The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 22, 2021, 06:43:42 AM
News: EV Calculator updated with new apportionment numbers, custom labels, orange party color and more. Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 333 334 335 336 337 [338] 339 340 341 342 343 ... 410
Author Topic: The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread  (Read 1079831 times)
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,866
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8425 on: August 06, 2011, 04:44:02 PM »

Obam+ runs the very good chance of being seen as:

1.  An ineffectual leader.

2.  The president who brought economic disaster.

1. He was extremely effectual in the first half of his first (or only term, depending on your predictions). In the second half... the rules changed. He needs majorities in both Houses of Congress to be effective.  In view of how polarized the two main political parties are, no President could be effective. There's little room for moral suasion. Power is everything and persuasion is nothing except at election time.

2.  He may not have brought disaster, but he has no quick cure. Maybe the Republicans can offer a quick cure, but it is likely to come with some unpleasant features. More work at far lower pay? A virtual giveaway of the public sector to monopolistic profiteers?

No politician can instil consumer confidence when all reality is economic fear. People who fear that their job may disappear without another opening up will not buy big-ticket items on a long-term installment plan. No politician can tell people that buying a new house when foreclosures are commonplace that "there has never been a better time to invest in personal housing" without eliciting derisive laughs.

Easy credit may vanish. Government expenditures will shrink at all levels.   
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8426 on: August 06, 2011, 05:01:31 PM »

Obam+ runs the very good chance of being seen as:

1.  An ineffectual leader.

2.  The president who brought economic disaster.

1. He was extremely effectual in the first half of his first (or only term, depending on your predictions). In the second half... the rules changed. He needs majorities in both Houses of Congress to be effective.  In view of how polarized the two main political parties are, no President could be effective. There's little room for moral suasion. Power is everything and persuasion is nothing except at election time.


I have not predicted anything yet.  In the first term, Obama was not a leader, especially on legal issues.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Easy credit has vanished.  A good leader could have come up with a painful, but necessary deal.  Obama actually talked about Obamacare as a cost saving measure.  His problems just got worse, but as I've pointed out, we are not seeing the trough as of yet.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,915


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8427 on: August 06, 2011, 05:03:11 PM »

Oh, please, you had the same situation with Reagan, a small majority in the Senate and an increasingly hostile House; his attempts to run against Tip O'Neil failed.  As for the Tea Party, as noted, they didn't get everything they wanted, because of the Senate.

Obama would have to do what Clinton did, and triangulate.  When he tried with Democrats in the Senate, he got shot down.  Then he lapsed into passivity.

I doubt that this shift to the GOP is reversible.  Further, Obama, the incumbent, seems to be much less popular than Obama the candidate.  As for seniors, Obama was the one promoting Medicare cuts, and Obamacare, one he said would solve everything, hasn't.

People are wiser to how Obama will do as president, because they've him do it for four years (in 2012).  "Yes we can" is rapidly becoming "No he hasn't."  He's losing groups across the boards; he's only up with a majority with Democrats, African Americans, and people with advanced degrees.  There is a fair amount of over in that group.

If the economy improves by January, he had good shot; if after that, the economy doesn't clear up, he's done for.

Obama basically has to get the economy improving by the second quarter of next year.  If the economy starts to turn around in the summer of 2012, it will be too late.  People's opinions about the economy harden sometime between March and June of an election year.

Yes dear, we all know. That's why McCain won in '08.

Do you not follow economics at all?  The economy was already horrid in the beginning of 2008, with unemployment rising from 4.5% in late 2007 to 5.5% in June 2008.  Not to mention that the economy contracted by -.2% in the first half of 2008.  No incumbent party survives numbers like that.  
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,866
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8428 on: August 06, 2011, 05:05:24 PM »


Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 47, u.

Disapprove 52%, u.

"Strongly Approve" is at 25%, +1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 39%, -u.

As with yesterday, either some improvement for Obama, or a bad sample.

It's back to where things were when I stereotypically had full confidence in the ability of the President to get re-elected.

So much for a 'vastly-changed universe'.

Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8429 on: August 06, 2011, 05:52:48 PM »


Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 47, u.

Disapprove 52%, u.

"Strongly Approve" is at 25%, +1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 39%, -u.

As with yesterday, either some improvement for Obama, or a bad sample.

It's back to where things were when I stereotypically had full confidence in the ability of the President to get re-elected.

So much for a 'vastly-changed universe'.


Except you added a few words to the "quote."  If you had to do that, you must be convinced Obama will lose.

 I'm still looking for the trough.  I think it is likely the US will be in recession and that will be devastating for Obama.
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,524
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8430 on: August 06, 2011, 06:07:13 PM »


Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 47, u.

Disapprove 52%, u.

