|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2020, 07:59:26 pm
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 60 61 62 63 64 [65] 66 67 68 69 70 ... 410 Print
Author Topic: The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread  (Read 1030498 times)
Vepres
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,033
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1600 on: July 24, 2009, 10:56:06 pm »

You are talking about 15-16 year olds? They are very democratic.

Somewhat true, but a lot of teens are only democrat because Obama was running. Most teens don't know what the difference between a Republican and  a Democrat. I think the GOP needs to show teens the principles of the party.

Here's how most teens figure politics:
George Bush = Bad = Republican
Obama = God = Democrat

So most teens think since they like Obama then they are a democrat. When they mature, they will figure it out and become more conservative.

Very true. These teens will only know a country controlled by Democrats, so any mistakes will make the Democrats look bad in their eyes.
Logged
War on Want
Evilmexicandictator
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,647
Uzbekistan


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -8.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1601 on: July 24, 2009, 11:07:24 pm »

You are talking about 15-16 year olds? They are very democratic.

Somewhat true, but a lot of teens are only democrat because Obama was running. Most teens don't know what the difference between a Republican and  a Democrat. I think the GOP needs to show teens the principles of the party.

Here's how most teens figure politics:
George Bush = Bad = Republican
Obama = God = Democrat

So most teens think since they like Obama then they are a democrat. When they mature, they will figure it out and become more conservative.

Very true. These teens will only know a country controlled by Democrats, so any mistakes will make the Democrats look bad in their eyes.
I'd say they will still be pretty heavily Democratic based on issues and the general feel of the Democrats. As long as the Republicans stay very socially conservative and anti-environmental they will be unpopular among the youth. Plus the youth is very heavily made up of minorities.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,023
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1602 on: July 24, 2009, 11:17:57 pm »

Current young adults -- and current juveniles --  will eventually have more cause to vote for conservative pols. What Howe and Strauss call the Millennial Generation (born largely in the last two decades of the 20th century) are more liberal than the older Generation X (born largely in the 1960s and 1970s) when one controls for region, ethnicity, military experience, income, social class, education, job title, and the like. Generation X tended to be conservative even if it had cr@ppy jobs because it still had faith in Corporate America to either make things right or had (often) inordinate faith in their own abilities as survivors. The Millennial Generation saw Generation X treated badly even when it showed competence and dedication.

The Millennial Generation so far has little stake in the economic status quo. They have not entered elite positions in industry. If they have started businesses, then those businesses are at the stage in which owners think more about getting income than from protecting it from taxes or demands of unrelated employees.  Few have started fast-track careers in such lucrative professions as medicine, dentistry, or law. Although they are no more religious than Generation X they are hostile to irrationality in religion. When they get more of a stake in the system they will have more cause for political and economic conservatism -- but so far any faith in top-down management, trickle-down economics, will take huge leaps of faith that few people have.  

One thing will push Millennial adults toward cultural conservatism -- their children... teen-age children, that is. Not until at least 2016 will that be a big issue for them, as their children are largely infants, toddlers, or elementary-school pupils -- early, that is. Note well that the economic hardships of recent years have delayed many marriages and much child-bearing, so that may slow that trend toward cultural conservatism (few want their children to grow up as savages and incompetent sure-losers). Then some might be more amenable to the "school prayer" pushers and the like who offer in-school devotions in school as the only reliable protection against juvenile delinquency.

Should Barack Obama and his Democratic politicians be as successful as those of FDR (which is pushing the envelope as prophecy) in reshaping American economic and political life, then the consensus among the Millennial Generation will likely divide between those who think that things have gone too far, about enough, and not far enough. Such will redefine the left/center/right paradigms of American politics. Undoing something like national health care or free education through graduate school for those who can legitimately use it will be difficult.  America could seem more like a European country in its politics than it does now -- but note well that all democratic societies in Europe have conservative parties.

