Obama's approval numbers slip back to the low 40's

[GStarz]

The OP is a Birther. I think we can all move on now.

btw, birther, starting the same thread twice on a board is flooding, and very uncool. Try to act like like an adult.

He also thinks Obama may be the devil!

You must be terrified of my posts, Skippy, because you keep following me around characterizing what I write! (I said devout Christians have some reason for concern because Obama's name translates into the hebrew words that Jesus used to dewscribe Satan, and that's no lie because you can prove it on any online translator. i was specific to not draw a conclusion, jerk off) Kinda like this




You still haven't answered the question: what will Obama do when has to turn over his citizenship records to several states which are demanding them for Obama to get on their ballots - records Obama has been bleeding taxpayer funds to keep hidden from lawsuits demanding disclosure. no lawyer can save him this time, so what will he do, Skippy?

 

[Toro]

You refuse to answer. I win the debate. **** off, "Skippy"

Tsk, tsk, Skippy. I give you a low-risk way to make a lot of money and what do I get? Nothing but hostility.

You said it was a done deal and Obama wouldn't run. Yet when the chips are down, you turn tail and hide. Why am I not surprised.

As for "I win the debate," let me tell you Skippy, there was once another conservatard such as yourself here who frequently proclaimed his victories. Sadly for you, you will never, ever be as legendary as he.

[youtube]zKhEw7nD9C4[/youtube]

You refuse to answer. I win the debate. **** off, "Skippy"

Let me explain how this works, Skippy.

Deflecting attention away from your own statement by asking a question is not winning a debate, especially when you aren't willing to walk the talk.

But if you think it does and it makes you feel better, good for you. I understand.

Money talks, Skippy. Bullshit walks.

 

[GStarz]

Tsk, tsk, Skippy. I give you a low-risk way to make a lot of money and what do I get? Nothing but hostility.

You said it was a done deal and Obama wouldn't run. Yet when the chips are down, you turn tail and hide. Why am I not surprised.

As for "I win the debate," let me tell you Skippy, there was once another conservatard such as yourself here who frequently proclaimed his victories. Sadly for you, you will never, ever be as legendary as he.

[youtube]zKhEw7nD9C4[/youtube]

You refuse to answer. I win the debate. **** off, "Skippy"

Let me explain how this works, Skippy.

Deflecting attention away from your own statement by asking a question is not winning a debate, especially when you aren't willing to walk the talk.

But if you think it does and it makes you feel better, good for you. I understand.

Money talks, Skippy. Bullshit walks.

You still haven't answered the question: what will Obama do when has to turn over his citizenship records to several states which are demanding them for Obama to get on their ballots - records Obama has been bleeding taxpayer funds to keep hidden from lawsuits demanding disclosure. no lawyer can save him this time, so what will he do, Skippy?

 

[Toro]

Rasmussen predicted the November 2010 GOP landslide before and more accurately than anyone else, even Gallup. Your hero Obama sucks and everyone knows it. deal with it.

You got anything to back that up? Here is someone who disagrees.

While waiting for the remaining results to trickle in from states like Colorado and Alaska, I did a quick check on the accuracy of polls from the firm Rasmussen Reports, which came under heavy criticism this year — including from FiveThirtyEight — because its polls showed a strong lean toward Republican candidates.

Indeed, Rasmussen polls quite consistently turned out to overstate the standing of Republicans tonight. Of the roughly 100 polls released by Rasmussen or its subsidiary Pulse Opinion Research in the final 21 days of the campaign, roughly 70 to 75 percent overestimated the performance of Republican candidates, and on average they were biased against Democrats by 3 to 4 points.

Every pollster is entitled to a bad cycle now and again — and Rasmussen has had some good cycles in the past. But their polling took a major downturn this year.

Live Blogging Election Night - NYTimes.com

 

[GStarz]

 

[GStarz]

Rasmussen predicted the November 2010 GOP landslide before and more accurately than anyone else, even Gallup. Your hero Obama sucks and everyone knows it. deal with it.

You got anything to back that up? Here is someone who disagrees.

While waiting for the remaining results to trickle in from states like Colorado and Alaska, I did a quick check on the accuracy of polls from the firm Rasmussen Reports, which came under heavy criticism this year — including from FiveThirtyEight — because its polls showed a strong lean toward Republican candidates.

Indeed, Rasmussen polls quite consistently turned out to overstate the standing of Republicans tonight. Of the roughly 100 polls released by Rasmussen or its subsidiary Pulse Opinion Research in the final 21 days of the campaign, roughly 70 to 75 percent overestimated the performance of Republican candidates, and on average they were biased against Democrats by 3 to 4 points.

