|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 25, 2020, 03:39:04 AM
News: 2020 Election day live thread: https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=409870.0

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 83 84 85 86 87 [88] 89 90 91 92 93 ... 410
Author Topic: The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread  (Read 1050664 times)
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 #2175 on: August 31, 2009, 04:46:21 PM »

The things being posted in this thread remind me of why no matter how far left I move on some issues, I will never be able to become a Democrat. A Corporate and theocratic state will come in 2012 because the election will be rigged? When someone basically comes out and says that the only legitimate elections are those won by Democrats, then I tune them out.
No Democrat actually believes those things besides pbrower.

He probably believes Diebold rigged the 2004 election too.

No. Kenneth Blackwell, Secretary of State in Ohio in 2004. Add to that a smear campaign that incorporated forgeries, including one putting John Kerry and Jane Fonda in the same place at the same time (lighting patterns indicate a forgery due to light striking them from different directions) and a campaign of manipulation of fear of international terrorism.

Obama played a beat-the-cheat strategy and won in 2008.

I simply have no faith in any honor of the Hard Right in America -- people who act as if Niccolo Machiavelli were a Founding Father.

Oh! Obama is so great that he can beat a rigged election! All Hail Lord Obama!
Logged
Mr.Phips
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,522


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2176 on: August 31, 2009, 04:48:39 PM »

Does anyone else think that a Dennis Kucinich run is possible?
yes I think him and a blue dog ala Ben Nelson will challenge Obama

If the Democratic Party chooses to cannibalize itself like it did in 1968 and 1980, it would lose the presidency in 2012

Besides isn't a bit early to be writing the president off seven months into his presidency?

On economic and quality of life issues, I've every confidence. He's a Democrat

I think Democrats need to lose the Presidency if they fail on healthcare. 
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,627
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2177 on: August 31, 2009, 04:56:08 PM »

The things being posted in this thread remind me of why no matter how far left I move on some issues, I will never be able to become a Democrat. A Corporate and theocratic state will come in 2012 because the election will be rigged? When someone basically comes out and says that the only legitimate elections are those won by Democrats, then I tune them out.
No Democrat actually believes those things besides pbrower.

He probably believes Diebold rigged the 2004 election too.

No. Kenneth Blackwell, Secretary of State in Ohio in 2004. Add to that a smear campaign that incorporated forgeries, including one putting John Kerry and Jane Fonda in the same place at the same time (lighting patterns indicate a forgery due to light striking them from different directions) and a campaign of manipulation of fear of international terrorism.

Obama played a beat-the-cheat strategy and won in 2008.

I simply have no faith in any honor of the Hard Right in America -- people who act as if Niccolo Machiavelli were a Founding Father.

Oh! Obama is so great that he can beat a rigged election! All Hail Lord Obama!

I don't want to go too far with this. The GOP was able to manipulate the consequences of the September 11 attack for every bit of political gain possible. In 2004 the Bush campaign manipulated terror warnings to scare people into voting for them. By 2006 they recognized that the gig was up. They could rig a small margin and make things look close, but not a huge gap. In 2008 the gap got even larger because of GOP bungling of the economy.

That's enough for 2008. The GOP continues to attract the most ruthless of political operatives  -- at one time, Lee Atwater, and more recently Karl Rove. The GOP can make things very profitable for a small group of economic elites at the expense of everyone else, and those economic elites don't want to relinquish the power that they had when Rove was Party Boss and wielded dictatorial powers -- once the Hard Right gets power back.

I just don't trust the b@stards. Enough said.  
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 #2178 on: August 31, 2009, 05:12:36 PM »

Does anyone else think that a Dennis Kucinich run is possible?
yes I think him and a blue dog ala Ben Nelson will challenge Obama

If the Democratic Party chooses to cannibalize itself like it did in 1968 and 1980, it would lose the presidency in 2012

Besides isn't a bit early to be writing the president off seven months into his presidency?

On economic and quality of life issues, I've every confidence. He's a Democrat

I think Democrats need to lose the Presidency house of reps if they fail on healthcare. 

In my opinion anyway.

