Obama '08?

You're done arguing because I didn't mention Democrats. I don't expect you to have the intellectual honesty to admit that you have misinterpreted both my intent and what I said.

Let's see. Disciples has nine letters and starts with the letter "D".

Democrats has nine letters and starts with the letter "D".

Yeah, I can see how those two things are exactly one and the same.

Why the game? We all know what you meant.

Cycloptichorn

Let's see; Robiticism starts with an "r" and has ten letters.

Well you can keep right on posting that graph, but it doesn't change the fact that it was copied from a Pew Research discussion on the polarization of Presidents and it was posted by me within that concept. A fact that you have yet to acknowledge. Or that you have been able to refute for that matter.

Apparently 'you all' don't have a clue what I meant since not one of you seems to be able to acknowledge or admit to even what has been said, much less intended. Of coure we know that the kool-ade you all drank must impart some kind of clarvoyant ability to read people's mind and magically change words into whatever you want them to be rather than what they are.

But those of us who chose not to drink that kool-ade label such tactics for what they actually are: intellectual dishonesty.

Believe me, if my intention was to emphasize Democrats, I would have had no reluctance whatsoever to using that word.

I acknowledge that the information showing 88% approval ratings among Democrats and 57% job approval ratings among Independents was posted within the context of a post illustrating that Obama is the most polarizing President for decades.

It looks like, from the numbers, that Obama is just as polarizing as Bush was.

And I don't know....I think there is something to be said about the R and D spread for Obama (which is the highest of the president's listed).

Whodathunkit?

More so according to the Pew Research analysis which OE has apparently refused to read and/or consider in the context in which it was offered.

No argument there. In fact, if you look at the partisan gap, he's arguably more polarizing than Bush.

On the other hand, Obama's job approval ratings among Democrats and Independents are almost exactly identical to the respective job approval ratings among Republicans and Independents for Bush.

The only factor that single-handedly accounts for the larger partisan gap is the higher criticism from members of the opposition party. From that, it seems you could argue Republican are more partisan than Democrats.

Bush wasn't all that polarizing in his first few months, if you remember.


What's to be said, though? From what I can see, the Republicans like Obama only slightly more than they liked Clinton. The only difference is that Democrats and Independents didn't like Clinton as much as they like Obama. So the gap comes from the fact that "everybody else" more or less approves of Obama.

What is more interesting about those polls of presidents during their first 100-days is that Carter who was rated the highest ended up close to the bottom after all contemporary presidents were rated. Those polls do not portend to tell us anything of historical value.

The decline in President Obama's favorability ratings that has occurred since the election is more or less typical of what follows that of every new president. In Obama's case the "glow" of his novelty and charisma very likely added to the initial positive ratings and will also very likely add to the subsequent potential for a down side.

However, no matter how one tortures the numbers, it is too early in my opinion to make any comparative conclusions. I believe that opportunity will come when the current administration begins to tackle either the energy independence/global warming issue or the public health care issue -- whichever they choose to address first. These debates will surface the cost/benefit & side effect tradeoffs involved, and each has great potential to resonate with current concerns about accumulating public debt and the likely long-term consequences. There is also the additional effect of the increasing demands from local governments (state, county & city) for higher tax rates and the growing perception among the public that when the stimulus grants to states run out in 18 months, these monies will likely be replaced - either through more Federal borrowing & grrants or much higher local taxes.

When these issues are on the table and the tradeoffs suitably defined (and obscured by the contending parties), we will be able to see just how effectively Obaba deals with it and just what the public reaction is likely to be.

This will also tend to bring the rather lofty rhetoric with which Obama has, so far successfully, defended his programs down to earth where people can make concrete judgements.

well, I'm thinking Obama will crash when Pakistan collapses making Somalia look like a well regulated functioning nation. (Probably within one year) I'm thinking pirates with nukes and Afghanistan on the side.

You may well be right. It is sadly ironic to observe how similar are the rationalizations being offered by the Obama Administration for the "good war" in Afghanistan to those of the previous Bush Administration for the "bad war" in Iraq..... in case you had any doubt about the ability of human beings to observe the lessons of history and then forget them when it counts.

No foxfrye, OE didn't misinterpret anything, I have it copied, might be a little weird the way I am going to show it, but..

Foxfrye wrote: 3630770)
In fairness to Obama he does enjoy a high approval rating among his disciples, but he has extremely high unfavorables among everybody else--far more than other Presidents at this point in a new administation.

Old Europe wrote: Post 3630787)
Didn't you recently post a poll comparing presidents that showed that both Democrats and independents rated Obama one percentage point higher than Bush at this point in a new administration? Didn't the poll you posted show that only Republicans rated Obama far worse than Democrats had rated Bush?

Foxfyre wrote: Post 3630802)
I dunno. It's possible depending on what poll I posted. Perhaps you would care to look for it and post it again? If it is the last poll I recall posting though, it was to illustrate that President Obama has been the most polarizing President with the widest margin of extremes at least since polls have been conducted

Old Europe Wrote: Post 3630803)



Either you are being once again disingenuous or you can’t honestly see how your statement is wrong when it clearly is. In order for Obama to be polarizing his numbers would have to low with independents as well as republicans, because you said, “everybody else” that would include independents as well as republicans. His numbers in the independent section are not any lower than everybody else’s number as you can see from the graph you posted not long ago so he is not polarizing. Moreover his numbers are higher among his “disciples” but is not any higher than other presidents in their own party’s numbers. (Don’t know quite how to word that, but I think others will get what I am saying. Don’t expect you to.)

Give him another month and lets see the polls then. apples to apples and such.

Well , gee George do you think it might because Iraq had nothing to do Al Qaeda and 9/11 and Afghanistan did because the Taliban were harboring Bin Laden in Afghanistan?