Obama's 26% Strong Approval

[Immanuel]

President Obama's approval rating is higher than Bush's was when Bush got re-elected.

And the only thing that will matter in that regard is where President Obama's approval rating is shortly before the next Presidential election.

If I am correct (and I am going off of memory nothing else) President Bush's rating was pretty high around this time of his first term. Democrats and Republicans stood beside him after 9/11. If President Obama's rating today is below President Bush's on 12/30/01, it does not mean that President Obama is a worse President than Bush was as President Bush had a lot of support then. What it means is that this country is in turmoil. And I don't blame that on either President... I blame it on politicians in general who are attempting to wage a class war between us.

Approval ratings are good for comparisons, but they are not the tell all that ends all IMHO.

Immie

 

[LibocalypseNow]

26%?? That number is obviously way too inflated. How could anyone honestly say they strongly approve of this President? Seems pretty ludicrous to me. Yikes!

 

[The Rabbi]

26%?? That number is obviously way too inflated. How could anyone actually say they strongly approve of this President? Seems pretty ludicrous to me. Yikes!

If you stripped out the African American contingent the numbers would probably look a lot worse.

 

[Polk]

President Obama's approval rating is higher than Bush's was when Bush got re-elected.

And the only thing that will matter in that regard is where President Obama's approval rating is shortly before the next Presidential election.

If I am correct (and I am going off of memory nothing else) President Bush's rating was pretty high around this time of his first term. Democrats and Republicans stood beside him after 9/11. If President Obama's rating today is below President Bush's on 12/30/01, it does not mean that President Obama is a worse President than Bush was as President Bush had a lot of support then. What it means is that this country is in turmoil. And I don't blame that on either President... I blame it on politicians in general who are attempting to wage a class war between us.

Approval ratings are good for comparisons, but they are not the tell all that ends all IMHO.

Immie

Bush's approval rating was higher because of 9/11. Take that out of the mix and he's probably have been in similar or lower territory in late 2001.

 

[Immanuel]

President Obama's approval rating is higher than Bush's was when Bush got re-elected.

And the only thing that will matter in that regard is where President Obama's approval rating is shortly before the next Presidential election.

If I am correct (and I am going off of memory nothing else) President Bush's rating was pretty high around this time of his first term. Democrats and Republicans stood beside him after 9/11. If President Obama's rating today is below President Bush's on 12/30/01, it does not mean that President Obama is a worse President than Bush was as President Bush had a lot of support then. What it means is that this country is in turmoil. And I don't blame that on either President... I blame it on politicians in general who are attempting to wage a class war between us.

Approval ratings are good for comparisons, but they are not the tell all that ends all IMHO.

Immie

Bush's approval rating was higher because of 9/11. Take that out of the mix and he's probably have been in similar or lower territory in late 2001.

Hey! Ain't that what I said?

Also, I saw the link to the polling data posted in another thread a little while ago. Latest information had President Obama at -16 but that is only "strongly approve" less "Strongly Disapprove" When you look at both approves and subtract both disapproves, you only get a -5 total. In today's times with today's economic gloom (not saying it is the President's fault) -5 is not all that bad.

Sorry, I don't remember which thread I saw it in. If you want I can see if I can find it.

Duh! I should have just gone to the History Tab!

Here is the link:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...a_administration/obama_approval_index_history

Immie

PS: I hope you did not take it as I was slamming President Obama in my post.

 

[Polk]

And the only thing that will matter in that regard is where President Obama's approval rating is shortly before the next Presidential election.

If I am correct (and I am going off of memory nothing else) President Bush's rating was pretty high around this time of his first term. Democrats and Republicans stood beside him after 9/11. If President Obama's rating today is below President Bush's on 12/30/01, it does not mean that President Obama is a worse President than Bush was as President Bush had a lot of support then. What it means is that this country is in turmoil. And I don't blame that on either President... I blame it on politicians in general who are attempting to wage a class war between us.

Approval ratings are good for comparisons, but they are not the tell all that ends all IMHO.

Immie

Bush's approval rating was higher because of 9/11. Take that out of the mix and he's probably have been in similar or lower territory in late 2001.

Hey! Ain't that what I said?

Also, I saw the link to the polling data posted in another thread a little while ago. Latest information had President Obama at -16 but that is only "strongly approve" less "Strongly Disapprove" When you look at both approves and subtract both disapproves, you only get a -5 total. In today's times with today's economic gloom (not saying it is the President's fault) -5 is not all that bad.