It is possible that the GOP will lose its political relevance as did the Federalists and Whigs-- but a single-Party system would be unwieldy here. Should the GOP disappear due to its irrelevance or become a fringe party, then the Democratic Party would likely split into such groupings (and they will be known as Parties) as Christian Democrats and Social Democrats.   
 

  
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,630
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1603 on: July 24, 2009, 11:50:23 pm »

One way to explain the Virginia numbers is the drastically different composition between the June and July polls as well as the downward spiral in Obama's approval in these groups:

June:

42% Democrats (93-6 approve)
29% Republicans (27-68 disapprove)
22% Independents (44-49 disapprove)

July:

33% Democrats (83-16 approve)
32% Republicans (19-76 disapprove)
27% Independents (34-51 disapprove)
Logged
CJK
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 671
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1604 on: July 25, 2009, 09:46:03 am »

Rasmussen still has him under 50% today:

Approve 49%

Disapprove 51%

Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,098
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1605 on: July 25, 2009, 10:09:48 am »

Rasmussen still has him under 50% today:

Approve 49%

Disapprove 51%



Logged
Zarn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,820


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1606 on: July 25, 2009, 11:17:06 am »

Again, your response to a professional pollster is over the top.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,098
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1607 on: July 25, 2009, 11:22:59 am »

Again, your response to a professional pollster is over the top.

Perhaps.

But you must admit, it's a cool sign.
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,626
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1608 on: July 25, 2009, 01:48:38 pm »

One way to explain the Virginia numbers is the drastically different composition between the June and July polls as well as the downward spiral in Obama's approval in these groups:

June:

42% Democrats (93-6 approve)
29% Republicans (27-68 disapprove)
22% Independents (44-49 disapprove)

July:

33% Democrats (83-16 approve)
32% Republicans (19-76 disapprove)
27% Independents (34-51 disapprove)

Using July's percentages with June's party I/D, for example, Democrats 42%, 83-16 approve, I get 47.85% approve; 39.98% disapprove (48-40 approve)

Using July's percentages with the 2008 exit polls, for example, Democrats 39%, 83-16 approve, I get 47.82% approve; 45.09% disapprove (48-45 approve)

Perhaps a case of June having too many Democrats and July, too few?
Logged
JerryBrown2010
KyleGordon2016
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 716
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.68, S: -9.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1609 on: July 25, 2009, 01:58:43 pm »

Gallup

Approve: 55%
Disapprove 39%
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,626
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1610 on: July 25, 2009, 03:53:12 pm »

You are talking about 15-16 year olds? They are very democratic.

Somewhat true, but a lot of teens are only democrat because Obama was running. Most teens don't know what the difference between a Republican and  a Democrat. I think the GOP needs to show teens the principles of the party

Here's how most teens figure politics:
George Bush = Bad = Republican
Obama = God = Democrat

Less of the God please. As a Christian, I take issue with any reference to the president as "God" or the "Messiah".  Good, in this context, is more appropriate

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Younger people are, actually, more rational than you give them credit for - and if their formative years have been characterized by what they perceive as being nothing short of abject incompetence and neglect culminating in failure, on the part of a conservative Republican, you can't expect them to skew either conservative or Republican. And there is no lack of maturity about it

I'm not suggesting, of course, that they will be skew either liberal or Democratic infinitum. That, of course, in no small part, is going to depend on the extent to which Democrats are successful or otherwise
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,023
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1611 on: July 25, 2009, 04:46:31 pm »

You are talking about 15-16 year olds? They are very democratic.

Somewhat true, but a lot of teens are only democrat because Obama was running. Most teens don't know what the difference between a Republican and  a Democrat. I think the GOP needs to show teens the principles of the party.

Here's how most teens figure politics:
George Bush = Bad = Republican
Obama = God = Democrat

So most teens think since they like Obama then they are a democrat. When they mature, they will figure it out and become more conservative.

Very true. These teens will only know a country controlled by Democrats, so any mistakes will make the Democrats look bad in their eyes.

