Obama's Approval Rating Higher Than Reagans? Who Knew?

[Cold Fusion38]

Cold Fusion38
Solong nd thx 4al da fish
Member #20356 Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 900
Thanks: 172
Thanked 35 Times in 33 Posts
Rep Power: 5



If you think about WHY breasts are sexualized then you are probably the type of guy who could fall into a barrel full of tits and come up sucking your own dick.





This from a TOTALLY unrelated post.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Oh and don't blame that shit on ME WJ if your wife can put up with you she would probably come all the way up here and KICK MY ASS for giving a bad idea. LOL!

Nah, my wifes a sweetheart. She wouldn't hurt a fly. She might give ya' a tongue lashing, but that's about it. She leaves the ass kickin' to me!
BTW, still waitin' to hear from my nephew on his vacation time. I'm hopin' to be up your way around the first of the year. I'll keep ya' Posted.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Just let me know when and where and I'm there.

 

[Oscar Wao]

I thought it was interesting. And of course, it's early... but if you listen to the psychos you'd think that a president with a 52% approval rating is somehow doomed to one-term status. That's simply absurd.

Someone who won with a "historical" label, and who stood on the steps of the Capitol with an 85% "entry" approval rating now going down to 50-51%...that's mediocre in comparison. Not "OMG! I better do something or the Repubs will kill our Democratic agendas!" but rather "Wow...I can SURE do better than that. Otherwise, trouble is a'comin'."

In fact, Clinton had such a rough first two years that it cost the dems congress and ultimately led to his harassment at the hands of repubs who spent 70 million dollars pursing a failed land deal.

True, but I think the GOP was elected because the "feeling of Reagan" was still kinda there (I mean, he only left office about 6 years earlier). Plus, the GOP was promising stuff about small government...so people kinda believed them. Oh, yes, and: The Dem Party was kinda chaotic at the time. All those terms in the equation equals...

I think for the GOP to have their "1994" again, they have to TOTALLY re-invent themselves, prove themselves that they truly are the "conservatives" they claim to be. Oh, and they MUST purge out the neo-cons and fundys at ALL costs.

Bush had the highest approval rating a week from now not because of anything he did, but because we were attacked and we all gathered 'round him. (unlike the wingnut assertion that dems somehow always objected to everything he did). I am hopeful that such a situation never occurs again even to artificially elevate our current president's approval ratings.

True. And he didn't do so bad in the first term, either (polls wise, NOT policy wise, haha). It was the second term when the foreign policy (and economic) kinda made people realize neo-conservatism is NOT what we need. Too bad the Bush of 2000 wasn't what we got when he came into office...

The Dems had their "1994" in 2006 and Obama won in '08 not because people are center-left, but because people thought there might be a bit of change in policy and because Obama isn't a Republican. It's kinda like football, almost.

 

[Yurt]

eh, too early.

And Carville is comparing Obama to 2 presidents who left office on a high approval rating, saying that Obama's approval is higher than theirs was at the same point. I think I need to remind Mr Carville that Bush had, by this time next week, the highest approval rating ever for a president....and then left office with the lowest.

For a legitimate reason. His decisions put us where we were in November. Obama already proved he wont make those type mistakes

too early to tell for that too.

Really, your Obama worship -- he will not make any mistakes EVER-- is a little annoying.

He's just like any other politician, R or D, smile and laugh while they stick their hands in your wallet.

the overall dem worship of obama is, IMO, not due solely to obama himself, rather, to the fact the dems lost in 2004...after running what they thought was a win grassroots campaign and the JOHN F KERRY.....it didn't matter who won, as long as it was a dem....they can do no wrong.....add that he is half black.....and they get their free race card.....

they're still hungover that they actually won.....

 

[Oscar Wao]

For a legitimate reason. His decisions put us where we were in November. Obama already proved he wont make those type mistakes

too early to tell for that too.

Really, your Obama worship -- he will not make any mistakes EVER-- is a little annoying.