Sorry, I don't remember which thread I saw it in. If you want I can see if I can find it.

Duh! I should have just gone to the History Tab!

Here is the link:

Obama Approval Index History - Rasmussen Reports™

Immie

PS: I hope you did not take it as I was slamming President Obama in my post.

I didn't take it that way at all. I saw you made note of it in passing, but it was key point that needed repeating.

 

[Rinata]

Wow...thats super interesting!

Too bad Obama only needs 20% approval to beat the crap out of whatever stiff the GOP picks to run

I guess you really needed a laugh..

I did!!! But I was hoping that you didn't notice that I laughed. It struck me so funny!!! I'm sorry, Lumpy!!!

 

[oreo]

Yes no political power when you lead the party that controls Congress and the White House, are the leader of the free world and have an opposition party that has approval ratings in the 20s

When he loses Congress... which is all but inevitable now, he gets nothing done. Happened to Bill Clinton too.

All but inevitable?

The Democrats have a 257-178 majority in the House right now. Therefore, losing control of the House would mean a swing of 40 seats. The odds of that happening are very slim (most forecasters project a swing in the low-20s, I project a swing in the high-20s, the prices in trading markets suggest a predicted swing of a little under 30).

They also have a 58-40 majority in the Senate. Since they'll still have the White House in either case, the Republicans need 51 seats. That means they need to pick up at least ten and possibly eleven (if his vote would be the deciding factor, it's highly likely Lieberman would caucus with the Republicans). If we use Nate Silver's list of seats most likely to change hands as a baseline for which seats are most in danger, the GOP would need to win Delaware, Nevada, Connecticut, Colorado, Arkansas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, North Dakota, New York, Hawaii, and possibly Wisconsin. Note, all of those are while successfully defending open seats in Missouri, Ohio, New Hampshire, Kentucky, and Florida. Even in a Republican wave year, that's highly unlikely.

Want to put your 2 quarter bet on that theory-- Democrats are certain to lose the house in 2010. Senate doesn't matter--they'll lose it in 2012.

You probably weren't born prior to 1994--when Republicans took over the house on their campaign theme of "contract with America"--basically regarding the same concerns that Americans have today--GOVERNMENT non-sense spending. In 1994 there was really nothing wrong with the economy & we had a popular President in Bill Clinton--yet democrats were wiped off of the map.

Today--we have over 10% unemployment with a big wreckless government that spends money like it grows on trees. It's laughable to believe that democrats have a snow-balls chance in hell of keeping control of the house in 2010. Heck--they're already gone--

 

[rightwinger]

When he loses Congress... which is all but inevitable now, he gets nothing done. Happened to Bill Clinton too.

All but inevitable?

The Democrats have a 257-178 majority in the House right now. Therefore, losing control of the House would mean a swing of 40 seats. The odds of that happening are very slim (most forecasters project a swing in the low-20s, I project a swing in the high-20s, the prices in trading markets suggest a predicted swing of a little under 30).

They also have a 58-40 majority in the Senate. Since they'll still have the White House in either case, the Republicans need 51 seats. That means they need to pick up at least ten and possibly eleven (if his vote would be the deciding factor, it's highly likely Lieberman would caucus with the Republicans). If we use Nate Silver's list of seats most likely to change hands as a baseline for which seats are most in danger, the GOP would need to win Delaware, Nevada, Connecticut, Colorado, Arkansas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, North Dakota, New York, Hawaii, and possibly Wisconsin. Note, all of those are while successfully defending open seats in Missouri, Ohio, New Hampshire, Kentucky, and Florida. Even in a Republican wave year, that's highly unlikely.

Want to put your 2 quarter bet on that theory-- Democrats are certain to lose the house in 2010. Senate doesn't matter--they'll lose it in 2012.

You probably weren't born prior to 1994--when Republicans took over the house on their campaign theme of "contract with America"--basically regarding the same concerns that Americans have today--GOVERNMENT non-sense spending. In 1994 there was really nothing wrong with the economy & we had a popular President in Bill Clinton--yet democrats were wiped off of the map.