Every pollster is entitled to a bad cycle now and again — and Rasmussen has had some good cycles in the past. But their polling took a major downturn this year.

Live Blogging Election Night - NYTimes.com

Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen, pollsters for Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, say that Rasmussen Reports has “an unchallenged record for both integrity and accuracy.”

From rasmussen:

In 2010, Rasmussen Reports was the first to show Republican Scott Brown had a chance to defeat Democrat Martha Coakley in the special Massachusetts Senate race to fill the late Ted Kennedy's seat. Just after Brown's upset win, the influential Washington publication The Politico said of our polling, “The overwhelming conventional wisdom in both parties … was that Martha Coakley was a lock. It's hard to recall a single poll changing the mood of a race quite that dramatically." A study by Boston University and the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism about how the Massachusetts Senate race was covered in the media concluded that the “(Rasmussen) poll, perhaps more than anything else, signaled that a possible upset was brewing and galvanized both the media and political worlds” and “in the two weeks after the Rasmussen poll, media coverage (of the race) picked up frantically.” The New York Times Magazine opened a March 14 cover story with a scene highlighting the impact of that poll in an internal White House meeting involving President Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

In 2009, while most firms showed New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine with a modest lead in his reelection bid, Rasmussen Reports consistently showed challenger Chris Christie ahead and eventually matched his margin of victory. That New Jersey race, combined with our earlier track record, led liberal columnist Mickey Kaus to declare, “If you have a choice between Rasmussen and, say, the prestigious N.Y. Times, go with Rasmussen!”

There are other testimonials scattered about the website, including from CNN.

idiot, skippy. poor, desperate lib. You people failed in november, Obama is failing and so are you!

 

[GStarz]

You're boring skippy. I'll be back later.

TORO = EPIC FAIL

 

[Toro]

You still haven't answered the question: what will Obama do when has to turn over his citizenship records to several states which are demanding them for Obama to get on their ballots - records Obama has been bleeding taxpayer funds to keep hidden from lawsuits demanding disclosure. no lawyer can save him this time, so what will he do, Skippy?

I have no idea what is going to happen, Skippy. But I'm not speaking in absolutes, as you are when you said

reality check: Obama won't be in the game. He won;t turn over his long form birth certificate and several states are enacting laws that will require him to do so to be part of the game in 2012. ... Obama won't be in the game in 2012. rely on it. ... Obama can't run or won't because he will not turn over his citizenship documents. This is a done deal. cry me a river.

Since you are making absolute statements, I'm calling you on it. I think you're full of bullshit. And I'm offering you a chance I assumed all you conservatards would relish - the chance not only to prove yourself right, but also to take money from a "liberal." Yet, given the opportunity, you put your tail between your legs and run away.

 

[Toro]

Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen, pollsters for Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, say that Rasmussen Reports has “an unchallenged record for both integrity and accuracy.”

From rasmussen:

In 2010, Rasmussen Reports was the first to show Republican Scott Brown had a chance to defeat Democrat Martha Coakley in the special Massachusetts Senate race to fill the late Ted Kennedy's seat. Just after Brown's upset win, the influential Washington publication The Politico said of our polling, “The overwhelming conventional wisdom in both parties … was that Martha Coakley was a lock. It's hard to recall a single poll changing the mood of a race quite that dramatically." A study by Boston University and the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism about how the Massachusetts Senate race was covered in the media concluded that the “(Rasmussen) poll, perhaps more than anything else, signaled that a possible upset was brewing and galvanized both the media and political worlds” and “in the two weeks after the Rasmussen poll, media coverage (of the race) picked up frantically.” The New York Times Magazine opened a March 14 cover story with a scene highlighting the impact of that poll in an internal White House meeting involving President Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

In 2009, while most firms showed New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine with a modest lead in his reelection bid, Rasmussen Reports consistently showed challenger Chris Christie ahead and eventually matched his margin of victory. That New Jersey race, combined with our earlier track record, led liberal columnist Mickey Kaus to declare, “If you have a choice between Rasmussen and, say, the prestigious N.Y. Times, go with Rasmussen!”

There are other testimonials scattered about the website, including from CNN.

idiot, skippy. poor, desperate lib. You people failed in november, Obama is failing and so are you!

You can't be this stupid. You are quoting testimonials from the firm's own website?

Oh, that's right, you're a birfer, thinks Obama is a Marxist, and he may be the devil. You really are that stupid.

BTW, Skippy, unlike you, I don't have a hard-on for Rasmussen one way or the other. Of course, because I don't swallow the kool-aid, that makes me a liberal.

 

[GStarz]

You still haven't answered the question: what will Obama do when has to turn over his citizenship records to several states which are demanding them for Obama to get on their ballots - records Obama has been bleeding taxpayer funds to keep hidden from lawsuits demanding disclosure. no lawyer can save him this time, so what will he do, Skippy?

