ObamaCare + Unemployment + Dithering on Afghanistan = [Archive]

View Full Version : ObamaCare + Unemployment + Dithering on Afghanistan =

DarrinS

10-22-2009, 03:16 PM

Ruh roh

http://www.gallup.com/poll/123806/Obama-Quarterly-Approval-Average-Slips-Nine-Points.aspx

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ccprvag6vkgidlnfabiclw.gif

PRINCETON, NJ -- In Gallup Daily tracking that spans Barack Obama's third quarter in office (July 20 through Oct. 19), the president averaged a 53% job approval rating. That is down sharply from his prior quarterly averages, which were both above 60%.

In fact, the 9-point drop in the most recent quarter is the largest Gallup has ever measured for an elected president between the second and third quarters of his term, dating back to 1953. One president who was not elected to his first term -- Harry Truman -- had a 13-point drop between his second and third quarters in office in 1945 and 1946.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/8uvbgdzzyumsqenbxegatq.gif

MannyIsGod

10-22-2009, 03:20 PM

Gallup declares (http://www.gallup.com/poll/123806/Obama-Quarterly-Approval-Average-Slips-Nine-Points.aspx):

The 9-point drop in the most recent quarter [for Barack Obama's job approval rating] is the largest Gallup has ever measured for an elected president between the second and third quarters of his term, dating back to 1953.
The usual (http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/87132/) crowd (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/21/gallup-quarterly-drop-in-obamas-approval-rating-one-of-the-biggest-in-decades/) goes wild. But any brief perusal of the data reveal a few things.

The decline in early presidential popularity has been pretty consistent since the 1980s, as American politics became more ideological and partisan. But here's the thing: Reagan at this point was at 57 percent, headed to 51 percent in the fourth quarter. Clinton was at 48 percent. Those two were the last two successful two-term presidents, and they look very similar to Obama. The first Bush was headed up toward 69 percent, only to fail to win re-election. George W. Bush at this point was in the 70s headed to the high 80s, but that was obviously 9/11. Before 9/11, Bush was at 51 percent - not far off Obama right now. And he was not tackling the worst recession in memory, a stratospheric debt (he inherited a surplus) and two failed wars.

Andrew Sullivan today. I was going to post it earlier but I figured I'd let you blow your wad first.

clambake

10-22-2009, 03:30 PM

lol +16

admiralsnackbar

10-22-2009, 03:32 PM

Are approval ratings even meaningful at this stage of an administration? Last I checked, the elections aren't for another 3+ years.

jman3000

10-22-2009, 03:57 PM

This seriously feels like the dozenth thread in which Darrins starts it off with "ruh roh".

DarrinS

10-22-2009, 04:07 PM

Andrew Sullivan today. I was going to post it earlier but I figured I'd let you blow your wad first.

The same "Trig ain't Palin's baby" Andrew Sullivan?

spursncowboys

10-22-2009, 04:08 PM

Are approval ratings even meaningful at this stage of an administration? Last I checked, the elections aren't for another 3+ years.
3 years. That means, going by Obama's long political career, only a year until he has to start to run again.

ChumpDumper

10-22-2009, 04:34 PM

The same "Trig ain't Palin's baby" Andrew Sullivan?Do you have a dispute with the facts Sullivan posted?

Of course you don't.

Viva Las Espuelas

10-22-2009, 04:47 PM

mmm. mmmm.mmmmm.
barack hussein obama

ChumpDumper

10-22-2009, 04:53 PM

mmm. mmmm.mmmmm.
barack hussein obamammm. mmmm.mmmmm.

You're an idiot.

DarrinS

10-22-2009, 04:57 PM

Do you have a dispute with the facts Sullivan posted?

Of course you don't.

Trig Palin born on April 18, 2008. Bristol's son born on December 28th, 2008.

Seems pretty unlikely.

ChumpDumper

10-22-2009, 05:00 PM

Trig Palin born on April 18, 2008. Bristol's son born on December 28th, 2008.

Seems pretty unlikely.The facts posted here:

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3763325&postcount=2

Your squirming confirms you don't.

Ad hominem in 3....2....

DarrinS

10-22-2009, 05:10 PM

The facts posted here:

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3763325&postcount=2

Your squirming confirms you don't.

Ad hominem in 3....2....