Today--we have over 10% unemployment with a big wreckless government that spends money like it grows on trees. It's laughable to believe that democrats have a snow-balls chance in hell of keeping control of the house in 2010. Heck--they're already gone--

I remember 1994 well. America signed up to the Conservative "contract with America" we also signed up to eight years of Bush and gave the GOP free reign to implement their contract.

The result?

- The worst recession in 70 years
- Mistrust of America around the globe
- Open advocation of torture
- two wars
- the worst terrorist attack in history
- "red" and "blue" America

America saw what that contract with America did and voted the GOP into political exile. Now the GOP is dusting off the same old contract and saying

"Trust us it will work this time"

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oreo, that the Dems will lose the House next year is a silly conceit of the reactionary wing nuts of America.

 

[rightwinger]

Oreo, that the Dems will lose the House next year is a silly conceit of the reactionary wing nuts of America.

Jake

I like this cockiness from the right. It shows they still have not learned their lesson from 2006 and 2008. America has grown tired of their act, the GOP is losing its relevance.
The right wing response to 2006 and 2008 is to move farther to the right. They are now being ruled by Rush Limbaugh and the teaparty movement.
By alienating the moderates and relying more heavilly on blocking legislation, fear mongering and hate the right wing is ensuring further defeats in 2010 and 2012

 

[Polk]

When he loses Congress... which is all but inevitable now, he gets nothing done. Happened to Bill Clinton too.

All but inevitable?

The Democrats have a 257-178 majority in the House right now. Therefore, losing control of the House would mean a swing of 40 seats. The odds of that happening are very slim (most forecasters project a swing in the low-20s, I project a swing in the high-20s, the prices in trading markets suggest a predicted swing of a little under 30).

They also have a 58-40 majority in the Senate. Since they'll still have the White House in either case, the Republicans need 51 seats. That means they need to pick up at least ten and possibly eleven (if his vote would be the deciding factor, it's highly likely Lieberman would caucus with the Republicans). If we use Nate Silver's list of seats most likely to change hands as a baseline for which seats are most in danger, the GOP would need to win Delaware, Nevada, Connecticut, Colorado, Arkansas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, North Dakota, New York, Hawaii, and possibly Wisconsin. Note, all of those are while successfully defending open seats in Missouri, Ohio, New Hampshire, Kentucky, and Florida. Even in a Republican wave year, that's highly unlikely.

Want to put your 2 quarter bet on that theory-- Democrats are certain to lose the house in 2010. Senate doesn't matter--they'll lose it in 2012.

You probably weren't born prior to 1994--when Republicans took over the house on their campaign theme of "contract with America"--basically regarding the same concerns that Americans have today--GOVERNMENT non-sense spending. In 1994 there was really nothing wrong with the economy & we had a popular President in Bill Clinton--yet democrats were wiped off of the map.

Today--we have over 10% unemployment with a big wreckless government that spends money like it grows on trees. It's laughable to believe that democrats have a snow-balls chance in hell of keeping control of the house in 2010. Heck--they're already gone--

It's pretty foolish to think 2010 is going to be a repeat of 1994. Many of the seats that flipped in 2004 were ones represented by Democrats, but the underlying fundamentals of the district were highly favorable to the Republicans. Those seats are pretty much non-existent now.

 

[Polk]

Oreo, that the Dems will lose the House next year is a silly conceit of the reactionary wing nuts of America.

Jake

I like this cockiness from the right. It shows they still have not learned their lesson from 2006 and 2008. America has grown tired of their act, the GOP is losing its relevance.
The right wing response to 2006 and 2008 is to move farther to the right. They are now being ruled by Rush Limbaugh and the teaparty movement.
By alienating the moderates and relying more heavilly on blocking legislation, fear mongering and hate the right wing is ensuring further defeats in 2010 and 2012

They'll pick up seats in 2010, but it'll be to their longer-run disadvantage. It won't be enough to retake either chamber, but it'll reinforce the narrative that they only need to go further and further to the right to win. The result is they'll nominate some radical in 2012 and guarantee Obama a second term.

 

[rightwinger]

The result is they'll nominate some radical in 2012 and guarantee Obama a second term.

Doesn't matter what stiff they run for President, they will still be humiliated in 2012

 

[The Rabbi]

All but inevitable?

The Democrats have a 257-178 majority in the House right now. Therefore, losing control of the House would mean a swing of 40 seats. The odds of that happening are very slim (most forecasters project a swing in the low-20s, I project a swing in the high-20s, the prices in trading markets suggest a predicted swing of a little under 30).