He's just like any other politician, R or D, smile and laugh while they stick their hands in your wallet.

the overall dem worship of obama is, IMO, not due solely to obama himself, rather, to the fact the dems lost in 2004...after running what they thought was a win grassroots campaign and the JOHN F KERRY.....it didn't matter who won, as long as it was a dem....they can do no wrong.....add that he is half black.....and they get their free race card.....

they're still hungover that they actually won.....

C'mon, though, KERRY?! He was like the Democratic version of McCain, 4 years earlier...totally ineffective and dumb.

If I were a lib and/or Democrat, I'd probably have voted for BUSH in protest at how stupid the Democrats were to prop up THIS guy.

Just like I voted 3rd party in protest that the GOP was so stupid to prop up McBushIII.

 

[AllieBaba]

An interesting perspective from the always interesting ragin' cajun.... James Carville.

There are 14 months to go before a majority of Americans go to the ballot box again. Frequent comparisons are being made to the 1994 Clinton healthcare debacle and the ensuing Newt Gingrich-led Republican wave at that year’s midterms, of which I had a front-row view. But it is rarely noted that unlike then, there is plenty of time between now and the 2010 midterm elections

Historically, the first midterm election has usually been bad for a president’s party, often the result of giving back seats won on the president’s coat-tails. According to the latest Gallup poll, Mr Obama’s net approval rating (53 per cent approve, 40 per cent disapprove) is far more promising than Bill Clinton’s in 1994 (45 per cent approval, 46 per cent disapproval) and Ronald Reagan’s in 1982 (42 per cent approval, 47 per cent disapproval).

Much of the Republican hopes are pinned on Democrats’ economic policies failing over the course of the next year. The reputation of congressional Republicans is staked on the economy not getting better under President Obama. Democrats’ archives are full of Republicans promising Americans that Democrat policies won’t work. They offered meaningless alternatives and vehemently opposed each and every measure the economists and budget experts came up with.

If there is some improvement in job growth next year, Democrats will make the case down the home stretch that they not only staved off a major economic calamity inherited from a disastrous Republican administration but also managed to make progress despite unrelenting opposition.

The problem with Republicans, is that, as Ray Charles might have said, they are Republicans. In spite of all these Democratic troubles, the Republicans are held in lower esteem than they were in November 2006 (37 per cent warm, or favourable, against 48 per cent cool) or in November last year (37 per cent warm against 45 per cent cool). There’s been no improvement from elections in which they got clobbered. Our recent Democracy Corps polling showed the Republicans with a 32 per cent warm, 44 per cent cool rating. Sure, the right-wing Republican base is energised – with the “birthers”, tea parties, and town halls as proof – but they have to sustain their agitation, anger and general nuttiness for 14 more months. In elections, you don’t play against yourself; you have an opponent. Luckily, the Democrats are up against a still very unpopular Republican party.

FT.com / Comment / Opinion - Obama can avoid midterm blues

What's even more interesting is the base of the poll you're using to show Obama's "popularity". Only 14 percent of those polled were Republicans. And even with that slant, Obama comes off crappily.

 

[skookerasbil]

hey kook you were an a-hole on MSNBC and your third grade art work hasn't improved

pwned you that many times over there s0n, huh???!!!!

 

[bodecea]

So tell me where i'm braggin'?
I simply told you my story.
If I were braggin', I would of told ya' I picked up an m-60 and raided an entire battalion and wiped 'em out by myself. That didn't happen. I simply let my guard down and paid the price. Lack of sleep and extreme exhaustion causes those things to happen. My bad. And it cost me.
Ya' see, this is the pattern with you loony liberals. ANYBODY mentions they're a vet, and you spineless weasels pile on. It happens everytime. I'm used to that childish shit. It doesn't faze me in the least bit.
But hey, if you happen to be on eof the rare cases of a liberal who actually works and pays taxes, thanks!..Those taxes will go towards paying for my lifelong VA care. I'm sure that just thrills the fuck out of ya'!

Sure.

Maybe I'll see you at the VA at Wilshire some time. Let's see...what floor was it I used to drop the loonies and drug addicts off on.....

