians, not just Democrats and not just a single individual as Obama is, want sheeple. They get elected primarily through that method alone, as most people are too lazy or incapable of doing any research of their own. To my somewhat limited historical knowledge, that's how it's been for a hell of a long time.

Ha! Just learned another new word, sheeple. Looked it up, and the meaning given to it below I thought would be appropriate for the overwhelmingly majority of people in the world, not just in the United States:
Quote:
Sheeple is a term of disparagement, in which people are likened to sheep.

It is often used to denote persons who voluntarily acquiesce to a perceived authority, or suggestion without sufficient research to understand fully the scope of the ramifications involved in that decision, and thus undermine their own human individuality or in other cases give up certain rights. The implication of sheeple is that as a collective, people believe whatever they are told, especially if told so by a perceived authority figure believed to be trustworthy, without processing it or doing adequate research to be sure that it is an accurate representation of the real world around them. The term is generally used in a political and sometimes in a religious sense.


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheeple
Isn't this how we are taught to be though? We are taught that some people just know better than we do, are more bright, more beautiful, more specialist, etc. etc. The system teaches us to be sheeple. As if one really looks at it, that is how it gets its support and can maintain and expand its support. This is how our parents and teachers get us to "shut up" when we have bright ideas and only those with enormous persistence, energy and drive get to pursue those ideas, realize them, and then get compensated and appreciated when they finally make the light of day. They went against "sheeple" and "made it".
Vrythramax
liljp617 wrote:
We are very much a nation of sheeple, on all points of the political spectrum (yes, even the beloved Republicans) and on a great number of things outside of politics. Politicians, not just Democrats and not just a single individual as Obama is, want sheeple. They get elected primarily through that method alone, as most people are too lazy or incapable of doing any research of their own. To my somewhat limited historical knowledge, that's how it's been for a hell of a long time.


In Obama's defense he is not doing anything any other leader of any political system has tried to accomplish...to have a complacent constituency, or population, that just does what it's told and picks up the bills.
deanhills
Vrythramax wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
We are very much a nation of sheeple, on all points of the political spectrum (yes, even the beloved Republicans) and on a great number of things outside of politics. Politicians, not just Democrats and not just a single individual as Obama is, want sheeple. They get elected primarily through that method alone, as most people are too lazy or incapable of doing any research of their own. To my somewhat limited historical knowledge, that's how it's been for a hell of a long time.


In Obama's defense he is not doing anything any other leader of any political system has tried to accomplish...to have a complacent constituency, or population, that just does what it's told and picks up the bills.
Correct. However people elected Obama as he was pretty convincing in promising them: Yes we can. So disappointments when they realized that he is just a President like everyone else used to be, and perhaps inexperienced, and making mistakes, and still learning on the job, may be greater.
Roald
A lot of people seem to think here that Obama hasn't accomplished anything, but he has done quite some things already. (http://www.vistaheads.com/forums/microsoft-public-nl-windows-vista/295043-speech-recognition-software.html)
Of course his big plans (financial crisis, health care) will take some time to be realised. He's only president for a few months so expecting that he would have 'changed' a lot is a bit short minded.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
Vrythramax wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
We are very much a nation of sheeple, on all points of the political spectrum (yes, even the beloved Republicans) and on a great number of things outside of politics. Politicians, not just Democrats and not just a single individual as Obama is, want sheeple. They get elected primarily through that method alone, as most people are too lazy or incapable of doing any research of their own. To my somewhat limited historical knowledge, that's how it's been for a hell of a long time.


In Obama's defense he is not doing anything any other leader of any political system has tried to accomplish...to have a complacent constituency, or population, that just does what it's told and picks up the bills.
Correct. However people elected Obama as he was pretty convincing in promising them: Yes we can. So disappointments when they realized that he is just a President like everyone else used to be, and perhaps inexperienced, and making mistakes, and still learning on the job, may be greater.


Frankly, I can't really imagine a President NOT learning on the job. There isn't a position or education in the world that could prepare any single individual for the levels stress, decision making, and plain requirement of determination that come along with governing 300 million quite different people, along with being held responsible for almost anything that happens in the world.

They all make mistakes in some people's eyes. Everything is always "wrong" in the eyes of many...we have a two party system that wants to claw each others eyes out, we have regions of our nation that, culturally, could probably be considered countries of their own, etc. Nothing is ever completely "accepted." You're going to 'upset' some people no matter what decision you make, and it's probably going to be a pretty large number of people given the vast differences of perspectives held in the US.

And perhaps we can be honest. Sure, a great number of people voted for Obama because of his race (a great number voted against him for it). A great number voted for him because of his constant, perhaps empty, attempts to be optimistic and put hope in the people. What else? Oh, right, they didn't want another 4-8 years of a Republican who voted up to 95% of the time with Bush. People can blame Obama's victory on his "empty" speeches. It still comes back to Bush's Presidency in the end. That is the primary reason Obama won, for better or for worse.

Either way, I'm still of the opinion that it's much too early to judge the Presidency of Obama or the man that he is (meaning his character). No poll after six or seven months holds much significance and I'm not sure it represents much of anything.
Vrythramax
@liljp617

If he's NOT learning on the job, then we certainly hired the wrong man for the job. The ability to learn and adapt to/from any given situation shows flexibility at the very least. I should think that ability would be a pre-requisite to the job.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
Frankly, I can't really imagine a President NOT learning on the job. There isn't a position or education in the world that could prepare any single individual for the levels stress, decision making, and plain requirement of determination that come along with governing 300 million quite different people, along with being held responsible for almost anything that happens in the world.
Agreed completely, however relative to the older and more experienced Presidents who served before him, he has to learn more than they had to. For starters he had not been a Senator for that long either and has decades less experience than they had.
liljp617 wrote:
Sure, a great number of people voted for Obama because of his race (a great number voted against him for it). A great number voted for him because of his constant, perhaps empty, attempts to be optimistic and put hope in the people. What else? Oh, right, they didn't want another 4-8 years of a Republican who voted up to 95% of the time with Bush. People can blame Obama's victory on his "empty" speeches. It still comes back to Bush's Presidency in the end. That is the primary reason Obama won, for better or for worse.
Agreed with the reasons you quoted why he got voted in, however that has to be history by a number of months now. None of that matters anymore. What matters is his performance today. People are really fickle creatures, and I'm almost certain most people have almost forgotten what they had thought in November of last year.

liljp617 wrote:
Either way, I'm still of the opinion that it's much too early to judge the Presidency of Obama or the man that he is (meaning his character). No poll after six or seven months holds much significance and I'm not sure it represents much of anything.
Agreed. One has to give him a fair chance. Although one can't be blind to his actions of the last six months either. I for one hope that he will succeed. He has a lot going for him.
Vrythramax
deanhills wrote:
Agreed completely, however relative to the older and more experienced Presidents who served before him, he has to learn more than they had to. For starters he had not been a Senator for that long either and has decades less experience than they had.


Actually you are very far off the mark here...not very many of the US's presidents served 2 or more terms...so very FEW of them had any experience at being president at all. It was all "on hte job training". As for political experience, he (obama) has at least as much, and in many cases much more experience in that area.
deanhills
Vrythramax wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Agreed completely, however relative to the older and more experienced Presidents who served before him, he has to learn more than they had to. For starters he had not been a Senator for that long either and has decades less experience than they had.


Actually you are very far off the mark here...not very many of the US's presidents served 2 or more terms...so very FEW of them had any experience at being president at all. It was all "on hte job training". As for political experience, he (obama) has at least as much, and in many cases much more experience in that area.
I was obviously not talking about presidential experience. I was talking about savvy political experience, the "get the hands dirty" kind of experience that can only come over a long period of time. With those years come the bonding of links with political allies and perhaps also enemies, like in a family of friends and foes that one grows into over a period of time. Obama obviously had some of that, but not to the same equivalent. He is a fast learner however, and a hard worker so imagine that he will catch up sooner than most but obviously while he is learning, there has to be some people who will have to carry the cost of his tuition.
jmi256
The latest...

deanhills
Perhaps he needs to take a holiday break, including a complete break from the media. I'm almost certain the ratings would show different trends when he returns. This sounds like nonsense, but people opinions are probably as fickle as that .... Smile
jmi256
deanhills wrote:
Perhaps he needs to take a holiday break, including a complete break from the media. I'm almost certain the ratings would show different trends when he returns. This sounds like nonsense, but people opinions are probably as fickle as that .... Smile



It's telling that as people get to know Obama and his far-left ideas that they begin to dislike him more and more. Here's another poll from CNN that found that at this point in his presidency GW Bush was more popular than Obama.

Quote:

After 6 Months, More View Obama's Presidency as a 'Failure' Than Bush's

A rather surprising finding from the newly released CNN poll. Question three on the national survey of 1,136 adults (which includes an oversample of African-Americans) asks, "Do you consider the first six months of the Obama administration to be a success or a failure?"

Thirty-seven percent (37%) said they believe the Obama administration is a "failure," while 51% consider it a "success" and 11% say it's still "too soon to tell."

An identical question was asked of the Bush administration in an August 2001 CNN/Gallup/USA Today survey. At the time, 56% said the Bush administration was a "success" while only 32% considered it a "failure." Link


Source = http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/08/06/after-6-months-more-view-obamas-presidency-as-a-failure-than-bushs/
deanhills
I am almost certain that his taking sides in the Gates incident had to have done the greatest damage of all. That showed complete lack of finesse of an executive statesman, that is supposed to be completely unbiased. Worst part is that Gates apparently was a friend of his and he acted without having full information in front of him. I'm sure he must have lost a great number of supporters in this one act, especially ones who were on the borderline.
ocalhoun
jmi256 wrote:


Quote:

After 6 Months, More View Obama's Presidency as a 'Failure' Than Bush's

A rather surprising finding from the newly released CNN poll. Question three on the national survey of 1,136 adults (which includes an oversample of African-Americans) asks, "Do you consider the first six months of the Obama administration to be a success or a failure?"

Thirty-seven percent (37%) said they believe the Obama administration is a "failure," while 51% consider it a "success" and 11% say it's still "too soon to tell."

An identical question was asked of the Bush administration in an August 2001 CNN/Gallup/USA Today survey. At the time, 56% said the Bush administration was a "success" while only 32% considered it a "failure." Link


Source = http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/08/06/after-6-months-more-view-obamas-presidency-as-a-failure-than-bushs/

Keep in mind, that at this point in Bush's presidency, 9/11 hadn't even happened yet. The 6-month-old Bush presidency hadn't encountered any huge crises yet, while the Obama administration inherited crises from the beginning.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Keep in mind, that at this point in Bush's presidency, 9/11 hadn't even happened yet. The 6-month-old Bush presidency hadn't encountered any huge crises yet, while the Obama administration inherited crises from the beginning.
I can't agree completely with this. Those crises all started during Bush's presidency, and were fully accountable to him, even during the time when Obama became President. Bush had also worked on the solutions of those crises, long before Obama became President, and Obama seems to be cashing in on those solutions as well. The crises tested quite a lot of leadership in Bush, and he stood fast in making decisions, even at the risk of being unpopular as a result. Obama is still cashing in on that unpopularity of Bush, but probably for just so long. Examples I would use would be the Iraq war, which Bush had elected to stay in Iraq, and actively assist with transition. Now Obama seems to be taking credit that he has "ended the war and evacuated Iraq". That was what Bush had been working on and had almost completed by the end of his Presidency. Ditto Gitmo. At least by the time when Bush had left, detainees were being processed, but that processing has almost come to a complete halt when Obama became President and needed fact finding investigations and postponements after postponements to deal with Gitmo, probably realizing that solutions are just as complicated as it had been during Bush's last part of his Presidency. Quite a large portion of Obama's popularity was that he was NOT Bush. That can only last for that long however, as people begin to notice that possibly Obama is not that perfect either. Bush had to deal with enormous crises and got defined by that. Obama is still trying to define it by Bush's actions, but at some or other time he will have to take responsibility for his share of managing those "inherited" crises.
jmi256
Obama hits an all-new low...


deanhills
Has to be the healthcare bill no doubt. Time to give it a break and concentrate on the budget.
jmi256
deanhills wrote:
Has to be the healthcare bill no doubt. Time to give it a break and concentrate on the budget.


I'm not sure that would help him. People are finally seeing the link between Obama's government-run healthcare scheme and higher taxes. From today's (9 September) Rasmussen Reports polls:

Quote:

Rasmussen Reports will be tracking this question daily for the next several days to measure the response to the presidential address intended to relaunch the troubled health care initiative.

Voters are concerned about a number of factors. Eighty percent (80%) believe passage of the current plan will likely lead to higher middle class taxes, and 68% believe it will increase the deficit. Fifty-two percent (52%) of those with health insurance say it’s likely they will be forced to change coverage. That’s a problem because voters with insurance overwhelmingly rate their own coverage as good or excellent.


Hardly anybody believes the proposed legislation will lead to lower costs or better quality of care. In fact, about half the nation’s voters believe just the opposite - that it will lead to higher costs and a lower quality of care.


Source = http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/a_review_of_public_opinion_on_health_care_reform_prior_to_the_president_s_speech
deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
I'm not sure that would help him. People are finally seeing the link between Obama's government-run healthcare scheme and higher taxes. From today's (9 September) Rasmussen Reports polls:

Maybe you are right. Just found a Yahoo News Report on a poll by Associated Press GfK:
Quote:
Public disapproval of President Barack Obama's handling of health care has leaped to 52 percent, according to Associated Press-GfK poll that underscores the country's glowering mood as the White House made a renewed pitch for an overhaul.

Just 42 percent approve of the president's work on the high-profile health issue.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090910/ap_on_re_us/us_ap_poll_health_care
handfleisch
It's really sad to see such a vehement want-the-US-president-to-fail person go on and on in these forums. You have hated Obama since day one, if not before. And you've been wrong so very often and persistently untruthful enough to get topics locked, and still you go on.

I'm curious, since if I'm right you have said you are a member of the armed forces, why you feel it's okay to mock your commander-in-chief during wartime? I am not talking about political disagreements, I am talking about your posting of his face made up like the murderous clown from a movie, or you're thoroughly disproven "Obama thugs" thread.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
It's really sad to see such a vehement want-the-US-president-to-fail person go on and on in these forums. You have hated Obama since day one, if not before. And you've been wrong so very often and persistently untruthful enough to get topics locked, and still you go on.


Just because it's your opinion and want that I have been wrong, doesn't make it so. I enjoy our debates, Handfleisch, I really do. So if you want to continue debating on the issues instead of trying to attack my character I welcome it. But given the pattern I've seen I have a feeling you'll stick to your usual MO. And I invite anyone to review the topic that was locked and judge for themselves if it was my "untruthful" position that caused the topic to be locked. If you want, create another thread that addresses these issues since Bikerman locked the one below where I argued for parents’ right, and I'll gladly respond to the other issues.
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-110081.html

handfleisch wrote:

I'm curious, since if I'm right you have said you are a member of the armed forces, why you feel it's okay to mock your commander-in-chief during wartime? I am not talking about political disagreements, I am talking about your posting of his face made up like the murderous clown from a movie, or you're thoroughly disproven "Obama thugs" thread.


Just to clarify, I am no longer in the active military. I was in the Marines and got out several years ago. But even if I was still in active service, it's not a crime to disagree with the president during personal time. There is a need to be respectful and professional to your superiors and follow their orders, but that doesn't mean you have to agree with all their positions wholeheartedly. Besides, didn't you hear from the White House? The War on Terror is over. As far as the clown face created by a left-winger, I think it's funny that you of all people would object to an image when it seems that's all you could post in response to debates for the longest time. BTW, exactly how have I been "thoroughly disproven"?
Bikerman
My position is perfectly clear and consistent. If postings contain unsupported statements of a 'serious' nature about ANY person (whether it be a member here or the President of the US) then I will give one chance for the poster to support that accusation and, failing that, I will either delete the posting or lock the thread depending on what I judge to be most appropriate action at that time. The same think applies to postings containing grossly offensive generalisations.

Repeat offenders will be issued with official warnings, and possibly further action depending on the circumstances.

If people think I have behaved unfairly then they are free to pm me and ask me to reconsider. I will not, however, be holding a debate on the matter in public.

PS - by all means start another thread discussing parent's rights - but I suggest that it would be better to do so in the philosophy/religion forum rather than this forum.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
It's really sad to see such a vehement want-the-US-president-to-fail person go on and on in these forums. You have hated Obama since day one, if not before. And you've been wrong so very often and persistently untruthful enough to get topics locked, and still you go on.


Just because it's your opinion and want that I have been wrong, doesn't make it so. I enjoy our debates, Handfleisch, I really do. So if you want to continue debating on the issues instead of trying to attack my character I welcome it. But given the pattern I've seen I have a feeling you'll stick to your usual MO. And I invite anyone to review the topic that was locked and judge for themselves if it was my "untruthful" position that caused the topic to be locked. If you want, create another thread that addresses these issues since Bikerman locked the one below where I argued for parents’ right, and I'll gladly respond to the other issues.
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-110081.html

handfleisch wrote:

I'm curious, since if I'm right you have said you are a member of the armed forces, why you feel it's okay to mock your commander-in-chief during wartime? I am not talking about political disagreements, I am talking about your posting of his face made up like the murderous clown from a movie, or you're thoroughly disproven "Obama thugs" thread.


Just to clarify, I am no longer in the active military. I was in the Marines and got out several years ago. But even if I was still in active service, it's not a crime to disagree with the president during personal time. There is a need to be respectful and professional to your superiors and follow their orders, but that doesn't mean you have to agree with all their positions wholeheartedly. Besides, didn't you hear from the White House? The War on Terror is over. As far as the clown face created by a left-winger, I think it's funny that you of all people would object to an image when it seems that's all you could post in response to debates for the longest time. BTW, exactly how have I been "thoroughly disproven"?


As usual, you're all over the map here. It's not a character attack to say you have been wrong, very wrong, absurdly wrong. It's not a character attack to say you are spouting lies (for example, there were no union thugs sent out to attack opponents by Obama. ) Though maybe you're doubting your own character at this point.

jmi256 wrote:
it's not a crime to disagree with the president during personal time.


See, this is the kind of lie that the right wing fringe does habitually, so maybe you don't realize when you're doing it. They charge opponents with trying to criminalize their speech, and it leads to whines about "censorship". But I never said it was a crime to disagree; far from it, I said political disagreements are fine. I said, clearly, that you are mocking the commander in chief during wartime, when men and women in uniform are fighting and dying for this country. You should be ashamed (and since you condemned as disrespectful the Congressman who yelled "you lie" during Obama's speech, and I give you credit that, deep down, you probably are).
Ophois
Presidential poll numbers really don't mean all that much. They dip and sway more than a drunken salsa dancer. The numbers will eventually come back up. These polls are unreliable, and based on opinion(read - emotionally charged answers). Just because the polls are down, doesn't mean people are seeing through any veil of BS that they didn't see before. Conversely, just because polls are up, doesn't mean he is doing a bang-up job either. It just means that people either like or dislike him at that very moment when they were asked a few questions about him.

But since dissent was brought up(somebody was allegedly mocking Obama)...

Bush as wartime President - Dissenters are shouted down as unpatriotic, treasonous scum.
Obama as wartime President - Dissenters(the same ones who lambasted the Bush dissenters) are painted as the very picture of patriotism.

Does this seem right?
Honestly, I don't trust any politician. I think they are all out to make themselves rich and powerful, so I don't care who you want to protest or defend. But if it was OK to dissent against Bush, it should be OK to dissent against Obama. And if those who protest Obama see themselves as uber patriotic, then those who protested Bush should be extended that same courtesy.
ocalhoun
Ophois wrote:
Presidential poll numbers really don't mean all that much. They dip and sway more than a drunken salsa dancer. The numbers will eventually come back up. These polls are unreliable, and based on opinion(read - emotionally charged answers). Just because the polls are down, doesn't mean people are seeing through any veil of BS that they didn't see before. Conversely, just because polls are up, doesn't mean he is doing a bang-up job either. It just means that people either like or dislike him at that very moment when they were asked a few questions about him.

I'd say Bush's poll results were pretty accurate, though I at all times dislike the use of polls.