I have no idea what is going to happen, Skippy. But I'm not speaking in absolutes, as you are when you said

reality check: Obama won't be in the game. He won;t turn over his long form birth certificate and several states are enacting laws that will require him to do so to be part of the game in 2012. ... Obama won't be in the game in 2012. rely on it. ... Obama can't run or won't because he will not turn over his citizenship documents. This is a done deal. cry me a river.

Since you are making absolute statements, I'm calling you on it. I think you're full of bullshit. And I'm offering you a chance I assumed all you conservatards would relish - the chance not only to prove yourself right, but also to take money from a "liberal." Yet, given the opportunity, you put your tail between your legs and run away.

Make money on a $10,00.00 bet with an obnoxious stranger on a message board. Boy, Skippy, you're just too cool! NOT!

TORO = EPIC FAIL!

"MR COOL"! LOL!




See ya later, Skippy!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gstarz failed this debate on the sixth post. You have to carried the burden of proof of the assertion, not ask others questions to deflect the fact you have nothing.

Toro, quite simply, gored you.

 

[EdSchultzIsFat]

if the lib's think that rasmussem is a crock, then I am a Black Female who lives in Saskachawwann,Ontario.

 

[GStarz]

Gstarz failed this debate on the sixth post. You have to carried the burden of proof of the assertion, not ask others questions to deflect the fact you have nothing.

Toro, quite simply, gored you.

What's to prove, Einstein. rasmussen has the best reputation among anyone but left wingnuts, who used to love the firm when they showed bush tanking. The burden of proof exists within the evidence on which the post was based. Simple. You just don't like the information.Then it became a matter of Obama winning regardless of the polls, then i asked, as a rebuttal, how Obama could win if he couldn't get on several ballots. that's when Skippy became a big-time Riviera gambler - not!

Liberals will stoop to any stupidity, truly.

Yes, I was gored by Skippy's macho man dare for me to bet him $10,000.00 anonymously on a message board. What an asshole. Seriously.

I have a life. I'll be back later. In the meantime you and Skippy can have a nice, satisfying liberal circle jerk. I have no doubt you will.

 

[Toro]

GStarz claims that Rasmussen predicted the November 2010 election more accurately than anyone else. When he is called out to show evidence of his claim, he C&Ps from the firm's own website with quotes from Scott Brown's special election and on other things in prior years. Then he makes fun of "liberals," defined as anyone who disagrees with him or who believes Obama is not the devil, for being slow.

 

[Toro]

FTR Even though GStarz is a nutter that doesn't mean he is necessarily wrong about Obama's approval rating. Liberals who dismiss Rasmussen out of hand because they are Rasmussen are no better than conservatives who believe the firm over all others.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh Rasmussen! I was confused for a second there - I thought you were going to quote a legitimate poll.

Yeah....but the k00ks to a person loved Rasmussen back in October of 2008. They couldnt post up the polls fast enough when he was pulling away from McCain. Now that their guys #'s are tanking, Rasmussen is a phoney.

That's a fascinating LIE.

Rasmussen never showed Obama 'pulling away' in October 2008, any more than any other polls did:

The proof:

1st week of October:


ABC News/Wash Post 10/08 - 10/11 766 LV 3.5 53 43 Obama +10
FOX News 10/08 - 10/09 900 RV 3.0 46 39 Obama +7
Newsweek 10/08 - 10/09 1035 RV 3.7 52 41 Obama +11
Rasmussen Reports 10/07 - 10/09 3000 LV 2.0 50 45 Obama +5
Gallup 10/07 - 10/09 2784 RV 2.0 51 41 Obama +10
Hotline/FD 10/07 - 10/09 838 LV 2.0 48 41 Obama +7
Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby 10/06 - 10/09 1200 LV 4.2 48 43 Obama +5

as you see, Rasmussen was on the low side.

2nd week of October:


GWU/Battleground 10/13 - 10/19 1000 LV 3.1 49 45 Obama +4
F&M/Hearst-Argyle 10/13 - 10/19 LV 3.5 50 45 Obama +5
IBD/TIPP 10/14 - 10/18 1072 LV 3.0 47 42 Obama +5
Rasmussen Reports 10/11 - 10/13 3000 LV 2.0 50 45 Obama +5
Diageo/Hotline 10/11 - 10/13 829 LV 3.4 48 42 Obama +6
Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby 10/11 - 10/13 1208 LV 2.9 49 43 Obama +6
Gallup (Traditional)* 10/11 - 10/13 2140 LV 2.0 51 45 Obama +6
Gallup (Expanded)* 10/11 - 10/13 2289 LV 2.0 53 43 Obama +10
LA Times/Bloomberg 10/10 - 10/13 1030 LV 3.0 50 41 Obama +9
CBS News/NY Times 10/10 - 10/13 699 LV -- 53 39 Obama +14

As you see, Rasmussen is still on the low end, no showing of 'pulling away'.