Yep, that would be the VA hospital where i'm treated. While you're there, take your fat dyke ass across the street and pay your respects to the TRUE war hero's. The VA cemetary. It's easy to find, just across Sepulveda boulevard.
Yeah, like that would ever happen!
Referring to our brave soldiers with head wounds as "loony's"
Yeah, you're one sick dyke bitch to be sure!

Actually, I'm talking about the loony's I used to have to take there because they, unfortunately, had gotten involved with crystal meth. But I don't have to tell you what crystal does to a person, do I?

BTW...you know what you would have called me when you were...ahem...in the Army?

 

[Wicked Jester]

Sure.

Maybe I'll see you at the VA at Wilshire some time. Let's see...what floor was it I used to drop the loonies and drug addicts off on.....

Yep, that would be the VA hospital where i'm treated. While you're there, take your fat dyke ass across the street and pay your respects to the TRUE war hero's. The VA cemetary. It's easy to find, just across Sepulveda boulevard.
Yeah, like that would ever happen!
Referring to our brave soldiers with head wounds as "loony's"
Yeah, you're one sick dyke bitch to be sure!

Actually, I'm talking about the loony's I used to have to take there because they, unfortunately, had gotten involved with crystal meth. But I don't have to tell you what crystal does to a person, do I?

BTW...you know what you would have called me when you were...ahem...in the Army?

No, you don't have to tell me what that garbage does to a person. I have a nephew that just got out of prison for crimes directly related to that garbage.
What would I have called you when I was in the Army?
Well, if you were an officer, I would have called you SIR!

 

[bodecea]

Yep, that would be the VA hospital where i'm treated. While you're there, take your fat dyke ass across the street and pay your respects to the TRUE war hero's. The VA cemetary. It's easy to find, just across Sepulveda boulevard.
Yeah, like that would ever happen!
Referring to our brave soldiers with head wounds as "loony's"
Yeah, you're one sick dyke bitch to be sure!

Actually, I'm talking about the loony's I used to have to take there because they, unfortunately, had gotten involved with crystal meth. But I don't have to tell you what crystal does to a person, do I?

BTW...you know what you would have called me when you were...ahem...in the Army?

No, you don't have to tell me what that garbage does to a person. I have a nephew that just got out of prison for crimes directly related to that garbage.
What would I have called you when I was in the Army?
Well, if you were an officer, I would have called you SIR!

Close. You would have called me Ma'am.

 

[Chris]

An interesting perspective from the always interesting ragin' cajun.... James Carville.

There are 14 months to go before a majority of Americans go to the ballot box again. Frequent comparisons are being made to the 1994 Clinton healthcare debacle and the ensuing Newt Gingrich-led Republican wave at that year’s midterms, of which I had a front-row view. But it is rarely noted that unlike then, there is plenty of time between now and the 2010 midterm elections

Historically, the first midterm election has usually been bad for a president’s party, often the result of giving back seats won on the president’s coat-tails. According to the latest Gallup poll, Mr Obama’s net approval rating (53 per cent approve, 40 per cent disapprove) is far more promising than Bill Clinton’s in 1994 (45 per cent approval, 46 per cent disapproval) and Ronald Reagan’s in 1982 (42 per cent approval, 47 per cent disapproval).

Much of the Republican hopes are pinned on Democrats’ economic policies failing over the course of the next year. The reputation of congressional Republicans is staked on the economy not getting better under President Obama. Democrats’ archives are full of Republicans promising Americans that Democrat policies won’t work. They offered meaningless alternatives and vehemently opposed each and every measure the economists and budget experts came up with.

If there is some improvement in job growth next year, Democrats will make the case down the home stretch that they not only staved off a major economic calamity inherited from a disastrous Republican administration but also managed to make progress despite unrelenting opposition.