Is it unpatriotic to disrespect the president?
I'll use the old military standby: "It doesn't matter if you respect the person or not, but respect the office."
Ophois
ocalhoun wrote:
I'd say Bush's poll results were pretty accurate, though I at all times dislike the use of polls.
I'm not saying polls aren't accurate, I just think they are useless.
Quote:
Is it unpatriotic to disrespect the president?
I'll use the old military standby: "It doesn't matter if you respect the person or not, but respect the office."
Disrespect... I don't know. If the leader is corrupt or drunk with power, how much respect should they get from me? They represent that office, and if they disrespect that office through corruption or criminal behavior, then the office(at least while they are in it) should not be automatically, unquestioningly respected either.
On the other hand, if the President seems to be doing their job, following the the laws, then they should be respected. Even if you disagree with their policy.
Now, respecting the office does not mean dissent should be stifled. I am a big fan of dissent. I am also a big fan of revolution, when necessary. Under normal sircumstances, yes, I think the office and the person occupying it should both be respected, unless and until they do something to change the circumstances.
deanhills
Ophois wrote:
Presidential poll numbers really don't mean all that much. They dip and sway more than a drunken salsa dancer. The numbers will eventually come back up. These polls are unreliable, and based on opinion(read - emotionally charged answers). Just because the polls are down, doesn't mean people are seeing through any veil of BS that they didn't see before. Conversely, just because polls are up, doesn't mean he is doing a bang-up job either. It just means that people either like or dislike him at that very moment when they were asked a few questions about him.
I agree totally with this. If one check up on the Internet at end of July the President's ratings were down, now they are going up again. Nonetheless, looks as though the media and politicians like their polls. It is a fact of life, and maybe helpful like the weather, to check what the mood is like when decisions are being made.

Ophois wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
I'll use the old military standby: "It doesn't matter if you respect the person or not, but respect the office."
Disrespect... I don't know. If the leader is corrupt or drunk with power, how much respect should they get from me? They represent that office, and if they disrespect that office through corruption or criminal behavior, then the office(at least while they are in it) should not be automatically, unquestioningly respected either.
If the person is corrupt, he should be immediately impeached. There are avenues for that. That would actually be an act of respect of the office by the people of the country, as the people would not wish that office to be tainted in any way, given that it is the highest office of Government. I still can't understand that when people were clearly convinced that Bush was so corrupt, that no one had worked on impeaching him. Was he really that corrupt? The last President that got impeached as far as I know was Clinton, and he was blamed for much less than Bush had been. So who is more to blame, a President who was democratically elected and who turned into a choice that did not work out for the people, or the people who elected him failing to take responsiblity for their choice, and to impeach him for what they thought he had been guilty off? Argument being, Bush did not elect himself as President, the people did. So if he failed as President, and they allowed that to happen, then it has to be their own failure as well?
Ophois
deanhills wrote:
If the person is corrupt, he should be immediately impeached.
I agree. This is not an easy thing to do, however. To impeach a President, you end up working against most of the government, which will fight you tooth and nail the entire way. Clinton was impeached because it was scandalous, and people bought into the whole "family values" BS that the far right was selling. But this is a conversation for another thread.

As far as respect for the President or the office goes, neither one of them automatically get's my undying, unquestioned respect. Like any other person I meet, they need to earn it. That goes for the office as well as the man. If the office were to be populated with crook after crook, how long do we sit on our hands saying "the office is still respectable"? Now, as I said, there is a clear difference between disrespect and dissent. I respect Obama as President, so far. But I exercise my right to dissent, and disagree with him and work against some of his policies.
deanhills
Ophois wrote:
deanhills wrote:
If the person is corrupt, he should be immediately impeached.
I agree. This is not an easy thing to do, however. To impeach a President, you end up working against most of the government, which will fight you tooth and nail the entire way. Clinton was impeached because it was scandalous, and people bought into the whole "family values" BS that the far right was selling. But this is a conversation for another thread.
I agree that it cannot be easy to impeach a President, especially when you have to find direct links between where the problem is and the White House. With regard to Clinton, I thought he was impeached because he had done something legally wrong, i.e. perjured himself, rather than the scandal itself, although the scandal did lead to it:
Quote:
Bill Clinton, President of the United States, was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, and acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999. The charges, perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power arose from the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the Paula Jones lawsuit. The trial proceedings were largely partisan, with no Democratic Senators voting for conviction and only five Democratic Representatives voting to impeach. In all, 55 senators voted not guilty, and 45 voted guilty on the perjury charge. The Senate also acquitted on the charge of obstruction, with 50 votes cast as not guilty, and 50 votes as guilty.[1] It was only the second impeachment of a President in American history, following the impeachment of Andrew Johnson in 1868.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

Ophois wrote:
As far as respect for the President or the office goes, neither one of them automatically get's my undying, unquestioned respect. Like any other person I meet, they need to earn it. That goes for the office as well as the man. If the office were to be populated with crook after crook, how long do we sit on our hands saying "the office is still respectable"? Now, as I said, there is a clear difference between disrespect and dissent. I respect Obama as President, so far. But I exercise my right to dissent, and disagree with him and work against some of his policies.
I would be inclined to separate the two, as the office of the President does not belong to the person who occupies it, but to the people of the United States, who elect the person to serve in that office for four years. Hopefully there would be checks and balances to ensure that the office is served with dignity and conduct becoming that office. Presidents come and go but the office remains.
Ophois
deanhills wrote:
I would be inclined to separate the two, as the office of the President does not belong to the person who occupies it, but to the people of the United States, who elect the person to serve in that office for four years. Hopefully there would be checks and balances to ensure that the office is served with dignity and conduct becoming that office. Presidents come and go but the office remains.
I more or less agree. Though I think it's possible for the office to be tarnished, and lose the respect of the people.
I'm not saying that one corrupt President would warrant a loss of respect for the office itself. But if we had ten Presidents in a row, all serving one term each(40 years), and they were all corrupt and crooked, the people to which the office supposedly belongs would be very disillusioned and would no longer respect the office. Even if a good President were to come along, who the people respected, it would be an uphill battle to regain the respect for the office.
deanhills
Ophois wrote:
Though I think it's possible for the office to be tarnished, and lose the respect of the people.
On reflection and the way you put it, I have to agree with you. For example if one would have a string of Presidents who are not that effective, people would tend to rate the office with the Presidents' collective negative ratings. Bush had been in the seat for eight years, so there would be a good chance that some of the negative ratings would have rubbed off on his office.
jmi256
To be fair it looks like Obama's negative numbers are improving, but I would still be worried if I was him.




It looks like the debate over healthcare is still fueling the public's disapproval of Obama, however.

Quote:

Forty-four percent (44%) now favor the President’s health care plan. That’s unchanged from before the speech…and from July. Public opinion on the issue appears to be hardening. A Rasmussen video report notes that 53% of those with insurance believe they would be forced to change coverage if the proposed health care reform is approved.



And I don't think all the claims that racism is at the core of opposition to Obama is helping, except with the fringe left or course.

Quote:

Just 12% of voters nationwide believe most opponents of the President’s plan are racists. Republicans and unaffiliated voters overwhelmingly reject that notion but Democrats are more evenly divided.


Source = http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
jmi256
It looks like Obama is holding at about steady with his poor poll numbers. At least he's up one point in his negative/positive from last month.


handfleisch
Can someone help me find the official Hate Obama So Bad I Want America to Fail thread? It's around here somewh--- oh, wait. Nevermind.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
Hate Obama So Bad I Want America to Fail thread

No one, not even the talk show pundits, has said they want America to fail.
Wanting Obama to fail in specific pet-policy issues is not the same thing as wanting America to fail.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Hate Obama So Bad I Want America to Fail thread

No one, not even the talk show pundits, has said they want America to fail.
Wanting Obama to fail in specific pet-policy issues is not the same thing as wanting America to fail.

That's wrong, and it's been shown before, and the evidence has only mounted up even higher lately. The whole right wing glee over losing the Olympic bid was the final proof. The icing on the tasteless cake were their shrieks of pain -- instead of simple pride -- over an American president receiving a major accolade. These people will apparently celebrate any misfortune the country might experience if it can be blamed on Obama, while posting Republican-oriented polls of joy about typical fluctuations in presidential popularity. Nattering nabobs of negativism, indeed.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

That's wrong, and it's been shown before, and the evidence has only mounted up even higher lately.

Since the evidence is piling up so high, can you show me an example of Americans wanting America to fail (not Obama, America, please do try to keep the difference in mind)?

In your example of the Olympic bid, that was viewed by them as an effort of Obama, not America, especially since the city in question was his hometown.
(Remember, since it's their attitudes we're discussing, it only matters what they see it as.)
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Hate Obama So Bad I Want America to Fail thread

No one, not even the talk show pundits, has said they want America to fail.
Wanting Obama to fail in specific pet-policy issues is not the same thing as wanting America to fail.

That's wrong, and it's been shown before, and the evidence has only mounted up even higher lately. The whole right wing glee over losing the Olympic bid was the final proof. The icing on the tasteless cake were their shrieks of pain -- instead of simple pride -- over an American president receiving a major accolade. These people will apparently celebrate any misfortune the country might experience if it can be blamed on Obama, while posting Republican-oriented polls of joy about typical fluctuations in presidential popularity. Nattering nabobs of negativism, indeed.
What was the difference with Bush and wanting Bush to fail? One could have equally argued then that it would have been a very unpatriotic act by the people. Bottomline Presidents in the United States get to be criticized and criticism would be relative to their political sentiment. Since yours is squarely and passionately behind Obama, it is logical that you would view anyone critical of Obama as less than patriotic. However Bush was fair game for everyone? Even when he was serving in the office of the President of the United States?
Alaskacameradude
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Hate Obama So Bad I Want America to Fail thread

No one, not even the talk show pundits, has said they want America to fail.
Wanting Obama to fail in specific pet-policy issues is not the same thing as wanting America to fail.

That's wrong, and it's been shown before, and the evidence has only mounted up even higher lately. The whole right wing glee over losing the Olympic bid was the final proof. The icing on the tasteless cake were their shrieks of pain -- instead of simple pride -- over an American president receiving a major accolade. These people will apparently celebrate any misfortune the country might experience if it can be blamed on Obama, while posting Republican-oriented polls of joy about typical fluctuations in presidential popularity. Nattering nabobs of negativism, indeed.
What was the difference with Bush and wanting Bush to fail? One could have equally argued then that it would have been a very unpatriotic act by the people. Bottomline Presidents in the United States get to be criticized and criticism would be relative to their political sentiment. Since yours is squarely and passionately behind Obama, it is logical that you would view anyone critical of Obama as less than patriotic. However Bush was fair game for everyone? Even when he was serving in the office of the President of the United States?


+100. You sir see the entire picture! Yeah some of the stuff surrounding Obama is crazy. It
was just as bad if not worse surrounding Bush. But as one wise person once told me
'It depends on whose ox is being gored'. If it's 'your' guy, being criticized, people tend to see it as unreasonable. If it's the 'other' guy, being criticized, people tend to see it as being totally
OK.....or even good.
jmi256
Alaskacameradude wrote:
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Hate Obama So Bad I Want America to Fail thread

No one, not even the talk show pundits, has said they want America to fail.
Wanting Obama to fail in specific pet-policy issues is not the same thing as wanting America to fail.

That's wrong, and it's been shown before, and the evidence has only mounted up even higher lately. The whole right wing glee over losing the Olympic bid was the final proof. The icing on the tasteless cake were their shrieks of pain -- instead of simple pride -- over an American president receiving a major accolade. These people will apparently celebrate any misfortune the country might experience if it can be blamed on Obama, while posting Republican-oriented polls of joy about typical fluctuations in presidential popularity. Nattering nabobs of negativism, indeed.
What was the difference with Bush and wanting Bush to fail? One could have equally argued then that it would have been a very unpatriotic act by the people. Bottomline Presidents in the United States get to be criticized and criticism would be relative to their political sentiment. Since yours is squarely and passionately behind Obama, it is logical that you would view anyone critical of Obama as less than patriotic. However Bush was fair game for everyone? Even when he was serving in the office of the President of the United States?


+100. You sir see the entire picture! Yeah some of the stuff surrounding Obama is crazy. It
was just as bad if not worse surrounding Bush. But as one wise person once told me
'It depends on whose ox is being gored'. If it's 'your' guy, people tend to see it as unreasonable.
If it's the 'other' guy, people tend to see it as being despicable.


I agree as well. In fact, that's sort of my goal in creating and posting to this thread. I think it's funny when certain people get their panties in a bunch at mere mention that their Anointed One isn’t as holy as they claim, despite the fact that they used the same if not worse tactics to smear others.
jmi256
Looks like Obama is doing even worse in the polls than usual. I don't think he's been in the media any more than usual, however, to attribute the increasing decline.



An excerpt from today's tracking poll continues to show that most Americans are opposed to Obama and the Democrats' government-run health care scheme:

Quote:

Support for the health care plan proposed by the President and Congressional Democrats is down to 42%. Fifty-four percent (54%) are opposed.

Source = http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Ophois
jimi256 wrote:
I agree as well. In fact, that's sort of my goal in creating and posting to this thread. I think it's funny when certain people get their panties in a bunch at mere mention that their Anointed One isn’t as holy as they claim, despite the fact that they used the same if not worse tactics to smear others.
I'm just curious... where did the whole "Anointed One" and "holy" references come from? Was that a media nickname? Or is it a smear tactic on your part because it's not "your guy"?
jmi256
Ophois wrote:
I'm just curious... where did the whole "Anointed One" and "holy" references come from?

Liberals. See below.






But back on topic, it looks like Obama's slide continues and he hit a new low today.

deanhills
jmi256 wrote:

Nice photo of Obama. Nice poster. Am curious, what is the meaning of this poster?
Ophois
So... by this logic, if I post a few photos of fringe Righties with their crazy signs, that somehow translates to all conservatives idol-worshiping Bush?



jimi256 wrote:
despite the fact that they used the same if not worse tactics to smear others.
I wonder if you have ever thought to point that accusing finger inwards when you use insulting terms to "smear" your opponent. Or does this road only go one way?
ocalhoun
Ophois wrote:

jimi256 wrote:
despite the fact that they used the same if not worse tactics to smear others.
I wonder if you have ever thought to point that accusing finger inwards when you use insulting terms to "smear" your opponent. Or does this road only go one way?

For most people, yes, it only goes one way.
deanhills
@Ophois. It goes both ways. A little while ago we had plenty of posters smearing Bush, much in excess of what he had deserved. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Clinton also went through lots of "smearing". I must say I have seen much worse about Bush, than about Obama. There were movies as well mocking Bush and Clinton. So does one get all upset about them and get ruffled feathers, or do you just accept that this is what comes with the territory? If one looks at all the TV news casts, the ones with the very highest ratings are the ones with the greatest drama and mud slinging attached. Viz FOX. What I am trying to say is that people love to dramatize their President, some in the positive, some in the negative. And it has been around for a very long time.
jmi256
Today's poll results. Looks like Obama is holding at his low "popularity." Maybe he'll start to take the hint and back off on trying to force policies down the throats of Americans that they have clearly said they don't approve of.

An excerpt from today's poll:
Quote:

For the first time during Obama’s time in office, the Approval Index has been in negative double digits for seven straight days.

Source = http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
deanhills
Looks as though he can't count on all his Democrat votes for the healthcare legislation. Article in Yahoo (Associated Press) tonight on "Key senators may rebuff Obama on health care"
Quote:
The Democrats' control of a hefty majority in the Senate — plus the House — would suggest that President Barack Obama is within reach of overhauling the nation's health care system this fall.

But the numbers mask a more complicated reality: Obama and Democratic leaders have modest leverage over several pivotal Senate Democrats who are more concerned about their next election or feel they have little to lose by opposing their party's hierarchy.

One is still smarting from being forced to abandon next year's election. Another had to leave the Democratic Party to stay in office. And some are from states that Obama lost badly last year.

These factors will limit the president's ability to play his strongest card — an appeal for party loyalty and Democratic achievement — in trying to muster the 60 votes his allies will need this fall to overcome a Republican filibuster in the 100-member Senate.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Looks as though he can't count on all his Democrat votes for the healthcare legislation. Article in Yahoo (Associated Press) tonight on "Key senators may rebuff Obama on health care"

Definitely time to scrap this plan, and start working on three separate plans:
1: Cost reductions- make medical care less expensive, regardless of who's paying for it. (Many ways exist to help do this.)
2: Coverage reform- Fix the problems about insurance companies dropping sick patients and denying risky people coverage. (It would take some creativity, but surely this can be done without a government takeover of the insurance industry.)
3: Care reform- Improve the quality of care and access to it. (Reduce malpractice, improve survival rates and patient treatment, get care to rural areas where people can't get care even when they can afford it.)
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Looks as though he can't count on all his Democrat votes for the healthcare legislation. Article in Yahoo (Associated Press) tonight on "Key senators may rebuff Obama on health care"

Definitely time to scrap this plan, and start working on three separate plans:
1: Cost reductions- make medical care less expensive, regardless of who's paying for it. (Many ways exist to help do this.)
2: Coverage reform- Fix the problems about insurance companies dropping sick patients and denying risky people coverage. (It would take some creativity, but surely this can be done without a government takeover of the insurance industry.)
3: Care reform- Improve the quality of care and access to it. (Reduce malpractice, improve survival rates and patient treatment, get care to rural areas where people can't get care even when they can afford it.)
Good plan! I would give this job to the States to do using Massachussetts as a model. As well as develop a federal Remote Area Medical (RAM) system such as what has already been seen on a "voluntary" basis. They could perhaps separate the dental and medical care services in RAM, and RAM would assist in identifying people who need medical care and have to be referred to nearby towns or cities.

I would invest lots of money in preventive medical care, work on taxing food that is obviously not good for human consumption, or at the minimum advertise that which is bad for human health. These are the factors that would help to bring medical costs down. Encourage people to lead healthier and more productive lifestyles, not only in terms of preaching, but for example have more social programmes in local Government for encouraging both adults and children to get out and about, develop hobbies that get them away from their television sets. Bottomline should be for all individuals to be made aware that their health is their responsibility, and what they do on a day to day basis, is what will affect their long term health.

Insurance companies should have less power to make life and death decisions. There should be some investigation in their decisions about coverage so that it would be more equitable. There should also be some investigation into unnecessary medical testing, and the costs of medical tests. Perhaps some of the tests can be conducted by people themselves. I'm almost certain medical tests have to be one of the most expensive components and due to the existence of insurance, it could be liable for abuse. For example if it had been an individual who had to pay for medical tests, he/she would have thought twice before they would go for every conceivable test available.
amorphius
Quote:

If the person is corrupt, he should be immediately impeached.

I don't think that Obama is corrupt
ocalhoun
amorphius wrote:
Quote:

If the person is corrupt, he should be immediately impeached.

I don't think that Obama is corrupt

While a good idea in theory, impeaching all the corrupt politicians would be problematic in practice.
After you were done, there wouldn't be much of a government left!
deanhills
amorphius wrote:
Quote:

If the person is corrupt, he should be immediately impeached.

I don't think that Obama is corrupt
Agreed. Only concern I have is that he is spending too much money that does not belong to him. Not only did he move into trillions of debt, but Government is now shifting debt into trillions. Maybe if one does an analysis of this, depending on the definition of corruption, Government could be regarded as a corrupt institution, robbing money not only from its present tax payers, but tax payers in the future who could not have been consulted regarding the Government's accumulation of large debts.
jmi256
It looks like Obama is staying in familiar territory with his low approval ratings, which have shown a historic drop. I don't know why he refuses to listen to what the American people are telling him with their rejection of his complete and disastrous government-run healthcare scheme that will mean more costs, less services and lower quality. He should work on real reform instead of trying to push his and the Democrats' pet projects down everyone's throats. Maybe he'll wise up soon, but probably not.

deanhills
All he needs to do is stay quiet for a while. I'm almost certain there has to be a correlation between when he has been making too many speeches over a short period of time, or had been "overkilled" in the media. There has to be a certain saturation point beyond which poll ratings tend to drop, and I'm certain if he were to stay quiet for a while, that his ratings would go up as a sort of human response.
jmi256
deanhills wrote:
All he needs to do is stay quiet for a while. I'm almost certain there has to be a correlation between when he has been making too many speeches over a short period of time, or had been "overkilled" in the media. There has to be a certain saturation point beyond which poll ratings tend to drop, and I'm certain if he were to stay quiet for a while, that his ratings would go up as a sort of human response.