Oddly enough, I posted the same facts in the OP. I just didn't add my opinion, like Sullivan did.

ChumpDumper

10-22-2009, 05:12 PM

Oddly enough, I posted the same facts in the OP. I just didn't add my opinion, like Sullivan did.Oddly enough, you didn't post the same facts as Sullivan. He posted additional facts. What problem do you have with those?

MannyIsGod

10-22-2009, 05:13 PM

Context >! Opinion

DarrinS

10-22-2009, 05:13 PM

Oddly enough, you didn't post the same facts as Sullivan. He posted other facts. What problem do you have with those?

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/8uvbgdzzyumsqenbxegatq.gif

ChumpDumper

10-22-2009, 05:15 PM

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/8uvbgdzzyumsqenbxegatq.gifOddly enough you didn't post the same facts as Sullivan. He posted additional facts. What problem do you have with those?

MannyIsGod

10-22-2009, 05:16 PM

Actually - he doesn't add a shred of opinion at all.

DarrinS

10-22-2009, 05:17 PM

Oddly enough you didn't post the same facts as Sullivan. He posted additional facts. What problem do you have with those?

Never said I had a problem with them. Why do you make up shit?

I just pointed out that Sullivan is the same crazy person who blogged furiously about Trig really being Bristol's son. I guess he still smells like egg on that issue.

DarrinS

10-22-2009, 05:19 PM

Actually - he doesn't add a shred of opinion at all.

George W. Bush at this point was in the 70s headed to the high 80s, but that was obviously 9/11. Before 9/11, Bush was at 51 percent - not far off Obama right now. And he was not tackling the worst recession in memory, a stratospheric debt (he inherited a surplus) and two failed wars.

DarrinS

10-22-2009, 05:20 PM

For Manny,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion

ChumpDumper

10-22-2009, 05:22 PM

Never said I had a problem with them. Why do you make up shit?I was asking if you did have a problem with them.

Do you?

You are trying to attack Sullivan's credibility with this Trig tangent. Are the additional facts he gave credible or do you have a problem with them?

MannyIsGod

10-22-2009, 05:25 PM

DarrinS

10-22-2009, 05:26 PM

I was asking if you did have a problem with them.

Do you?

You are trying to attack Sullivan's credibility with this Trig tangent. Are the additional facts he gave credible or do you have a problem with them?

By definition, facts are always credible (see link I left for Manny). Therefore, no, I don't have a "problem" with the facts posted by Sullivan about previous presidents' poll numbers -- the same numbers I posted in the OP. I just didn't add a bunch of whiny "but, but, but ... he inhereted the worst economy and two failed wars -- -WAAAAAH!!!!".

MannyIsGod

10-22-2009, 05:27 PM

By definition, facts are always credible (see link I left for Manny). Therefore, no, I don't have a "problem" with the facts posted by Sullivan about previous presidents' poll numbers -- the same numbers I posted in the OP. I just didn't add a bunch of whiny "but, but, but ... he inhereted the worst economy and two failed wars -- -WAAAAAH!!!!".

Did he or didn't he inherit the wars and the economy? Context, Darin. While you're looking up meanings of words you should look up that one.

ChumpDumper

10-22-2009, 05:27 PM

DarrinS

10-22-2009, 05:29 PM

That 9/11 boosted Bush's ratings is not an opinion. He give you Bush's ratings prior to 9/11. What the fuck do you believe pushed them up?

I believe 9/11 increased the numbers for Bush, but I can't PROVE it. Therefore, it is my opinion.

The failed wars excert is an opinion but only on the wars and not on the entire context that Obama inherited them and they are an obstacle facing him which Bush did not have.

I think the continued "overseas contingency operations" are hurting Obama's numbers a little bit, but I wouldn't call them failures. That is also my opinion.

MannyIsGod

10-22-2009, 05:54 PM

I believe 9/11 increased the numbers for Bush, but I can't PROVE it. Therefore, it is my opinion.

Of course it can be proven. Are you an idiot? (question completely rhetorical I already know the answer)

I think the continued "overseas contingency operations" are hurting Obama's numbers a little bit, but I wouldn't call them failures. That is also my opinion.

