Obama's 26% Strong Approval

[Lumpy 1]

Oh dear....what will we do?...........what will we do?
Wait a minute....I've got it!

Why don't we run against a REPUBLICAN in 2012???

Nobody will vote for one of those stiffs

Problem solved



GOP

Ah Rightswinger, practicing your comedy routine again....

Yes...My emoticons just kicket the shit out of your emoticons

You see..I do not even have to make a point. I can just post emoticons to show that I know better than you do...

So..Once again...I WIN

...

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Point remains that Obama is dropping support. And that is a good thing.

Every President loses support, once they actually have to start presiding. And whether or not it is a good thing doesn't matter.

My point being Rassmussen's polls and numbers are mostly bullshit. You have to scroll all the way down the page to get the simple numbers, instead of all the bullshit that they just made up.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Point remains that Obama is dropping support. And that is a good thing.

Every President loses support, once they actually have to start presiding. And whether or not it is a good thing doesn't matter.

My point being Rassmussen's polls and numbers are mostly bullshit. You have to scroll all the way down the page to get the simple numbers, instead of all the bullshit that they just made up.

Why don't you find a poll source you believe in and post it...

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Point remains that Obama is dropping support. And that is a good thing.

Every President loses support, once they actually have to start presiding. And whether or not it is a good thing doesn't matter.

My point being Rassmussen's polls and numbers are mostly bullshit. You have to scroll all the way down the page to get the simple numbers, instead of all the bullshit that they just made up.

Why don't you find a poll source you believe in and post it...

Oh, I believe Rassmussen's numbers.

46% Approval
53% Disapproval

But he's being intellectually dishonest in pretending that his "Presidential Approval Index" actually means anything. And he's being intellectually dishonest in hiding the actual polling at the bottom of the page.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You know this so-called "Approval Index" that Rassmussen invented? The "-18" number?

It's meaningless.

As stilted as his polls are, the only numbers that actually mean anything are 46% approve of Obama, 53% disapprove.

Rasmussen started touting that number once it went negative for Obama; it was negative for Bush for years and oddly it wasn't touted then.

 

[Lumpy 1]

You know this so-called "Approval Index" that Rassmussen invented? The "-18" number?

It's meaningless.

As stilted as his polls are, the only numbers that actually mean anything are 46% approve of Obama, 53% disapprove.

Rasmussen started touting that number once it went negative for Obama; it was negative for Bush for years and oddly it wasn't touted then.

That's true for many things,

example Iraq) Democrats constant pressure to get out, now nothing said, constant talk of cost in lives, injuries and money, now nothing said.

other examples) Democrats remain quiet on.. national debt, cost of health care plan, letting the sunshine in, foreclosures, unemployment, Afghanistan policy, need I go on

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You know this so-called "Approval Index" that Rassmussen invented? The "-18" number?

It's meaningless.

As stilted as his polls are, the only numbers that actually mean anything are 46% approve of Obama, 53% disapprove.

Rasmussen started touting that number once it went negative for Obama; it was negative for Bush for years and oddly it wasn't touted then.

That's true for many things,

example Iraq) Democrats constant pressure to get out, now nothing said, constant talk of cost in lives, injuries and money, now nothing said.

other examples) Democrats remain quiet on.. national debt, cost of health care plan, letting the sunshine in, foreclosures, unemployment, Afghanistan policy, need I go on

Nice! The old "...But MOM! He did it first!" argument.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You know this so-called "Approval Index" that Rassmussen invented? The "-18" number?

It's meaningless.

As stilted as his polls are, the only numbers that actually mean anything are 46% approve of Obama, 53% disapprove.

Rasmussen started touting that number once it went negative for Obama; it was negative for Bush for years and oddly it wasn't touted then.

That's true for many things,

example Iraq) Democrats constant pressure to get out, now nothing said, constant talk of cost in lives, injuries and money, now nothing said.

other examples) Democrats remain quiet on.. national debt, cost of health care plan, letting the sunshine in, foreclosures, unemployment, Afghanistan policy, need I go on

Was that supposed to be an endorsement of Rasmussen? lol

 

[SFC Ollie]

You know this so-called "Approval Index" that Rassmussen invented? The "-18" number?

It's meaningless.

As stilted as his polls are, the only numbers that actually mean anything are 46% approve of Obama, 53% disapprove.

Rasmussen started touting that number once it went negative for Obama; it was negative for Bush for years and oddly it wasn't touted then.