I tend to agree. However, I think he's been forced into this position due to his misunderstanding what the 2008 election meant and what the public was saying. I have always said the 2008 election was more about anti-Bush rhetoric rather than some type of mandate for the irresponsible policies Obama has set out. That’s why there was no real discovery or debate during campaign on what his policies would be. Basically anyone without an “R” behind their name would have been given a pass. Obama has fundamentally misinterpreted this, however. And because of his disconnect with the American public, he tried and failed to ram his agenda through in the first few months without building a case. Instead he set unrealistic goals that were more deadline (which he has failed to adhere to) driven than driven by commonsense or consensus building. And now he’s placed himself in a difficult position where he has try to recover what face he can following his so-far failed agenda. He has to get out there and try to build a case, but he’s now doing so after the fact and when it’s clear he has planned and analyzed very little. In elections throughout the country (NJ, Virginia, NYC, etc.) that take place in just a week and a half, he has placed his name on the line and needs to campaign and put himself out there to try to curtail the damage. It’s been said that Obama is not more than an empty suit that gives good, rousing speeches when he’s in front of a teleprompter. If those elections don’t go his way, there will be even more political fallout as even the most liberal Democrats will start to distance themselves from Obama as he’s perceived as damaged goods.
deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
I tend to agree. However, I think he's been forced into this position due to his misunderstanding what the 2008 election meant and what the public was saying. I have always said the 2008 election was more about anti-Bush rhetoric rather than some type of mandate for the irresponsible policies Obama has set out. That’s why there was no real discovery or debate during campaign on what his policies would be. Basically anyone without an “R” behind their name would have been given a pass. Obama has fundamentally misinterpreted this, however. And because of his disconnect with the American public, he tried and failed to ram his agenda through in the first few months without building a case.
Although I do agree that a large portion of the landslide election in Obama's favour would be due to anti-Bush sentiment, his election campaign had been most thorough and something of a genius. Regardless of anti-Bush sentiment, and in absence of a good Republican campaign, Obama deserved to win. Obama in my view does not easily misinterpret the sentiment of the public, or even the sentiment of the members of his own party. Since marketing and election campaigns are his strong points, he would be very good at guaging sentiment. For me that is his weakness as well however as ratings would then mean more to him than for example Bush who obviously could not care very much about ratings. It also has to be detrimental for the military, as McCrystal must be pretty anxious by now to get a decision from Obama regarding more troops needed for Afghanistan. Obama no doubt is trying to get his "ducks" (lefties in his party) in a row, before coming to some sort of decision that pleases most of the people around him.
jmi256 wrote:
And because of his disconnect with the American public, he tried and failed to ram his agenda through in the first few months without building a case.
Agreed. I also see him as "ramming" agendas through without building a case. Also, failing to take a few steps back from the battle ground when it is necessary to do so. I wonder whether this could also be because of a very carefully planned Presidency and realizing he effectively only has 18 months to do everything he set out in his campaign "to do" before he has to start his re-election campaign again.
jmi256
Today's poll.


deanhills
Probably time for a speech again. Let us guess. Probably about his decision regarding troops for Afghanistan. Wonder how that is going to affect his ratings? And what it will be.
jabce85
lol, i only wish people could have had a screen capture of this page handed to them directly after they exited the polling booths on election day........
jmi256
Today's poll. It'll be interesting to see if Obama's support helped or hindered Democrats in tomorrow's election.

Key elections include:
-- NJ Governor’s race
-- Virginia Governor's race
-- NYC Mayoral race

deanhills
I'm looking forward to the NYC Mayoral race. Especially given the current economic tough times that everyone in NYC is facing. It would appear however that people are apathetic and that there may be a low turnout in voting. I enjoyed the following from a New York Times article about the election:
Quote:
With the election entering its waning hours, the two men crisscrossed the city to drum up support, but in very different styles that seemed to reflect their standing in the polls (up for Mr. Bloomberg, down for Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Thompson displayed the urgency of an underdog, cramming his schedule with rallies, neighborhood walks and rides on the back of a pickup truck. Mr. Bloomberg, seeming confident and relaxed, mixed official and campaign events, traveled with his two yellow Labradors and found time to watch the Yankees World Series game aboard the U.S.S. New York off the coast of Long Island.

Mr. Bloomberg, who was taken to the ship by hovercraft and handed out Yankees caps to the Marines and sailors, was asked by a reporter if this visit should be considered a campaign stop.

“This has nothing to do with the campaign,” the mayor said. “This is New York. This is America.”

Good contrast? Smile Who do you think will win the race?
jmi256
It looks like Obama is doing slightly 'better,' but still not so hot. I have noticed that he hasn't been in the media as much in the last week or so, which may be helping him. It seems to be an interesting correlation.

Voodoocat
I am somewhat surprised that Obama's approval did not increase much more: after all, the House passed one of Obama's main priorities, a health reform bill. If Obama was not able to get a boost from that, I think he is in real trouble.
deanhills
I must say I was surprised as when the news was released by the media about the health care bill being passed, the media focus was on Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats, not Obama.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nancy-pelosi-democrats-pass-sweeping-health-care-reform/story?id=9027367 I would have thought this would have been a much needed photo opportunity for him.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
I would have thought this would have been a much needed photo opportunity for him.

Maybe he wants to distance himself from such a controversial subject... Which may have been the same reason the white house made it known that a public option was not a 'must have'.

Ideally for him, he could claim credit for it while talking to liberals, and blame congress while talking to conservatives.
taytay
Voodoocat wrote:
Don't forget how many celebrities publically announced that is was about time we had a black president.


Celebrities aside, I have heard a lot of people say this, as well as the media. The stupid factor is, it doesn't matter Who the president is, What color he is, or if the president is a man or woman. The only thing we need a president to be is an intelligent and honest ruler. I have never been for Obama. As for his current progress, I personally am still against him. If he can figure things out and start to do some good for this country in ANY shape or form, then of course I'll start to gain faith in him. If a president sucks I'm not going to root for him. If a president is good I'll begin to take his side. It angers me to even think for a second that he was elected by Anyone because he is "black." That is the stupidest reason to give anyone power over an entire country.

Looking from the start, what cold hard FACTS do we know about this guy that can be proven 10 fold? oh um, probably only that he breathes air, is a sweet talker, makes big promises, and is now ruler over the most powerful country in the world today. That is about it. (Not implying or accusing anything in these following comments) Is he a Man? Was he born a man? i would assume so, but we don't have his birth certificate to prove it. How long has he been a citizen of the US? Oh.. well i don't know that either. No one does. Where did he grow up? Where did he attend school? What did he go into college for? How much experience in politics does he Really have?

The only Major Cold Hard Fact we have about this guy is that he is protecting (hiding, or doesn't have, who knows) his private life and background. Am I wrong?


Aside from what we may or may not know now, How much did we know during elections? little to none right? sooo.. with so much crisis going on, and ESPECIALLY after 9/11, with everyone being so cautious about who in the world to trust, how did the greater population of the country vote for a guy they don't know at all??


How could America be so dumbfounded? If I'm 20 and America is this ridiculous already, I just might begin to believe the Mayan's and the Chinese about 2012. (hey, isn't that the last year of Obama's reign?...)
deanhills
taytay wrote:
How could America be so dumbfounded? If I'm 20 and America is this ridiculous already, I just might begin to believe the Mayan's and the Chinese about 2012. (hey, isn't that the last year of Obama's reign?...)
Looking from the outside in, perhaps guys like you have to put your actions where your words are. People hated Bush right from the beginning of his first term as President, with a GREAT passion, however they VOTED him for a second term. Maybe there is so much reliance on "the other guy" coming up with the solutions whereas it is every voter's responsibility to look for a better deal, not only "in words" but "in action" as well.

There seems to be this expectation of someone else who has to take care of things. Who is this someone else? Maybe now is the time to take responsibility and speak out, as when the campaign for the next election starts towards the end of next year, there may be no other candidate available other than the "criticized" one. Bottomline being on focussing and taking charge of solutions rather than contributing passive arm-chair criticism.
gandalfthegrey
Bullshit, manipulative right-wing polling. Obama still has a majority of Americans supporting him according to most polls. (Not that I am an Obama fan, but I'd take him any day over the current bunch of Republican lunatics who care more about corporate issues and social conservative issues then actually being what Conservatives/Republicans once were and should be - Freedom fighters, defenders of liberty and choice. Maybe they'll be smart enough and take a chance on Ron Paul over Sarah Palin in 2012. At least then they'd at least have a chance.)
ocalhoun
gandalfthegrey wrote:
Bullshit, manipulative right-wing polling. Obama still has a majority of Americans supporting him according to most polls.

Because most polls are either 'do support' or 'do not support'.

This particular report, you'll notice, only pays attention to those who feel 'strongly' about their opinion.
Obama has a lot of strong supporters, slightly more strong detractors, a HUGE amount of half-hearted supporters, and only a very small amount of half-hearted detractors.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Obama has a lot of strong supporters, slightly more strong detractors, a HUGE amount of half-hearted supporters, and only a very small amount of half-hearted detractors.
This is a brilliant observation Ocalhoun. Maybe the polls are brainwashing people as well, as they are only focussed on "either" and "or" in two main directions, yet the public may be in a million more directions if they would be asked different questions, such as perhaps an "other" or "neither". The brainwashing sets people up to only think along the lines of Obama and the one party in opposition. It serves to close and not open minds to other alternatives. So by harping on only Obama "for" and "against", this puts only one real picture in people's minds when the next presidential election campaign starts. Even though this poll is used in the "negative", it may be working to Obama's advantage, not his disadvantage. As there are no other options in the polls that highlight the alternative thinking of political leaders.

Perhaps that is the reason how Bush got to be elected a second time, even when he was so much hated.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Maybe the polls are brainwashing people as well, as they are only focussed on "either" and "or" in two main directions,.

Indeed.

To quote Jesus:
Quote:

He who is not with me is against me


This kind of attitude is not a recent development.
jmi256
The lastest poll. It looks like Obama is staying steady with a -10 rating.

deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
The lastest poll. It looks like Obama is staying steady with a -10 rating.
I would imagine that it should be going up with his travels overseas. He and his wife seem to be good with the hobnobbing shoulder rubbing kind of diplomacy that comes with international travel. They make positive impressions.
jmi256
deanhills wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
The lastest poll. It looks like Obama is staying steady with a -10 rating.
I would imagine that it should be going up with his travels overseas. He and his wife seem to be good with the hobnobbing shoulder rubbing kind of diplomacy that comes with international travel. They make positive impressions.


It doesn't look like Obama's groveling for the sake of being accpeted by the international community is translating into success here at home. He's hit a new low.

jmi256
Wow. Obama has dropped even lower. I'm sure a lot of it has to do with the fact that he and the Democrats are trying to ram their health care deform scheme down Americans' throats when we've made it very clear that the majority is happy with their health care system and don't want the government messing around with our health. Or it could be his unemployment numbers that have topped 10%, even though he forced his "stimulus" bill through with the argument that if it wasn't done quickly we would see unemployment approaching 10%. Or it could be his "dithering" on making a decision of whether to accept his military advisors' recommendations for more troops in Afghanistan. Or it could be his insistence on having the 9/11 terrorists tried in NYC even though they intend to use the trials as sounding boards for their ideology, and having the trials in NYC puts New Yorkers in jeopardy. Or it could be the ballooning national debt that will have to be paid by new and increased taxes. Or it could be.... the list could go on and on. Hopefully we get rid of this clown in 2012.

deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
Wow. Obama has dropped even lower. I'm sure a lot of it has to do with the fact that he and the Democrats are trying to ram their health care deform scheme down Americans' throats when we've made it very clear that the majority is happy with their health care system and don't want the government messing around with our health.
I'm confused here. How would it get through Congress and then waiting for the axe in the Senate? Does this have to do with the make-up of the Senate? Is this the reason why Obama kept a low profile when the announcement had been made about Congress passing the Bill?

jmi256 wrote:
Or it could be his unemployment numbers that have topped 10%, even though he forced his "stimulus" bill through with the argument that if it wasn't done quickly we would see unemployment approaching 10%.
Could be a factor, although people are arguing that the economy has to rebound first (which it has started to do) before employment will follow.

jmi256 wrote:
Or it could be his "dithering" on making a decision of whether to accept his military advisors' recommendations for more troops in Afghanistan.
That may count, but the media is not saying much about it either to the extent to make a great difference to public opinion.

jmi256 wrote:
Or it could be his insistence on having the 9/11 terrorists tried in NYC even though they intend to use the trials as sounding boards for their ideology, and having the trials in NYC puts New Yorkers in jeopardy.
This may count as well. People are really upset about it having made into a civic trial that will no doubt be a drawn out affair, instead of a swift military tribunal.

jmi256 wrote:
Or it could be the ballooning national debt that will have to be paid by new and increased taxes. Or it could be.... the list could go on and on. Hopefully we get rid of this clown in 2012.
Could be all of it collectively, or simply the graph rarely goes up or stays the same, it goes up and down. Probably time for him to make some "can do" speeches again.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Wow. Obama has dropped even lower. I'm sure a lot of it has to do with the fact that he and the Democrats are trying to ram their health care deform scheme down Americans' throats when we've made it very clear that the majority is happy with their health care system and don't want the government messing around with our health.
I'm confused here. How would it get through Congress and then waiting for the axe in the Senate? Does this have to do with the make-up of the Senate? Is this the reason why Obama kept a low profile when the announcement had been made about Congress passing the Bill?

First of all, 'congress' refers to both the house of representatives and the senate.
The bill could pass the house easier, because it is based simply on number of votes, and there is a mandatory maximum time for speeches.

In the senate, however, there is the option to 'filibuster'. Because the senate has no rule for maximum talking time, one senator who has the floor at the moment can talk as long as he wants... so long, in fact, that it significantly delays a bill, or even kills a bill as other senators withdraw support in order to get that one finally shut up. The filibuster can be defeated: if 60 or more senators agree to do so, they can force the filibustering senator to stop speaking, allowing them to move forward with the bill.

It's a time-tested way to prevent the majority party from completely dominating the minority party, and has been used many times, by both parties, over the years.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
First of all, 'congress' refers to both the house of representatives and the senate.
The bill could pass the house easier, because it is based simply on number of votes, and there is a mandatory maximum time for speeches.

In the senate, however, there is the option to 'filibuster'. Because the senate has no rule for maximum talking time, one senator who has the floor at the moment can talk as long as he wants... so long, in fact, that it significantly delays a bill, or even kills a bill as other senators withdraw support in order to get that one finally shut up. The filibuster can be defeated: if 60 or more senators agree to do so, they can force the filibustering senator to stop speaking, allowing them to move forward with the bill.

It's a time-tested way to prevent the majority party from completely dominating the minority party, and has been used many times, by both parties, over the years.
Never knew about "filibuster" before, and very interesting reading, thanks for all the info Ocalhoun. So there are 58 Democrats, 40 Republicans and 2 Independents? If the Democrats are sticking together, would it be that difficult to find two extra votes to defeat filibuster?
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
would it be that difficult to find two extra votes to defeat filibuster?


It can, when the Republicans are unanimously opposed to it, and some moderate democrats want it changed... It'll be a very close contest to see if they can get the 60 votes they need.

(Of course, if they were to start over with a truly bi-partisan bill, they could pass it easily, even if only a few Republicans supported it.)
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
It can, when the Republicans are unanimously opposed to it, and some moderate democrats want it changed... It'll be a very close contest to see if they can get the 60 votes they need.

(Of course, if they were to start over with a truly bi-partisan bill, they could pass it easily, even if only a few Republicans supported it.)
I guess that would be short of being miraculous. If there had been a chance of that, it would have shown its face in the House?
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
It can, when the Republicans are unanimously opposed to it, and some moderate democrats want it changed... It'll be a very close contest to see if they can get the 60 votes they need.

(Of course, if they were to start over with a truly bi-partisan bill, they could pass it easily, even if only a few Republicans supported it.)
I guess that would be short of being miraculous. If there had been a chance of that, it would have shown its face in the House?

That might be 'plan B' in case they can't get this bill to pass.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
It can, when the Republicans are unanimously opposed to it, and some moderate democrats want it changed... It'll be a very close contest to see if they can get the 60 votes they need.

(Of course, if they were to start over with a truly bi-partisan bill, they could pass it easily, even if only a few Republicans supported it.)
I guess that would be short of being miraculous. If there had been a chance of that, it would have shown its face in the House?

That might be 'plan B' in case they can't get this bill to pass.
OK, then they must be confident that they do stand a good chance. The scepticism is more on the side of the critics? The Democrats are obviously in the majority in the Senate, how can it fail to pass?
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
OK, then they must be confident that they do stand a good chance. The scepticism is more on the side of the critics? The Democrats are obviously in the majority in the Senate, how can it fail to pass?

They do have a good chance, but also a good chance of failure. The margin between pass and fail is only 2 votes...
If they can convince only two independents or republicans to vote for it, it will pass.
(And there are many ways to convince people... Votes can be bought, or even gotten by means more immoral than that.)
BUT, if any of the democrats decide they don't like this version and vote against it, it is almost guaranteed to fail.
(And some democrats have been making noises about doing so; some won't vote for it unless it has the public option, some don't like the public option... If they split over that, this particular bill will be essentially dead.)
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
OK, then they must be confident that they do stand a good chance. The scepticism is more on the side of the critics? The Democrats are obviously in the majority in the Senate, how can it fail to pass?

They do have a good chance, but also a good chance of failure. The margin between pass and fail is only 2 votes...
If they can convince only two independents or republicans to vote for it, it will pass.
(And there are many ways to convince people... Votes can be bought, or even gotten by means more immoral than that.)
BUT, if any of the democrats decide they don't like this version and vote against it, it is almost guaranteed to fail.
(And some democrats have been making noises about doing so; some won't vote for it unless it has the public option, some don't like the public option... If they split over that, this particular bill will be essentially dead.)
I can just imagine all the wheelings and dealings that must be going on behind the scenes right now along the lines of "I pat your back", "you pat my back", especially among the Democratsl.
silverdown
wow, i didnt vote at all so it's not myfault hehe, or it is since i didnt for for the other either... O well.. early election? Laughing
handfleisch
The headline "Obama approval rating fairly steady in polls" wouldn't get much attention, especially to wingnuts who want him to fail, but that's the inconvenient truth.

OBAMA APPROVAL RATINGS OVERALL SO FAR http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_ad.htm
Quote:

Approve Disapprove Unsure
% % %
11/13-16/09
50 36 14
10/5-8/09
48 28 24
6/12-16/09
59 23 18
4/22-26/09
59 23 18

4/1-5/09
59 19 22

2/2-4/09
50 15 35


Just a reminder, read it and weep:
BUSH FINAL APPROVAL RATING http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
Quote:
ABC/Washington Post
1/13-16/09
33 66 2

Which begs the question, who were these 33% who could possibly still have approved at the end of his disastrous time in office?
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
The headline "Obama approval rating fairly steady in polls" wouldn't get much attention, especially to wingnuts who want him to fail, but that's the inconvenient truth.

Even using your source, you can hardly call it 'fairly steady':

http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_job.htm#ObamaJob
deanhills
Amazing how the job ratings match Obama's popularity just after he got elected, starting off real strong and then moving in a very straight down curve to disapproval.

Thanks for the info about Bush's job ratings Handfleisch, it also showed the ratings for Obama and Clinton, and it was quite a surprise to see the contrast between Clinton and Obama. Clinton outperformed Obama on the approval ratings, and the most surprising is that Clinton showed a steady favourable support with very little variation right throughout his presidency. The approval rating was as strong at the end of his Presidency as it was at the beginning of his Presidency. The favourability rating for Clinton was stronger at the end of his Presidency than at the beginning. Obama started with a Big Bang approval rating tapering downwards gradually and significantly in the last few months, and this is while Obama is still supposed to be in his honeymoon period. Not sure why you want to bring Bush up, as if one is to compare job ratings for successful Presidents, then one has to wonder why the people voted Bush in for a second session.