Logged
Fmr. Pres. Duke
AHDuke99
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,027


Political Matrix
E: -0.84, S: -3.04

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2179 on: August 31, 2009, 05:17:31 PM »

Does anyone else think that a Dennis Kucinich run is possible?
yes I think him and a blue dog ala Ben Nelson will challenge Obama

If the Democratic Party chooses to cannibalize itself like it did in 1968 and 1980, it would lose the presidency in 2012

Besides isn't a bit early to be writing the president off seven months into his presidency?

On economic and quality of life issues, I've every confidence. He's a Democrat

I think Democrats need to lose the Presidency if they fail on healthcare. 

It's kind of a double edged sword. I think they are hurt more if they pass it than if they back off in the minds of the public. It will look worse if they go it alone and force it through.
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 #2180 on: August 31, 2009, 05:27:43 PM »

Does anyone else think that a Dennis Kucinich run is possible?
yes I think him and a blue dog ala Ben Nelson will challenge Obama

If the Democratic Party chooses to cannibalize itself like it did in 1968 and 1980, it would lose the presidency in 2012

Besides isn't a bit early to be writing the president off seven months into his presidency?

On economic and quality of life issues, I've every confidence. He's a Democrat

I think Democrats need to lose the Presidency if they fail on healthcare. 

It's kind of a double edged sword. I think they are hurt more if they pass it than if they back off in the minds of the public. It will look worse if they go it alone and force it through.

I agree, but then they look weak if they don't get it passed and just give up. In my opinion, they can't get out of this easily without getting a kick in the face really.
Logged
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,010
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.97, S: -1.57

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2181 on: August 31, 2009, 05:47:14 PM »

By 2006 they recognized that the gig was up. They could rig a small margin and make things look close, but not a huge gap. In 2008 the gap got even larger because of GOP bungling of the economy.
Do you have any proof that Republicans rig all of these elections, or is this just you in denial of the fact that a high % of Americans actually like Republicans?
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,667
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2182 on: August 31, 2009, 06:08:17 PM »

Does anyone else think that a Dennis Kucinich run is possible?
yes I think him and a blue dog ala Ben Nelson will challenge Obama

If the Democratic Party chooses to cannibalize itself like it did in 1968 and 1980, it would lose the presidency in 2012

Besides isn't a bit early to be writing the president off seven months into his presidency?

On economic and quality of life issues, I've every confidence. He's a Democrat

I think Democrats need to lose the Presidency if they fail on healthcare. 

Something will pass, whether or not it includes a public option or not, is any one's guess given all the irrational fear of government out there. Aye that big bad evil government - the intervention of which appears to have averted a reprise of the 'Great Depression'. Them Tea Bagging loons, of course, would have guaranteed that

Modern liberalism premised on postive freedom could save capitalism yet. It was the original 'Third Way', occupying the center ground between socialism, on the left, and classical liberalism (and contemporary neoliberalism and conservatism), on the right. Both extremes of which have inevitably led to disaster or near disaster, in different parts of the world

As president's go, it can't be easy being blue . How any pragmatically center-left Democrat can attract such vitriolic hatred, so soon into his presidency, is shameful, especially when he is having to fix a Right ol' mess

Democrats must be a class above Republicans, in so far as they tend to be more willing to give a new president of the opposite party a fair go - and they did George W Bush, especially in the wake of 9/11. This president deserves the same given the magnitude of the challenges he was bequeathed
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2183 on: August 31, 2009, 06:22:02 PM »

Why weren't these people more vocal back in 2007 or 2008, when Obama's health care plan was first proposed?

Obama had a health care plan in 2007 or 2008?  Actually, Obama has a health care plan now?  Must've missed something.

I'm not going to necessarily brag about what I've said for many years, but it is the truth and gets proven "more truthier" every day.

Health care is to the Democrats what immigration reform is to Republicans - an issue that can be campaigned on, but must never be legislated on, otherwise it ends up destroying you.

This is so mainly because the polls lie.  Everyone says they want "universal health care" but the moment when you get into the specifics as to what is required, the people (and your base) turn against it and you.
Yeah, passing and protecting Medicare has been a pain for Democrats to run on the last 40 years.

