The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 02, 2021, 10:54:36 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 ... 281 282 283 284 285 [286] 287 288 289 290 291 ... 410
Author Topic: The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread  (Read 1082565 times)
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,102
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7125 on: January 15, 2011, 02:51:06 PM »

But who cares what an adult who is not a registered voter thinks anyway?  They are irrelevant to the political process.

New voters may swing heavily toward President Obama as in 2008, and old voters might go into hibernation, at least in the Presidential election.

Remember:

Some of the people who will be voting in the 2012 election are now barely 16 years old. Some have just achieved citizenship.
Logged
Donald Trump’s Toupée
GOP_Represent
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,463


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7126 on: January 15, 2011, 03:22:56 PM »

But who cares what an adult who is not a registered voter thinks anyway?  They are irrelevant to the political process.

New voters may swing heavily toward President Obama as in 2008, and old voters might go into hibernation, at least in the Presidential election.

Remember:

Some of the people who will be voting in the 2012 election are now barely 16 years old. Some have just achieved citizenship.


Little bit of wishful thinking, no? Obama will not have the same magic as he did in 2008. A lot of people - youth included - have become so disillusioned with him. In fact, there's more of a chance the youth will stay home, and the elders will seek to vote him out of office.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,102
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7127 on: January 15, 2011, 06:15:28 PM »

But who cares what an adult who is not a registered voter thinks anyway?  They are irrelevant to the political process.

New voters may swing heavily toward President Obama as in 2008, and old voters might go into hibernation, at least in the Presidential election.

Remember:

Some of the people who will be voting in the 2012 election are now barely 16 years old. Some have just achieved citizenship.


Little bit of wishful thinking, no? Obama will not have the same magic as he did in 2008. A lot of people - youth included - have become so disillusioned with him. In fact, there's more of a chance the youth will stay home, and the elders will seek to vote him out of office.

I have no cause to believe  that voters over 50 will vote more for than against President Obama. Voters under 50? Different story.

Why do you believe that the electorate will behave as it did in 2010?  The Hard Right has taken over the House, and it is going to return to the same Dubya-era politics that eventually went stale. The right-wing special interests from the gun lobby to the financial gougers own the House and will effectively govern through lobbyists. Lobbyists will not themselves vote, but they will certainly give guidance to Hard Right Republicans. Basically the guidance will be "Vote this way or we will find someone to defeat you in the primary". 

Suppose that in the aftermath of the assassination attempt on Representative Giffords that the President offers some weapons-control reforms... perhaps a restoration of the ban on assault rifles and a new ban on large magazines as well as stricter regulation on who can buy guns and ammo -- so that someone adjudicated mentally ill or rejected by the Armed Forces for mental instability or insufficiency, someone dishonorably discharged, someone on the terrorist watch list, or an illegal alien will be arrested  for simply trying to buy guns or ammo. The gun lobby will be furious!


President Obama, should he succeed in getting the desired legislation passed,  will be recognized as a political hero. Should the House stop him then it will generally be seen as the fault of the GOP  and he gets to campaign on a promise of sensible gun control in 2012. Heads I win -- tails you lose. Sometimes that is the way that things work.

The economy? "No double dip" is evidence of sound management of whatever role the President has  in the economy. Sure, there can't be another corrupt boom for a while, but the hits that have been taken are all that can be taken.

Wishful thinking? The wishful thinking on my part is that historical precedent holds for this President.  I can't predict the future as certainly as perhaps an astrologer might pretend to. But I can predict that a Congress of Hard Right stooges of Corporate America and the Religious Right will offend younger voters anew.     



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


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7128 on: January 15, 2011, 10:03:19 PM »

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 46%, -1.

Disapprove 53%, +2.

"Strongly Approve" is at 26%, +1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 38%, nc.

For comparison purposes:





Thank you, and an interesting comparison.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7129 on: January 16, 2011, 09:47:14 AM »

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 44%, --2.

Disapprove 55%, +2.

"Strongly Approve" is at 26%, u.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 40%, +2.

This could just be a bad Obama sample moving through.

Logged
Exopolitician
MATCHU[D]
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,893
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.03, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7130 on: January 16, 2011, 11:47:54 AM »

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 44%, --2.

Disapprove 55%, +2.

