Obama '08?

@okie,

Haven't you been told frequently and pointedly and unabashedly that you and the truth have yet to be introduced to each other?

0 Replies

New CBS poll...Americans no longer say the president shares their priorities for the country

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim//2010/05/25/image6517904_1.gif

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Uh, I think Rasmussen has outperformed Gallup in election results, and besides, Obama is not setting the world on fire with Gallups's current approval ratings. You of course favor Gallup because he is skewed toward the Democatic desire for Obama to look better than he may actually be.

There is no evidence at all that Gallup is 'skewed' towards Dem positions; or perhaps you can point that evidence out? The fact that they show higher ratings than THE most partisan pollster out there - a fact which has already been established in earlier posts - does not prove this, though you may wish it to.

Gallup has been doing this a lot longer then Ras - something like 6 times as long. I don't see any meaningful reason why Gallup shouldn't be trusted.

Besides - Do I have to remind you that Bush had an approval rating of somewhere between 20 and 30 percent for the last several years of his term? Complaining that Obama is at any level above that, and that shows a problem for him, is highly laughable, Okie.

And this is a guy (Bush) who you highly approved of, Okie. I maintain that you are not the best authority on who Americans approve of, based on your poor track record in the past.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Irishk,

And I see just today that Rasmussen (one of the liberals favorite whipping boys, but one of the best pollsters) records the lowest point ever for Obama in the strongly approve vs strongly disapprove index. And rjb, if you want to revisit the question about why this is happening, I think Irishk's above post sums it up best with the CBS poll that says Americans no longer believe Obama shares their priorities. My opinion, I don't think he ever did, but people are more and more realizing that as the reality about Obama. There are many examples but one in the news today is that Obama is poised to try to defeat an Arizona law that simply attempts to enforce existing laws of the land.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 23% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-five percent (45%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -22. That’s the lowest Approval Index rating yet measured for this president"

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_index_graphics/may_2010/obama_approval_index_may_26_2010/316339-1-eng-US/obama_approval_index_may_26_2010.jpg

1 Reply

@okie,

I do like how Ras never used his bullshit 'strong vs. strong' ratings with Bush, or the guy would have hovered between -20 and -40 constantly. Do you think it is a coincidence that he came up with this metric just in time for a Dem president to be installed?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

The sampling method that CBS used for its most recent poll is as follows:

Total Respondents: 1054
Unweighted Weighted
Total Republicans 308 272
Total Democrats 327 324
Total Independents 419 458

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_052510.pdf

1 Reply

@Irishk,

Irishk wrote:

The sampling method that CBS used for its most recent poll is as follows:

Total Respondents: 1054
Unweighted Weighted
Total Republicans 308 272
Total Democrats 327 324
Total Independents 419 458

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_052510.pdf

Interesting that they weighted the Independents up so heavily. But, I would like to see a sample size larger then 1k, that's pretty much the absolute smallest that is acceptable for stuff like this.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I do like how Ras never used his bullshit 'strong vs. strong' ratings with Bush, or the guy would have hovered between -20 and -40 constantly. Do you think it is a coincidence that he came up with this metric just in time for a Dem president to be installed?

Cycloptichorn

The polling numbers were not surprising for Bush, given the daily spinning and demonizing of the man. From the time he was elected, the press and the Democrats began their building of the case that the man lied us into war, which in my opinion was one of the biggest cases of outright bogus lying about various events and about the man and political backstabbing in the history of the country. The situation about Obama now is totally different in that the mainstream press has fawned over the man from the time he entered politics. It has been up to the alternate media and conservatives to report the truth about him, so when his approval numbers suffer, it is my opinion that he truly deserves it, because if the mainstream press would do to Obama what they did to Bush, Obama's approval would be less than 10% by now, and in fact he would never have been elected. In truth, the man had no qualifications to even run for president in the first place, and it was the mainstream press that got together and trumped up the man enough to get him into office.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

Very Interesting.

POM is wrong. The chart shows that the Eisenhower, Reagan and Clinton presidencies showed approaval/popularity trajectories that endured the normal reversals due to actual successes and failures in office - unlike all the others (I'm excluding the abberviated Kennedy/Ford terms). THAT is the interesting feature of this sampling of history.

For the others, from Johnson through Nixon, Carter, Bush and now Obama, familiarity has indeed bred contempt.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

The polling numbers were not surprising for Bush, given the daily spinning and demonizing of the man.

Oh, please. More so then your and the right-wings daily attacks on Obama? I think not.

Quote:

From the time he was elected, the press and the Democrats began their building of the case that the man lied us into war, which in my opinion was one of the biggest cases of outright bogus lying about various events and about the man and political backstabbing in the history of the country.