In fact they know what a Republican administration and a stooge GOP Congress could do in America -- and it wasn't pretty. They remember the Religious Right, and they run from it. Until the GOP can prove itself unconnected to our 43rd President and his amoral, incompetent, alienating leadership, the GOP is in big trouble with people born between 1980 and at least 1994. If the GOP should take the very low road of male chauvinism, homophobia, and racism, then such a road is one to ruin. Ronald Reagan exuded optimism and always had an agenda, and he could always cut a deal to get what he most wanted.

Someone born in 1994 can't avoid knowing about the bungled response to Hurricane Katrina. Eleven-year-olds are aware of unsubtle events -- wars and natural disasters. Someone born that late can't  know any GOP President other than George W. Bush, and that is a very bad memory. Dubya's father at the least got some dramatic events abroad to go the way almost everyone wanted them to go. Ronald Reagan may have been a mixed bag as a political leader. That happened before the youngest voters of 2012 were born, and it happened while the youngest voters of 2008 were literal infants.

Like the generational approach or not, you must recognize that time itself is environment. People would have to be born no earlier than the early 1980s to remember Republican leadership doing anything positive. Time is environment; it shapes attitudes arguably as much as religion, ethnicity, region, and class.

I'm old enough to remember Ronald Reagan (and indeed JFK!), but as a liberal I was prone to underestimating him as a leader. If you can accept this model for the difference between Reagan and Carter:

Carter    = inept and irrelevant       = Democrat
Reagan  = effective and convincing = Republican

then this so far seems to work:

GW Bush = incompetent, glory-seeking = Republican
Obama    = effective and principled       = Democrat

Can Obama fail? Sure. His judgment could prove faulty, and his liberalism can conceivably go too far. He could be the recipient of some incredible misfortune. That said, his personality seems right for the role, and he gets much leeway after a bad President. Right now it seems just as likely that Obama will win re-election in an Eisenhower-style landslide or be defeated.
Take 100 electoral votes from Obama's 2008 victory and he ends up with 265 EV and a loss; add 100 and he ends up with 465 EV and a huge landslide.



 
Logged
Rowan
RowanBrandon
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,692


Political Matrix
E: 1.94, S: 4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1612 on: July 25, 2009, 04:55:03 pm »

Obama effective? HA!
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,354


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1613 on: July 25, 2009, 05:01:57 pm »

pbrower is in fantasyland.  A lot of Dems are.

Comparing Obama in 2012 to Reagan in 1984?

Reagan's "morning in America" campaign worked because the economy was growing.  I fhe had said it was morning in America and unemploymnet had been at 12%, people would have thought he had a screw loose.  Reagan won because he ran on his record.

You think Obama can win simply by pointing to the failures of his predecessor?  Absurd!  If Obama can't turn the economy around, no one will care about George Bush.

Obama's re-election is totally dependent on his record.  If his record is defensible, he will be re-elected.  If his record is indefensible, he will not be re-elected.  Pretening that his charisma guarantees him a second term is unserious.
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,626
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1614 on: July 25, 2009, 07:14:53 pm »


Mocking are we, Rowan? Here's my take on things.

Domestically, this president is going to have to make the kind of tough decisions on taxes and spending than his predecessor, sloth that he was didn't make much headway on. And if Obama does that, he'll be showing leadership. Any tom, dick or harry can cut taxes willy-nilly, politically, it's the easiest thing in the world to do; but raising them takes guts. The House this week passed "pay-go", which if passed by the Senate and signed into law, commits Democrats, moving forward, to fiscal responsibility Smiley. It's not inconceivable that a point will come when the 30 year old tax allergy is going to have be confronted head-on - and by woudn't that take testicular fortitude! Obama wasn't bequeathed a robust economy that had generated 23 million jobs and federal government living well within its means, far from it