The problem with Republicans, is that, as Ray Charles might have said, they are Republicans. In spite of all these Democratic troubles, the Republicans are held in lower esteem than they were in November 2006 (37 per cent warm, or favourable, against 48 per cent cool) or in November last year (37 per cent warm against 45 per cent cool). There’s been no improvement from elections in which they got clobbered. Our recent Democracy Corps polling showed the Republicans with a 32 per cent warm, 44 per cent cool rating. Sure, the right-wing Republican base is energised – with the “birthers”, tea parties, and town halls as proof – but they have to sustain their agitation, anger and general nuttiness for 14 more months. In elections, you don’t play against yourself; you have an opponent. Luckily, the Democrats are up against a still very unpopular Republican party.

FT.com / Comment / Opinion - Obama can avoid midterm blues

I have no doubt that the Empire will strike back in 2010, but they have set themselves up as the white Southern Party.

I don't think they are going to go far.

 

[Oscar Wao]

An interesting perspective from the always interesting ragin' cajun.... James Carville.

There are 14 months to go before a majority of Americans go to the ballot box again. Frequent comparisons are being made to the 1994 Clinton healthcare debacle and the ensuing Newt Gingrich-led Republican wave at that year’s midterms, of which I had a front-row view. But it is rarely noted that unlike then, there is plenty of time between now and the 2010 midterm elections

Historically, the first midterm election has usually been bad for a president’s party, often the result of giving back seats won on the president’s coat-tails. According to the latest Gallup poll, Mr Obama’s net approval rating (53 per cent approve, 40 per cent disapprove) is far more promising than Bill Clinton’s in 1994 (45 per cent approval, 46 per cent disapproval) and Ronald Reagan’s in 1982 (42 per cent approval, 47 per cent disapproval).

Much of the Republican hopes are pinned on Democrats’ economic policies failing over the course of the next year. The reputation of congressional Republicans is staked on the economy not getting better under President Obama. Democrats’ archives are full of Republicans promising Americans that Democrat policies won’t work. They offered meaningless alternatives and vehemently opposed each and every measure the economists and budget experts came up with.

If there is some improvement in job growth next year, Democrats will make the case down the home stretch that they not only staved off a major economic calamity inherited from a disastrous Republican administration but also managed to make progress despite unrelenting opposition.

The problem with Republicans, is that, as Ray Charles might have said, they are Republicans. In spite of all these Democratic troubles, the Republicans are held in lower esteem than they were in November 2006 (37 per cent warm, or favourable, against 48 per cent cool) or in November last year (37 per cent warm against 45 per cent cool). There’s been no improvement from elections in which they got clobbered. Our recent Democracy Corps polling showed the Republicans with a 32 per cent warm, 44 per cent cool rating. Sure, the right-wing Republican base is energised – with the “birthers”, tea parties, and town halls as proof – but they have to sustain their agitation, anger and general nuttiness for 14 more months. In elections, you don’t play against yourself; you have an opponent. Luckily, the Democrats are up against a still very unpopular Republican party.

FT.com / Comment / Opinion - Obama can avoid midterm blues

I have no doubt that the Empire will strike back in 2010, but they have set themselves up as the white Southern Party.

I don't think they are going to go far.

If the "Goldwater-style" Republicans start to take over...we could see a much different GOP and maybe even a much different America in the next couple decades.

 

[jeffrockit]

An interesting perspective from the always interesting ragin' cajun.... James Carville.

There are 14 months to go before a majority of Americans go to the ballot box again. Frequent comparisons are being made to the 1994 Clinton healthcare debacle and the ensuing Newt Gingrich-led Republican wave at that year’s midterms, of which I had a front-row view. But it is rarely noted that unlike then, there is plenty of time between now and the 2010 midterm elections

Historically, the first midterm election has usually been bad for a president’s party, often the result of giving back seats won on the president’s coat-tails. According to the latest Gallup poll, Mr Obama’s net approval rating (53 per cent approve, 40 per cent disapprove) is far more promising than Bill Clinton’s in 1994 (45 per cent approval, 46 per cent disapproval) and Ronald Reagan’s in 1982 (42 per cent approval, 47 per cent disapproval).

