Gloomy numbers for Obama

[Conservative]

Because he uses only some of the numbers? Using the numbers from RCP, one realizes that BHO is almost exactly where Truman (48), Eisenhower (56), and Clinon (96) -- approval around 45 to 48, the House wildly in the hands of the othe party -- were and then kicked their opponents' asses.

If you think this is a walk for either one, then you, Uncensored and your far righty running ilk hiding back in the brush, are delusional.

Show me the RCP numbers for Truman, Eisenhower,and Clinon (whoever the **** that is). Link to their RCP numbers.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What's at least as much to the point as where Obama's approval numbers are at this moment is where they are going: up.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval

The RCP average has his A-D as a flat tie, 47.6 approval/47.6 disapproval. That's quite an improvement over the last month.

What's more, as usual, we see that Rasmussen is a right-tilted outlier. His is the only poll that give the president a net minus, due mostly to the much higher figure he has for disapproval. If we exclude that outlier, and use only the other four polls, we come to an average of 48 approval/46.25 disapproval, a net of +1.75.

As the economy slowly improves, this is to be expected. Unless something calamitous happens like a double-dip recession between now and election day, it's very very likely he will be reelected.

his numbers are still down from June, as were the numbers I posted, even at RCP.

You still did not analyze the full picture's impact, which I did above. Dragon did far better than you. Narrow snapshots mean nothing, Conservative.

 

[Conservative]

What's at least as much to the point as where Obama's approval numbers are at this moment is where they are going: up.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval

The RCP average has his A-D as a flat tie, 47.6 approval/47.6 disapproval. That's quite an improvement over the last month.

What's more, as usual, we see that Rasmussen is a right-tilted outlier. His is the only poll that give the president a net minus, due mostly to the much higher figure he has for disapproval. If we exclude that outlier, and use only the other four polls, we come to an average of 48 approval/46.25 disapproval, a net of +1.75.

As the economy slowly improves, this is to be expected. Unless something calamitous happens like a double-dip recession between now and election day, it's very very likely he will be reelected.

his numbers are still down from June, as were the numbers I posted, even at RCP.

You still did not analyze the full picture's impact, which I did above. Dragon did far better than you. Narrow snapshots mean nothing, Conservative.

and your spin on the 'direction of the country' numbers I posted from RCP is????

 

[Amelia]

Many factors that could affect his chances are beyond his control.

That is something I wish people would consider. Obama predicted back in 09 that the unemployment rate would be at 10% at this point. People seem to forget that he made this prediction. He never made any promises to lower the unemployment rate.

President Obama Predicts Unemployment Will Hit 10% This Year - ABC News

Also, while it is telling he is behind in swing state polls, he remains even in national polls with Romney.

Yeah, the only problem with Obama's "prediction" was that he made it AFTER his economic team predicted that unemployment wouldn't go much over 8% if they were given the stimulus package they were asking for. Then after getting what they wanted they revised their estimates drastically which leaves you with two choices...either they knew they were way off and lied to us because they wanted to spend money on the progressive smorgasbord Nancy and Harry set up...or they were incompetant and misjudged the situation in a HUGE way.

Pick your poison, Billy...

Obama: "I didn't overpromise. And I didn't underestimate how tough this was gonna be."

Billy reverences this liar. He won't pick anything. He'll just start a new thread which purports to show how wonderful Obama is.

 

[Conservative]

his numbers are still down from June, as were the numbers I posted, even at RCP.

You still did not analyze the full picture's impact, which I did above. Dragon did far better than you. Narrow snapshots mean nothing, Conservative.

and your spin on the 'direction of the country' numbers I posted from RCP is????

got nothing here, Jake?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Obama is a far better position than many on the far, far right will acknowledge.

He can win next year. Clinton, Eisenhower, and Truman certainly did in such situations.

Romney is going to have to work. I will vote for him, and I hope you will, too.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is something I wish people would consider. Obama predicted back in 09 that the unemployment rate would be at 10% at this point. People seem to forget that he made this prediction. He never made any promises to lower the unemployment rate.