Seemingly, even a pragmatic center-leftist like Obama is pushing his nation's ideological comfort zone - and that in itself is leadership. The ideological nature of America, in so far as conservatives outnumber liberals three to two, makes governing inherently more challenging for him and positive accomplishments all that more important. Not to mention the forces of restraint from within, in the form of the Blue Dogs. No such checks on Bush from the GOP given that he got just every whim and folly handed him as though Congress were some compliant wife

On the international stage, meanwhile, Obama the Apologist Restorationist, rather, is, thus far, proving dam effective at raising his nation's image; but it's going to take longer to restore the trust between the Free World and her leader (good ol' Uncle Sam)
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,626
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1615 on: July 25, 2009, 07:38:06 pm »


Comparing Obama in 2012 to Reagan in 1984?

Even were this president to be as "brilliant" as Reagan, there will be no rerun of 1984 - given the recalcitrant spirit of conservatism (no matter bad how we screw up, there is no alternative to us) - but if the economy has rebounded nicely, there are no unpopular foreign wars and no major scandals directly implicating the president, he wins re-election

Of course, capitalism, then and now, is more universal and, as a consequence, there are more significant global players competing with America et al.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,153
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1616 on: July 25, 2009, 11:59:16 pm »

If Obama can't turn the economy around, no one will care about George Bush.

Nothing else really needs to be said on this board. Ford sums it up nicely, as usual.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,630
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1617 on: July 26, 2009, 12:07:07 am »

Zogby

48% Approve
49% Disapprove

47% Excellent/Good
53% Fair/Poor

“What is troubling for the President is not only his slide with voters but that they are re-polarized. He is strong with Democrats but only has 6% approval from Republicans and 40% from Independents. Support from young voters is high (59%) but he is down several points from the margin they gave him in November 2008. His support wanes as voters get older.”

The Zogby Interactive survey of 4,470 likely voters nationwide was conducted July 21-24, 2009 and carries a margin of error of +/- 1.5 percentage points.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1726
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,153
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1618 on: July 26, 2009, 12:33:20 am »

The bad news for Obama is he is hemorrhaging independents. It's not just Zogby showing that either.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,023
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1619 on: July 26, 2009, 02:23:11 am »

pbrower is in fantasyland.  A lot of Dems are.

Comparing Obama in 2012 to Reagan in 1984?

Reagan's "morning in America" campaign worked because the economy was growing.  If he had said it was morning in America and unemploymnet had been at 12%, people would have thought he had a screw loose.  Reagan won because he ran on his record.

We are likely to have a slow recovery. The easy gains from real estate speculation and from predatory or destructive activities (subprime lending, export of jobs) are no longer available. Obama will be unable to impose some economic magic that cuts unemployment levels to the point that inflation becomes a genuine threat, as he does not have command of the economy.

Any recovery in America is going to depend upon import substitution, formation of small businesses, and the likely recovery of industries that have recently had hard times (like the auto industry). Much of this will happen without him doing anything, and he will derive political gain from it.    

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is the nastiest economic downturn since the Great Depression. But note well that much of the Great Depression was a recovery from the worst effects of the catastrophic crash.  Even a depression offers opportunities -- so long as people look to the long term and make commitments to underperforming activities (by recent standards) more likely to enrich progeny than to enrich founders. High unemployment ensures that plenty of competent people are able to take on new jobs in start-up activities. Raw materials, equipment, and real estate are available cheaply. Lenders have capital to lend. The 1930s may have been the best time ever for starting a business; consider that something so "normal" in life as the supermarket came into existence then.    

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which may include staying out of the way of necessary change, and keeping the corruption  and cronyism that Dubya fell for out of the federal government. Government activity must be effective and economical; it must create wealth (think of highway projects, conservation, retrofitting buildings for savings of energy, and the like). Even defense spending can be part of the mix; a nutty dictator in North Korea who makes Leonid Brezhnev look like a paragon of decency, caution, and reason may force us into the SDI program that Reagan wanted.