This is just plain untrue, for three reasons:

1, Bush enjoyed moderate approval ratings and was basically ignored by the press before 9/11.

2, We didn't go to war until a year after he was elected. So it's difficult to see how your account makes sense.

3, we know that the admin did in fact lie us into war in Iraq. This is a fact, not an opinion; they were duplicitous with both Congress and the Nation as a whole.

Quote:

The situation about Obama now is totally different in that the mainstream press has fawned over the man from the time he entered politics.

this is clearly untrue.

Quote:

It has been up to the alternate media and conservatives to report the truth about him, so when his approval numbers suffer, it is my opinion that he truly deserves it, because if the mainstream press would do to Obama what they did to Bush, Obama's approval would be less than 10% by now, and in fact he would never have been elected. In truth, the man had no qualifications to even run for president in the first place, and it was the mainstream press that got together and trumped up the man enough to get him into office.

Yeah, nothing worth even responding to here. I would note that the guy who you claimed had 'no qualifications' to run for Prez cleaned the clock of one of your senior party leaders. How the hell did that happen?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

To be fair, Reagan got a hell of a boost out of surviving a bullet. Not exactly a policy position.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Interesting that they weighted the Independents up so heavily. But, I would like to see a sample size larger then 1k, that's pretty much the absolute smallest that is acceptable for stuff like this.

On the number of Independents, I wondered about that, too, although I doubt it makes much of a difference. I think the 1K sample size is pretty normal. Gallup says that's their typical size number for most polls and that larger groups don't necessarily result in more accuracy.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I don't think you are being fair at all. In the first place the time correlation isn'y very good and in the second how do you explain his rising numbers at the end of his 2nd term with all of the inevitable debris that accompanies an 8 year presidency -- same goes for Eisenhower and Clinton.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Okay, I'll accept that analysis. Here's a better graph anyway.

http://www.speculativebubble.com/images/ronald-reagan-approval.gif

I would note that Reagan's approval ratings during this point in his first term were no higher then Obama's are right now.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I agree with that. It's too early to make any judgements about public reaction to Obama's long term performance.

His early priorities do seem oddly out of phase with the major external events of the world today. He spent a year touting the European model of sociasl welfare and working to reshape this country more in its mold .... Just as the European social welfare model itself is proving itself to be unsustainable due to the growing deficits it brings and its adverse effects on economic growth and, ultimately tax revenues.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I agree with that. It's too early to make any judgements about public reaction to Obama's long term performance.

His early priorities do seem oddly out of phase with the major external events of the world today. He spent a year touting the European model of sociasl welfare and working to reshape this country more in its mold .... Just as the European social welfare model itself is proving itself to be unsustainable due to the growing deficits it brings and its adverse effects on economic growth and, ultimately tax revenues.

I think you exaggerate when you accuse Obama of spending a whole year touting the European model. You may disagree with his economic policies, but it's a little bit of a stretch to say that he's trying to make us into Europe.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Excellent!

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I think you exaggerate when you accuse Obama of spending a whole year touting the European model. You may disagree with his economic policies, but it's a little bit of a stretch to say that he's trying to make us into Europe.

Cycloptichorn

Perhaps you haven't been listening to him, or observing the appointments he has made and the administrative actions his government has taken. Persistent support of the public sector unions and extraordinary actions to spread the rerach of the SEIU through state governments, particularly in medical programs; the health care legislation; the $100 billion bailouts for state brueaucracies (necessary to pay off these same unions); etc. These are not the only things he has done but together they have been the central focus of his activity. Moreover their economic effects are already making us look more European.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

I think the fact that you are very reflexively anti-European, and have a tendency to go on about this at length (to the point where it is rather predictable), has a lot more to do with your insistence that this is what Obama is trying to do, then the reality of his administration.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

3, we know that the admin did in fact lie us into war in Iraq. This is a fact, not an opinion; they were duplicitous with both Congress and the Nation as a whole.

This is again an opinion, not a fact. As I said, I believe it was one of the biggest spin jobs and case of political backstabbing I have ever witnessed in the last few decades of politics. Again, my opinion, but the spin job that Bush lied us into war is also an opinion, thats all, nothing more. The head of the CIA in fact told the president that WMD was a slam dunk. This has been debated so intensely from every angle right here on several threads that it does no good to go through it again, but I believe Bush is an honest man, and speaking of honesty, that is an attribute that Obama has yet to prove that he has any. I think it comes down to character, and I believe Bush had it, but Obama does not.

The Left so intensely hates character that it will do anything to attack those that seem to have it. Have you heard about the creep that moved nextdoor to Sarah Palin in Alaska so that he could snoop and try to dig up anything from taking photos or overhearing conversations to write a hit book on her and her family? The Left hates Sarah because of the character that she has.

3 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know