Actually he shows the entire history of the number from when it was about a +25 all the way down to its -18. I honestly don't know if he did the same chart for Bush or not.

 

[The Rabbi]

How come when Bush's poll numbers were low the libs all screamed about it. But now that Obama's are this low, unprecedented for a president at this point in office, they don't mean a thing?

And the "index" is a very good measure. The people who most pay attention are the ones who will form the strongest opinion. And those people don't like the guy. More to the point is the trend which has been going negative from day one.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Rasmussen started touting that number once it went negative for Obama; it was negative for Bush for years and oddly it wasn't touted then.

That's true for many things,

example Iraq) Democrats constant pressure to get out, now nothing said, constant talk of cost in lives, injuries and money, now nothing said.

other examples) Democrats remain quiet on.. national debt, cost of health care plan, letting the sunshine in, foreclosures, unemployment, Afghanistan policy, need I go on

Nice! The old "...But MOM! He did it first!" argument.

Sorry, didn't mean to twist your buns....(okay maybe a little)

Besides..." He did it first.. Dad"....

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Only a true moonbat could still have a strong approval for that ass clown.

 

[barenakedislam]

24%? That high?

 

[xsited1]

Obama 24% Strong Approval

Half of that is the black population. I wonder who the other moonbats are?

 

[Lumpy 1]

Rasmussen started touting that number once it went negative for Obama; it was negative for Bush for years and oddly it wasn't touted then.

That's true for many things,

example Iraq) Democrats constant pressure to get out, now nothing said, constant talk of cost in lives, injuries and money, now nothing said.

other examples) Democrats remain quiet on.. national debt, cost of health care plan, letting the sunshine in, foreclosures, unemployment, Afghanistan policy, need I go on

Was that supposed to be an endorsement of Rasmussen? lol

No, I just like to watch you guys argue with a poll... ( weird amusement huh)

I just thought it might be a good time to branch out, on the thread.

I understand your misgivings about that, don't feel bad...

 

[theDoctorisIn]

How come when Bush's poll numbers were low the libs all screamed about it. But now that Obama's are this low, unprecedented for a president at this point in office, they don't mean a thing?

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.

And the "index" is a very good measure. The people who most pay attention are the ones who will form the strongest opinion. And those people don't like the guy. More to the point is the trend which has been going negative from day one.

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.

 

[The Rabbi]

How come when Bush's poll numbers were low the libs all screamed about it. But now that Obama's are this low, unprecedented for a president at this point in office, they don't mean a thing?

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.

And the "index" is a very good measure. The people who most pay attention are the ones who will form the strongest opinion. And those people don't like the guy. More to the point is the trend which has been going negative from day one.

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.

 

[Immanuel]

Obama would have to go under 30 percent first. His approval rating is still hovering around 50 percent.

The Republican party is below 30% approval. Regardless of what stiff they run Obama will crush whoever the put up there

While I think the majority of Americans "like" Obama as a person--when pollsters ask about his policies they do a 180 degree turn. Americans typically don't make the same mistake twice. The 1st time they voted to elect the 1st black POTUS--the 1st time they voted because this man was promising them the "moon & the stars" & the theme was "change we can believe in."

Now that we are actually living the "change we can believe in", & under Obama's flood the basement economics-- you could run your local dog catcher against Obama in 2012 & win. Obama will be a wash-out in 2012--just like Jimmy Carter was--

One Big Ass Mistake America.

I'm no fan of President Obama, but I must say that I think you are a bit optimistic in thinking a Republican can defeat him in 2012. President Obama has not given us any change, but I don't think voters are going to forget Bush after just four years.

I doubt I will be voting for either party again this year, but I don't see a miracle on the horizon for the Republican Party this time around unless, of course, President Obama really screws something up... something worse (as if it is possible) than this Health care so-called reform.

Immie

 

[theDoctorisIn]

How come when Bush's poll numbers were low the libs all screamed about it. But now that Obama's are this low, unprecedented for a president at this point in office, they don't mean a thing?

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.

And the "index" is a very good measure. The people who most pay attention are the ones who will form the strongest opinion. And those people don't like the guy. More to the point is the trend which has been going negative from day one.

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?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Let the whackos like rab or bni or kat or whomever chant all this stuff.

We will just keep weeding them out of the party, try to be competitive in 2012, and look forward to 2016. I wish the wierdos would form their own party and go away. They can't have mine anymore.