Medicare?  You have to go back that far for a reference.  You do realize my comparison issue - immigration reform - was not really on Republican radar screens until the last 15-20 years or so.  So, my comment is really not intended to go back that far.
Alright, I'll grant you health care reform bit the Dems in the ass once about 15 years ago. Not much of a harbinger compared to the decades they've had to run as the protector of medicare and medicaid.
Also, the comment refers to passing legislation, not protecting or whatever euphemistic term you want to come up with.  Which reminds me, the present legislation in front of Congress does not protect Medicare one bit.  Go read it.
So how does the proposed legislation actually threaten Medicare?
Btw, if we're going to get real technical about it, LBJ signed Medicare into law in 1965.  And then examine how Democrats performed in the 1966 or 1968 or 1970 or 1972 elections.  Not that it was about Medicare, That, is just a tad bit an understatement. but I'm really growing tired of the stupidity around here. Yep.
Logged
SenatorShadowLands
Rookie
**
Posts: 43
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2184 on: August 31, 2009, 06:49:26 PM »

I think it goes without saying that Obama's approvals are more pertinent to 2010 than 2012. If he tanks badly enough (as most polls are suggesting) then the GOP retaking the House and moving to within throwing distance of control of the Senate (especially with the 2012 Senate Geography, the only GOP member that can be considered vulnerable is Ensign and only becuase of his scandal or he would have been safe too). I realize that info has all been posted and hashed over repeatedly but some here seem to need a reminder that these numbers mean more to the midterms than the Presidential election.
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,667
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2185 on: August 31, 2009, 07:26:40 PM »

Why weren't these people more vocal back in 2007 or 2008, when Obama's health care plan was first proposed?

Obama had a health care plan in 2007 or 2008?  Actually, Obama has a health care plan now?  Must've missed something.

I'm not going to necessarily brag about what I've said for many years, but it is the truth and gets proven "more truthier" every day.

Health care is to the Democrats what immigration reform is to Republicans - an issue that can be campaigned on, but must never be legislated on, otherwise it ends up destroying you.

This is so mainly because the polls lie.  Everyone says they want "universal health care" but the moment when you get into the specifics as to what is required, the people (and your base) turn against it and you.
Yeah, passing and protecting Medicare has been a pain for Democrats to run on the last 40 years.

Medicare?  You have to go back that far for a reference.  You do realize my comparison issue - immigration reform - was not really on Republican radar screens until the last 15-20 years or so.  So, my comment is really not intended to go back that far.
Alright, I'll grant you health care reform bit the Dems in the ass once about 15 years ago. Not much of a harbinger compared to the decades they've had to run as the protector of medicare and medicaid.
Also, the comment refers to passing legislation, not protecting or whatever euphemistic term you want to come up with.  Which reminds me, the present legislation in front of Congress does not protect Medicare one bit.  Go read it.
So how does the proposed legislation actually threaten Medicare?
Btw, if we're going to get real technical about it, LBJ signed Medicare into law in 1965.  And then examine how Democrats performed in the 1966 or 1968 or 1970 or 1972 elections.  Not that it was about Medicare, That, is just a tad bit an understatement. but I'm really growing tired of the stupidity around here. Yep.

Reactionary rightwing dogmatoid Republicans would have rolled back Social Security and Medicare if they could have by now. That's what they fear most about a public plan. Not being able to roll it back should it pass and 1) expose their lies, scares and smears for what they are and 2) prove itself enduringly popular, once in effect, in the eyes of the American electorate

There is nothing radical about wanting to expand healthcare coverage and reduce costs

Indeed, the House GOP alternative to the CBR committed them to 1) means-testing Social Security; 2) replacing Medicare with vouchers; and 3) turning Medicaid into block grants. Not to mention rolling back the tax cuts for WORKERS in the stimulus

In the wake of the 'Great Society', the white working class - a longtime pillar of FDR's 'New Deal' and WORKFARE started to bolt the Democratic Party because of a perception that WELFARE was rewarding idleness over work (and it was) and send them into the arms of the Republican Party, which, of course, in the post-Reagan era has championed WEALTHFARE

Left: WELFARE .................... Center: WORKFARE .................. Right: WEALTHFARE

No gold stars on which path, I suggest, President Obama and congressional Democrats follow, emphatically, moving forward. WELFARE and WEALTHFARE ferment resentment Sad
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,667
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2186 on: August 31, 2009, 07:54:05 PM »

I think it goes without saying that Obama's approvals are more pertinent to 2010 than 2012. If he tanks badly enough (as most polls are suggesting) then the GOP retaking the House and moving to within throwing distance of control of the Senate (especially with the 2012 Senate Geography, the only GOP member that can be considered vulnerable is Ensign and only becuase of his scandal or he would have been safe too). I realize that info has all been posted and hashed over repeatedly but some here seem to need a reminder that these numbers mean more to the midterms than the Presidential election.