Much of the Republican hopes are pinned on Democrats’ economic policies failing over the course of the next year. The reputation of congressional Republicans is staked on the economy not getting better under President Obama. Democrats’ archives are full of Republicans promising Americans that Democrat policies won’t work. They offered meaningless alternatives and vehemently opposed each and every measure the economists and budget experts came up with.

If there is some improvement in job growth next year, Democrats will make the case down the home stretch that they not only staved off a major economic calamity inherited from a disastrous Republican administration but also managed to make progress despite unrelenting opposition.

The problem with Republicans, is that, as Ray Charles might have said, they are Republicans. In spite of all these Democratic troubles, the Republicans are held in lower esteem than they were in November 2006 (37 per cent warm, or favourable, against 48 per cent cool) or in November last year (37 per cent warm against 45 per cent cool). There’s been no improvement from elections in which they got clobbered. Our recent Democracy Corps polling showed the Republicans with a 32 per cent warm, 44 per cent cool rating. Sure, the right-wing Republican base is energised – with the “birthers”, tea parties, and town halls as proof – but they have to sustain their agitation, anger and general nuttiness for 14 more months. In elections, you don’t play against yourself; you have an opponent. Luckily, the Democrats are up against a still very unpopular Republican party.

FT.com / Comment / Opinion - Obama can avoid midterm blues

More like "Who Cares". Reagan has not been in office for quite some time. I thought Obama's campaign quote was to look forward so why are his supporters often looking back?

 

[bodecea]

An interesting perspective from the always interesting ragin' cajun.... James Carville.



FT.com / Comment / Opinion - Obama can avoid midterm blues

I have no doubt that the Empire will strike back in 2010, but they have set themselves up as the white Southern Party.

I don't think they are going to go far.

If the "Goldwater-style" Republicans start to take over...we could see a much different GOP and maybe even a much different America in the next couple decades.

If the Goldwater Republicans got back control, people like me would find the RNC much more appealing.

 

[jillian]

I have no doubt that the Empire will strike back in 2010, but they have set themselves up as the white Southern Party.

I don't think they are going to go far.

If the "Goldwater-style" Republicans start to take over...we could see a much different GOP and maybe even a much different America in the next couple decades.

If the Goldwater Republicans got back control, people like me would find the RNC much more appealing.

Would be nice. But I don't see it happening. Goldwater Republicans don't like interfering in religious matters. The "base" would never accept them and that's where a lot of GOP money and grass roots comes from.

 

[bodecea]

If the "Goldwater-style" Republicans start to take over...we could see a much different GOP and maybe even a much different America in the next couple decades.

If the Goldwater Republicans got back control, people like me would find the RNC much more appealing.

Would be nice. But I don't see it happening. Goldwater Republicans don't like interfering in religious matters. The "base" would never accept them and that's where a lot of GOP money and grass roots comes from.

One of the reasons I find them appealing.

 

[jillian]

If the Goldwater Republicans got back control, people like me would find the RNC much more appealing.

Would be nice. But I don't see it happening. Goldwater Republicans don't like interfering in religious matters. The "base" would never accept them and that's where a lot of GOP money and grass roots comes from.

One of the reasons I find them appealing.

me, too.

it's my understanding that they used to say he'd be considered a liberal one day.... almost as liberal as Nixon was.

 

[jillian]

More like "Who Cares". Reagan has not been in office for quite some time. I thought Obama's campaign quote was to look forward so why are his supporters often looking back?

you can't ignore history in assessing the present. the board was spammed with thread after thread of 'oooohhh... look at obama's approval ratings"...

the article had a more rational perspective than the extremists...

and I thought it would make for more interesting discussion.

 

[bodecea]

Would be nice. But I don't see it happening. Goldwater Republicans don't like interfering in religious matters. The "base" would never accept them and that's where a lot of GOP money and grass roots comes from.

One of the reasons I find them appealing.

me, too.

it's my understanding that they used to say he'd be considered a liberal one day.... almost as liberal as Nixon was.

Goldwater was a very great man IMO. A true conservative.