"Strongly Approve" is at 26%, u.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 40%, +2.

This could just be a bad Obama sample moving through.




Is Rasmussen the only pollster showing a dip in Obama's numbers?
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,115
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7131 on: January 16, 2011, 01:33:53 PM »

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 44%, --2.

Disapprove 55%, +2.

"Strongly Approve" is at 26%, u.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 40%, +2.

This could just be a bad Obama sample moving through.




Is Rasmussen the only pollster showing a dip in Obama's numbers?

Yeah. Gallup went from 49-43 yesterday to 49-42 today.
Logged
Poundingtherock
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 917
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7132 on: January 16, 2011, 01:51:14 PM »

It's pretty clear that Obama's speech was pretty mediocre.  The polling does not support the argument that he gave a good speech.

Rasmussen has shown him tanking in the aftermath of his speech and everyone here is on record signing Rasmussen's praises for his daily tracking poll.  I wonder if you'll stand by that praise now that Rasmussen has shown Obama falling apart after his speech.

As for Gallup, there is no bounce at all.  His disapproval has dipped slightly in the aftermath but I'd expect them to go back up.  His approval rating didn't move at all.

Gallup and Rasmussen tell us that the American people got Obama's "rain drops" and told him to shove it.
Logged
Poundingtherock
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 917
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7133 on: January 16, 2011, 01:52:56 PM »

Obama's speech may be another instance why the media narrative is completely unsupported by polling.

The person who nailed the Obama speech completely was liberal Kirsten Powers.  I think her reaction is the one that was felt by most non-partisan,  non-political people.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-12/obama-arizona-speech-missed-an-opportunity/

Rasmussen and Gallup seem to back up her point.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,102
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7134 on: January 16, 2011, 02:18:59 PM »

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 46%, -1.

Disapprove 53%, +2.

"Strongly Approve" is at 26%, +1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 38%, nc.

For comparison purposes:





Interesting parallel.  The last successes as President, Reagan and Clinton, show much the same pattern. They took their biggest chances early, took some political flak, found out what worked and didn't during their first terms, got people accustomed to them as President, and won re-election. If you contrast the least-effective President in the last seventy-five years (Carter) you find that he achieved little early. It wasn't only that he faced one of the slickest campaigners, the economy remained in the tank, and Iranian terrorists took over the US Embassy; he lost big, and would have lost by a slim margin had none of those things been so.

Neither Reagan nor Clinton had to make new promises. Carter had to do so, and few believed him.

No parallels are perfect. Some are just better than others.
Logged
Exopolitician
MATCHU[D]
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,893
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.03, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7135 on: January 16, 2011, 02:25:55 PM »

Obama's speech may be another instance why the media narrative is completely unsupported by polling.

The person who nailed the Obama speech completely was liberal Kirsten Powers.  I think her reaction is the one that was felt by most non-partisan,  non-political people.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-12/obama-arizona-speech-missed-an-opportunity/

Rasmussen and Gallup seem to back up her point.


That whole article complains about how Obama's mission should have been to tell everyone that it wasn't Palin's fault or the right-wing ect, when thats not what the President was there to speak about.

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


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7136 on: January 16, 2011, 02:27:06 PM »

It's pretty clear that Obama's speech was pretty mediocre.  The polling does not support the argument that he gave a good speech.

Rasmussen has shown him tanking in the aftermath of his speech and everyone here is on record signing Rasmussen's praises for his daily tracking poll.  I wonder if you'll stand by that praise now that Rasmussen has shown Obama falling apart after his speech.

As for Gallup, there is no bounce at all.  His disapproval has dipped slightly in the aftermath but I'd expect them to go back up.  His approval rating didn't move at all.

Gallup and Rasmussen tell us that the American people got Obama's "rain drops" and told him to shove it.

Evrerything I've heard about it (including from Beck), the speech itself was good.  I heard some criticism on the applause.

Part of the problem might the leftists claiming it is all the "hate speech" causing this.  It turns out that this was a guy with serious mental problems, that were very clear.  By reflection, that didn't help Obama (even though he wasn't doing it).

The idiots on the left might have played right into Beck's, et al., hands.
Logged
Poundingtherock
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 917
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7137 on: January 16, 2011, 02:42:44 PM »

Right J.J., I didn't recognize that rodeo clown Glenn Beck became such an authoritative figure all of a sudden.  Just because Beck said it was good doesn't mean it was good.

You may want to read what even a far-left liberal like Kirsten Powers had to say about it.  Gallup and Rasmussen don't seem to agree with rodeo clown Glenn Beck and agree more with Powers.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,180
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7138 on: January 16, 2011, 03:54:25 PM »

Right J.J., I didn't recognize that rodeo clown Glenn Beck became such an authoritative figure all of a sudden.  Just because Beck said it was good doesn't mean it was good.

You may want to read what even a far-left liberal like Kirsten Powers had to say about it.  Gallup and Rasmussen don't seem to agree with rodeo clown Glenn Beck and agree more with Powers.

Shut up.

Please.
Logged
Oakvale
oakvale
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,724
Ireland, Republic of
Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7139 on: January 16, 2011, 04:23:08 PM »

Right J.J., I didn't recognize that rodeo clown Glenn Beck became such an authoritative figure all of a sudden.  Just because Beck said it was good doesn't mean it was good.

You may want to read what even a far-left liberal like Kirsten Powers had to say about it.  Gallup and Rasmussen don't seem to agree with rodeo clown Glenn Beck and agree more with Powers.

Shut up.

Please.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 50,270
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7140 on: January 16, 2011, 05:02:21 PM »

But who cares what an adult who is not a registered voter thinks anyway?  They are irrelevant to the political process.

New voters may swing heavily toward President Obama as in 2008, and old voters might go into hibernation, at least in the Presidential election.

Remember:

Some of the people who will be voting in the 2012 election are now barely 16 years old. Some have just achieved citizenship.


Little bit of wishful thinking, no? Obama will not have the same magic as he did in 2008. A lot of people - youth included - have become so disillusioned with him. In fact, there's more of a chance the youth will stay home, and the elders will seek to vote him out of office.

I have no cause to believe  that voters over 50 will vote more for than against President Obama. Voters under 50? Different story.

Why do you believe that the electorate will behave as it did in 2010?  The Hard Right has taken over the House, and it is going to return to the same Dubya-era politics that eventually went stale. The right-wing special interests from the gun lobby to the financial gougers own the House and will effectively govern through lobbyists. Lobbyists will not themselves vote, but they will certainly give guidance to Hard Right Republicans. Basically the guidance will be "Vote this way or we will find someone to defeat you in the primary". 

Suppose that in the aftermath of the assassination attempt on Representative Giffords that the President offers some weapons-control reforms... perhaps a restoration of the ban on assault rifles and a new ban on large magazines as well as stricter regulation on who can buy guns and ammo -- so that someone adjudicated mentally ill or rejected by the Armed Forces for mental instability or insufficiency, someone dishonorably discharged, someone on the terrorist watch list, or an illegal alien will be arrested  for simply trying to buy guns or ammo. The gun lobby will be furious!


President Obama, should he succeed in getting the desired legislation passed,  will be recognized as a political hero. Should the House stop him then it will generally be seen as the fault of the GOP  and he gets to campaign on a promise of sensible gun control in 2012. Heads I win -- tails you lose. Sometimes that is the way that things work.

The economy? "No double dip" is evidence of sound management of whatever role the President has  in the economy. Sure, there can't be another corrupt boom for a while, but the hits that have been taken are all that can be taken.

Wishful thinking? The wishful thinking on my part is that historical precedent holds for this President.  I can't predict the future as certainly as perhaps an astrologer might pretend to. But I can predict that a Congress of Hard Right stooges of Corporate America and the Religious Right will offend younger voters anew.     




Most voters do not view the economy and politics like that. Americans will expect a return to or be on the road to what they think is "normal" ie 5% unemployment and expect the President to deliver it whether he can or can't in reality (thank FDR). If that hasn't been achieved they will turn on whoever it is in office.

This is not a case of having you cake and eating it too, "the hits have been taken and so there will be no more damage from them". That is not how the economy is treated. Results beyond just averting a worse crisis (which I will point out is a difficult arguement to make because people beleive what they feel and since they didn't feel a worse case scenario they won't grasp it) will be demanded as long as this "new normal" lasts. In other words, "Are you better off now then you were four years ago" or "I can do better at 'restoring' the economy then he can..." are very potent tools as long as Unemployment is stuck above 9%.

Most real people that you talk to, don't consider the recession over and they don't view the economy in terms of contraction and expansion but in terms of whether the economy is good or is bad and from the beginning of the contraction till we reach pre-Recession employement levels, is considered bad. So Obama will not be trumpeting the current state of affairs as an achievement worthy of his reelection. Instead his arguement will have to be this is just a bump in the road and that his policies and his administration will restore the economy if reelected. Successfully convincing people of that is his only option. If he doesn't then the Republicans will be able to make the case and it will be very convincing that Obama beleives this is an acceptable "new normal" and that the only way to move beyond it is to elect someone committed to restoring the economy to full health. Actual reality of the polices will matter less because in the people's mind Obama's policies haven't delivered results and thus it is time to try something new.

Finally, most would gladly go back to 2005 if only it didn't mean having to go through 2007 to 2010. People prefer booming economies and don't view them as corrupt. It is reasonable to say that the economic expansion (boom just sounds so juvenile these days, I think. Overuse maybe) from 2002 to 2007 was unstable and unsustainable, it most certainly wasn't corrupt. An expansion is merely a growth in the number and value of the transactions that take place (measured with GDP). Hardly corrupt in and off itself. Corruption does happen, but I think the incentive for fraud and criminal behavior is present in good and bad times. One would have to be very cynical to say that all new economic activity and all economic activity that increased in value in a period of years is corrupt.

Logged
Poundingtherock
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 917
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7141 on: January 16, 2011, 05:20:46 PM »

Lyndon,

Are you too busy crying over rain drops?  Because Rasmussen and Gallup seem to indicate nobody else did besides rodeo clown Glenn Beck.
Logged
Oakvale
oakvale
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,724
Ireland, Republic of
Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7142 on: January 16, 2011, 06:38:04 PM »

Lyndon,

Are you too busy crying over rain drops?  Because Rasmussen and Gallup seem to indicate nobody else did besides rodeo clown Glenn Beck.

Jesus, you're such a mind-numbingly annoying hack I don't even know why I'm responding to you, but take a look at this -



Also take a look at the praise Obama's speech from, uh, virtually everyone - even on the right,  from John McCain to Chris Christie to Charles Krauthammer.

Here's a nice list.

Please, please, go away. Go and post at the Free Republic and never come back.

Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,102
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7143 on: January 16, 2011, 08:59:19 PM »
« Edited: January 16, 2011, 09:32:00 PM by pbrower2a »



I have no cause to believe  that voters over 50 will vote more for than against President Obama. Voters under 50? Different story.

Why do you believe that the electorate will behave as it did in 2010?  The Hard Right has taken over the House, and it is going to return to the same Dubya-era politics that eventually went stale. The right-wing special interests from the gun lobby to the financial gougers own the House and will effectively govern through lobbyists. Lobbyists will not themselves vote, but they will certainly give guidance to Hard Right Republicans. Basically the guidance will be "Vote this way or we will find someone to defeat you in the primary".  

Suppose that in the aftermath of the assassination attempt on Representative Giffords that the President offers some weapons-control reforms... perhaps a restoration of the ban on assault rifles and a new ban on large magazines as well as stricter regulation on who can buy guns and ammo -- so that someone adjudicated mentally ill or rejected by the Armed Forces for mental instability or insufficiency, someone dishonorably discharged, someone on the terrorist watch list, or an illegal alien will be arrested  for simply trying to buy guns or ammo. The gun lobby will be furious!


President Obama, should he succeed in getting the desired legislation passed,  will be recognized as a political hero. Should the House stop him then it will generally be seen as the fault of the GOP  and he gets to campaign on a promise of sensible gun control in 2012. Heads I win -- tails you lose. Sometimes that is the way that things work.

The economy? "No double dip" is evidence of sound management of whatever role the President has  in the economy. Sure, there can't be another corrupt boom for a while, but the hits that have been taken are all that can be taken.

Wishful thinking? The wishful thinking on my part is that historical precedent holds for this President.  I can't predict the future as certainly as perhaps an astrologer might pretend to. But I can predict that a Congress of Hard Right stooges of Corporate America and the Religious Right will offend younger voters anew.      




Most voters do not view the economy and politics like that. Americans will expect a return to or be on the road to what they think is "normal" ie 5% unemployment and expect the President to deliver it whether he can or can't in reality (thank FDR). If that hasn't been achieved they will turn on whoever it is in office.

This is not a case of having you cake and eating it too, "the hits have been taken and so there will be no more damage from them". That is not how the economy is treated. Results beyond just averting a worse crisis (which I will point out is a difficult arguement to make because people beleive what they feel and since they didn't feel a worse case scenario they won't grasp it) will be demanded as long as this "new normal" lasts. In other words, "Are you better off now then you were four years ago" or "I can do better at 'restoring' the economy then he can..." are very potent tools as long as Unemployment is stuck above 9%.

Most real people that you talk to, don't consider the recession over and they don't view the economy in terms of contraction and expansion but in terms of whether the economy is good or is bad and from the beginning of the contraction till we reach pre-Recession employement levels, is considered bad. So Obama will not be trumpeting the current state of affairs as an achievement worthy of his reelection. Instead his arguement will have to be this is just a bump in the road and that his policies and his administration will restore the economy if reelected. Successfully convincing people of that is his only option. If he doesn't then the Republicans will be able to make the case and it will be very convincing that Obama beleives this is an acceptable "new normal" and that the only way to move beyond it is to elect someone committed to restoring the economy to full health. Actual reality of the polices will matter less because in the people's mind Obama's policies haven't delivered results and thus it is time to try something new.

Finally, most would gladly go back to 2005 if only it didn't mean having to go through 2007 to 2010. People prefer booming economies and don't view them as corrupt. It is reasonable to say that the economic expansion (boom just sounds so juvenile these days, I think. Overuse maybe) from 2002 to 2007 was unstable and unsustainable, it most certainly wasn't corrupt. An expansion is merely a growth in the number and value of the transactions that take place (measured with GDP). Hardly corrupt in and off itself. Corruption does happen, but I think the incentive for fraud and criminal behavior is present in good and bad times. One would have to be very cynical to say that all new economic activity and all economic activity that increased in value in a period of years is corrupt.



No wild economic boom, the sort in which people can make money by investing for quick, easy, exciting gains will be possible. Such money as is being made is to be made in investment in undervalued securities that have their own risks or in long-term investments that people can't sell off easily. The electronics boom depended upon people having disposable income  with which to pay for high-profit, big-ticket items. Electronic purchases are now largely replacements. Real estate? For a more enjoyable sort of comedy, check out reruns of classic comedy TV series.

The right-wing solution -- the common man making great sacrifices on behalf of economic magnates in the hope that wealth will somehow trickle down -- will itself be a failure. At most, manor houses are built once.

It's low yields with slow and uncertain returns for the next few years. Say what you want about the 1930s, but they were a good time for starting businesses once the financial institutions stabilized.  The meltdown is over, and the recovery is on. It might not be as fast as people want, but economic growth is not something that people can vote on. See also: weather.

We may be in for a "new normal" -- that high-school kids can't expect to make a near-living at the mall when shopping malls are themselves closing due to a lack of free-spending customers.  We may need to see large numbers of people out of the labor market. And, yes, marginal female workers might have to leave the workforce not so much due to their incompetence but instead because our society can't afford to have an excessive number of idle men seeking any excitement or meaning available. Give some of those men a cheap uniform and they will go on the march for whatever fits their values, whether it be a street gang or a fascist clique (the KKK or the Black Panthers will do well). Kinder, Kirche, Kueche? That's how it was for a woman in the 1930s and the 1950s alike if she had a husband. I might not be comfortable suggesting that we would revert to that, but there's something to be said about being able to mend clothes, can seasonal fruits and vegetables, and take care of an elderly parent. One good thing about it: children will get the attention that they used to not get, and they will less likely become the aimless kids in the ghetto or the spoiled brats of Suburbia for lack of maternal direction.   

Face it: there just not be enough work to go around. Much as in the 1920s, when electrification of factories made industrial production far more efficient and kept wages from rising fast, so it has been with the information technologies. We may have to cut the normal hours of work from 40 a week to somewhere between 30 and 35. Such is a consequence of greater efficiency.

The corruption in the boom was the cheap money available for any speculative purpose. First, Americans should have been investing in something else -- something likely to create long-term jobs (typically plant and equipment). Second,  the low interest rate created by loose money made thrift unrewarding. Sustainable growth depends upon both savings and investment.  Plant and equipment. As in the unglamorous factory? Precisely! Many Americans are ill-suited for anything else -- at least anything whose pay isn't a travesty.   

But I digress. We have done badly at sharing the sacrifices. The corporate elites have continued to live like sultans while working people are at the mercy of their harsh decision-making.  The adjustments are far from over, and they can't be avoided. 

 
Logged
5280
MagneticFree
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,397
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.97, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7144 on: January 17, 2011, 12:53:42 AM »

I get a kick reading the arguments and debates from you guys, keep it up!
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7145 on: January 17, 2011, 09:44:15 AM »


Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 46%, +2.

Disapprove 53%, -2.

"Strongly Approve" is at 27%, +1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 38%, -2.

It looks like a bad Obama sample.


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


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7146 on: January 17, 2011, 09:48:44 AM »

Right J.J., I didn't recognize that rodeo clown Glenn Beck became such an authoritative figure all of a sudden.  Just because Beck said it was good doesn't mean it was good.

Yes, someone arguably an opponent of Obama complements the speech and you don't like it.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, it looks neutral.  It looks like they don't agree with your assessment.
Logged
Poundingtherock
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 917
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7147 on: January 17, 2011, 06:11:24 PM »

J.J.,

Fair enough.  It clearly hasn't changed the way his performance is perceived.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7148 on: January 17, 2011, 11:08:12 PM »

J.J.,

Fair enough.  It clearly hasn't changed the way his performance is perceived.

It wasn't suppose to; that's why it was so successful.  Smiley

Obama improves, long term, by looking like he's not trying to improve his image.

Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,102
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7149 on: January 17, 2011, 11:51:40 PM »

J.J.,

Fair enough.  It clearly hasn't changed the way his performance is perceived.

It wasn't suppose to; that's why it was so successful.  Smiley

Obama improves, long term, by looking like he's not trying to improve his image.



That is the point. Conservative-leaning people who think that President Obama is then trying to manipulate his image think him all the more devious and, of course, manipulative. Much would be the same of liberal-leaners facing a conservative President.

We live in a time of great distrust and ideological polarization. Right or Left, we as equally think that the Other Side is out to make our lives miserable for the enrichment and supposed glory of some political leaders and special interests.

Even if the President pushes (and gets most of) a large political agenda -- an achievement by most historical standards -- the Other Side considers it all suspect at best and evil at worst. Sure, liberals would disparage a right-wing President who succeeded at achieving an abortion ban, repeal of minimum wage and child labor laws, elimination of OHSA and the EPA -- maybe BATF as well, a national "right-to-work" law, creationism as  mandatory teaching in public schools, school prayer, and either a flat tax or a  consumption-based tax instead of the income tax.

In 2012 the great questions to be asked at the voting places will be whether they think that President Obama has done more good than harm, whether he needs some legislative assistance so that he can do more good than harm in a Second Term, and whether they like the behavior  of the GOP majority in the House. The ideologues won't decide these questions; they will never be satisfied with the Other Side.  It's the political center, the sorts of people who don't vote for Barry Goldwater in 1964 or George McGovern in 1972, the sorts that might have given Herbert Hoover or Jimmy Carter a chance and not given either another.   

Walter Alston (or was it Tommy Lasorda?) said of a baseball season that any team (unless it is the doomed 1899 Cleveland Spiders, the putrid 1962 New York Mets, or the dreadful 2003 Detroit Tigers) is going to win a third of its games and lose a third of its games. How well the season goes depends on the other third. In politics, the worst Presidential performer in modern times (Alf Landon) managed to get 37% of the vote, which is a little more than a third.

In 2008 Barack Obama won 53.7% of the votes that weren't wasted on third-party nominees. A swing of 3.7% of the nationwide vote away from him in 2012 probably ensures a Republican President.  He can gain some votes and have a stronger win; he can lose some and still get re-elected. A 3.7% swing away from him allows the Republicans to flip NE-02, North Carolina, Indiana, Florida, Ohio, and Virginia (which would still allow re-election) and perhaps Colorado (which he would need).   
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 281 282 283 284 285 [286] 287 288 289 290 291 ... 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 0.09 seconds with 13 queries.