The only hope for Obama and the Democrats moving through 2010 is for the economy to have rebounded nicely with falling unemployment. They can then charge Republicans with standing in the way of the recovery - and they will have

If meaningful healthcare reform does not pass, that will serve to demoralize Democrats. The Congressional Progressive Caucus - long advocates of single-payer - have already compromised, while any bipartisan tradeoff, according to former Sen. Bill Bradley (D-NJ), should be to combine universal coverage with malpractice tort reform in healthcare
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 56,361
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2187 on: September 01, 2009, 12:25:04 AM »

New Jersey (Quinnipiac)Sad

51% Approve
43% Disapprove
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,627
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2188 on: September 01, 2009, 05:55:45 AM »

More slouching to the Right:




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 #2189 on: September 01, 2009, 07:59:37 AM »



Sad
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 #2190 on: September 01, 2009, 08:21:03 AM »

Rasmussen

Approve 45%
Disapprove 53%

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 #2191 on: September 01, 2009, 08:25:19 AM »


Wow...
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,667
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2192 on: September 01, 2009, 08:55:57 AM »


The president is clearly being held to a high standard, unlike Bush. It's not like Obama was bequeathed a robust economy that had generated 23 million jobs, on which to build, or a federal government living within its means. If there were any standards whatsoever the Republican Party would have hit 1932 levels by now and President Obama would still be riding high

The rightwing dogmatoids were blaming Obama for the economy the day after he was elected; just as they blamed Carter for Reagan's Recession, well after Reagan took office. The supply side tax cuts passed in 1981 were supposed to see the economy grow by 5% in 1982, when, in fact, it contracted by 2.2%. Reagan, actually, signed off on tax increases in six of his eight years as president. If Obama is to be held to the same standard as Reagan, he should own the economy no sooner than the end of Q1 2010

As for big bad evil govenment, intervention through TARP (supported by a majority of House Democrats but not a majority of House Republicans) and the stimulus (opposed by the Republicans, en masse, essentially because there was nothing there for those unto whom they are dogmatically beholden, in other words no WEALTHFARE), if nothing else, appear to have averted a reprisal of the 'Great Depression'. Indeed they hated the WORKFARE tax cuts in the stimulus so much that their alternative Congressional Budget Resolution would have rolled them back

Many Independents may well be alarmed by the spending and the deficit - but only 10% of the projected deficit can be attributed to Obama's policies, according to non-partisan Concord Coalition. The rest being a consequence of fiscally reckless tax cuts; unfunded increases in expenditure - on the part of George W Bush - and the 'Great Recession', during which time tax revenue receipts have fallen and unemployment has risen, meaning more welfare expenditure

The deficit peaked following World War II at 30% of GDP - to be expected following the 'Great Depression' and the war - but for much of the modern liberal era it hovered around 1%-2% of GDP. On the other hand, save from 1998-2001 when a budget surplus was built on the back of an economic boom and increased tax revenues - yes, Clinton raised taxes - the neoliberal era has been marked by higher deficits

A crisis of this magntitude was inevitable sooner or later

I don't think its by "luck" that in the post-Depression era, it has been Democrats who have tended to preside over more robust economic growth and job creation. Not to mention a broader increase in prosperity. Policy preferences, surely, affect outcomes
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,447
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2193 on: September 01, 2009, 09:08:19 AM »

If there were any standards whatsoever the Republican Party would have hit 1932 levels by now and President Obama would still be riding high

Lawl.  To "ride high" you need to be capable of doing something. People were very lenient when judging Obama (and continue to be, to some extent) in the first 100 days, but as time goes on, we're expecting action.  The most memorable aspects of the Obama administration thus far have been a stimulus package whose funds will mostly be spent after the economic downturn has subsided, and a cash-for-clunkers program that shifted most planned new car purchases from late 2009 and 2010 to the month of August at great public expense.