President Obama Predicts Unemployment Will Hit 10% This Year - ABC News

Also, while it is telling he is behind in swing state polls, he remains even in national polls with Romney.

Yeah, the only problem with Obama's "prediction" was that he made it AFTER his economic team predicted that unemployment wouldn't go much over 8% if they were given the stimulus package they were asking for. Then after getting what they wanted they revised their estimates drastically which leaves you with two choices...either they knew they were way off and lied to us because they wanted to spend money on the progressive smorgasbord Nancy and Harry set up...or they were incompetant and misjudged the situation in a HUGE way.

Pick your poison, Billy...

Obama: "I didn't overpromise. And I didn't underestimate how tough this was gonna be."

Billy reverences this liar. He won't pick anything. He'll just start a new thread which purports to show how wonderful Obama is.

This election will be tough. Romney can win, but he is going to need every GOP vote he can get, even from the far right who detests him.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Obama is a far better position than many on the far, far right will acknowledge.

Obama Akbar indeed, Fakey Jake....

He can win next year.

HE CAN

HE CAN

HE CAN

Clinton, Eisenhower, and Truman certainly did in such situations.

Romney is going to have to work. I will vote for him, and I hope you will, too.

Truman cinched it, Jake....

You'll vote for Obama several times, just like you did in '08.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You,as usual,make no sense. Truman, Eisenhower, and Clinton are the three that most paralleled Obama's situation now. They won, and Obama can too if you half steps from the far right keep dragging your asses in the dust to clean your glands.

Shut up and work for Romney.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Gloomy numbers for Obama - The Washington Post

Campaign 2012 is upon us. Time to size up President Obama’s reelection chances.

In 2011, an average of 17 percent of the public was “satisfied with the way things are going,” according to the Gallup Poll. That is roughly the same as 2008 — so Obama enters this year leading a country as unhappy as the one he inherited...

In mid-December, Gallup had him “underwater” by eight points: 42 percent approval and 50 percent disapproval....His current Gallup approval rating is the lowest ever for any incumbent president at this point in his first term...

Obama’s ratings on the economy, the issue voters care about most, consistently trail his overall numbers. His top legislative accomplishment — health-care reform — remains unpopular. It’s 20 points underwater in a December Associated Press-GfK poll...

The president’s campaign plans to launch a populist attack on income inequality. But the numbers imply that that is not a promising message; indeed, Gallup has recently found that the public favors pro-growth policies over pro-equality policies, 52 to 40...

Gallup recently found that voters in 12 “swing states” favor Romney by five points. In 2008, swing-state party identification favored Democrats by 11 points; now the Democratic edge is down to two points...

In short, for all the weaknesses of the Republican opposition, Barack Obama faces a dicey future as 2012 begins. Many factors that could affect his chances are beyond his control.

A few observations about your thread.
1. You give it a title implying these numbers are bad specifically for Obama. While Obama is not in great shape, the overwhelming root behind these numbers is the poor performance of Congress, not Obama. The party-before-country actions have been obvious to everyone (and apply to both parties, btw), hence the NINE percent approval rating.
2. Gallup sways as Conservative as Quiniapac does Liberal. I don't trust either - until a few days before elections, when they radically change their numbers so that a year later, they can claim how accurate they were. Jus sayin.
3. Love this quote: "Gallup has recently found that the public favors pro-growth policies over pro-equality policies, 52 to 40.." What a load. It implies that the public favors not taxing the rich / corporations - which simply isn't true. We favor it by more than a 2:1 margin - even those of us who would pay a bit more.