:lmao is pretty much all I can muster to this.

jman3000

10-22-2009, 07:03 PM

and :lol at the buzzword "dithering". Cheney uses it in a speech and Darrins latches on to make himself feel smart.

to21

10-22-2009, 07:13 PM

That 9/11 boosted Bush's ratings is not an opinion. He give you Bush's ratings prior to 9/11. What the fuck do you believe pushed them up?

The failed wars excert is an opinion but only on the wars and not on the entire context that Obama inherited them and they are an obstacle facing him which Bush did not have.

I almost asked if you're really this dense but I already know the answer.Hell ya it boosted his ratings.

Dumbest lines we've fallen for as Americans, "If the glove doesn't fit, u must acquit" and "we fixin' to get those evil do-ers they have WMD"

clambake

10-22-2009, 07:33 PM

and :lol at the buzzword "dithering". Cheney uses it in a speech and Darrins latches on to make himself feel smart.

holy shit! how embarrassing!

DitheringS from now on!!!!!

DarrinS

10-22-2009, 07:40 PM

Of course it can be proven.

Be my guest.

George Gervin's Afro

10-22-2009, 07:41 PM

another poll?

RandomGuy

10-22-2009, 08:03 PM

Trig Palin born on April 18, 2008. Bristol's son born on December 28th, 2008.

Seems pretty unlikely.

I want to see the birth certificate!

HA!

MannyIsGod

10-22-2009, 08:03 PM

Be my guest.

PRINCETON, NJ -- President George W. Bush's approval rating was at 51% in a Gallup Poll conducted Sept. 7-10 and completed just before the tragic events of Tuesday. This rating was down some from Bush's recent average, which had been in the mid-50% range. The poll also showed that overall satisfaction with the way things are going in the United States was down significantly and that most of Gallup's measures of the public's perception of the economy had reached new lows for recent years.
There has been speculation about the impact of the terrorist attacks on the public's mood and perceptions of both Bush and the country as a whole. Typically, an event in which the United States or its armed forces come into danger or conflict translates into a short-term rally effect in which presidential approval ratings increase. Polling in the next several days will determine whether or not the phenomenon occurs in this situation. What the weekend poll does show, however, is that the American public's confidence in the economy, satisfaction with the way things were going, and overall satisfaction with Bush were slipping before the watershed events of Tuesday.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/4882/Bush-Job-Approval-51-Immediately-Before-Tuesdays-Attacks.aspx

The next poll after the attack his approval rating was at 86%.

Just prior to the attacks on Sept. 11, George W. Bush's popularity was waning, with an approval rating of just 51%, down from the 57% he received a month earlier. But three days after the attacks, 86% of Americans said they approved of the job Bush was doing as president, an increase of 35 percentage points and the largest "rally effect" ever recorded by Gallup. A week later Bush's overall approval reached 90%, eclipsing what had been the Gallup record of 89% -- achieved by the elder George Bush during the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

This is known as a rally effect or rally around the flag effect and its been documented before

The “rally-round-the-flag effect” sparked by the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington and by President George W. Bush's prompt launching of the War on Terrorism cries out for the kind of timely analysis that political scientists sometimes can provide. A rally effect is the sudden and substantial increase in public approval of the president that occurs in response to certain kinds of dramatic international events involving the United States. The September 11 rally effect is distinctive for at least three reasons. First, of all the recorded rally effects, it is the largest. Bush's approval rating soared in the Gallup Poll from 51% on September 10 to 86% on September 15. 1 (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=08761BF99669C25C3624C7C 8466779C4.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=140021#fn1) This 35-point increase nearly doubles the previous record, the 18-point boost triggered by his father's launch of Operation Desert Storm in January 1991. Second, the further increase in Bush's approval rating to 90% on September 22 represents the highest rating ever recorded for a president (Morin 2001). Third, the September 11 rally effect has lasted longer than any in the history of polling. As of November 10, 2002, Bush's approval rating was 68%—22 points below its peak but still much higher than his rating 13 months earlier.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=08761BF99669C25C3624C7C 8466779C4.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=140021

http://media.gallup.com/POLL/Releases/pr030702i.gif

PRINCETON, NJ -- In the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks last year, Americans rallied around their leaders and government, and expressed record levels of approval and trust. The rally effect for President George W. Bush was evidenced by a jump of almost 40 points in his approval rating. Reaching the 90% level, Bush's approval rating was the highest in Gallup's history. The rally effect for Congress was just over 40 points, peaking at an approval rating of 84%. Smaller rally effects were measured for other areas of government, and also included the public's general satisfaction with the way things were going in the country and the public's expressed levels of trust in government.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/6793/Rally-Effect-911-Terrorist-Attacks-Virtually-Gone.aspx

Sure Darrin, it can't be proven. :rolleyes

clambake

10-22-2009, 08:08 PM

stop calling him darrin.

his name is DitheringS.