Sources:
Obama Ratings
Clinton Ratings
Bush Ratings
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
DH gets it, and did a good job of explaining it to you. You are just trying to twist out-of-context words and phrases to kill yet another discussion with your nonsense. If you want to stay on this Reagan tangent, go ahead, but don’t pretend that it has anything to do with the discussion at hand.

LOL. You can't answer. You try to hide behind DH, but his answer has nothing to do with your "dismally low" charge. The point is not tangential, it is central to this thread: How you are mischaracterizing Obama's poll numbers. And you can't even admit maybe you were wrong, are wrong. Typical right wing dishonesty.

That's no wind blowing, that's JMI striking out.


Whatever you need to tell yourself. There is nothing to “answer.” You keep asking the same question and just don’t like the answers you’re given. I’m not “mischaracterizing Obama's poll numbers” as you claim. First you tried to compare Obama’s numbers to Bush’s and when it was shown that Obama’s first-year numbers have dropped to dismal numbers in comparison, now you want to compare Obama to another president. You just want to keep changing the bar and asking the same question. But why stop at a president who was elected 30 years ago? If you have something that says Obama’s poll numbers aren’t falling, please show it.


Quote:
handfleisch wrote:

Just a reminder, read it and weep:
BUSH FINAL APPROVAL RATING http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
Quote:
ABC/Washington Post
1/13-16/09
33 66 2

Which begs the question, who were these 33% who could possibly still have approved at the end of his disastrous time in office?


At this point in his presidency, Bush had a much higher approval rating than Obama has. In the last week of November of his first year, Bush had an 89% approval rating and only a 9% disapproval. Bush’s numbers never went as low as Obama’s has in his first year. It took years of the fringe left bashing Bush before they were able to turn public sentiment, but Obama has been able to drop to dismal numbers in record time it seems. From the same site you quoted:

Quote:

Date Approve Disapprove Unsure
11/27/01 89 9 1
11/5-6/01 89 9 2
10/8-9/01 92 6 1
9/25-27/01 90 6 4
9/13/01 86 12 2
9/6-9/01 55 41 3
7/26-30/01 59 38 3
5/31 - 6/3/01 55 40 6
4/19-22/01 63 32 5
3/22-25/01 58 33 8
2/21-25/01 55 23 22

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob1.htm


Compare that to Obama's horrible approval rating:

deanhills
I guess now that Obama has technically and officially committed himself in the War in Afghanistan, the White House is not outside the war any longer and will have to make periodic statements. Obama's ratings may go down even further than it has to date.
Voodoocat
Uh, there seems to be a significant problem with the ABC/Washington Post data:

Quote:
ABC/Washington Post
1/13-16/09
33 66 2


33+66+2 = 101% Shocked
deanhills
Voodoocat wrote:
Uh, there seems to be a significant problem with the ABC/Washington Post data:

Quote:
ABC/Washington Post
1/13-16/09
33 66 2


33+66+2 = 101% Shocked
Well spotted. Handfleisch quoted it from the Pollingreport.com Bush approval ratings (it is the ABC/Washington Post stat on the top of the list). I quoted from the same Website as well. Makes one think about the accuracy of the polls. How do mistakes like that happen when one is working with software that does the calculations automatically?
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Voodoocat wrote:
Uh, there seems to be a significant problem with the ABC/Washington Post data:

Quote:
ABC/Washington Post
1/13-16/09
33 66 2


33+66+2 = 101% Shocked
Well spotted. Handfleisch quoted it from the Pollingreport.com Bush approval ratings (it is the ABC/Washington Post stat on the top of the list). I quoted from the same Website as well. Makes one think about the accuracy of the polls. How do mistakes like that happen when one is working with software that does the calculations automatically?

Uh, sorry to burst your bubbles, but it's probably just a rounding error.
(32.5% + 65.5% + 2%) Well, the stupid public doesn't care about decimals! Round it.
(33% + 66% + 2%) Ah, that's better. Now our viewers with the equivalent of 2nd grade educations can understand it.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Voodoocat wrote:
Uh, there seems to be a significant problem with the ABC/Washington Post data:

Quote:
ABC/Washington Post
1/13-16/09
33 66 2


33+66+2 = 101% Shocked
Well spotted. Handfleisch quoted it from the Pollingreport.com Bush approval ratings (it is the ABC/Washington Post stat on the top of the list). I quoted from the same Website as well. Makes one think about the accuracy of the polls. How do mistakes like that happen when one is working with software that does the calculations automatically?

Uh, sorry to burst your bubbles, but it's probably just a rounding error.
(32.5% + 65.5% + 2%) Well, the stupid public doesn't care about decimals! Round it.
(33% + 66% + 2%) Ah, that's better. Now our viewers with the equivalent of 2nd grade educations can understand it.
It is still an error, although it at least makes sense the way you explained the rounding error. I note that the Bureau of Labour does not round off unemployment percentages. So how would that feature with the education level policy?
Voodoocat
Quote:
(33% + 66% + 2%) Ah, that's better. Now our viewers with the equivalent of 2nd grade educations can understand it.


So very true, and so very sad. Sad
jmi256
It looks like Obama is making up some ground.


Alaskacameradude
I think one of the biggest things that will make or break Obama, is can he get the economy
turned around or not? People don't like 10% unemployment and a crappy economy.....so Obama
isn't popular right now. If he can turn that around, he might be able to turn around some of these
poll numbers too. The two other things that he has to be careful about are health care (The latest
Gallup poll shows 49% against his health care reform and 44% for it)
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/69705-poll-americans-still-leaning-against-health-bill

and he has to be careful about continuing to run up a huge national deficit.....as many Americans
are also mad about that. If he can get the economy going again, get some kind of bipartisan
health care bill (maybe something without a government option but with a non profit
health insurance company or something of the sort) and start working on reducing the
national debt, he could win back a lot of the independent voters. Of course these are all
easier said than done.
jmi256
Alaskacameradude wrote:
I think one of the biggest things that will make or break Obama, is can he get the economy turned around or not? People don't like 10% unemployment and a crappy economy.....so Obama isn't popular right now. If he can turn that around, he might be able to turn around some of these poll numbers too.

I agree that if unemployment numbers would magically reverse themselves Obama would be able to then parlay that from the horrible poll numbers he has into some respectable poll numbers. But given that unemployment under Obama is at the highest it has been in decades and his policies seem to favor higher taxes and higher deficits, which cripple real businesses, that seems unlikely. If his goal is to get more American working in real jobs, his best bet is to cut spending (very unlikely due to his aggressive government-expansion policies) and reduce taxes (again very unlikely since he’ll be increasing taxes to pay for his pet projects).


Alaskacameradude wrote:
The two other things that he has to be careful about are health care (The latest Gallup poll shows 49% against his health care reform and 44% for it) http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/69705-poll-americans-still-leaning-against-health-bill

I’ve said this before, but I think Obama simply misinterpreted what his election symbolized. While there were some on the left who have always been pushing the Democratic party to swing more Socialist, I think most voters were voting against President Bush, even though he wasn’t running. And Obama took his election to mean that Americans were supportive of his left-wing policies like socialized/government-run healthcare, etc.. Now that Americans are finally realizing what they voted for, they are reacting negatively. I’m not sure how he counters that. At his heart, Obama is a liberal left-winger, so to pull back on that would mean denying who he really is.


Alaskacameradude wrote:
and he has to be careful about continuing to run up a huge national deficit.....as many Americans are also mad about that. If he can get the economy going again, get some kind of bipartisan health care bill (maybe something without a government option but with a non profit health insurance company or something of the sort) and start working on reducing the national debt, he could win back a lot of the independent voters.

Americans are rightfully angry about the booming national debt under Obama, which is now more than all other administrations combined. This debt represents higher taxes and fees that we and our children and grandchildren will have to pay from our earnings/paychecks, savings, etc. for decades to come. Obama and his cohorts Pelosi and Reid locked out the Republicans from working on any part of the healthcare bill to address the concerns of their constituents, so getting bipartisan support is a pipedream at this point. If that’s the goal, it needs to go back to the drawing board.


Quote:
Of course these are all easier said than done.

Maybe that’s why Obama keeps saying it over and over instead of working on real solutions.

From today’s poll:



edited to fix a couple of typos
deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
I think most voters were voting against President Bush, even though he wasn’t running. And Obama took his election to mean that Americans were supportive of his left-wing policies like socialized/government-run healthcare, etc.. Now that Americans are finally realizing what they voted for, they are reacting negatively. I’m not sure how he counters that. At his heart, Obama is a liberal left-winger, so to pull back on that would mean denying who he really is.
That sounds about right. There was a real anti-Bush passion during the election. People were hoping for a miracle person to touch everything with a magician wand. At best Obama could probably have made different economic decisions, but for meaningful change to happen in the US economy, the whole of the political system needs to change. The debt escalation seems to have come to a point where it is fuelling itself. No one is shocked by it any longer.
Afaceinthematrix
amorphius wrote:
Quote:

If the person is corrupt, he should be immediately impeached.

I don't think that Obama is corrupt


I don't think there's such thing as a politician who isn't corrupt in some way or another. Obama is no different.

I saw signs of corruption in his political campaign that caused me to completely hate him. Not that I was ever going to vote for him, but some of the tactics of his crew made me completely hate him and theoretically lost my vote (if I was going to vote for him).
jmi256
Looks like Obama has resumed his downward slide...

deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
I saw signs of corruption in his political campaign that caused me to completely hate him. Not that I was ever going to vote for him, but some of the tactics of his crew made me completely hate him and theoretically lost my vote (if I was going to vote for him).
I was irritated by it too, especially the advertisements about his Blackberry and I think smoking too, but I'm not sure about the latter. Also, after a while the speeches started to wear as well. I must say I was also hoping for lots of change as initially I was intrigued, but that was wrong on my part, as realistically how can any President create that kind of magic, when the constraints he has to deal with, and the political system he is operating in have so many limitations? The worst part of Obama however so far for me has been his spending, as well as his tendency to delay things, and I can't help but think that the delaying has to do with political games as well. I did not like Bush very much, but at least he was able to make decisions expeditiously.
jmi256
deanhills wrote:
The worst part of Obama however so far for me has been his spending, as well as his tendency to delay things, and I can't help but think that the delaying has to do with political games as well. I did not like Bush very much, but at least he was able to make decisions expeditiously.


Yeah, the amount of spending is bad, but I think people are getting sick of him for a lot of reasons. I’m not defending President Bush, but I think a lot of people are feeling along the same lines as you are and reexamining how they feel about President Bush. It’s interesting that many are still comparing Obama to President Bush, which reaffirms that the last election was more about the country’s reactions against President Bush than it was for Obama. I saw this on the Politico site today. It’s amazing that as much bad press that President Bush got that 44% of people are saying they would prefer him. I think that spells really bad news for Obama’s hopes for reelection.

Quote:
Perhaps the greatest measure of Obama's declining support is that just 50% of voters now say they prefer having him as President to George W. Bush, with 44% saying they'd rather have his predecessor.

Source = http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1209/Bush_closes_the_gap.html
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
as realistically how can any President create that kind of magic, when the constraints he has to deal with, and the political system he is operating in have so many limitations?

An extremely dangerous line of thought...

All it takes is for someone to fix that 'problem' and give the president the power he 'needs' to save the country, and we'll find ourselves on the fast track to a dictatorship. The president's powers are limited for a reason.
jmi256
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
as realistically how can any President create that kind of magic, when the constraints he has to deal with, and the political system he is operating in have so many limitations?

An extremely dangerous line of thought...

All it takes is for someone to fix that 'problem' and give the president the power he 'needs' to save the country, and we'll find ourselves on the fast track to a dictatorship. The president's powers are limited for a reason.


Agreed. I think Obama's overreaching is one of the reasons Americans continue to disapprove of his policies and style of government. Most Americans do not appreciate government intrusion in every aspect of their lives, and the polls show a rejection of this.

deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
as realistically how can any President create that kind of magic, when the constraints he has to deal with, and the political system he is operating in have so many limitations?

An extremely dangerous line of thought...

All it takes is for someone to fix that 'problem' and give the president the power he 'needs' to save the country, and we'll find ourselves on the fast track to a dictatorship. The president's powers are limited for a reason.
Isn't that what happened though at the beginning of the year, i.e. the way Obama's bail-out package got approved through tacit consent? That happened in the name of saving the economy, and the country.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
as realistically how can any President create that kind of magic, when the constraints he has to deal with, and the political system he is operating in have so many limitations?

An extremely dangerous line of thought...

All it takes is for someone to fix that 'problem' and give the president the power he 'needs' to save the country, and we'll find ourselves on the fast track to a dictatorship. The president's powers are limited for a reason.
Isn't that what happened though at the beginning of the year, i.e. the way Obama's bail-out package got approved through tacit consent? That happened in the name of saving the economy, and the country.

It was, more or less. Hopefully, the delays and difficulties in passing the health care bill mean that the bailout lapse was only temporary, and that a wizened congress won't fall for the scheme again.

Fearmongering really is a powerful tool for the government though, and nothing really prevents it from being used again.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
as realistically how can any President create that kind of magic, when the constraints he has to deal with, and the political system he is operating in have so many limitations?

An extremely dangerous line of thought...

All it takes is for someone to fix that 'problem' and give the president the power he 'needs' to save the country, and we'll find ourselves on the fast track to a dictatorship. The president's powers are limited for a reason.
Isn't that what happened though at the beginning of the year, i.e. the way Obama's bail-out package got approved through tacit consent? That happened in the name of saving the economy, and the country.

It was, more or less. Hopefully, the delays and difficulties in passing the health care bill mean that the bailout lapse was only temporary, and that a wizened congress won't fall for the scheme again.

Fearmongering really is a powerful tool for the government though, and nothing really prevents it from being used again.
Right, isn't that how the Iraq War started for example? That went much too fast with very little forethought. I still wonder how that could have happened, as it happened as swiftly as the bail-out package.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Right, isn't that how the Iraq War started for example? That went much too fast with very little forethought. I still wonder how that could have happened, as it happened as swiftly as the bail-out package.

Yes it was, as it was also used to rush the passage of the patriot act. Because it is so powerful a tool, politicians use it often, along these steps:

1: Find some kind of bad news. (Or create some if there is none.)
2: Hype that bad news; talk of nothing else, make the public terrified.
3: Offer your pet project as a solution to it.
4: Make clear that anyone who opposes your pet project will be directly responsible for the bad news from step 1. A public terrified of that news will not reelect someone who votes against the 'solution'.
5: Make a big deal about how urgent it is, that doing nothing will lead to disaster.
6: Enjoy your pet project.

Some examples?
Fear of communism/nuclear war, fear of terrorism, Saddam's WMD's, economic crisis, crisis of millions of uninsured, climate change...
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Fear of communism/nuclear war, fear of terrorism, Saddam's WMD's, economic crisis, crisis of millions of uninsured, climate change...
True. Fear as a tool can just about help sell anything, including and especially insurance Smile
jmi256
Obama hit a new low in his approval ratings. I wonder what the reasons for this new low are.


deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
Obama hit a new low in his approval ratings. I wonder what the reasons for this new low are.
Do you think this could be synonymous with the Democratic party losing some of its support as well, can there be a parallel?
jmi256
deanhills wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Obama hit a new low in his approval ratings. I wonder what the reasons for this new low are.
Do you think this could be synonymous with the Democratic party losing some of its support as well, can there be a parallel?

I don't think that's it, to be honest. 'Democrats' seem to have always rated lower (as have ‘Republicans’ to be fair) when people have been asked to rate parties as a block. But individual politicians tend to rate higher, as it seems people don’t like politicians in general, but they seem to say they are ok with their own politician. While support for Democrats have also been freefalling, I actually think it’s Obama who is dragging down the Democrats as their leader and most public face, not the other way around. It also doesn't explain Obama’s latest dip now. Why is he going even lower this week? It may be that the government-run healthcare bill seems to be closer to passing, and people are fed up with Obama and the Democrats not listening to them as they have clearly said they don’t the government intrusion and bureaucracy, mismanagement, ineffeicncies, lower quality, higher costs, etc. that is most likely to some with the passing. It could also be the stance Obama and the Democrats are taking on the Cap & Tax bill, which looks like will be the next ‘crisis’ they will try to solve with a massive expansion of government. Or it could be just a general disappointment in Obama. I’ve spoken to some of my very liberal friends, and they have expressed a resentment toward Obama that they seem to not be able to put their finger on. I think he may be having problems within his own party, which could explain Obama’s dismal approval rating.

But it looks like Obama has regained some ground since yesterday. He’s still well in the negative numbers, but at least he’s come off the historic low he was at.
deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
But individual politicians tend to rate higher, as it seems people don’t like politicians in general, but they seem to say they are ok with their own politician.
A very interesting observation. That probably means that people are ready for third parties, and what is making the Republican and Democratic parties survive is funding from big business, more than the leadership they are coming up with?

jmi256 wrote:
While support for Democrats have also been freefalling, I actually think it’s Obama who is dragging down the Democrats as their leader and most public face, not the other way around.
I thought the opposite. He is a people pleaser and has been working very hard to keep the diversity of Democrats together, especially the ones on the left. That must have been one of the reasons why he took such a long time to make his decision about Afghanistan, as well as why he inserted an escape clause in the decision. Not that he did well with that, as in the end he did not please anyone that much. Including internationally.

jmi256 wrote:
It also doesn't explain Obama’s latest dip now. Why is he going even lower this week? It may be that the government-run healthcare bill seems to be closer to passing, and people are fed up with Obama and the Democrats not listening to them as they have clearly said they don’t the government intrusion and bureaucracy, mismanagement, ineffeicncies, lower quality, higher costs, etc. that is most likely to some with the passing. It could also be the stance Obama and the Democrats are taking on the Cap & Tax bill, which looks like will be the next ‘crisis’ they will try to solve with a massive expansion of government. Or it could be just a general disappointment in Obama. I’ve spoken to some of my very liberal friends, and they have expressed a resentment toward Obama that they seem to not be able to put their finger on. I think he may be having problems within his own party, which could explain Obama’s dismal approval rating.
Maybe there is just too much of him in the media. And people have become cynical about the speeches. Perhaps it is as simple as that? With regard to healthcare legislation though I'm almost certain the public have become so divorced from it, did they really have a say in how it went? And as you pointed out, did anyone listen to what they had to say, and acknowledged it?

jmi256 wrote:
But it looks like Obama has regained some ground since yesterday. He’s still well in the negative numbers, but at least he’s come off the historic low he was at.
I guess that is how polls work. Although in general if you look at the bigger picture and compare it with Clinton, he is doing worse than Clinton.
jmi256
deanhills wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
But individual politicians tend to rate higher, as it seems people don’t like politicians in general, but they seem to say they are ok with their own politician.
A very interesting observation. That probably means that people are ready for third parties, and what is making the Republican and Democratic parties survive is funding from big business, more than the leadership they are coming up with?

Maybe. But I think the challenge of creating of a third party has more to do with logistics than with ideology.

jmi256 wrote:
While support for Democrats have also been freefalling, I actually think it’s Obama who is dragging down the Democrats as their leader and most public face, not the other way around.
I thought the opposite. He is a people pleaser and has been working very hard to keep the diversity of Democrats together, especially the ones on the left. That must have been one of the reasons why he took such a long time to make his decision about Afghanistan, as well as why he inserted an escape clause in the decision. Not that he did well with that, as in the end he did not please anyone that much. Including internationally.[/quote]
That’s just my perception. I think he’s been in everyone’s face so much, that’s hard to not equate him as ‘the Democratic Party.’ Not only is he getting high disapproval from independents, moderates and conservatives, but it seems that approval from liberals and other Democrats is also going down, leading to a low rating overall.

jmi256 wrote:
It also doesn't explain Obama’s latest dip now. Why is he going even lower this week? It may be that the government-run healthcare bill seems to be closer to passing, and people are fed up with Obama and the Democrats not listening to them as they have clearly said they don’t the government intrusion and bureaucracy, mismanagement, ineffeicncies, lower quality, higher costs, etc. that is most likely to some with the passing. It could also be the stance Obama and the Democrats are taking on the Cap & Tax bill, which looks like will be the next ‘crisis’ they will try to solve with a massive expansion of government. Or it could be just a general disappointment in Obama. I’ve spoken to some of my very liberal friends, and they have expressed a resentment toward Obama that they seem to not be able to put their finger on. I think he may be having problems within his own party, which could explain Obama’s dismal approval rating.