I think this is anyone's ballgame. Obama sucks. While he has accomplished more on the security / defense front than Bush did in eight years, his economic agenda has been a disaster - and that's the ONLY agenda that counts during an economic crisis.
What can save him? If the Republicans don't succeed in keeping the economy bad during the next year, they're cooked. Granted, they're doing their best to stop ANYTHING from ever getting accomplished and to a degree, they're succeeding but that's hurting them. We Independents notice that kind of bs.
Besides, the economy is getting better despite their efforts to the contrary. During the last six months, our firm has gotten more new contracts than at any time since 2006. I've talked with friends who own other businesses and they're seeing slow improvement too.
THAT is bad news for Republicans.
The Flipside? If Romney ( or possibly even Paul! Who would be my preference) picks a strong VP, puts together a campaign that all but abandons social issues (gay marriage, abortion etc...), focuses squarely on the economy and comes up with something than the same old bs about lowering taxes on the rich as the panacea for all woes (Again, we Indies see right through that bs), they could win. Maybe bring back consumer deductions to level the playing field for the Middle Class and spur growth. Something like that would get some votes.
Also, Romney or Paul give them a chance but if they pick Perry or Gingrich, they're cooked.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You,as usual,make no sense. Truman, Eisenhower, and Clinton are the three that most paralleled Obama's situation now. They won, and Obama can too if you half steps from the far right keep dragging your asses in the dust to clean your glands.

Shut up and work for Romney.

As usual, you demonstrate that you're as sharp as a marble...

{Truman's name was on the New Hampshire primary ballot but Kefauver won. On March 29, Truman announced his decision not to run for re-election.[200] Stevenson, having reconsidered his presidential ambitions, received Truman's backing and won the Democratic nomination.}

Harry S. Truman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Uncensored2008]

A few observations about your thread.
1. You give it a title implying these numbers are bad specifically for Obama. While Obama is not in great shape, the overwhelming root behind these numbers is the poor performance of Congress, not Obama. The party-before-country actions have been obvious to everyone (and apply to both parties, btw), hence the NINE percent approval rating.
2. Gallup sways as Conservative as Quiniapac does Liberal. I don't trust either - until a few days before elections, when they radically change their numbers so that a year later, they can claim how accurate they were. Jus sayin.
3. Love this quote: "Gallup has recently found that the public favors pro-growth policies over pro-equality policies, 52 to 40.." What a load. It implies that the public favors not taxing the rich / corporations - which simply isn't true. We favor it by more than a 2:1 margin - even those of us who would pay a bit more.

I think this is anyone's ballgame. Obama sucks. While he has accomplished more on the security / defense front than Bush did in eight years, his economic agenda has been a disaster - and that's the ONLY agenda that counts during an economic crisis.
What can save him? If the Republicans don't succeed in keeping the economy bad during the next year, they're cooked. Granted, they're doing their best to stop ANYTHING from ever getting accomplished and to a degree, they're succeeding but that's hurting them. We Independents notice that kind of bs.
Besides, the economy is getting better despite their efforts to the contrary. During the last six months, our firm has gotten more new contracts than at any time since 2006. I've talked with friends who own other businesses and they're seeing slow improvement too.
THAT is bad news for Republicans.
The Flipside? If Romney ( or possibly even Paul! Who would be my preference) picks a strong VP, puts together a campaign that all but abandons social issues (gay marriage, abortion etc...), focuses squarely on the economy and comes up with something than the same old bs about lowering taxes on the rich as the panacea for all woes (Again, we Indies see right through that bs), they could win. Maybe bring back consumer deductions to level the playing field for the Middle Class and spur growth. Something like that would get some votes.
Also, Romney or Paul give them a chance but if they pick Perry or Gingrich, they're cooked.

So you figure that you can obscure Obama's abysmal performance by focusing on Congress?

You leftsts truly are desperate. I understand, you have very little chance.

 

[Conservative]

You still did not analyze the full picture's impact, which I did above. Dragon did far better than you. Narrow snapshots mean nothing, Conservative.

and your spin on the 'direction of the country' numbers I posted from RCP is????

got nothing here, Jake?

still nothing Jake? I used RCP just like you asked, and showed my original numbers from Gallup to be in line. So what do you do? You run away, all butt hurt and shit.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You,as usual,make no sense. Truman, Eisenhower, and Clinton are the three that most paralleled Obama's situation now. They won, and Obama can too if you half steps from the far right keep dragging your asses in the dust to clean your glands.