"Strongly Approve" is at 25%, +1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 39%, -u.

As with yesterday, either some improvement for Obama, or a bad sample.

It's back to where things were when I stereotypically had full confidence in the ability of the President to get re-elected.

So much for a 'vastly-changed universe'.


Except you added a few words to the "quote."  If you had to do that, you must be convinced Obama will lose.

 I'm still looking for the trough.  I think it is likely the US will be in recession and that will be devastating for Obama.

If you had to make such a snarky assertion, you must be convinced that Barack Obama will actually win in a landslide!
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8431 on: August 06, 2011, 06:24:36 PM »


Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 47, u.

Disapprove 52%, u.

"Strongly Approve" is at 25%, +1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 39%, -u.

As with yesterday, either some improvement for Obama, or a bad sample.

It's back to where things were when I stereotypically had full confidence in the ability of the President to get re-elected.

So much for a 'vastly-changed universe'.


Except you added a few words to the "quote."  If you had to do that, you must be convinced Obama will lose.

 I'm still looking for the trough.  I think it is likely the US will be in recession and that will be devastating for Obama.

If you had to make such a snarky assertion, you must be convinced that Barack Obama will actually win in a landslide!

Odysseus, go back and look at the quote.  I never wrote the last two lines, the "stereotypical" or "changed universe" lines.

I'm not yet predicting an Obama loss, but it is now clear that Obamanomics has failed.
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,524
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8432 on: August 06, 2011, 06:29:21 PM »


Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 47, u.

Disapprove 52%, u.

"Strongly Approve" is at 25%, +1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 39%, -u.

As with yesterday, either some improvement for Obama, or a bad sample.

It's back to where things were when I stereotypically had full confidence in the ability of the President to get re-elected.

So much for a 'vastly-changed universe'.


Except you added a few words to the "quote." If you had to do that, you must be convinced Obama will lose.

 I'm still looking for the trough.  I think it is likely the US will be in recession and that will be devastating for Obama.

If you had to make such a snarky assertion, you must be convinced that Barack Obama will actually win in a landslide!

Odysseus, go back and look at the quote.  I never wrote the last two lines, the "stereotypical" or "changed universe" lines.

I'm not yet predicting an Obama loss, but it is now clear that Obamanomics has failed.

I was pointing out how you were making a ridiculous assertion that since pbrower was making fun of you, therefore he must believe that Obama has no chance.

I know that you didn't write those last two lines.

Also, what is "Obamanomics"? You keep throwing that term around like it means something.
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,941
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8433 on: August 06, 2011, 06:31:56 PM »

With enemies like Romney, Bachmann and Perry, who needs friends?
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8434 on: August 06, 2011, 06:39:38 PM »



I was pointing out how you were making a ridiculous assertion that since pbrower was making fun of you, therefore he must believe that Obama has no chance.

I know that you didn't write those last two lines.


What, by stating things that I've yet to say, even implied.  I've been the guy saying that you shouldn't count Obama out, though, I may change that opinion in the next several weeks.

Good, now we've establishes that you condone dishonesty.  Is that part of the Democratic Party platform?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obamanomics:  Spend a lot of money, get nothing to show for it, and make the economy worse.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8435 on: August 06, 2011, 06:43:49 PM »

With enemies like Romney, Bachmann and Perry, who needs friends?

With friends like Reid, who needs enemies?
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,524
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8436 on: August 06, 2011, 09:03:45 PM »



I was pointing out how you were making a ridiculous assertion that since pbrower was making fun of you, therefore he must believe that Obama has no chance.

I know that you didn't write those last two lines.


What, by stating things that I've yet to say, even implied.  I've been the guy saying that you shouldn't count Obama out, though, I may change that opinion in the next several weeks.

Good, now we've establishes that you condone dishonesty.  Is that part of the Democratic Party platform?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obamanomics:  Spend a lot of money, get nothing to show for it, and make the economy worse.


Yes, clearly I am the dishonest one. Your definition of "Obamanomics" is not at all biased, hackish, laden with sarcasm, or dishonest.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8437 on: August 06, 2011, 09:58:38 PM »



I was pointing out how you were making a ridiculous assertion that since pbrower was making fun of you, therefore he must believe that Obama has no chance.

I know that you didn't write those last two lines.


What, by stating things that I've yet to say, even implied.  I've been the guy saying that you shouldn't count Obama out, though, I may change that opinion in the next several weeks.

Good, now we've establishes that you condone dishonesty.  Is that part of the Democratic Party platform?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obamanomics:  Spend a lot of money, get nothing to show for it, and make the economy worse.


Yes, clearly I am the dishonest one. Your definition of "Obamanomics" is not at all biased, hackish, laden with sarcasm, or dishonest.