So far I consider it blasphemous to compare Obama to FDR -- but Obama knows his US history. Note well that FDR won a huge landslide victory in 1936 even though the economy had yet recovered the 1929 level of prosperity -- but enough people seemed to believe that America was headed in the right direction.

That will be enough in 2012 to win, if not in a spectacular landslide.    

Logged
Mr.Phips
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,893


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1620 on: July 26, 2009, 02:35:39 am »

Zogby

48% Approve
49% Disapprove

47% Excellent/Good
53% Fair/Poor

“What is troubling for the President is not only his slide with voters but that they are re-polarized. He is strong with Democrats but only has 6% approval from Republicans and 40% from Independents. Support from young voters is high (59%) but he is down several points from the margin they gave him in November 2008. His support wanes as voters get older.”

The Zogby Interactive survey of 4,470 likely voters nationwide was conducted July 21-24, 2009 and carries a margin of error of +/- 1.5 percentage points.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1726

Dont even bother with Zogby.  They are an online poll and not at all accurate.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,893


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1621 on: July 26, 2009, 02:39:12 am »

pbrower is in fantasyland.  A lot of Dems are.

Comparing Obama in 2012 to Reagan in 1984?

Reagan's "morning in America" campaign worked because the economy was growing.  If he had said it was morning in America and unemploymnet had been at 12%, people would have thought he had a screw loose.  Reagan won because he ran on his record.

We are likely to have a slow recovery. The easy gains from real estate speculation and from predatory or destructive activities (subprime lending, export of jobs) are no longer available. Obama will be unable to impose some economic magic that cuts unemployment levels to the point that inflation becomes a genuine threat, as he does not have command of the economy.

Any recovery in America is going to depend upon import substitution, formation of small businesses, and the likely recovery of industries that have recently had hard times (like the auto industry). Much of this will happen without him doing anything, and he will derive political gain from it.    

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is the nastiest economic downturn since the Great Depression. But note well that much of the Great Depression was a recovery from the worst effects of the catastrophic crash.  Even a depression offers opportunities -- so long as people look to the long term and make commitments to underperforming activities (by recent standards) more likely to enrich progeny than to enrich founders. High unemployment ensures that plenty of competent people are able to take on new jobs in start-up activities. Raw materials, equipment, and real estate are available cheaply. Lenders have capital to lend. The 1930s may have been the best time ever for starting a business; consider that something so "normal" in life as the supermarket came into existence then.    

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which may include staying out of the way of necessary change, and keeping the corruption  and cronyism that Dubya fell for out of the federal government. Government activity must be effective and economical; it must create wealth (think of highway projects, conservation, retrofitting buildings for savings of energy, and the like). Even defense spending can be part of the mix; a nutty dictator in North Korea who makes Leonid Brezhnev look like a paragon of decency, caution, and reason may force us into the SDI program that Reagan wanted.

So far I consider it blasphemous to compare Obama to FDR -- but Obama knows his US history. Note well that FDR won a huge landslide victory in 1936 even though the economy had yet recovered the 1929 level of prosperity -- but enough people seemed to believe that America was headed in the right direction.

That will be enough in 2012 to win, if not in a spectacular landslide.    



Things are completely different than they were in the 1930's.  In the 1930's, there wasnt a 24 hour newmedia that picked at every little thing FDR did.  There also wasnt the need for instant gratification that people seem to have today.  People increasingly expect things to turn around fast and if they dont, those in power are in a lot of trouble no matter who they preceeded. 
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,354


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1622 on: July 26, 2009, 03:56:34 am »

We are likely to have a slow recovery. The easy gains from real estate speculation and from predatory or destructive activities (subprime lending, export of jobs) are no longer available. Obama will be unable to impose some economic magic that cuts unemployment levels to the point that inflation becomes a genuine threat, as he does not have command of the economy.

Silly Keynesian, inflation is a monetary phenomenon.  Inflation can occur even without meaningful growth (See: Zimbabwe).

And you are right that the recovery will be slow.  It will take up the lions share of this decade, I'm afraid.  That is one of the main reasons I do not see Obama being re-elected: Recovery will not be obvious enough fast enough.