MannyIsGod

10-22-2009, 08:15 PM

BTW Darrin, You get bonus points if you can indentify the cause of the 2nd rally effect on the graph I posted. Think really hard and - here's a hint - use the dates along the bottom for extra help.

jman3000

10-23-2009, 12:15 PM

mission accomplished?

Wild Cobra

10-23-2009, 12:30 PM

Are approval ratings even meaningful at this stage of an administration? Last I checked, the elections aren't for another 3+ years.
Not in my book. But if that's the same poll I heard of on the radio, they had to over sample democrats by a pretty high amount to get that last number.

Wild Cobra

10-23-2009, 12:31 PM

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/8uvbgdzzyumsqenbxegatq.gif
Wow... He got more than Clinton? Simply amazing.

Oh wait... They didn't over sample democrats for Clinton's numbers.

MannyIsGod

10-23-2009, 12:36 PM

Wow... He got more than Clinton? Simply amazing.

Oh wait... They didn't over sample democrats for Clinton's numbers.

Same bullshit I heard all through out the polling for the election last fall. The same principle applies now that applied then: There are more democrats than there are republicans in this country (in fact the disparity is growing) and that's why they get sampled more.

MannyIsGod

10-23-2009, 12:38 PM

Furthermore its not simple amazing when you consider how Clinton got elected (and you were even talking about this in another thread this morning). What I find simply amazing is how you consistently miss the obvious yet had the gall to declare yourself in the 99.40850758175-37593871984719364374 to the 39483094830 power percentile of intelligence.

SnakeBoy

10-23-2009, 12:49 PM

Are approval ratings even meaningful at this stage of an administration? Last I checked, the elections aren't for another 3+ years.

The number isn't meaningful, just the trend.

jack sommerset

10-23-2009, 06:14 PM

Michelle Obama and Big Bird

Vje2FtM_itw

hope4dopes

10-23-2009, 08:07 PM

3 years. That means, going by Obama's long political career, only a year until he has to start to run again.:lmao

hope4dopes

10-23-2009, 08:36 PM

Yeah the right think's he betrayed the nation, the left think's he betrayed the dream, and the board of the federal reserve just want to know where to send their contribution to his relection campaign.

Winehole23

10-24-2009, 03:22 AM

Winehole23

10-24-2009, 03:23 AM

Odd you'd just take that for granted. I wouldn't, necessarily.

Winehole23

10-24-2009, 03:24 AM

The Fed isn't controlled by politicians.

Winehole23

10-24-2009, 03:25 AM

Have you considered that maybe the fealty runs in the other direction now?

Winehole23

10-24-2009, 03:27 AM

The lender of last resort has been very very busy.

Winehole23

10-24-2009, 03:29 AM

Obama owes Bernanke, not the other way around.

Wild Cobra

10-24-2009, 10:10 AM

ObamaCare + Unemployment + Dithering on Afghanistan =
An unqualified man for the job.

MannyIsGod

10-24-2009, 12:40 PM

An unqualified man for the job.

I love how I shut both you and Darrin up in this thread. Too fucking easy.

Wild Cobra

10-24-2009, 09:51 PM

I love how I shut both you and Darrin up in this thread. Too fucking easy.
Time to wake up. Dream time is over...

Reality check...

boutons_deux

10-25-2009, 02:54 PM

Wild Cobra

10-25-2009, 03:34 PM

Podesta: Bush admin only spent one hour on Afghanistan report

http://rawstory.com/2009/10/podesta-afghanistan-report/

dubya dithered on MacChrystal's request for 8 months, then punted it to Magic Negro.

The Repugs are truly repugnant liars and hypocrites.
Some of us know better. There were very good reports put together for Obama.

The Bush administration spent only one hour on a report on Afghanistan before handing the issue over to the incoming Obama administration, a former Clinton-era White House chief of staff says.
Do you even read the bullshit you link?

How would this man even know. He's making it all up.