ObamaCare + Unemployment + Dithering on Afghanistan =

[DarrinS]

Ruh roh

http://www.gallup.com/poll/123806/Ob...ne-Points.aspx

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.

[MannyIsGod]

Gallup declares:

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 crowd 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]

lol +16

[admiralsnackbar]

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

[jman3000]

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

[DarrinS]

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]

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]

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]

mmm. mmmm.mmmmm.
barack hussein obama

[ChumpDumper]

mmm. mmmm.mmmmm.
barack hussein obama

mmm. mmmm.mmmmm.

You're an idiot.

[DarrinS]

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]

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...25&postcount=2

Your squirming confirms you don't.

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

[DarrinS]

The facts posted here:

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...25&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]

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]

Context >! Opinion

[DarrinS]

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

[ChumpDumper]

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

[MannyIsGod]

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

[DarrinS]

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 ?


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]

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]

For Manny,


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

[ChumpDumper]

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

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]

That 9/11 boosted Bush's ratings is not an opinion. He give you Bush's ratings prior to 9/11. What the 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.

[DarrinS]

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]

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.