Nor are Obama's programs likely to make things better.

Any recovery in America is going to depend upon import substitution, formation of small businesses, and the likely recovery of industries that have recently had hard times (like the auto industry). Much of this will happen without him doing anything, and he will derive political gain from it.

I agree that growth will need to be driven by small businesses.  But you can't grow small businesses by raising taxes on small businesses or by mandating employer helath coverage.

Small businesses cannot afford to insure their employees because their small workforces give them little pricing power.

Obama's promised tax increase on the rich is actually a tax increase on small businesses.  Small businesses pay what's claled pass through taxation.  That menas taxes are not levied directly on the business' profits, but rather on the income the owner earns from his business.  Tax increases on the top marignal rate hit small businesses primarily, a fact that is apparently not known by the White House.  50% of the top 5% are small business owners and 75% of the top 1% are small business owners.  The owner recieves his share of the profits and pays income tax on his share.  This is how small businesses are taxed.

Which may include staying out of the way of necessary change, and keeping the corruption  and cronyism that Dubya fell for out of the federal government.

The man whose early campaigns were funded by Tony Rezko will be ending corruption?  How do you expect me to take this seriously?

No corruption in the Obama administration?  See: Walpin, Gerald.

Obama and Emmanuel practice the Chicago Way.

Government activity must be effective and economical; it must create wealth (think of highway projects, conservation, retrofitting buildings for savings of energy, and the like).

When Obama starts building highways, be sure to notify me.

Government may retrofit its own buildings, but this is a tiny protion of our energy consumption.  If we end up saving money by retrofitting buildings, it will be because individuals and businesses chose to do it, not government.

Even defense spending can be part of the mix; a nutty dictator in North Korea who makes Leonid Brezhnev look like a paragon of decency, caution, and reason may force us into the SDI program that Reagan wanted.

Er, Obama just ciut missile defense.

So far I consider it blasphemous to compare Obama to FDR -- but Obama knows his US history. Note well that FDR won a huge landslide victory in 1936 even though the economy had yet recovered the 1929 level of prosperity -- but enough people seemed to believe that America was headed in the right direction.

That will be enough in 2012 to win, if not in a spectacular landslide.

Look at the actual data from FDRs first term.  There is a startling rapid improvement in every meaningful stat.  Where do people get this idea that FDR got re-elected without serious recovery?
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,023
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1623 on: July 26, 2009, 07:14:06 am »


Things are completely different than they were in the 1930's.  In the 1930's, there wasnt a 24 hour newmedia that picked at every little thing FDR did.  There also wasnt the need for instant gratification that people seem to have today.  People increasingly expect things to turn around fast and if they dont, those in power are in a lot of trouble no matter who they preceeded. 

Nobody questions that the news media are different in technology and public reach. FoX Propaganda Channel  and Rush Limbaugh can carp at  Obama 24/7, and like-minded people can share their conspiracy stories about Barack Obama at Free Republic (that he is the Antichrist, that he is the new Hitler, etc.) We have e-mail which allows our friends, relatives, and business associates to reach us with the horror tale of the day which may include a forged screed against Obama or even a faked photograph. How long will it be before someone sends out a forged image of Barack Obama fornicating with a pretty white girl in the Oval office? But that said, we have left wing media as well, not all from established news sources. MSNBC has Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow  attacking right-wing politicians who go too far. There's also the Huffington Post and the Daily Kos. People gravitate to what they like.    

Times are also different from about five years ago. The public mood has changed drastically. We have less tolerance for mediocre, let alone perverse, efforts. George W. Bush could be re-elected, with a little help of his friends (like Kenneth Blackwell) despite his mediocrity or worse as a President. Obama cannot get away with such, and it is just as well.  