Maybe there is just too much of him in the media. And people have become cynical about the speeches. Perhaps it is as simple as that? With regard to healthcare legislation though I'm almost certain the public have become so divorced from it, did they really have a say in how it went? And as you pointed out, did anyone listen to what they had to say, and acknowledged it?[/quote]
I think the point about the media and his speeches may have been the case a few months ago, but the glitter seems to have worn off by now, and I think no one if falling for his speeches anymore and are realizing he may be a one-trick pony. I really don’t think Obama and the Democrats really wanted to ‘listen’ to what the American people want in terms of their healthcare, but were intent on creating the bill they wanted regardless. The sham ‘town hall meeting’ the Dems tried staging showed this. As soon as the public actually showed up and started letting their representative know how they felt about what they were doing, the Dems quickly worked to squash and dissention. I think the American people took notice of how Obama and the Dems treated them during that time and realized what they are dealing with.

jmi256 wrote:
But it looks like Obama has regained some ground since yesterday. He’s still well in the negative numbers, but at least he’s come off the historic low he was at.
I guess that is how polls work. Although in general if you look at the bigger picture and compare it with Clinton, he is doing worse than Clinton.[/quote]
You can compare him with a lot of presidents, including President Bush this far in his presidency and see that Obama is doing much, much more worse. It’s mind boggling, however, that some liberals still parrot the idea that Obama is ‘popular’ when the facts show the exact opposite.

From today’s poll:
jmi256
Wow, I've never seen it so low before. His disapproval numbers have spiked quite a bit.

This excerpt from today's poll may give a hint of why people disapprove of Obama more than usual:
Quote:

For the second straight day, the update shows the highest level of Strong Disapproval yet recorded for this President. That negative rating had never topped 42% before yesterday. However, it has risen dramatically since the Senate found 60 votes to move forward with the proposed health care reform legislation. Most voters (55%) oppose the health care legislation and senior citizens are even more likely than younger voters to dislike the plan.


deanhills
Wonder whether if when Obama's Healthcare proposal should succeed, that it may turn into his nemesis in the same way as the Iraq War did for Bush? Almost the equivalent of a political seppuku?
ocalhoun
jmi256 wrote:

Quote:

Most voters (55%) oppose the health care legislation and senior citizens are even more likely than younger voters to dislike the plan.


^.^
Look at them putting in bias in the wording of it...
It would read just fine without the 'even' in there, but they add it in anyway, to emphasize that younger voters are 'likely' to dislike the plan.
So, instead of sounding like 'young people like, old people dislike', it sounds as though 'young people dislike, old people dislike more'...
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
jmi256 wrote:

Quote:

Most voters (55%) oppose the health care legislation and senior citizens are even more likely than younger voters to dislike the plan.


^.^
Look at them putting in bias in the wording of it...
It would read just fine without the 'even' in there, but they add it in anyway, to emphasize that younger voters are 'likely' to dislike the plan.
So, instead of sounding like 'young people like, old people dislike', it sounds as though 'young people dislike, old people dislike more'...
Right. But wonder whether that would be accurate, as I thought that the health legislation would favour older people at the expense of the younger people who would have to support the older people with regard to compulsory purchase of health care insurance. So it should be the other way round?
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Right. But wonder whether that would be accurate, as I thought that the health legislation would favour older people at the expense of the younger people who would have to support the older people with regard to compulsory purchase of health care insurance. So it should be the other way round?

Foolish idealism tends to run stronger in young people*, and certain people have managed to convince the older crowd that the health care legislation would take away benefits they already have.

*They're less likely to realize that the money has to come from somewhere. And that 'somewhere' will ultimately be their wallets, weather they pay directly, through insurance premiums, or through taxes.
Alaskacameradude
Quote:
Right. But wonder whether that would be accurate, as I thought that the health legislation would favour older people at the expense of the younger people who would have to support the older people with regard to compulsory purchase of health care insurance. So it should be the other way round?


Apparently there are many in our country who do not understand the ins and outs of this new
healthcare bill nearly as well as you do. You are 100% right.....as I've said before, the impact
of this new health reform, would mean that those who use healthcare most, are (relatively speaking)
going to be paying less, while those who use healthcare least are (relatively speaking again)
going to be paying more! It's really not that hard to figure out if you look at the 'great trade off'.
jmi256
Today's poll. I'm surprised it's not lower due to the Christmas security lapse.

Bikerman
Interesting how different this is from the Gallop poll (Presidential Approval).
The gallop poll words it 'approve' 'disapprove' without the 'strongly' and shows 49% approval and 44% disapproval.
How can these two be squared, I wonder, because clearly you can't have 49% approving and 41% strongly disapproving unless nearly everyone who disapproves does so strongly (and that is just too improbable isn't it?).
http://www.gallup.com/home.aspx
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
unless nearly everyone who disapproves does so strongly (and that is just too improbable isn't it?).

Improbable, perhaps, but probably true.
Obama has many half-hearted supporters, and many all-out opponents, but he has relatively few 'strong' supporters, and relatively few half-hearted opponents. That's why the 'strongly approve/disapprove' rating shows more difference than the straight 'approve/disapprove'. (I do like to have the 'strong' opinions separated out though. After all, I care less about the opinions of those who don't hold those opinions 'strongly'... I'd also like to see results for 'don't care' and 'refused to answer' responses though.)

Also the two polls have different selections... Rasmussen polls 'likely voters', while Gallup (I think) is more general in selection. (Obama is less popular among likely voters than he is with the populace at large. Partly because 'likely voters' excludes more young people and minorities. Though this adds a clear bias, it is true that young people and minorities are less likely to vote.)
Bikerman
I'm not taking a position or implying that the poll is dodgy, however I still don't accept that all but 4% of those disapproving would strongly do so, no matter how polarised or polarising that President was.

Even at the height of Bush's unpopularity (and please don't tell me Bush wasn't a polariser) in 2008, he hit 67% in the gallup (dis)approval ratings and Rassmussen were reporting 43% strong disapproval. That seems to me to be credible - a lot of strong disapproval but 20 odd percent not really that bothered. You ALWAYS get a floating group of about 10-40% depending on the issue, sample and coverage (in the media). 4% is just too damn low.
Now, what you say about sample is crucial and might account for this difference..
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
you can't have 49% approving and 41% strongly disapproving unless...

49% approving, therefore 51% disapproving, right?
51% disapprove - 41% strongly disapprove = 10%
Bikerman wrote:
4% is just too damn low.

4% = 10% ?
I'm having some mathematical difficulties... probably due to neutral votes.
Quote:

Now, what you say about sample is crucial and might account for this difference..

A combination of the two things, I think, accounts for it.

And, I'm sure, both polls are a bit biased in different directions. Not that they'd falsify anything or practice deception, but their choices of samples and what to display -- though clearly stated -- are probably carefully chosen to best show the result they want.
(If the pollsters at Rasmussen wanted the president to appear popular, they'd probably be conducting polls the same way Gallup is... and vice versa.)
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
(If the pollsters at Rasmussen wanted the president to appear popular, they'd probably be conducting polls the same way Gallup is... and vice versa.)
I was thinking along those lines at one stage, until I had a look at the Job Ratings for the Presidents since Clinton. I did not see much of a bias. Bush's was as bad as I thought his would be. Clinton's were much better than Obama's. I've never really liked polls anyway, as I'm almost certain that distortions could appear, such as did with Bush just after September 11 terrorist attacks and the emotional upheaval afterwards securing him the highest ratings of his Presidency. Perhaps there should have been a way where heavy sentiment such as there had been at that time, could be subtracted from the ratings. Maybe the ratings are a little too basic and simplistic to really have a meaningful value over a longer period of time?
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Maybe the ratings are a little too basic and simplistic to really have a meaningful value over a longer period of time?

Quite so, but anything more detailed bores the public.

And I do share your disdain for polls as a source of serious information. There are some things that can only be determined by a poll, but polls should be used as a last resort, not as the ubiquitous decision-making device most modern politicians use them for.
jwellsy
Rasmussen called the presidential race to within .1%. I do not think they are in business to try and influence races or opinions.

Quote:
How Did We Do?
Thursday, November 06, 2008


The final Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Election 2008 showed Barack Obama leading John McCain 52% to 46%. We are pleased to report that those figures precisely matched the actual election returns.

A Fordham University analysis put Rasmussen Reports on top of the list for accuracy among 23 national pollsters.

This matches our Election 2004 performance when our tracking poll was the only national poll to project the totals for Bush and Kerry within half a point of the actual totals.

Down the stretch, the race was remarkably stable. Rasmussen Reports showed Obama receiving either between 50% of the vote and 52% for the last 40 days of Election 2008. The ranged tightened a bit during the final two weeks--Obama received either 51% or 52% of the vote on 13 of the last 14 days.

For McCain, the numbers stayed between 44% and 47% of the vote for the final forty days of the campaign. He was at 46% or 47% of the vote every day for the final nine days of the tracking poll.

This consistency is important because it reflects the reality around us. When it comes to selecting a President, the overwhelming majority of Americans do not change their minds on a daily basis. Any poll showing volatility should automatically be viewed with caution.

The final major event of Election 2008 was the Wall Street meltdown following the collapse of Lehman Brothers. By late September, the campaign looked just as it did on Election Day. On every day but one of the final 40 days, Rasmussen Reports showed Obama with a 4 to 8 point lead, neatly bracketing the actual result reflected in our final poll.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/how_did_we_do
ocalhoun
jwellsy wrote:
Rasmussen called the presidential race to within .1%. I do not think they are in business to try and influence races or opinions.

Accuracy doesn't imply neutrality.

(It does, however, imply that Rasmussen reports should be taken seriously, while keeping their bias in mind.)
jwellsy
ocalhoun wrote:
jwellsy wrote:
Rasmussen called the presidential race to within .1%. I do not think they are in business to try and influence races or opinions.

Accuracy doesn't imply neutrality.

(It does, however, imply that Rasmussen reports should be taken seriously, while keeping their bias in mind.)


What evidence is there that Rasmussen does not keep their Bias' in check to maintain their neutrality?
jmi256
jwellsy wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
jwellsy wrote:
Rasmussen called the presidential race to within .1%. I do not think they are in business to try and influence races or opinions.

Accuracy doesn't imply neutrality.

(It does, however, imply that Rasmussen reports should be taken seriously, while keeping their bias in mind.)


What evidence is there that Rasmussen does not keep their Bias' in check to maintain their neutrality?

That's a good question. I haven't seen any evidence that Rasmussen has fudged his poll numbers to any particular bias. In fact, I have seen poll results that are critical or favorable toward each party.

From today’s poll:
Quote:
Forty-five percent (45%) say a group randomly selected from the phone book would do a better job than the current Congress.

Just thought that^^ was funny.


deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
From today’s poll:
Quote:
Forty-five percent (45%) say a group randomly selected from the phone book would do a better job than the current Congress.

Just thought that^^ was funny.


A hilarious poll. And come to think about it definitely true. For one, they may be untainted by the comfortable high living in Washington DC, and may actually choose to read the Bills and caucus their constituents for their opinion about the bills.
ocalhoun
jmi256 wrote:

What evidence is there that Rasmussen does not keep their Bias' in check to maintain their neutrality?

They don't fudge the numbers, of course.
But, read the articles that go with poll results... read them objectively, looking for any signs of bias.

You'll (hopefully) find some little quirks in the wording that seem to exaggerate things a bit, and you'll surely notice that very few of the results shown favor the liberal side... Surely, there must be some polls that would make liberals look good, but Rasmussen is careful not to publish those.

They are accurate, but they do everything they can towards a bias (without sacrificing the accuracy).
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
jmi256 wrote:

What evidence is there that Rasmussen does not keep their Bias' in check to maintain their neutrality?

They don't fudge the numbers, of course.
But, read the articles that go with poll results... read them objectively, looking for any signs of bias.

You'll (hopefully) find some little quirks in the wording that seem to exaggerate things a bit, and you'll surely notice that very few of the results shown favor the liberal side... Surely, there must be some polls that would make liberals look good, but Rasmussen is careful not to publish those.

They are accurate, but they do everything they can towards a bias (without sacrificing the accuracy).
Couldn't there be bias in the questions that are asked that are the basis of the polls? For example with the healthcare reforms, questions were asked that contained wording, such as socialist medicine, that people did not really understand, and there could have been the possibility that those who designed the poll questions were aware what the response would be? As inevitably the answers are contained in the questions, i.e. if they are asked in a certain way, the spontaneous answer could already be in it?
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Couldn't there be bias in the questions that are asked that are the basis of the polls? For example with the healthcare reforms, questions were asked that contained wording, such as socialist medicine, that people did not really understand, and there could have been the possibility that those who designed the poll questions were aware what the response would be? As inevitably the answers are contained in the questions, i.e. if they are asked in a certain way, the spontaneous answer could already be in it?

Oh, there are certainly biases implanted by the choice of questions. Likely, they ask a lot more questions than they publish, and then only publish the ones that get answers they like.
azoundria
I'm sorry but Obama is only a human, and you all got sucked into thinking he is some kind of God.

But he was right on on thing. If you want to fix the problems, you need to do it yourself. So if you want a better place to live, make it one.
jmi256
azoundria wrote:
I'm sorry but Obama is only a human, and you all got sucked into thinking he is some kind of God.

Not all of us. Many of us were quite aware that there was irrational hero worship involved in his election and not an embrace of his policies. He seems to think otherwise, however.

azoundria wrote:
But he was right on on thing. If you want to fix the problems, you need to do it yourself. So if you want a better place to live, make it one.

I would argue that his stance is the opposite, and could be summed up as: If you want to fix the problems, you need to wait for Obama and his massive federal government to fix it for you. So if you want a better place to live, tax everyone (everyone else, that is).


BTW, it looks like his SOTUS didn’t help his popularity any. It’ll be interesting to see tomorrow’s poll.

Voodoocat
Obama's approval should have increased after his SOTU speech- after all, he was played on all of the major networks for well over an hour. I find it very revealing that his popularity is an abysmally low -17 on the Rasmussen poll. As JMI pointed out, people have finally gotten over their irrational hero worship, have realized their mistake, and now have buyer's remorse.
deanhills
Voodoocat wrote:
Obama's approval should have increased after his SOTU speech- after all, he was played on all of the major networks for well over an hour.
That may well be the reason that his ratings have dropped. I am almost certain people have become cynical about his speeches, and if someone is to take a poll it may be found that many less people would have watched his SOTU speech than usual. People have lost faith and trust and maybe even interest in his speeches.
jmi256
It looks like Obama had a bit of a bump recently that almost made it to positive territory, but now he's back to very low poll numbers. I think there was a lot of outreach done after the Scott Brown embarrassment, but now that support is gone. Has anyone else noticed that you barely hear 'news' anchors refer to Obama as being "popular"? Or at least in the present tense. I think they are finally understanding that the American people aren't falling for that one anymore.

deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
It looks like Obama had a bit of a bump recently that almost made it to positive territory, but now he's back to very low poll numbers. I think there was a lot of outreach done after the Scott Brown embarrassment, but now that support is gone. Has anyone else noticed that you barely hear 'news' anchors refer to Obama as being "popular"? Or at least in the present tense. I think they are finally understanding that the American people aren't falling for that one anymore.
I get the same impression. Wonder whether this is going to affect his chance for re-election, probably a little early to speculate?
yagnyavalkya
every Prez has this coming in tow after the election and taking office this poll comes as no surprise
another thing I have notices in AMerican polls is that the rating of the prez goes up if he or she takes a war on some middle eastern country I think Obama can try N Korea to boost up his ratings!
handfleisch
Obama is one of the most popular politicians in the USA. This whole thread is dishonest.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
Obama is one of the most popular politicians in the USA. This whole thread is dishonest.


Interesting opinion. The polls would seem to suggest that Obama's approval ratings are dismally low, however. In fact, I don’t see anything in today’s poll that would suggest otherwise.

BTW: Welcome back handfleisch.

ocalhoun
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Obama is one of the most popular politicians in the USA. This whole thread is dishonest.


Interesting opinion. The polls would seem to suggest that Obama's approval ratings are dismally low, however. In fact, I don’t see anything in today’s poll that would suggest otherwise.

BTW: Welcome back handfleisch.


He probably is the most popular politician right now... That doesn't change the fact that his poll numbers are dropping consistently. Many people are realizing that when they voted for hope and change, they voted for hope only (not results) and the change they got was an ever-expanding government.

It may, however, be a symptom of a larger problem. I bet the poll numbers of the US government as a whole would also be going down, if anybody actually does such a poll.
deanhills
I picked up on an interesting summary of polls by RealClearPolitics.com:


There are also some other interesting poll averages at the above URL. I found the one on the "Direction of the Country" an interesting one:
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Obama is one of the most popular politicians in the USA. This whole thread is dishonest.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

Interesting opinion. The polls would seem to suggest that Obama's approval ratings are dismally low, however. In fact, I don’t see anything in today’s poll that would suggest otherwise.


No, interesting fact. Obama's approval rating is now 52%, which is very high in this context, and it's gone up. Obama's average rating is 57%, Ronald Reagan's was only 53%.

You seem to be confusing a drop in ratings from when he started with ratings overall. Possibly you are confused because you listen to heavily biased sources only, like Rasmussen polls, which do everything to make a poll about Obama look as bad for him as possible.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/11887/ronald-reagan-from-peoples-perspective-gallup-poll-review.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125096/Obama-Averages-Approval-First-Year-Office.aspx

So, in summary, the overall gist of this thread is (to put it nicely) wrong and intentionally misleading. It might be technically true that Obama is down in polls since his high numbers on inauguration day, but that would be true for just about every president in living memory, since they all go down after the honeymoon period. So it's kind of an empty and foolish point.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Obama is one of the most popular politicians in the USA. This whole thread is dishonest.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

Interesting opinion. The polls would seem to suggest that Obama's approval ratings are dismally low, however. In fact, I don’t see anything in today’s poll that would suggest otherwise.


No, interesting fact. Obama's approval rating is now 52%, which is very high in this context, and it's gone up. Obama's average rating is 57%, Ronald Reagan's was only 53%.

You may want to check your 'facts' again. As usual you got them wrong. It seems even using the polls you like better since they try to support your claims, Obama tied with Reagan in his first year (and has done considerably worse than George W. Bush, btw). I have no problems with Obama's average, even as it's presented in the polls you like. You’re right to say that Obama’s poll numbers were really high at the beginning of his term before people knew what they were getting. It’s interesting, though, that even with really high popularity at the beginning of his presidency, Obama has sunk down so low that his average is below Bush’s. In fact, the only one with lower average poll numbers was Clinton.





handfleisch wrote:
You seem to be confusing a drop in ratings from when he started with ratings overall. Possibly you are confused because you listen to heavily biased sources only, like Rasmussen polls, which do everything to make a poll about Obama look as bad for him as possible.

Thanks for the ‘clarification’, but I don’t think I’m the one who is confused. I thought the title of this thread was clear enough on its own: Obama down in polls. Are you now saying that claim is flawed? But if I am reading your response correctly you’re now back to the "facts are biased" argument? It would seem that the poll I have been citing has a very good track record of gauging public opinion.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/how_did_we_do

If you have something that counters the claim that Obama is down in polls (i.e. Obama is rising in polls), let’s hear it.



handfleisch wrote:
So, in summary, the overall gist of this thread is (to put it nicely) wrong and intentionally misleading. It might be technically true that Obama is down in polls since his high numbers on inauguration day, but that would be true for just about every president in living memory, since they all go down after the honeymoon period. So it's kind of an empty and foolish point.

Again, the steep fall is quite profound and indicative of how we here in the US (the Rasmussen polls use likely US voters, while other polls use different criteria) have come to see what Obama represents, such as higher taxes, bigger government, higher deficits, backroom politics, mismanagement, cronyism, more government intrusion into private lives and decisions, anti-business policies, etc., and have realized how much we don’t like what he stands for. Of course you’re free to have your own opinion, no matter how twisted the rest of may think it is from reality. Obama’s poll numbers are rising: Good luck with that.

