Gallup: Obama Approval Hits New Lows

Well, I have trouble hearing in movie theaters (e.g., the audience laffs at a line, but I don 't know Y and I feel bad),
but I have no trouble hearing from my HDTVs at home, or on the fone.

Qua eyesight: I am a fairly decent shot, with the naked eye at gunnery ranges.
I get good shot placement, in tight groups in the bulls' eye, with handguns (both revolvers & pistols) at 7 yards.
The Police have complimented me on my accuracy and on the beauty of my ordnance. ( Please forgive me for boasting. )
Some time ago, while I was blasting away in a gunnery range, a Boy Scout Troop of about 2O boys of around 12 years old
entered in uniform, with their Scout Master. I had 5 revolvers and 2 pistols that I showed them, as I was leaving.
I delivered a short lecture on the reasons that revolvers shoud be exalted above pistols, for personal defense.
( I forgot to mention fonetic spelling.)
I gave their Scout Master (dad of one of the boys) $3OO.OO for ammunition, ice cream n movies, etc.
He took my card and in the mail, I received a nice, huge Thank U card signed by them all. That was fun.






I 've done that: I 'm on Flomax. It works very well.
Its nice of u to take an interest.





David

Doesn't look like good shot placement had much of a positive effect on interpreting TV graphics correctly, or on spouting off repeatedly after misinterpreting them.

That is false.
What I saw was accurate; I stand by it.





David

You apparently took the part for the whole, David. From the evidence others have presented above, that was not his approval rating, which involves a rating of overall performance, but rather just his rating on the economy. To maintain that was the ranking of his entire performance, or even to imply it, as you now seem to say you're doing, is just false. You seem to havemissed the point that it was only a specific part of his whole favorability. I repeat, find the poll that gives his favorability rating as 26%, no qualifications or limitations. You won't. You;re wrong on this one.

It was; it is, unless it changed.



I did NOT use those words,
nor do I blythly accept your arbitrary interpositions of definition,
as if U were the boss in charge of doing that.



I said nothing about "entire performance"; those r YOUR words.




I stand by what I have stated.





David

Fine, David. Obama's approval rating is actually 53%, according to the same poll you cited (Gallup, by the way, not Gallop), and I can and will cite evidence for it, which you seemingly can't.

So what causes this contradiction? There isn't one--it's just David's peculiar choice of a role model: Humpty Dumpty in "through the Looking Glass" who says that words mean just what he chooses them to mean, neither more nor less. It doesn't work that way. Gallup gives six or seven (I didn't count) different ratings for SPECIFIC AREAS, and an OVERALL approval rating. They range from 26% to 53%. 26% is the approval rating SPECIFICALLY for handling of the economy. 53% is specifically for the handling of terrorism. If you feel you can choose one specific area as his approval rating, then I am fully justified in choosing another. So his approval rating is unquestionably 53%

Obama's OVERALL approval rating, wich is what everybody in the world, as far as I can tell, except for David, cite when they're talking about approval, is 41% (No David, I'm not making an arbitrary definitiion here. THAT's THE WAY THE LANGUAGE COMMONLY USES IT, except for you and your quixotic quest to reform language and impede communication)..

As I've told you, David, you're talking about a part as if it were the whole, and that's completely invalid logically.

The survey, incidentally, is here:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/08/obama-approval-on-economy-plummets-to-26-percent-in-gallup-poll-a-new-low.html

You will notice thay are more honest than David is--they specifically say "approval on economy" in their header, no implication of overall approval.

I stand by what I already said,
and, in large part, I adopt the substance of your last post, Jack,
other than your relatively mild ad hominem invective.





David

As long as nobama's overall approval rating is 40%
in the general election, I 'll be satisfied. That 's good.





David

Obama - One term... that's all.

I think that his political future is in the past.

Now the thing is, you guys seem to think this is a zero sum game, that if Obama goes down, it must mean your side is going up. But it's not a zero sum game at all.Obama's approval has gone down a bit, and your side has gone down a LOT, because if you actually look at the numbers, people are pissed at ALL politicians, so everyone's going down and no one's getting better numbers. If you look at the approval ratings, Republicans and Republican candidates are aapproved of far less and blamed far more than Obama, and Tea Partiers have fallen the farthest and fastest of all, from their already marginal approval.

Which means that, since speaking realistically there are likely to be only two options, Dem or Rep in 2012, Obama has a large advantage on you going in, since even if his approval has sunk, yours has really tanked, and he's looking better in comparison. His lower numbers aren't helping you, your numbers are sinking more, and there's no transference to your side.

I did not see this,
but I heard on the TV news that since 1945,
no president has been re-elected with unemployment over 7%
(or 7.5%??-- not sure); its now around 9%,
according to the news story.

In the back of my mind,
I 'm wondering Y Izzy expressed an interest
in my prostate gland in his Post: # 4,705,174.

( That does not happen ofen. )





David

I don't have a particular interest in your prostate gland. I was just saying that a man of advancing years, such as yourself, with hearing and sight problems, should get his prostate checked out as a matter of routine.

That's interesting David since in Aug of 1983 unemployment was at 9.5%.

Was Reagan not reelected in 1984?

edit -
Last numbers are July 2010 - 9.1%
July of 1984 was at 10.1%

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

No president has been re-elected with unemployment over 7%?


One term Presidents -
Johnson - decided not to run
Ford - not elected once but unemployment of 7.6% in Oct of 1976, 7.7% in Nov
Carter - 7.5% in Oct of 1980, 7.5% in Nov of 1980
GHWBush - 7.6% in Oct of 1992 7.4% in Nov of 1992


Comparison to Reagan
Oct of 1984 - 7.3% Nov - 7.4%



Talk about a meaningless stat. Only ONE elected President up for reelection had a Nov unemployment rate of 7.5 and he wasn't reelected.

That should be July of 1983 was 10.1%, not 1984.

Unemployment was worse for Reagan at this time in his first term than it currently is for Obama.

WHAT "sight problems" r these, Izzy??

Did u read my Post: # 4,705,326 (hereinabove set forth)
qua my tight groups??




Thank u; I did that before I got my Flomax Rx.





David

I haven't checked out your post, as you've not provided a link. I'm still relatively new to A2K, and can't track it down with just a reference like that. I'm pleased to know you're enjoying colonic good heath. Regular bowel movements may enable you to experience rare moments of lucidity.

Careful! Your beginning to sound like a conserative.