3rd week of October:

GWU/Battleground 10/20 - 10/26 1000 LV 3.5 49 46 Obama +3
Newsweek 10/22 - 10/23 882 LV 4.0 53 41 Obama +12
Rasmussen Reports 10/20 - 10/22 3000 LV 2.0 52 45 Obama +7
Gallup (Traditional)* 10/20 - 10/22 2399 LV 2.0 50 46 Obama +4
Gallup (Expanded)* 10/20 - 10/22 2349 LV 2.0 51 45 Obama +6
Diageo/Hotline 10/20 - 10/22 769 LV 3.5 48 43 Obama +5
Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby 10/20 - 10/22 1206 LV 2.9 52 40 Obama +12
ABC News/Wash Post 10/19 - 10/22 1335 LV 2.5 54 43 Obama +11

As you see, Rasmussen was no more than middle of the pack.

Conclusion:

skooker is lying. Rasmussen never showed Obama pulling away any more than any other poll did, in fact Rasmussen tended to favor a tighter race, if anything. And the left was not praising Rasmussen. Ok, that would be 2 lies.

Why do people lie when the truth is so easily demonstrable? lol

RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 - General Election: McCain vs. Obama

 

[NYcarbineer]

FTR Even though GStarz is a nutter that doesn't mean he is necessarily wrong about Obama's approval rating. Liberals who dismiss Rasmussen out of hand because they are Rasmussen are no better than conservatives who believe the firm over all others.

Rasmussen consistently gave Bush the Republican better approval numbers than the average of all other polls.
Rasmussen consistently gives Obama the Democrat worse numbers than the average of all other polls.

There is no rational explanation of that phenomenon other than that there is something wrong with Rasmussen.

 

[Avatar4321]

Page 8 and Im "shocked" to see that the polls still dont matter.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gstarz failed this debate on the sixth post. You have to carried the burden of proof of the assertion, not ask others questions to deflect the fact you have nothing.

Toro, quite simply, gored you.

What's to prove, Einstein. rasmussen has the best reputation among anyone but left wingnuts, who used to love the firm when they showed bush tanking. The burden of proof exists within the evidence on which the post was based. Simple. You just don't like the information.Then it became a matter of Obama winning regardless of the polls, then i asked, as a rebuttal, how Obama could win if he couldn't get on several ballots. that's when Skippy became a big-time Riviera gambler - not!

Liberals will stoop to any stupidity, truly.

Yes, I was gored by Skippy's macho man dare for me to bet him $10,000.00 anonymously on a message board. What an asshole. Seriously.

I have a life. I'll be back later. In the meantime you and Skippy can have a nice, satisfying liberal circle jerk. I have no doubt you will.

You write, "The burden of proof exists within the evidence on which the post was based." No, evidence has to be given to support your assertion. If any part of the assertion fails, the burden of proof collapses.

You got your ass handed to you.

Grow up.

 

[Stephanie]

Barack Obama aka Barry S (2 different last names beginning with S!)The Little Prince is back to where he was for most of last year, in the low 40's approval rating. Maybe this would be different if he didn't freak normal people out - his diehard supporters don't qualify - by bowing to Saudi princes, demanding that NASA's(!) first priority be to "reach out to Muslims" and continue to hide his citizenship records (don't debate why he's doing it, he's just doing it, and that could mean anything from sadism to paranoia to holding the office illegally - ya gotta know if that had been about George Bush the NY Times would have it on the front page every day, like they did Bush's ultimately phony military records created by liberals to embarrass Bush.)

This from Rasmussen Reports, the polling agency that liberals loved when they said Bush's poll numbers were low, but now they hate because they're saying Obama's are poor!

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 23% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -18 (see trends).

Yesterday and today mark the president’s lowest ratings since mid-December. It remains to be seen whether this is merely the result of statistical noise or a change in perceptions of President Obama. For most of 2010, more than 40% of voters voiced Strong Disapproval of the president. However, following his December agreement with Senate Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts, the level of Strong Disapproval had declined.


HERE'S the complete story

Obama's 'approval' ratings tank every time he buckles in to the demands of the Republicans. American's don't want what they preach. Obama's problems is twofold.
1. He doesn't realize were American's are at on issues.
2. He doesn't have the backbone to stand up to the noisy minority that has plagued him since he took office.

Yeah, that must of been the reason so many Republicans WON and the Democrats LOST this last election. Obama was giving in to the Republicans.