On the bright side for Obama, it looks like he’s up slightly from last week.

handfleisch
I know it useless to argue with someone who is not part of the reality-based community. But I have to keep my Frihost account up.

jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Obama is one of the most popular politicians in the USA. This whole thread is dishonest.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

Interesting opinion. The polls would seem to suggest that Obama's approval ratings are dismally low, however. In fact, I don’t see anything in today’s poll that would suggest otherwise.


No, interesting fact. Obama's approval rating is now 52%, which is very high in this context, and it's gone up. Obama's average rating is 57%, Ronald Reagan's was only 53%.

You may want to check your 'facts' again. As usual you got them wrong.


I used the Gallup polls, one of the oldest and most respected polling organizations. I linked to them. But again, since you don't know the difference between a fact and an opinion, I don't expect that to matter.

jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Obama is one of the most popular politicians in the USA. This whole thread is dishonest.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

Interesting opinion. The polls would seem to suggest that Obama's approval ratings are dismally low, however. In fact, I don’t see anything in today’s poll that would suggest otherwise.


Um, you don't see how Obama's relatively high approval ratings mean that they are not "dismally low"?


jmi256 wrote:
You may want to check your 'facts' again. As usual you got them wrong. It seems even using the polls you like better since they try to support your claims, Obama tied with Reagan in his first year (and has done considerably worse than George W. Bush, btw). I have no problems with Obama's average, even as it's presented in the polls you like. You’re right to say that Obama’s poll numbers were really high at the beginning of his term before people knew what they were getting. It’s interesting, though, that even with really high popularity at the beginning of his presidency, Obama has sunk down so low that his average is below Bush’s. In fact, the only one with lower average poll numbers was Clinton.


Again, I linked to all my figures, which are from Gallup. Right now Obama average approval rating is higher than Reagan's. Fact, Jack.

Bringing in Bush is a dumb move. His results are skewed by the hysterically high numbers after 9/11. But even with that, at 57% Obama is trouncing Bush's average:

Quote:
Bush's 49% approval average for his presidency will rank him in the middle of the pack (7th of 11) of post-World War II presidents.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113641/Despite-Recent-Lows-Bush-Approval-Average-Midrange.aspx

jmi256 wrote:
Thanks for the ‘clarification’, but I don’t think I’m the one who is confused. I thought the title of this thread was clear enough on its own: Obama down in polls. Are you now saying that claim is flawed? But if I am reading your response correctly you’re now back to the "facts are biased" argument? It would seem that the poll I have been citing has a very good track record of gauging public opinion.


As usual, I just have to repeat the facts and the argument to you over and over again. Maybe long answers cause a certain attention span problem. So here goes again:
"Obama down in polls" is what we call a factoid, something that is in a minimal sense, technically, true, but that misleads and implies falsehoods. Like the headline I saw years ago, "Barbecues Linked to Cancer". One study found barely measurable amounts of some substance caused by barbecuing that if taken in large quantities is linked to cancer. So, the headline was true, as a factoid, but not true in any larger sense. In the larger sense, it was misleading and somewhat bogus.

Your thread title is the same. First of all, it implies low poll numbers. Not true. Also it leaves out the fact that most presidents have poll numbers go down after the honeymoon period, so in a larger sense it means nothing. Also, it leaves out any context whatsoever, like the situation that Obama inherited, which is difficult to look good in for any leader (a deep recession based on many years of neglect, two wars, etc etc). These are among the ways the thread is misleading and bogus, only satisfying to cranks.

jmi256 wrote:
If you have something that counters the claim that Obama is down in polls (i.e. Obama is rising in polls), let’s hear it.


See linked polls again. A steady rise in approval and decrease in disapproval since Jan 23. Speculating, this may be due to Obama's strong showing against the Republicans in live debate that was carried on CSPAN and much talked about, and the general disillusionment with the Tea Partiers and Republicans since the recent Palin debacle linked the two once again.

jmi256 wrote:
Again, the steep fall is quite profound and indicative of how we here in the US (the Rasmussen polls use likely US voters, while other polls use different criteria) have come to see what Obama represents, such as higher taxes, bigger government, higher deficits, backroom politics, mismanagement, cronyism, more government intrusion into private lives and decisions, anti-business policies, etc., and have realized how much we don’t like what he stands for. Of course you’re free to have your own opinion, no matter how twisted the rest of may think it is from reality. Obama’s poll numbers are rising: Good luck with that.

On the bright side for Obama, it looks like he’s up slightly from last week.


As Reagan would say, there you go again. From a dubious assertion ("the steep fall is quite profound") to fantasy-land opinion in one breath, one sentence ("indicative of how we here in the US ... have come to see what Obama represents, such as higher taxes, bigger government, higher deficits, backroom politics, mismanagement, cronyism, more government intrusion into private lives and decisions, anti-business policies, etc., and have realized how much we don’t like what he stands for"). To speak the language this deserves: LOL.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

I used the Gallup polls, one of the oldest and most respected polling organizations.

... And coincidentally, one of the most favorable polls for Obama.

Really, you do need to stop criticizing other people for choosing biased information, only to replace it with information biased equally in the other direction.

The differences in the polls have already been adequately explained, if you care to review the topic; both are accurate measures of different (and valid) cross-sections of American society.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

I used the Gallup polls, one of the oldest and most respected polling organizations.

... And coincidentally, one of the most favorable polls for Obama.

Really, you do need to stop criticizing other people for choosing biased information, only to replace it with information biased equally in the other direction

LOL. Of course the most respected, traditional and small-C conservative polling organization in the country will seem biased to you. Like in your "both sides are untrustworthy" argument in Climate Change, you reject all facts you don't like, and believe any cockamamie you wish.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

I used the Gallup polls, one of the oldest and most respected polling organizations.


... And coincidentally, one of the most favorable polls for Obama.

Really, you do need to stop criticizing other people for choosing biased information, only to replace it with information biased equally in the other direction

LOL. Of course the most respected, traditional and small-C conservative polling organization in the country will seem biased to you.

They consistently rate Obama higher than nearly all other polls. Explain.
Quote:

Like in your "both sides are untrustworthy" argument in Climate Change, you reject all facts you don't like, and believe any cockamamie you wish.

I reject both facts I don't like and some facts I do like.

Unlike someone I'm familiar with, who will defend anything he agrees with, and attack anything he disagrees with, regardless of factual basis.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

I used the Gallup polls, one of the oldest and most respected polling organizations.


... And coincidentally, one of the most favorable polls for Obama.

Really, you do need to stop criticizing other people for choosing biased information, only to replace it with information biased equally in the other direction

LOL. Of course the most respected, traditional and small-C conservative polling organization in the country will seem biased to you.

They consistently rate Obama higher than nearly all other polls. Explain.


They're the most accurate? I don't like all their results either, but if their overall method and results are sound over a period of time, a rational person has to take it into consideration, not whine and go into fantastic explanations.
ocalhoun wrote:

I reject both facts I don't like and some facts I do like..


At least you admit it. But you can't expect the reality-based community to listen to fantasy-based nonsense.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
I know it useless to argue with someone who is not part of the reality-based community. But I have to keep my Frihost account up.

Sticks and stones….


handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Obama is one of the most popular politicians in the USA. This whole thread is dishonest.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

Interesting opinion. The polls would seem to suggest that Obama's approval ratings are dismally low, however. In fact, I don’t see anything in today’s poll that would suggest otherwise.


No, interesting fact. Obama's approval rating is now 52%, which is very high in this context, and it's gone up. Obama's average rating is 57%, Ronald Reagan's was only 53%.

You may want to check your 'facts' again. As usual you got them wrong.


I used the Gallup polls, one of the oldest and most respected polling organizations. I linked to them. But again, since you don't know the difference between a fact and an opinion, I don't expect that to matter.

I know the difference. I used the same links you provided, handfleisch. You stated that Obama’s average rating was higher than Reagan’s, which you cited as 53%. But the Gallup chart from your link shows that information to be ‘faulty.’ Here it is once again.





handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Obama is one of the most popular politicians in the USA. This whole thread is dishonest.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

Interesting opinion. The polls would seem to suggest that Obama's approval ratings are dismally low, however. In fact, I don’t see anything in today’s poll that would suggest otherwise.


Um, you don't see how Obama's relatively high approval ratings mean that they are not "dismally low"?

See chart above. “Relatively high” compared to what? Clinton? Ok, if that’s your measuring stick, so be it. But that doesn’t negate the fact that Obama’s poll numbers have been dropping throughout his presidency. But maybe this trend is good news for you?





handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
You may want to check your 'facts' again. As usual you got them wrong. It seems even using the polls you like better since they try to support your claims, Obama tied with Reagan in his first year (and has done considerably worse than George W. Bush, btw). I have no problems with Obama's average, even as it's presented in the polls you like. You’re right to say that Obama’s poll numbers were really high at the beginning of his term before people knew what they were getting. It’s interesting, though, that even with really high popularity at the beginning of his presidency, Obama has sunk down so low that his average is below Bush’s. In fact, the only one with lower average poll numbers was Clinton.


Again, I linked to all my figures, which are from Gallup. Right now Obama average approval rating is higher than Reagan's. Fact, Jack.

Again, looks at the chart from your own link above. I didn’t realize it was a “fact” that 57% > 57%.



handfleisch wrote:
Bringing in Bush is a dumb move. His results are skewed by the hysterically high numbers after 9/11. But even with that, at 57% Obama is trouncing Bush's average:

Wow, Americans actually approved of Bush’s actions after 9/11, thereby increasing his poll numbers, while Obama’s poll numbers have steadily decreased due to Americans’ disproval of his actions. Thanks for making my point for me.



handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Thanks for the ‘clarification’, but I don’t think I’m the one who is confused. I thought the title of this thread was clear enough on its own: Obama down in polls. Are you now saying that claim is flawed? But if I am reading your response correctly you’re now back to the "facts are biased" argument? It would seem that the poll I have been citing has a very good track record of gauging public opinion.

As usual, I just have to repeat the facts and the argument to you over and over again. Maybe long answers cause a certain attention span problem.

Trust me, I can handle your “facts” no matter what recesses you pull them from and your “arguments” no matter how convoluted you make them. I’ll address each twist to make this easier for you.



handfleisch wrote:
[So here goes again:
"Obama down in polls" is what we call a factoid, something that is in a minimal sense, technically, true, but that misleads and implies falsehoods.

So now facts are misleading and imply falsehoods. Ok, I guess that’s true in an Orwellian world, but for the rest of us a fact by definition is true. But your stance reminds me of the 1984 quote:
Quote:
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.




handfleisch wrote:
[Like the headline I saw years ago, "Barbecues Linked to Cancer". One study found barely measurable amounts of some substance caused by barbecuing that if taken in large quantities is linked to cancer. So, the headline was true, as a factoid, but not true in any larger sense. In the larger sense, it was misleading and somewhat bogus.

Now you want to argue about barbecue? You’re making me hungry. I might just get some tonight. But seriously, I understand the distinction you’re trying to make, and if you’re saying Obama’s poll numbers are not in the sh*tter just yet, I would concede that point. While his poll numbers are still lower than many other presidents’ first-year numbers, he isn’t in the teens or anything like that. But I don’t think anyone in their right mind would call him “popular” by any stretch (except with certain segments, maybe). He has dropped very low in relation to his initial ratings, more than I have seen any president drop, and I can agree that part of this % change is because of the irrational positive outlook some had for Obama. Of course, we now see what he really represents and that outlook is no longer so positive. And this all occurred during the ‘honeymoon’ stage when presidents are given leeway and the benefit of doubt. As Obama enters his second term, if the economy fails to react as he has promised his actions would cause it to, if unemployment continues to rise, if deficits continue to rise, if taxes go up, etc., I predict we will see his numbers head even further south.



handfleisch wrote:
Your thread title is the same. First of all, it implies low poll numbers. Not true.

“Obama Down in Polls” isn’t meant to imply anything. As you point out it is a fact.



handfleisch wrote:
Also it leaves out the fact that most presidents have poll numbers go down after the honeymoon period, so in a larger sense it means nothing.

Some may go down, but some also go up in the first year. If I was Obama I would be worried about the magnitude of his popularity drop, but if you think it “means nothing,” carry on. It seems that stance is working out just fine for the Democrats as they suffer losses in election after election as Obama goes out on a limb to endorse them yet seems to be rebuffed.



handfleisch wrote:
Also, it leaves out any context whatsoever, like the situation that Obama inherited, which is difficult to look good in for any leader (a deep recession based on many years of neglect, two wars, etc etc).

So now it’s Bush’s fault that Obama has been dropping in the polls, huh? It has nothing to do with the fact that Obama rammed a “stimulus” bill that he claimed would add millions of jobs but did nothing except spread the pork and run up the national debt. I’m sure it also has nothing to do with his anti-business stance or power grabs or his not listening to citizens or his trying to ram a healthcare scheme that people say they don’t want or….. you can complete the list yourself. It’s really Bush’s fault. Ok, run with that too. The thing is if your argument is that the “situation” meant that high approval numbers were impossible, then how do you explain Obama’s initial numbers, which have dropped?



handfleisch wrote:
These are among the ways the thread is misleading and bogus, only satisfying to cranks.

Again, sticks and stones….


handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
If you have something that counters the claim that Obama is down in polls (i.e. Obama is rising in polls), let’s hear it.


See linked polls again. A steady rise in approval and decrease in disapproval since Jan 23.

I’m glad to see some improvement in his numbers, but I have a feeling these will be short-lived blips. But do a couple of weeks negates a year-long trend? Are you saying that this means that Obama is now higher in the polls? Once again, facts would seem to counter that argument. Of course these questions are preposterous, showing the weakness of your claim.



handfleisch wrote:
Speculating, this may be due to Obama's strong showing against the Republicans in live debate that was carried on CSPAN and much talked about, and the general disillusionment with the Tea Partiers and Republicans since the recent Palin debacle linked the two once again.

Orly? You’re putting all your money on the reach and power of CSPAN? Now I may be one of the few people who actually enjoy CSPAN, but I don’t think many voters are watching. And what “debate” are you referring to? Who did he debate? Or are you talking about yet another Obama speech? Yeah, those seem to be maintaining their effectiveness.



handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Again, the steep fall is quite profound and indicative of how we here in the US (the Rasmussen polls use likely US voters, while other polls use different criteria) have come to see what Obama represents, such as higher taxes, bigger government, higher deficits, backroom politics, mismanagement, cronyism, more government intrusion into private lives and decisions, anti-business policies, etc., and have realized how much we don’t like what he stands for. Of course you’re free to have your own opinion, no matter how twisted the rest of may think it is from reality. Obama’s poll numbers are rising: Good luck with that.

On the bright side for Obama, it looks like he’s up slightly from last week.


As Reagan would say, there you go again. From a dubious assertion ("the steep fall is quite profound") to fantasy-land opinion in one breath, one sentence ("indicative of how we here in the US ... have come to see what Obama represents, such as higher taxes, bigger government, higher deficits, backroom politics, mismanagement, cronyism, more government intrusion into private lives and decisions, anti-business policies, etc., and have realized how much we don’t like what he stands for"). To speak the language this deserves: LOL.

Not sure what you’re trying to say here. Are you saying Obama’s poll numbers haven’t taken a steep decline?
handfleisch
Okay, let's try to make it even simpler for you.

Reagan is regarded as one of the most popular presidents in recent history. Obama's approval rating is equal or above Reagan's. Therefore, Obama can fairly be described as popular, and on the balance his approval rating can be called relatively high.

Can't make it much more simple, factual, rational, fair and balanced than that. Still, you'll reject it.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
Okay, let's try to make it even simpler for you.

Reagan is regarded as one of the most popular presidents in recent history. Obama's approval rating is equal or above Reagan's. Therefore, Obama can fairly be described as popular, and on the balance his approval rating can be called relatively high.

Can't make it much more simple, factual, rational, fair and balanced than that. Still, you'll reject it.


I understand your argument (even this latest twist/change) perfectly well. I just don't agree with your premises. First of all, what does Reagan have to do with Obama's dropping polls? As you can see from the chart that you linked to, only Clinton's approval rating was worse that Obama's.



But further grist for the mill:

Quote:
CNN poll: 52% say Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012

52 percent of Americans said President Barack Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012, according to a new poll.

44 percent of all Americans said they would vote to reelect the president in two and a half years, less than the slight majority who said they would prefer to elect someone else.

Obama faces a 44-52 deficit among both all Americans and registered voters, according to a CNN/Opinion Research poll released Tuesday. Four percent had no opinion.

The reelection numbers are slightly more sour than Obama's approval ratings, which are basically tied. 49 percent of people told CNN that they approve of the way Obama is handling his job, while 50 percent disapprove.

Still, the 2012 election is still a long way's away, with this fall's midterm elections looming large. Republicans are hoping to make inroads into Congress, while Democrats are hoping to hold onto gains won in the 2006 and 2008 cycles.

Respondents to CNN were split at 46 percent as to whether they preferred a generic Republican or Democratic candidate in this fall's elections.

At least one retiring lawmaker is confident Obama will sail to reelection, with Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) predicting Monday the president would win "overwhelmingly" in 2012.

The CNN poll, conducted Feb. 12-15, has a three percent margin of error.

Source = http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/81213-52-say-obama-doesnt-deserve-reelection-
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Okay, let's try to make it even simpler for you.

Reagan is regarded as one of the most popular presidents in recent history. Obama's approval rating is equal or above Reagan's. Therefore, Obama can fairly be described as popular, and on the balance his approval rating can be called relatively high.

Can't make it much more simple, factual, rational, fair and balanced than that. Still, you'll reject it.

Are you sure it is that simple? If one looks at jmi's bar chart, then by your simple analogy Bush (68%) was more popular, by almost 10% than Obama (57%) during their first year of Presidency? By the way Reagan and Obama's ratings during their first year were the second lowest out of the 9 Presidents in the Chart, so by your analogy all these Presidents must have been popular, and George Bush the third most popular President after Eisenhower and Kennedy:


I thought the following article by Steven F. Hayward (Forbes.com) from the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research Website gave a good comparison of Reagan and Obama:
Quote:
Though President Obama, like Ronald Reagan, clearly possesses an engaging personality and unique communication skills, he has not been nearly as successful as Reagan in advancing his agenda from the beginning of his presidency. Reagan's early initiatives were genuinely bipartisan, and more importantly, were undertaken mainly by his own administration rather than by congressional leaders. President Obama has given too much control to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid, and has not provided evidence that he is willing to buck Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:

Are you sure it is that simple? If one looks at jmi's bar chart, then by your simple analogy Bush (68%) was more popular, by almost 10% than Obama (57%) during their first year of Presidency? By the way Reagan and Obama's ratings during their first year were the second lowest out of the 9 Presidents in the Chart, so by your analogy all these Presidents must have been popular, and George Bush the third most popular President after Eisenhower and Kennedy:


Sure it's not that simple. But no matter how you slice it, Obama's 57% average is anything but "dismally low", as the fuzzy-thinking and biased thread starter imagines it.

Speaking of bias, the AEI is a right wing think tank funded by the rich and powerful, so the pundits there are paid a kind of corporate welfare, and they are dedicated to twisting everything related to tax cuts for the rich and right wing politics to make it look good.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:

Are you sure it is that simple? If one looks at jmi's bar chart, then by your simple analogy Bush (68%) was more popular, by almost 10% than Obama (57%) during their first year of Presidency? By the way Reagan and Obama's ratings during their first year were the second lowest out of the 9 Presidents in the Chart, so by your analogy all these Presidents must have been popular, and George Bush the third most popular President after Eisenhower and Kennedy:


Sure it's not that simple. But no matter how you slice it, Obama's 57% average is anything but "dismally low", as the fuzzy-thinking and biased thread starter imagines it.

Stick and stones, handfleisch. If you need to resort to name calling, so be it. I’m not going to get into that kind of exchange/flame war with you no matter how much you try to egg me on. If you have real issues to debate, however, I welcome the chance to debate those issues.

And if you really think Obama’s poll numbers are just fine and he doesn’t need to correct course before he loses any chance at all of being re-elected, more power to you. At least on the bright side, it looks like he has been improving this week.





handfleisch wrote:
Speaking of bias, the AEI is a right wing think tank funded by the rich and powerful, so the pundits there are paid a kind of corporate welfare, and they are dedicated to twisting everything related to tax cuts for the rich and right wing politics to make it look good.

I forgot: Everyone who opposes your unique point of view/opinion is “biased.” Those who support it aren’t. Rolling Eyes
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:

Are you sure it is that simple? If one looks at jmi's bar chart, then by your simple analogy Bush (68%) was more popular, by almost 10% than Obama (57%) during their first year of Presidency? By the way Reagan and Obama's ratings during their first year were the second lowest out of the 9 Presidents in the Chart, so by your analogy all these Presidents must have been popular, and George Bush the third most popular President after Eisenhower and Kennedy:


Sure it's not that simple. But no matter how you slice it, Obama's 57% average is anything but "dismally low", as the fuzzy-thinking and biased thread starter imagines it.

Stick and stones, handfleisch. If you need to resort to name calling, so be it. I’m not going to get into that kind of exchange/flame war with you no matter how much you try to egg me on. If you have real issues to debate, however, I welcome the chance to debate those issues.

And if you really think Obama’s poll numbers are just fine and he doesn’t need to correct course before he loses any chance at all of being re-elected, more power to you. At least on the bright side, it looks like he has been improving this week.





handfleisch wrote:
Speaking of bias, the AEI is a right wing think tank funded by the rich and powerful, so the pundits there are paid a kind of corporate welfare, and they are dedicated to twisting everything related to tax cuts for the rich and right wing politics to make it look good.

I forgot: Everyone who opposes your unique point of view/opinion is “biased.” Those who support it aren’t. :roll:


When did right wingers get to be such whiners? It used to be they accused liberals of being whining victims. Now "fuzzy thinking" is some kind of major league insult, enough to avoid answering the point at all.

Hey it's nothing personal to me. You might be a great guy, fun to have a beer with, whatever, what do I care. You're just ignorant, and proudly so. If you're happy just regurgitating talking points written by a think tank like AEI, which has a 20+ million dollar budget to spread BS, go for it.
jmi256
It looks like all the posts from Friday on were wiped out. Today's poll numbers are the same as yesterday's, though. The question I had asked previously was what could be some of the causes for this latest decline. From the trend it looks like Obama is losing approval from his staunchest supports, which is creating such a big negative index number.


ocalhoun
jmi256 wrote:
The question I had asked previously was what could be some of the causes for this latest decline.

His announcement and publication of a new health care plan, perhaps?
jmi256
ocalhoun wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
The question I had asked previously was what could be some of the causes for this latest decline.

His announcement and publication of a new health care plan, perhaps?


Maybe, but he's been barking up that tree for an entire year now. Also, his negative numbers stayed relatively steady, but it was a decrease of his support that drove the overall delta down. I think his liberal base are starting to become a bit disenchanted by him.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
The question I had asked previously was what ....


I know I am ruining the point of this thread, but since you keep it going let's get back to that glaring paradox that came up.

Simply, using your own figures: You called Obama's approval ratings "dismally low"; he averages 57. Reagan also averaged 57. So Reagan's approval rating was "dismally low" according to you, right?
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
The question I had asked previously was what ....


I know I am ruining the point of this thread, but since you keep it going let's get back to that glaring paradox that came up.

Simply, using your own figures: You called Obama's approval ratings "dismally low"; he averages 57. Reagan also averaged 57. So Reagan's approval rating was "dismally low" according to you, right?


We covered this already, and I really don't have time to continue schooling someone who can't understand something so basic. I suggest you go back and read what has already been posted instead of trying to ask the same question over and over. If you're really not just trying to derail this thread with more of your nonsense, but are actually having trouble with the big words, please PM me and I'll try to help.

But back on topic: It looks like Obama’s support has gone up, but his disapproval has also gone up. The net, however, is a slightly better index number.

handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
The question I had asked previously was what ....


I know I am ruining the point of this thread, but since you keep it going let's get back to that glaring paradox that came up.

Simply, using your own figures: You called Obama's approval ratings "dismally low"; he averages 57. Reagan also averaged 57. So Reagan's approval rating was "dismally low" according to you, right?


We covered this already, and I really don't have time to continue schooling someone who can't understand something so basic. I suggest you go back and read what has already been posted instead of trying to ask the same question over and over. If you're really not just trying to derail this thread with more of your nonsense, but are actually having trouble with the big words, please PM me and I'll try to help.


LOL. Having to resort to pure avoidance and weak insults because you can't answer a basic point.

So here's all of your excellent previous explanation of how 57 does not equal 57:
Quote:
First of all, what does Reagan have to do with Obama's dropping polls?


Come on, you can do better. Try again. Please let us know the latest right wing wisdom on this:
57 for Obama is "dismally low", 57 for Reagan is ________?
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
The question I had asked previously was what ....


I know I am ruining the point of this thread, but since you keep it going let's get back to that glaring paradox that came up.

Simply, using your own figures: You called Obama's approval ratings "dismally low"; he averages 57. Reagan also averaged 57. So Reagan's approval rating was "dismally low" according to you, right?


We covered this already, and I really don't have time to continue schooling someone who can't understand something so basic. I suggest you go back and read what has already been posted instead of trying to ask the same question over and over. If you're really not just trying to derail this thread with more of your nonsense, but are actually having trouble with the big words, please PM me and I'll try to help.


LOL. Having to resort to pure avoidance and weak insults because you can't answer a basic point.

So here's all of your excellent previous explanation of how 57 does not equal 57:
Quote:
First of all, what does Reagan have to do with Obama's dropping polls?


Come on, you can do better. Try again. Please let us know the latest right wing wisdom on this:
57 for Obama is "dismally low", 57 for Reagan is ________?



Avoidance? Your question has been asked and answered several times. It’s not our fault that you can’t understand the answers you have been given, or just refuse to accept them. Asking the same question over and over is not going to produce a different result. Like I said you can go back and read the posts.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:


Avoidance? Your question has been asked and answered several times. It’s not our fault that you can’t understand the answers you have been given, or just refuse to accept them. Asking the same question over and over is not going to produce a different result. Like I said you can go back and read the posts.


Are you doing a Glenn Beck imitation? I did go back and read the posts. Here is your total explanation of how 57 average approval for Obama is "dismally low" in your words, even though it equals Reagan's average:

Quote:
First of all, what does Reagan have to do with Obama's dropping polls?


That's it, that's your total great answer. So which is it? Was Reagan's 57 average approval rating "dismally low", or could Obama's 57 just maybe be described some other way? Like.... Reaganesque. Sounds right. Obama's Reaganesque popularity.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:

Avoidance? Your question has been asked and answered several times. It’s not our fault that you can’t understand the answers you have been given, or just refuse to accept them. Asking the same question over and over is not going to produce a different result. Like I said you can go back and read the posts.


Are you doing a Glenn Beck imitation? I did go back and read the posts. Here is your total explanation of how 57 average approval for Obama is "dismally low" in your words, even though it equals Reagan's average:

Quote:
First of all, what does Reagan have to do with Obama's dropping polls?


That's it, that's your total great answer. So which is it? Was Reagan's 57 average approval rating "dismally low", or could Obama's 57 just maybe be described some other way? Like.... Reaganesque. Sounds right. Obama's Reaganesque popularity.


DH gets it, and did a good job of explaining it to you. You are just trying to twist out-of-context words and phrases to kill yet another discussion with your nonsense. If you want to stay on this Reagan tangent, go ahead, but don’t pretend that it has anything to do with the discussion at hand.


deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Okay, let's try to make it even simpler for you.

Reagan is regarded as one of the most popular presidents in recent history. Obama's approval rating is equal or above Reagan's. Therefore, Obama can fairly be described as popular, and on the balance his approval rating can be called relatively high.

Can't make it much more simple, factual, rational, fair and balanced than that. Still, you'll reject it.

Are you sure it is that simple? If one looks at jmi's bar chart, then by your simple analogy Bush (68%) was more popular, by almost 10% than Obama (57%) during their first year of Presidency? By the way Reagan and Obama's ratings during their first year were the second lowest out of the 9 Presidents in the Chart, so by your analogy all these Presidents must have been popular, and George Bush the third most popular President after Eisenhower and Kennedy:


I thought the following article by Steven F. Hayward (Forbes.com) from the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research Website gave a good comparison of Reagan and Obama:
Quote:
Though President Obama, like Ronald Reagan, clearly possesses an engaging personality and unique communication skills, he has not been nearly as successful as Reagan in advancing his agenda from the beginning of his presidency. Reagan's early initiatives were genuinely bipartisan, and more importantly, were undertaken mainly by his own administration rather than by congressional leaders. President Obama has given too much control to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid, and has not provided evidence that he is willing to buck Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
DH gets it, and did a good job of explaining it to you. You are just trying to twist out-of-context words and phrases to kill yet another discussion with your nonsense. If you want to stay on this Reagan tangent, go ahead, but don’t pretend that it has anything to do with the discussion at hand.
LOL. You can't answer. You try to hide behind DH, but his answer has nothing to do with your "dismally low" charge. The point is not tangential, it is central to this thread: How you are mischaracterizing Obama's poll numbers. And you can't even admit maybe you were wrong, are wrong. Typical right wing dishonesty.

That's no wind blowing, that's JMI striking out.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

The Rasmussen polls are a lie,

Sorry to interrupt you two in your rant-wars, but I do need to point out this-

The reasons for Rasmussen showing different results have already been discussed in this thread, if you care to review, but I'll recap them here:

1: The 'strongly' modifier: Those who don't care much either way are ignored. This hurts Obama's rating because his support is broad, but shallow, while his opposition is smaller, but holds their opinions more strongly.
2: Polling 'likely voters'. The people who are more likely to vote are also more likely to disapprove of Obama.

That's a different (and valid) way to look at it, and certainly not a lie.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
DH gets it, and did a good job of explaining it to you. You are just trying to twist out-of-context words and phrases to kill yet another discussion with your nonsense. If you want to stay on this Reagan tangent, go ahead, but don’t pretend that it has anything to do with the discussion at hand.

LOL. You can't answer. You try to hide behind DH, but his answer has nothing to do with your "dismally low" charge. The point is not tangential, it is central to this thread: How you are mischaracterizing Obama's poll numbers. And you can't even admit maybe you were wrong, are wrong. Typical right wing dishonesty.

That's no wind blowing, that's JMI striking out.


Whatever you need to tell yourself. There is nothing to “answer.” You keep asking the same question and just don’t like the answers you’re given. I’m not “mischaracterizing Obama's poll numbers” as you claim. First you tried to compare Obama’s numbers to Bush’s and when it was shown that Obama’s first-year numbers have dropped to dismal numbers in comparison, now you want to compare Obama to another president. You just want to keep changing the bar and asking the same question. But why stop at a president who was elected 30 years ago? If you have something that says Obama’s poll numbers aren’t falling, please show it.


Quote:
handfleisch wrote:

Just a reminder, read it and weep:
BUSH FINAL APPROVAL RATING http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
Quote:
ABC/Washington Post
1/13-16/09
33 66 2

Which begs the question, who were these 33% who could possibly still have approved at the end of his disastrous time in office?


At this point in his presidency, Bush had a much higher approval rating than Obama has. In the last week of November of his first year, Bush had an 89% approval rating and only a 9% disapproval. Bush’s numbers never went as low as Obama’s has in his first year. It took years of the fringe left bashing Bush before they were able to turn public sentiment, but Obama has been able to drop to dismal numbers in record time it seems. From the same site you quoted:

Quote:

Date Approve Disapprove Unsure
11/27/01 89 9 1
11/5-6/01 89 9 2
10/8-9/01 92 6 1
9/25-27/01 90 6 4
9/13/01 86 12 2
9/6-9/01 55 41 3
7/26-30/01 59 38 3
5/31 - 6/3/01 55 40 6
4/19-22/01 63 32 5
3/22-25/01 58 33 8
2/21-25/01 55 23 22

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob1.htm


Compare that to Obama's horrible approval rating:

handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
DH gets it, and did a good job of explaining it to you. You are just trying to twist out-of-context words and phrases to kill yet another discussion with your nonsense. If you want to stay on this Reagan tangent, go ahead, but don’t pretend that it has anything to do with the discussion at hand.

LOL. You can't answer. You try to hide behind DH, but his answer has nothing to do with your "dismally low" charge. The point is not tangential, it is central to this thread: How you are mischaracterizing Obama's poll numbers. And you can't even admit maybe you were wrong, are wrong. Typical right wing dishonesty.

That's no wind blowing, that's JMI striking out.


Whatever you need to tell yourself. There is nothing to “answer.” You keep asking the same question and just don’t like the answers you’re given. I’m not “mischaracterizing Obama's poll numbers” as you claim. First you tried to compare Obama’s numbers to Bush’s and when it was shown that Obama’s first-year numbers have dropped to dismal numbers in comparison, now you want to compare Obama to another president. You just want to keep changing the bar and asking the same question.

As usual, you lie. I am simply responding to your statement, that Obama's poll numbers are "dismally low". You were probably not lying when you said that, you were just parroting nonsense that you thought sounded good. But now you're lying.

The Rasmussen polls are a lie, as in Twain's famous "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." They use only "strongly approve" so as to make it look low, they screen their respondents, they twist it any which way so that the results will fit their right wing agenda, and then they publish easy graphics to put on the front page of the discredited Drudge Report. It's a lie and you cannot even admit it. How about just saying "Um, yes, on further thought 'dismally low' was an overstatement'"? Can't you dredge up even that much integrity?
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
As usual, you lie. I am simply responding to your statement, that Obama's poll numbers are "dismally low". You were probably not lying when you said that, you were just parroting nonsense that you thought sounded good. But now you're lying.

If you say so. If you have some kind of proof that Obama’s poll numbers are actually going up, please share.


handfleisch wrote:
The Rasmussen polls are a lie, as in Twain's famous "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." They use only "strongly approve" so as to make it look low, they screen their respondents, they twist it any which way so that the results will fit their right wing agenda, and then they publish easy graphics to put on the front page of the discredited Drudge Report. It's a lie and you cannot even admit it. How about just saying "Um, yes, on further thought 'dismally low' was an overstatement'"? Can't you dredge up even that much integrity?

Take all the cheap shots you want. If you have any proof to support your opinion that “the polls are a lie,” again please share.

Today’s poll results. It looks like Obama’s favorables have gone up a bit.


ocalhoun
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
As usual, you lie. I am simply responding to your statement, that Obama's poll numbers are "dismally low". You were probably not lying when you said that, you were just parroting nonsense that you thought sounded good. But now you're lying.

If you say so. If you have some kind of proof that Obama’s poll numbers are actually going up, please share.

Give up the BS on that... Please. Upward or downward trends do not have any bearing on if the current rating (or one from the past) is 'dismally low'.

Obama's first year poll numbers are average. The unique thing is that no other president has lost so much popularity so quickly... Easily attributable to the high 'hope and change' expectations crashing when people realized that they elected a politician, not a savior.
jmi256
ocalhoun wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
As usual, you lie. I am simply responding to your statement, that Obama's poll numbers are "dismally low". You were probably not lying when you said that, you were just parroting nonsense that you thought sounded good. But now you're lying.

If you say so. If you have some kind of proof that Obama’s poll numbers are actually going up, please share.

Give up the BS on that... Please. Upward or downward trends do not have any bearing on if the current rating (or one from the past) is 'dismally low'.

Obama's first year poll numbers are average. The unique thing is that no other president has lost so much popularity so quickly... Easily attributable to the high 'hope and change' expectations crashing when people realized that they elected a politician, not a savior.


I think one of the problems with a term like "dismal" is that it is purely subjective. What I consider "dismal" may be just fine by someone else. While I would characterize Obama's current poll numbers, which are well below Bush's at this point of his presidency as "dismal", someone else may think they're great. So if the objection is based on that, I can concede that point.

Back on topic, it looks like after a temporary rise, Obama's approval numbers are back down. I have noticed that he has been in the media more lately, suggesting that the theory that his 'glow' is starting wear off and people are suffering from exposure fatigue.



For those who want another source:

Quote:
CNN poll: 52% say Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012

52 percent of Americans said President Barack Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012, according to a new poll.


44 percent of all Americans said they would vote to reelect the president in two and a half years, less than the slight majority who said they would prefer to elect someone else.

Source = http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/81213-52-say-obama-doesnt-deserve-reelection-
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
As usual, you lie. I am simply responding to your statement, that Obama's poll numbers are "dismally low". You were probably not lying when you said that, you were just parroting nonsense that you thought sounded good. But now you're lying.

If you say so. If you have some kind of proof that Obama’s poll numbers are actually going up, please share.

Give up the BS on that... Please. Upward or downward trends do not have any bearing on if the current rating (or one from the past) is 'dismally low'.

Obama's first year poll numbers are average. The unique thing is that no other president has lost so much popularity so quickly... Easily attributable to the high 'hope and change' expectations crashing when people realized that they elected a politician, not a savior.


I think one of the problems with a term like "dismal" is that it is purely subjective. What I consider "dismal" may be just fine by someone else. While I would characterize Obama's current poll numbers, which are well below Bush's at this point of his presidency as "dismal", someone else may think they're great. So if the objection is based on that, I can concede that point.


Meaning of words is subjective, so you can say words mean whatever they mean? File that in the "My Private Set of Facts" category.

But thanks for the latest report on Obama's Reaganesque Popularity. (This is purely objective, since his popularity average is the same or higher than Reagan's.)
Voodoocat
The problem with polls, is which one do you use? For example, compare the gallup first year presidential approval rating results (already posted) with that of cbsnews:



If you take both polls together, you clearly see that Obama has very low approval ratings for a first year president. Period. That's all.

It will be interesting to see what Obama's Rasmussen daily tracking poll shows next week. The poll took a bit of an upturn after his state of the union address, but has plummetted since then. Thursday, Obama had six hours of TV time. Personally, I think that the TV ploy will fail; his approval rating might take a brief uptick, but rapidly sink

Let's face it, the general population no longer supports Obama.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:


Meaning of words is subjective, so you can say words mean whatever they mean? File that in the "My Private Set of Facts" category.

?
I thought you already knew that...
Weren't you the one spending quite a lot of time painstakingly defining the term 'wingnut' to your own satisfaction?
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:


Meaning of words is subjective, so you can say words mean whatever they mean? File that in the "My Private Set of Facts" category.

?
I thought you already knew that...
Weren't you the one spending quite a lot of time painstakingly defining the term 'wingnut' to your own satisfaction?


yeah, right. And I thought you were starting to make decent points.

Wingnut is a new word, not in the dictionary. So this completely invalidates your point. Second I answered as to what I generally understood this word means. It's not simply a pejorative, any more than "flat earther" is pejorative for someone who believes the earth is flat. Though I suppose some flat-earther might take it as an insult, just as might wingnuts who believe things that qualify them for the term, beliefs like Saddam had WMDs, climate change is a hoax, the mainstream media is left wing, and the great recession is Obama's fault.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

Wingnut is a new word, not in the dictionary.


definitions of 'wingnut'
Try again. Wink
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

Wingnut is a new word, not in the dictionary.


definitions of 'wingnut'
Try again. :wink:


I think I need to define dictionary!
jmi256
Voodoocat wrote:
The problem with polls, is which one do you use? For example, compare the gallup first year presidential approval rating results (already posted) with that of cbsnews:



If you take both polls together, you clearly see that Obama has very low approval ratings for a first year president. Period. That's all.

It will be interesting to see what Obama's Rasmussen daily tracking poll shows next week. The poll took a bit of an upturn after his state of the union address, but has plummetted since then. Thursday, Obama had six hours of TV time. Personally, I think that the TV ploy will fail; his approval rating might take a brief uptick, but rapidly sink

Let's face it, the general population no longer supports Obama.


I tend to agree. I think the American public thought they were getting X but ended up with Y. Now that his policies and agenda have gotten more attention, they are reacting.

Today's poll:

deanhills
I marvel at that the people may strongly disapprove as the graph suggests, such as they have done with Bush, but the legislation that helped create anti-President sentiment, still get to be passed through Congress and Senate. There has to be a giant leap from disapproval to filtering through to Congress and Senate decisions. Are the people really participating in the decision-making process of Government? Or are they just observing the process in a TV chair?
handfleisch
I see Obama's popularity is still Reaganesque or better.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Are the people really participating in the decision-making process of Government? Or are they just observing the process in a TV chair?