Shut up and work for Romney.

As usual, you demonstrate that you're as sharp as a marble...

{Truman's name was on the New Hampshire primary ballot but Kefauver won. On March 29, Truman announced his decision not to run for re-election.[200] Stevenson, having reconsidered his presidential ambitions, received Truman's backing and won the Democratic nomination.}

1948, your moron, not 1952. What world are you living in here?

Here, once again, just for you, numbnuts: Truman 1948, Eisenhower 1956, Clinton 1996. Obama's numbers and situation now is similar to theirs then. And they won.

You are indeed bottom of the barrel , but you just ended up underneath it. What a worthless piece of dirt you are, truly.

 

[Conservative]

Because he uses only some of the numbers? Using the numbers from RCP, one realizes that BHO is almost exactly where Truman (48), Eisenhower (56), and Clinon (96) -- approval around 45 to 48, the House wildly in the hands of the othe party -- were and then kicked their opponents' asses.

If you think this is a walk for either one, then you, Uncensored and your far righty running ilk hiding back in the brush, are delusional.

Show me the RCP numbers for Truman, Eisenhower,and Clinon (whoever the **** that is). Link to their RCP numbers.

still waiting for the RCP numbers for Clinon (whoever the **** he is), Truman and Eisenhower.

Come on, RCP is the standard you required ME to follow, you should too. Or, is it ok for YOU to refer to numbers from a single source, but everyone ELSE has to use something like RCP?

Man up, Jake.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Conservative. Really? That is all you have? I have told you the connection between Obama and Clinton and Eisenhower and Truman, and that is all you can do? A connection that is know to must reputable and knowledgable Americans who follow national elections? Common knowledge?

Over for you. Fail.

 

[Conservative]

You,as usual,make no sense. Truman, Eisenhower, and Clinton are the three that most paralleled Obama's situation now. They won, and Obama can too if you half steps from the far right keep dragging your asses in the dust to clean your glands.

Shut up and work for Romney.

As usual, you demonstrate that you're as sharp as a marble...

{Truman's name was on the New Hampshire primary ballot but Kefauver won. On March 29, Truman announced his decision not to run for re-election.[200] Stevenson, having reconsidered his presidential ambitions, received Truman's backing and won the Democratic nomination.}

1948, your moron, not 1952. What world are you living in here?

Here, once again, just for you, numbnuts: Truman 1948, Eisenhower 1956, Clinton 1996. Obama's numbers and situation now is similar to theirs then. And they won.

You are indeed bottom of the barrel , but you just ended up underneath it. What a worthless piece of dirt you are, truly.

Did you use RCP numbers for Clinton, Eisenhower and Truman, like you did for Obama?

If not, how can you prove any relevance between the numbers when one set is from a single source and the other is an average? Just following YOUR rules.

 

[Teals_Of_Wonder]

isnt Obama "The Unbeatable One? well if he's so unbeatable, why does he need a billion dollars? and need to campaign if the left has agreed that he has already won in 2012?

 

[Conservative]

Conservative. Really? That is all you have? I have told you the connection between Obama and Clinton and Eisenhower and Truman, and that is all you can do? A connection that is know to must reputable and knowledgable Americans who follow national elections? Common knowledge?

Over for you. Fail.

So you readily admit that you are comparing a single source for the Clinton, Truman and Eisenhower numbers, to a source with a group averaged together (RCP) for Obama...

Funny, when I did that in the OP for the 'direction of the country', you whined like a butt-fucked pig until I used RCP... which STILL proved me right and you wrong.

You are a hypocritical nimrod.

 

[IndependntLogic]

isnt Obama "The Unbeatable One? well if he's so unbeatable, why does he need a billion dollars? and need to campaign if the left has agreed that he has already won in 2012?

Wow! When did you determine Obama was "unbeatable"?!?!?! I know that none of the LibDems I know feel that way. Certainly none of the ConservaRepubs I know feel that way! So WTF? Are you a moveon.org executive or something???