Most of what has come from the White House since Bush left office has been, frankly, uninspiring.
Logged
Zarn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,820


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2194 on: September 01, 2009, 10:12:14 AM »

Democratic Hawk is not going to blame Obama or his policies for his low rating.
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,667
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2195 on: September 01, 2009, 10:18:06 AM »

If there were any standards whatsoever the Republican Party would have hit 1932 levels by now and President Obama would still be riding high

Lawl.  To "ride high" you need to be capable of doing something. People were very lenient when judging Obama (and continue to be, to some extent) in the first 100 days, but as time goes on, we're expecting action.  The most memorable aspects of the Obama administration thus far have been a stimulus package whose funds will mostly be spent after the economic downturn has subsided, and a cash-for-clunkers program that shifted most planned new car purchases from late 2009 and 2010 to the month of August at great public expense.

Most of what has come from the White House since Bush left office has been, frankly, uninspiring.

I've more confidence in the "investment" strategy and WORKFARE than I do "austerity" and WEALTHFARE

Any one who thinks I can forgive George W Bush - and all the damage done - can think again
Logged
DariusNJ
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 414


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2196 on: September 01, 2009, 10:23:19 AM »

This was to be expected, so just take a deep breath.

He is falling faster than I expected, but I don't see his approval going below 40%.
Logged
Fmr. Pres. Duke
AHDuke99
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,027


Political Matrix
E: -0.84, S: -3.04

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2197 on: September 01, 2009, 10:35:22 AM »

I am shocked at the speed of Obama's decline in recent weeks. There has been no fluctuation at all. He's gone straight off the cliff. When is he going to bottom out? I thought maybe he'd get a small bounce when Kennedy died, but that hasn't happened.

I don't think the public is giving Bush a pass so much as they disapprove of Obama's actions. He's running up the debt at a pace that makes Bush look like a sissy. On top of that, he's wanting to add another trillion to it with the healthcare reform, even after it looks like our recovery may not be a strong as we thought, which will lead to a larger debt down the road. That's certainly why I disapprove of him now. I understand he came in under difficult circumstances, but the stimulus, which hasn't done a thing, and now healthcare reform have turned me completely off, not to mention the Big Brother policies (email the WH if your neighbor is acting fishy, I thought we were done with that when Bush left office?).
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,667
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2198 on: September 01, 2009, 10:44:37 AM »

Democratic Hawk is not going to blame Obama or his policies for his low rating.

And why should I? I'm a pragmatic moderate, not some rightwing dogmatoid
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,627
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2199 on: September 01, 2009, 11:14:44 AM »

I am shocked at the speed of Obama's decline in recent weeks. There has been no fluctuation at all. He's gone straight off the cliff. When is he going to bottom out? I thought maybe he'd get a small bounce when Kennedy died, but that hasn't happened.

I don't think the public is giving Bush a pass so much as they disapprove of Obama's actions. He's running up the debt at a pace that makes Bush look like a sissy. On top of that, he's wanting to add another trillion to it with the healthcare reform, even after it looks like our recovery may not be a strong as we thought, which will lead to a larger debt down the road. That's certainly why I disapprove of him now. I understand he came in under difficult circumstances, but the stimulus, which hasn't done a thing, and now healthcare reform have turned me completely off, not to mention the Big Brother policies (email the WH if your neighbor is acting fishy, I thought we were done with that when Bush left office?).

Debt is invisible. It's not until people start seeing it in tax increases or cuts in public services that they see it.

The proposed healthcare reform is part of the problem, and the Right has been operating a vicious smear campaign. It's all soundbite-scaled lies, but they are vicious lies.

"Death panels"... "They will kill your grandmother"... Obama = Hitler

It's easier to tell a simple lie than to refute it. It's easy to press "Send All" to everyone in the e-mail box and far more difficult to examine the facts. People will need to see results in order to see the lies if they don't try to look at pages of a PDF.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 83 84 85 86 87 [88] 89 90 91 92 93 ... 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 0.081 seconds with 13 queries.