The latter.
Those in power have made a mistake and backed themselves into a corner: They've convinced their core supporters that something must be done, but that thing is unpopular with the rest of the country. Now, they're forced to choose between disappointing their core supporters or enraging the rest of the country; not a good place to be in.
Voodoocat
Today Obama is down to -21 on Rasmussen!

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

It seems that the more speeches Obama gives, the worse his approval. His approval rating is so low that I almost feel sorry for him. Laughing
deanhills
Voodoocat wrote:
Today Obama is down to -21 on Rasmussen!

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

It seems that the more speeches Obama gives, the worse his approval. His approval rating is so low that I almost feel sorry for him. Laughing
Yet today in a news article in YahooNews! AP-GfK Poll: Obama more popular than Congress they gave Obama the thumbs up for being at 53%.
Quote:
The latest Associated Press-GfK poll found that fewer people approve of Congress than at any point in Obama's presidency. Support has dropped significantly since January to a dismal 22 percent as the health care debate has roiled Capitol Hill. Neither Republicans nor Democrats are safe; half of all people say they want to fire their congressman.

Conversely, Obama's job-performance standing is holding fairly steady at 53 percent. And over the past two months, the Democrat has gained ground on national security issues, specifically the subsiding Iraq war and the escalating Afghanistan war, as he has spent most of his time — at least publicly — on domestic matters like the economy and health care. On those issues, he still has the support of about half the people.
Looks as though the truth is relative to the eye of the beholder. Think I must say the Rasmussen poll makes more sense to me however.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Yet today in a news article in YahooNews! AP-GfK Poll: Obama more popular than Congress they gave Obama the thumbs up for being at 53%.


With the approval rating of congress at 18%, it isn't difficult to be more popular.
Heck, even Bush -- at the lowest point in his presidency -- had a better rating than that!
jmi256
I'm sure a lot of Obama's recent decline has to do with his handling of his healthcare bill debacle. I think if he turns around and starts listening to what the American people tell him, however, and starts over on healthcare to tackle the real issue, rising costs, with a bipartisan approach, he may be able to salvage what he can.



Quote:
Obama's Approval Rating Lowest Yet, Congress' Declines
President Barack Obama's job approval is the worst of his presidency to date, with 46% of Americans approving and 48% disapproving of the job he is doing as president in the latest Gallup Daily three-day average.


Obama's approval rating has hovered around 50% since November, but in the last two days has declined to the point that slightly more Americans now disapprove than approve of his performance in office.

Source = http://www.gallup.com/poll/126809/Obama-Approval-Rating-Lowest-Yet-Congress-Declines.aspx
deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
I'm sure a lot of Obama's recent decline has to do with his handling of his healthcare bill debacle. I think if he turns around and starts listening to what the American people tell him, however, and starts over on healthcare to tackle the real issue, rising costs, with a bipartisan approach, he may be able to salvage what he can.
I totally agree with this. If he can show real leadership of the country, rather than fighting on behalf of the Democrats, and send the Bill back for re-writing, letting people know in his usual campaign fashion that he is doing it for the people, he would probably score many votes with that. Right now he is trying to "win" at all costs. The criticism of him not letting go of the bone outweighs the losses he would have incurred in his own party for admitting that the Bill in its current form is not acceptable to a large portion of the people.
jmi256
A report from CBS News.


Quote:
Obama's Approval Rating Hits New Low

Last week, President Obama signed historic health care reform legislation into law -- but his legislative success doesn't seem to have helped his image with the American public.


The latest CBS News Poll, conducted between March 29 and April 1, found Americans unhappier than ever with Mr. Obama's handling of health care - and still worried about the state of the economy.

President Obama's overall job approval rating has fallen to an all-time low of 44 percent, down five points from late March, just before the health bill's passage in the House of Representatives. It's down 24 points since his all-time high last April. Forty-one percent of those polled said they disapproved of the president's performance.

More results from this CBS News Poll will be released in Friday's broadcast of the Evening News with Katie Couric, which airs at 6:30 p.m. Eastern.

When it comes to health care, the President's approval rating is even lower -- and is also a new all-time low. Only 34 percent approved, while 55 percent said they disapproved.

Americans are still worried about the economy, with 84 percent telling CBS they thought it was still in bad condition. However, even that high number represents an improvement: nine in ten thought the economy was bad during the last half of 2008 and at the beginning of 2009, when Mr. Obama assumed the Presidency.

Concern about job loss remains high; slightly more Americans now (35 percent) than in February (31 percent) were "very concerned" that someone in their household would lose a job. Nearly six in ten Americans said they were at least "somewhat concerned" about a job loss.

As has often been the case, lower-income Americans tend to be the most concerned about job loss.

This concern is reflected in yet another low approval rating -- this time for the President's handling of the economy. Just 42 percent said they approved of how President Obama is handling the economy, only one point above January's all-time low. Half of the public disapproves.

Source = http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001629-503544.html

Oddly enough, the Rasmussen polls show Obama’s numbers getting ‘better’ (at least supporters are more supportive), which I guess counters arguments that somehow the polls are “anti-Obama.”

[
ocalhoun
jmi256 wrote:


Oddly enough, the Rasmussen polls show Obama’s numbers getting ‘better’ (at least supporters are more supportive), which I guess counters arguments that somehow the polls are “anti-Obama.”

[

This probably reflects the passage of the health insurance bill.

While the supporters are no doubt happy to see it, it makes no change in the disapproval of the detractors.
jmi256
ocalhoun wrote:
jmi256 wrote:


Oddly enough, the Rasmussen polls show Obama’s numbers getting ‘better’ (at least supporters are more supportive), which I guess counters arguments that somehow the polls are “anti-Obama.”

[

This probably reflects the passage of the health insurance bill.

While the supporters are no doubt happy to see it, it makes no change in the disapproval of the detractors.


I agree. Those who opposed Obamacare on ideological grounds are obviously not going to be 'happier' with him for pushing it down their throats, while those who just wanted something, anything to pass would be happy to see him do it. It'll be interesting to see if the uptick in support is sustained as people learn of all the negative effects the bill will have on their lives.

Today's poll:
jmi256
It looks like Obama's 'bump' with his supporters is going to be short lived. Disapproval numbers are going up slightly, but his approval numbers are taking a nosedive. I think his supporters are finally learning what the healthcare bill means and are unhappy.



edit: fixed typo.
deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
I think his supporters are finally learning what the healthcare bill means are unhappy.
I have total admiration for any one person who can figure out what the 2000 page Bill says. I wonder how many people have actually read it, and then when reading it, whether they could make head or tail out of it.
jmi256
It looks like he's pretty much hovering in the negative double digits. At least his decline has slowed down, which should be good news for Obama.

jmi256
Still not in positive territory, even after all this time and effort. It appears the American people really aren't happy with the Obama and his policies.



Voodoocat
Obama's got a lot of problems on his plate now, problems that he can't blame on Bush: his economic policies are flat at best, the oil spill continues unabated (not that he can do much about it) and now it appears that he has been trying to influence Democratic primaries by offering sweet heart jobs to candidates that might oust his favorites.

Is this change we can believe in?
jmi256
Voodoocat wrote:
Obama's got a lot of problems on his plate now, problems that he can't blame on Bush: his economic policies are flat at best, the oil spill continues unabated (not that he can do much about it) and now it appears that he has been trying to influence Democratic primaries by offering sweet heart jobs to candidates that might oust his favorites.

Is this change we can believe in?

It won’t stop him and the DU crowd from trying to blame Bush. The right and center are unhappy with him because they have fully realized what he and his failed policies represent, but he is also taking a lot of flak from the left lately as they realize that even as a leftist president he sucks. At least Carter should be happy that he’s no longer considered the worst president ever.

But if I was him, I’d be more worried about losing the support of his base right now. He needs to keep them happy for now to build momentum in the next two years. As the 2012 elections approach he’ll most likely try to shift toward the middle, but I think he’ll have problems there due to his trustworthiness issues. I’ve seen his numbers lower than they are now, but the trend he is in with the left would worry me if I was him.
jmi256
More bad news for Obama as his popularity among his own base continues to dwindle.

deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
More bad news for Obama as his popularity among his own base continues to dwindle.

Do you think this is why he has embarked on his aggresive "Gulf Oil" speeches? Wow! They are really polished. Almost as though he has seized the moment for a major campaign along the lines of his Presidential campaign? Do you think those speeches will make a different to his ratings?
Alaskacameradude
deanhills wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
More bad news for Obama as his popularity among his own base continues to dwindle.

Do you think this is why he has embarked on his aggresive "Gulf Oil" speeches? Wow! They are really polished. Almost as though he has seized the moment for a major campaign along the lines of his Presidential campaign? Do you think those speeches will make a different to his ratings?


Hahaha, you noticed that did you? I don't know for sure, but I will say this much, BP is even
MORE unpopular than Obama so who better for him to go after to try and win approval from the
voters? As a political move, it's probably pretty smart.
Bikerman
Alaskacameradude wrote:
deanhills wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
More bad news for Obama as his popularity among his own base continues to dwindle.

Do you think this is why he has embarked on his aggresive "Gulf Oil" speeches? Wow! They are really polished. Almost as though he has seized the moment for a major campaign along the lines of his Presidential campaign? Do you think those speeches will make a different to his ratings?


Hahaha, you noticed that did you? I don't know for sure, but I will say this much, BP is even
MORE unpopular than Obama so who better for him to go after to try and win approval from the
voters? As a political move, it's probably pretty smart.

I think not. As a political move it is desperate, not smart. Why piss-off the Brits so badly when they are pretty staunch allies? Over here this is playing very badly. BP is not even particularly 'British' anymore - despite the name - and Obama's quite deliberate emphasis of the 'British' in BP has not gone un-noticed.
The simple fact is that the US bears some of the blame and has as much (probably more) to loose if BP go down as we do in the UK.
I'll bet that your pension fund is probably just as heavily invested in BP as mine is..
Alaskacameradude
Quote:
I think not. As a political move it is desperate, not smart. Why piss-off the Brits so badly when they are pretty staunch allies? Over here this is playing very badly. BP is not even particularly 'British' anymore - despite the name - and Obama's quite deliberate emphasis of the 'British' in BP has not gone un-noticed.
The simple fact is that the US bears some of the blame and has as much (probably more) to loose if BP go down as we do in the UK.
I'll bet that your pension fund is probably just as heavily invested in BP as mine is..


Ah ha, but you see, I am talking about how it plays politically in the US, which after all is where
the people who can re elect Obama reside. Here, it seems to be playing well, I just heard a poll
yesterday on the radio talking about how people in the US liked it when Obama called for
"BP's as*". Shifting the attention (and blame) somewhere else when you are in trouble is a
well known and much used tactic in politics. And over here, BP seems to be kind of despised...
you know, the 'rich, evil corporation' which is trying to 'rape and pillage the environment
at the cost of the people' and 'hoard it's ill gotten wealth'. Stuff like that. Smile

But I am not saying I actually AGREE with it. I pretty much would agree very strongly with what
you said on a personal level.....and if I HAD a pension fund (hahaha.....not likely) I could only
WISH that I had invested in BP. I too think the US has just as much blame to bear, but of course
Obama would like to shift the blame. My personal opinion is to screw who's fault it is anyways,
and just FIX THE PROBLEM. However, I can admit when I think someone is making a smart political
move, even when I disagree with it personally, and I think that because of BP's unpopularity over
here, this is a smart political move by Obama.
Bikerman
Hmm...I know what you are saying but I'm not convinced that the electorate are actually that dumb. Sure, some politicians never seem to get into grief - they manage to shuffle-off the blame to others. We normally call them Teflon men/women - the dirt doesn't stick. The reputation does, however, and I think that is just as damaging over time, if not more so.
Look at Clinton - his reputation as 'slick willy' was seen by many as a positive - Teflon man. In the end, though, I get the feeling that he was a beaten man because nobody would believe him, even when what he wanted to say was both important and heartfelt.
I guess if you measure success over 1 or 2 terms (and, to be fair, that is probably the natural time-span for a politician to use) then yes, 'delegating blame' will work...
Alaskacameradude
Bikerman wrote:
Hmm...I know what you are saying but I'm not convinced that the electorate are actually that dumb. Sure, some politicians never seem to get into grief - they manage to shuffle-off the blame to others. We normally call them Teflon men/women - the dirt doesn't stick. The reputation does, however, and I think that is just as damaging over time, if not more so.
Look at Clinton - his reputation as 'slick willy' was seen by many as a positive - Teflon man. In the end, though, I get the feeling that he was a beaten man because nobody would believe him, even when what he wanted to say was both important and heartfelt.
I guess if you measure success over 1 or 2 terms (and, to be fair, that is probably the natural time-span for a politician to use) then yes, 'delegating blame' will work...


Never underestimate the stupidity of the american electorate. We've been electing people who
promise to fix our national debt, cut taxes, and expand government services FOREVER. Logically,
how in the freakin world can that EVER happen? Lets see, we take in less money by cutting taxes,
spend MORE by expanding government services, yet we are NOT going to borrow money? Hmmmm...
ya that should work great. Yet the voters in this country keep falling for this because, hey,
everyone wants a 'free lunch'. I can only hope that we get smart one of these days.
deanhills
Alaskacameradude wrote:
Never underestimate the stupidity of the american electorate.
Is this a case of "stupidity" or just a very archaic election system however? Some kind of revolution is necessary to get rid of all the excesses everywhere, maybe start the constitution from scratch, change the system to make it lean and mean? Maybe it is a stupid political system that may be responsible for stupidity of the american electorate? At the centre of it being who gets to control the media and make the best presentation, and basically only have two people to choose between out of a total of approx 350-million to be the President? During the last Presidential election were the two candidates really the best on offer in the US? Surely there were people much higher qualified for the position than they were at the time, but just not willing to participate in the political system?
Bikerman
Alaskacameradude wrote:
Never underestimate the stupidity of the american electorate. We've been electing people whopromise to fix our national debt, cut taxes, and expand government services FOREVER. Logically, how in the freakin world can that EVER happen? Lets see, we take in less money by cutting taxes, spend MORE by expanding government services, yet we are NOT going to borrow money? Hmmmm...ya that should work great. Yet the voters in this country keep falling for this because, hey, everyone wants a 'free lunch'. I can only hope that we get smart one of these days.

Well - keep an eye on the UK and you'll see what the English voter reaction, to the sort of cuts you mean, is going to be - interesting times...
Alaskacameradude
deanhills wrote:
Alaskacameradude wrote:
Never underestimate the stupidity of the american electorate.
Is this a case of "stupidity" or just a very archaic election system however? Some kind of revolution is necessary to get rid of all the excesses everywhere, maybe start the constitution from scratch, change the system to make it lean and mean? Maybe it is a stupid political system that may be responsible for stupidity of the american electorate? At the centre of it being who gets to control the media and make the best presentation, and basically only have two people to choose between out of a total of approx 350-million to be the President? During the last Presidential election were the two candidates really the best on offer in the US? Surely there were people much higher qualified for the position than they were at the time, but just not willing to participate in the political system?


Yup the election system is pretty messed up......I agree there. And the two party system is a
crock.....and part of the reason there is such a big divide in this country today. Because lets say
you agree with Republicans on 50% of the issues, Democrats on 25% and neither one 25%.
Now do you vote for a Republican because their candidate is 'closest' to you? Yet you disagree
with them 50% of the time! And of course, it's to both parties benefit to keep the system in place,
because it ensures them a pool of voters who think they are the 'lesser of two evils'.
Alaskacameradude
Bikerman wrote:
Alaskacameradude wrote:
Never underestimate the stupidity of the american electorate. We've been electing people whopromise to fix our national debt, cut taxes, and expand government services FOREVER. Logically, how in the freakin world can that EVER happen? Lets see, we take in less money by cutting taxes, spend MORE by expanding government services, yet we are NOT going to borrow money? Hmmmm...ya that should work great. Yet the voters in this country keep falling for this because, hey, everyone wants a 'free lunch'. I can only hope that we get smart one of these days.

Well - keep an eye on the UK and you'll see what the English voter reaction to the sort of cuts you mean is going to be - interesting times...


As someone who lives in the UK, what do you think the voter reaction will be over there?
Bikerman
Alaskacameradude wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Alaskacameradude wrote:
Never underestimate the stupidity of the american electorate. We've been electing people whopromise to fix our national debt, cut taxes, and expand government services FOREVER. Logically, how in the freakin world can that EVER happen? Lets see, we take in less money by cutting taxes, spend MORE by expanding government services, yet we are NOT going to borrow money? Hmmmm...ya that should work great. Yet the voters in this country keep falling for this because, hey, everyone wants a 'free lunch'. I can only hope that we get smart one of these days.

Well - keep an eye on the UK and you'll see what the English voter reaction to the sort of cuts you mean is going to be - interesting times...


As someone who lives in the UK, what do you think the voter reaction will be over there?

A mixture. Most people know that hard times are both coming, and probably necessary. There is talk of the 'Dunkirk Spirit' (which always happens when things get bad).
The major problems will come if the cuts are perceived as unfair. Of course everyone is most interested in what THEY will loose, but they are also aware of the general picture and there is a common human sense of 'fairness' which is very strong - no matter where you look.
At the moment the Tory party are playing it with a reasonably straight bat - largely because the Liberal-SDP partners blunt the most unfair of their normal targetting by insisting on getting a few of their own measures in.
There won't be riots - the last time Government prompted that was over the Poll tax - a classic illustration of the 'fairness' principle in action - people were outraged that a duke should pay the same as a pensioner and once that image spread, the poll tax was doomed.
If the Tories can clobber the rich as they cut public spending and increase VAT (both things which have a disproportionate effect on the poor) then they will probably retain a large measure of tolerance, if not support...
jmi256
It looks like Obama’s numbers are getting a little better. I guess his “AssQuest 2010” was success!


ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:

Look at Clinton - his reputation as 'slick willy' was seen by many as a positive - Teflon man. In the end, though, I get the feeling that he was a beaten man because nobody would believe him, even when what he wanted to say was both important and heartfelt.


Well, distrust like that can happen when you blatantly get caught in a lie...
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Bikerman wrote:

Look at Clinton - his reputation as 'slick willy' was seen by many as a positive - Teflon man. In the end, though, I get the feeling that he was a beaten man because nobody would believe him, even when what he wanted to say was both important and heartfelt.


Well, distrust like that can happen when you blatantly get caught in a lie...
This puzzles me however. Obama's ratings are lower than Cinton's were during the same time. Clinto never really had consistently rock bottom ratings except for a few days. He must have done well with a few things, or was he just lucky that he did not have to wage a war or inherit a really bad recession?

This is a nice tool from gallup.com for rating President Obama's performance against previous US Presidents:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx
Bikerman
The point that emerges (as ever) is virtuousity does not necessarily bring popularity. This is, of course, one of the several weaknesses of any democratic system with highly centralised power structures. You can never guarantee that the people in charge are actually any good at it.
We get around it by having a civil service that put a firm brake on anything radical - good or bad. Because the politicians are just temporary and our civil service is a job for life, then the civil servants can pretty much control the worst excesses.
In the US you do it differently. Your President brings most of his 'people' in with him. You try to do it with structural design - you have a political system engineered to perform the same function as our civil service....
jmi256
It looks like he's back to his downward trend. The continued mismanagement of the Gulf Spill response and lack of any real progress almost two and a half months after the initial accident can't be helping Obama.


jmi256
It seems that Obama’s negatives are going up while at the same time his positives are dropping again. Not good news for Obama, but hopefully he’ll take the trend to heart and start actually listening to and serving the American people rather than pursuing his own pet projects and agenda.

Related topics
Mushraff - Scheduled to step down !!!
Is Barack Obama "The One"?
Obama: rumors of anti-patriotism?
barack obama, friend or foe?
McCain choses Sarah Palin as running mate.
Barack Obama vs John McCain
Let the gutter politics begin
1988: Obama helped stranded traveler in Miami
Markets Responding to Possible Obama Win?
Sexism in the US Presidential Election
Obama Confirms He Will Close Guantanamo
Obama and Dems Hindering Recovery
Could Democrats loose Obama's former Senate seat?
Personal Income Lower Under Obama
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.