And ten. Bill Clinton was not one of our best President; a trimmer, he rode trends. He was the most popular President who accomplished little for decades.  He began as a populist and became a "moderate".  Sure, he got budget surpluses, which is far better than what followed, but that resulted from budgetary gridlock that kept both he and the GOP-dominated Congress from achieving the spending priorities that either wanted.

Or twenty. That's when Communist rule in central and southeastern Europe was in mortal collapse. That's when Poland started having free elections and when Hungary, having  stripped the barbed wire at the Austrian border, became a favorite vacation spot for East Germans who found that they could cross into Austria on a circuitous trip around the internal German borders.

Or thirty, which is when our long-time Iran soured on us, and when Jimmy Carter rode the existing trends of liberalism into identity politics to one of the most smashing defeats by a challenger in American history.  That's about when the electronic media began to resemble what we now have, with 24/7 news coverage.

Or forty, when Nixon was as newly elected as President as Obama is now. Those times are very different from what we know now. The youth-adult generation gap was getting ugly; adults who had something to protect became reactionary. Boomer youth left the idea that they would love to live in a world like the set of Hair and that they had nothing but contempt for institutions that largely worked well.

Need I go on?

The young-adult voters of 2008 trend strongly liberal and Democratic; the younger that they were, the more Democratic they were. The new voters of 2012 have consistently shown themselves much the same. They have heard their parents cursing Big Business for treating people badly -- pushing pay down and offering no semblance of economic security even when things go well. They have seen an unjust bubble in real estate collapse with even-more-severe injustice. They know Dubya as a liar and poseur who shows loyalty only to his financial supporters and to people who "deliver votes". They were taught in school to expect better -- and they have seen a travesty. Such is the culture of our youth. About all that they endorse about capitalism is its productivity and the consumer choice that it allows.

Those are not bad kids. They are not cynical and opportunistic; they are smart and rational. They seem to reject the Religious Right, the only large group that has had any success in convincing people that economic hardships on behalf or rapacious elites are the necessary Will of God. Unlike the "Flower Power" kids of the 1960s they are more likely to convince their parents than to offend them. They have a good work ethic and want to be treated fairly. A society that cheats them out of the Good Life solely to enrich entrenched elites will throw away their virtues -- but one that gives an honest day's pay for an honest days' work and a stake in the system will get very good results. A society that must look for long-term results absolutely must offer rewards that encourage people to stick around, develop skills, and get things done.

Demographics alone suggest that the GOP is in for political hard times for the next few years. The GOP cannot remake itself quickly enough to adapt to the political values of young voters. If things go well, Democrats get the credit; if things go badly, then Republicans get the blame.  To be sure, current young voters will become more politically conservative when they have a stake in the economic system -- when many start having lucrative professions, when some of their start-up businesses turn profitable enough that they are as concerned about keeping their income as they are in earning revenue (taxes and unions becoming threats to profits), and when they start entering management in big corporations. They will become more culturally conservative as their kids enter adolescence -- which has yet to happen -- and start going away from what Mom and Dad want.

If the GOP is to make any political gains between now and 2012, then they will have to come from voters over age 35 or so.  That will be difficult. The GOP has been going more to the Right even as America seems to run from it.  How can the GOP win back enough voters from among people over 35? Your guess is as good as mine.

    

  
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,943
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1624 on: July 26, 2009, 07:25:27 am »

Zogby

48% Approve
49% Disapprove

47% Excellent/Good
53% Fair/Poor

“What is troubling for the President is not only his slide with voters but that they are re-polarized. He is strong with Democrats but only has 6% approval from Republicans and 40% from Independents. Support from young voters is high (59%) but he is down several points from the margin they gave him in November 2008. His support wanes as voters get older.”

The Zogby Interactive survey of 4,470 likely voters nationwide was conducted July 21-24, 2009 and carries a margin of error of +/- 1.5 percentage points.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1726

Dont even bother with Zogby.  They are an online poll and not at all accurate.

They had him at worse numbers in March.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 60 61 62 63 64 [65] 66 67 68 69 70 ... 410 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines