This is a logical fallacy. I've never had a conversation with you about Bush's approval ratings, and you really have no idea whether or not I've ever "screamed" about his poll numbers. Also, it can be flipped right back at you -
"How come when Bush's poll numbers were low the cons said polls don't mean anything, and now that Obama's are low, cons can't stop screaming about it?"
Polls don't mean a thing, and they never have. But you're wrong as well - it's not "unprecedented". It's happened many times before - In their first year in office, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton all had lower numbers than Obama has ever had.
I disagree with that, I think the people who are most likely to form "strong" opinions are the ones who don't really pay attention - the ones who get their politics in 30 second sound bites. Anyone who actually knows that they're talking about usually understands that the truth is almost always somewhere in the middle - not on the far-out part of either side.
Which cons said polls don't mean anything? And why would a "con" want to defend Bush, who was anything but a conservative?
So people who don't follow something very much form close opinions? That's why sports fans get so wrapped up in their teams?
You aren't making much sense here. Not that I expected you to.
Reagan's lowest approval rating was 35%. Obama's is well under that.
Ok, I'll try to slow it down for you.
Obama's...... lowest...... approval...... rating.... ever...... was...... 47%.......
As you said yourself, Reagan's was in fact much lower. Did you get that?
The rest of your post was opinion and more logical fallacy - I already know that we disagree. Why don't you try to prove your point, instead of rehashing it? Got any real facts?
Check..the...thread.....title.