They also have a 58-40 majority in the Senate. Since they'll still have the White House in either case, the Republicans need 51 seats. That means they need to pick up at least ten and possibly eleven (if his vote would be the deciding factor, it's highly likely Lieberman would caucus with the Republicans). If we use Nate Silver's list of seats most likely to change hands as a baseline for which seats are most in danger, the GOP would need to win Delaware, Nevada, Connecticut, Colorado, Arkansas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, North Dakota, New York, Hawaii, and possibly Wisconsin. Note, all of those are while successfully defending open seats in Missouri, Ohio, New Hampshire, Kentucky, and Florida. Even in a Republican wave year, that's highly unlikely.

Want to put your 2 quarter bet on that theory-- Democrats are certain to lose the house in 2010. Senate doesn't matter--they'll lose it in 2012.

You probably weren't born prior to 1994--when Republicans took over the house on their campaign theme of "contract with America"--basically regarding the same concerns that Americans have today--GOVERNMENT non-sense spending. In 1994 there was really nothing wrong with the economy & we had a popular President in Bill Clinton--yet democrats were wiped off of the map.

Today--we have over 10% unemployment with a big wreckless government that spends money like it grows on trees. It's laughable to believe that democrats have a snow-balls chance in hell of keeping control of the house in 2010. Heck--they're already gone--

I remember 1994 well. America signed up to the Conservative "contract with America" we also signed up to eight years of Bush and gave the GOP free reign to implement their contract.

The result?

- The worst recession in 70 years
- Mistrust of America around the globe
- Open advocation of torture
- two wars
- the worst terrorist attack in history
- "red" and "blue" America

America saw what that contract with America did and voted the GOP into political exile. Now the GOP is dusting off the same old contract and saying

"Trust us it will work this time"

Actually all of that was due to the election of Abraham Lincoln.

So you're saying that something that happened in 1994 directly caused results in 2001 and following?
How about, the Democrats ran in '06 on ending earmarks and fiscal responsibility. Instead we got the worst recession in 70 years, multi billion dollar bail outs of Fannie/Freddie, gov't takeovers of the auto and banking industries, and more terrorist attacks.
Remember, the economy was doing great up until the congressional elections. Things went south after the Dums took power. Own up to it, stop blaming Bush.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The worst recession in seventy years is in the minds of Americans the GOP's fault. That has not changed, and no amount of revising and spinning will change that between now and the elections next year.

 

[Lumpy 1]

The worst recession in seventy years is in the minds of Americans the GOP's fault. That has not changed, and no amount of revising and spinning will change that between now and the elections next year.

You get high points for optimism there Jake.

I have a feeling after 2 years of Obama and 4 years of Democrat control of Congress your optimism may fall on deaf ears.

Consider this, The Democrats and Obama were voted in to change the trend of bad news and government dysfunction. You know the list. You really thing blaming others is going to build confidence in their abilities? By reminding people of just how bad it is, simply doesn't help. People already know how bad it is and a rough idea of where it's going, to any rational person, it's not pretty.

There is no doubt that all government is the problem, both sides and the middle inept and on the take. The "little guy" has been screwed to excess by the power elite and there's no more blood in the stone.

If I had my New Years wish practically every incumbent would be drummed out of office for the next 3 elections and the twisted rules within internal power structure of the Judiciary, Executive and Legislative Branches would be returned to the peoples interests.

Well... that's my rant for the day....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nothing BHO and the Dems have done will lead to the American voter forgiving the GOP in 2010 and 2012. The Republicans' sins and crimes are too great.

 

[Lumpy 1]

I guess you really needed a laugh..

I did!!! But I was hoping that you didn't notice that I laughed. It struck me so funny!!! I'm sorry, Lumpy!!!

Are you kidding, your sorry, grab all the laughs you can get, we all, sure as #$%@* need them.

Personally.. I was not amused but smiled slightly.....

 

[Lumpy 1]

Nothing BHO and the Dems have done will lead to the American voter forgiving the GOP in 2010 and 2012. The Republicans' sins and crimes are too great.

Damn that's it, that's all you have to say, flubbergasdoddlepoppicklesnort...poop

Sometimes I get the vision that you and Rightwinger only stop standing there with you arms straight out ahead of you chanting , "yes master" to write fanciful posts.