No, just following a tradition, like Reaganomics.  Except, Reaganomics actually produced a good result.  Obananomics has not do date; does anyone here honestly think it will start?
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,524
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8438 on: August 06, 2011, 10:57:03 PM »



I was pointing out how you were making a ridiculous assertion that since pbrower was making fun of you, therefore he must believe that Obama has no chance.

I know that you didn't write those last two lines.


What, by stating things that I've yet to say, even implied.  I've been the guy saying that you shouldn't count Obama out, though, I may change that opinion in the next several weeks.

Good, now we've establishes that you condone dishonesty.  Is that part of the Democratic Party platform?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obamanomics:  Spend a lot of money, get nothing to show for it, and make the economy worse.


Yes, clearly I am the dishonest one. Your definition of "Obamanomics" is not at all biased, hackish, laden with sarcasm, or dishonest.

No, just following a tradition, like Reaganomics.  Except, Reaganomics actually produced a good result.  Obananomics has not do date; does anyone here honestly think it will start?

And what exactly do you base the "has not produced a good result" part on? The economy has not gotten worse beyond what we had expected, or what we could attribute to President Bush It has been arguably getting better, until this whole debt cieling crisis that the Republicans in congress manufactured, which ultimately saw S&P's lowering of the US's credit rating.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8439 on: August 07, 2011, 06:01:46 AM »


And what exactly do you base the "has not produced a good result" part on? 

Ah, the bond rating downgrade and the possible impending recession. 
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,866
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8440 on: August 07, 2011, 07:47:17 AM »


Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 47, u.

Disapprove 52%, u.

"Strongly Approve" is at 25%, +1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 39%, -u.

As with yesterday, either some improvement for Obama, or a bad sample.

It's back to where things were when I stereotypically had full confidence in the ability of the President to get re-elected.

So much for a 'vastly-changed universe'.


Except you added a few words to the "quote."  If you had to do that, you must be convinced Obama will lose.

 I'm still looking for the trough.  I think it is likely the US will be in recession and that will be devastating for Obama.

I didn't intend to. I intended this

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

to be outside the quote, as it is my material. My goof!

Sorry about that, and any unintended confusion!

Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,866
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8441 on: August 07, 2011, 08:05:13 AM »
« Edited: August 07, 2011, 10:56:41 AM by pbrower2a »


Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 47, u.

Disapprove 52%, u.

"Strongly Approve" is at 25%, +1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 39%, -u.

As with yesterday, either some improvement for Obama, or a bad sample.

It's back to where things were when I stereotypically had full confidence in the ability of the President to get re-elected.

So much for a 'vastly-changed universe'.


Except you added a few words to the "quote." If you had to do that, you must be convinced Obama will lose.

 I'm still looking for the trough.  I think it is likely the US will be in recession and that will be devastating for Obama.

If you had to make such a snarky assertion, you must be convinced that Barack Obama will actually win in a landslide!

Odysseus, go back and look at the quote.  I never wrote the last two lines, the "stereotypical" or "changed universe" lines.

I'm not yet predicting an Obama loss, but it is now clear that Obamanomics has failed.

1. I goofed in putting the "stereotypical" and "changed universe" within instead of outside of the quote.

2. There is no quick way of recovering the sort of economic growth that will satisfy most people. A booming economy is impossible now that the trust necessary for a boom is destroyed. It would be possible to get rapid economic growth, to be sure -- but few would like the means. (That is to compel people to work but give those who hire people to work no compulsion to pay those who do the work... essentially a totalitarian method out of Stalinism or National Socialism, even if it is then called "building free enterprise").

3. If we didn't have full employment during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,  then even wartime expenditures are no longer adequate for putting the unemployed back to work. We had high employment by current standards when the housing boom and subprime lending were devouring assets and offshoring of jobs were gutting the workforce except in the corrupt boom.

4. It is arguable that extreme disparities of wealth and deprivation, a core objective of right-wing economics, will compromise even the creation of wealth because the people who do the work will themselves be destitute and unable to support a consumer economy.

It is the consumer economy that serves as a check upon the worthiness of investments of capital. Sure, it is possible to create prosperity only for an elite in a society with no middle class -- think of the antebellum South -- but such is incompatible with political democracy except among the elite.      
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8442 on: August 07, 2011, 10:30:09 AM »


Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 47, u.

Disapprove 52%, u.

"Strongly Approve" is at 25%, +1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 39%, -u.

As with yesterday, either some improvement for Obama, or a bad sample.

It's back to where things were when I stereotypically had full confidence in the ability of the President to get re-elected.

So much for a 'vastly-changed universe'.


Except you added a few words to the "quote."  If you had to do that, you must be convinced Obama will lose.

 I'm still looking for the trough.  I think it is likely the US will be in recession and that will be devastating for Obama.

I didn't intend to. I intended this

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

to be outside the quote, as it is my material. My goof!

Sorry about that, and any unintended confusion!



And I am sorry about the accusation.  Consider it withdrawn with an apology.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8443 on: August 07, 2011, 10:33:25 AM »


Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 47, u.

Disapprove 51%, -1.

"Strongly Approve" is at 24%, -1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 40%, +1.

I think there is a bad sample in there someplace, and that I'm stating the obvious.  Smiley
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8444 on: August 07, 2011, 10:42:04 AM »

Pbrower2a, I'm not sure that anything has changed, poll wise.  If Obama has troughed to the maximum point, he's troughed higher than any president, except GW Bush (and yes, there were other factors in that case).  GW Bush was re-elected.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,866
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8445 on: August 07, 2011, 11:25:07 AM »

Pbrower2a, I'm not sure that anything has changed, poll wise.  If Obama has troughed to the maximum point, he's troughed higher than any president, except GW Bush (and yes, there were other factors in that case).  GW Bush was re-elected.

Budgetary processes are nasty; they bring about partisan bickering at its worst. Such is the same for Governor Tom Corbett (R-PA), whose polling results just shot up after the process was over, as for President Obama. Everyone gets pulled through the mud. The mud sticks far more to some politicians than to others -- like those seen as dictatorial, corrupt, or grossly incompetent. Scott Walker and Rick Scott are unlikely to recover politically from their troughs -- at least enough to be re-elected.

For good reason, electoral campaigns are not done during official budgeting -- and official budgeting is never done during an electoral campaign.

The political gridlock continues, and in 2012 American voters will decide who is culpable and vote accordingly -- after a long campaign season.  I expect the 112th Congress to be be regarded as one of the most ineffective and lowest-achieving in American history. If any incumbent President can translate a 47% approval rating into a 53% national vote share, then this is the one. He was a fine campaigner in 2008 and he will almost certainly be that again -- and he had a superb campaign apparatus now in mothballs that can be brought out quickly.

It will be a clear asset for almost any nominee for a House or Senate seat to be able to say convincingly "I will be able to work with President Obama, if necessary and appropriate, if elected (or re-elected)" in 2012... if the President seems likely to be re-elected. That could make a huge difference in Senatorial primaries in Indiana and Maine. Such may save some Republican careers -- and that is how American politics works at its best.  I miss the likes of Jacob Javits and Bob Dole. I also miss the Democratic "Blue Dogs".
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,524
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8446 on: August 07, 2011, 01:35:07 PM »

Gallup

Dissaprove: 50% (nc)

Approve: 42% (nc)
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8447 on: August 07, 2011, 09:29:14 PM »

Pbrower2a, I'm not sure that anything has changed, poll wise.  If Obama has troughed to the maximum point, he's troughed higher than any president, except GW Bush (and yes, there were other factors in that case).  GW Bush was re-elected.

Budgetary processes are nasty; they bring about partisan bickering at its worst. Such is the same for Governor Tom Corbett (R-PA), whose polling results just shot up after the process was over, as for President Obama. Everyone gets pulled through the mud. The mud sticks far more to some politicians than to others -- like those seen as dictatorial, corrupt, or grossly incompetent. Scott Walker and Rick Scott are unlikely to recover politically from their troughs -- at least enough to be re-elected.


Corbett is a bad example, as PA Governor's numbers usually drop in the first year.  I have not seen any great change to Obama's number that seem to be related to the ceiling.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think it is gridlock and Obama is having some campaign problems.  Further, he'll be judged on performance.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think you read too much into gridlock, especially since it did produce a tangible result, the debt ceiling being increased.  It might have produced an undesired result.

The problem now is, will interest rates increase, and will that push the economy into a [greater] recession?
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,524
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8448 on: August 07, 2011, 09:59:22 PM »

Pbrower2a, I'm not sure that anything has changed, poll wise.  If Obama has troughed to the maximum point, he's troughed higher than any president, except GW Bush (and yes, there were other factors in that case).  GW Bush was re-elected.

Eisenhower, Nixon, and Kennedy, if we're talking about first term troughs (which is all we can be talking about).
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8449 on: August 07, 2011, 10:14:13 PM »

Pbrower2a, I'm not sure that anything has changed, poll wise.  If Obama has troughed to the maximum point, he's troughed higher than any president, except GW Bush (and yes, there were other factors in that case).  GW Bush was re-elected.

Eisenhower, Nixon, and Kennedy, if we're talking about first term troughs (which is all we can be talking about).

I should have said since Watergate, but we obviously have no idea what JFK's numbers would have been in 1964. 

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 333 334 335 336 337 [338] 339 340 341 342 343 ... 410  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.058 seconds with 9 queries.