Reply With Quote
He was a knitter, duh, in a much more polarized country, compared to two white guys?
Nixon actually did some good stuff which would be impossible now, along with his crimes, and his VEEP and 40 lawyers that went to prison.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/202742/ob...resident.aspx/
Also of note:
Obama began his presidency with approval ratings in the high 60s, among the best for a newly elected president. But by the end of his first year, his approval ratings fell to near 50% and dropped below the majority level early in his second year. After his first year, he received sustained majority approval only once more during his first term in office. Fortunately for him, that came during his 16th quarter in office -- around the time he was re-elected in the fall of 2012. Shortly after his second term began, his support dipped back into the 40s and did not return to the majority level again until his final year in office. His 32nd and final quarter job approval average of 55.7% was his third-highest as president.
Translation: the American people only really liked Obama as the Campaigner-in-Chief and as a lame-duck president in his last year in office. When he was actually governing, he wasn't nearly as popular.
He was a knitter, duh, in a much more polarized country, compared to two white guys?
Nixon actually did some good stuff which would be impossible now, along with his crimes, and his VEEP and 40 lawyers that went to prison.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 01-29-2017 at 03:42 PM.
You do realize that using "knitter" as a stand-in for the word you actually want to use doesn't make you any less racist, right?
If race was anywhere near the factor that you're claiming it is, he wouldn't have had a higher average rating than Ford, Carter and Truman.
Gee, it's almost as if Obama was an extremely divisive president!in a much more polarized country.
This is true. It's also worth mentioning though that dubya had his approval ratings syrocket shortly after 9/11, mostly on country unity for the historical tragedy and starting his two wars, and his rating plummet once time has shown what his decisions following that event were. He was much more of a lame duck than Barry was in his last year, in big part due to the economic crisis. Neither could hold a candle to Bush Sr, though, IMO.
Its not how you start..is how you finish.
And Obama still finished worse than he started:Its not how you start..is how you finish.
Just look at how those ratings plummeted when he wasn't newly-elected, campaigning or lame-duck status.
Is this a "Trump is my beloved leader and has everyone's support... but anyway, check how Obama is actually not as loved as you all say" thread?
Clipper Nation
It has little to do with Trump. I've just seen a lot of articles with people cherrypicking Obama's final approval rating and using it as "proof" that he was overwhelmingly popular. That talking point didn't make sense to me. After all, we're only a few months removed from his entire legacy and agenda getting soundly rejected at the ballot box. Plus Democrats did nothing but lose ground electorally during Obama's administration at both the federal and state level. If he was as popular as Media would have you believe, surely the public would have voted for more of the status quo each time they had a chance, not less. Then I came across the Gallup Poll I linked to in the OP, which provided a far more realistic view of Obama's actual popularity. I decided to post it because fake news is a big issue in today's world and the only way to counteract it is to educate people with the real news.
Interesting. And who decides what's "real news"? Trump?
We talking of some guy that quoted news he knew were fake.
Slippery slope, man.
Damn, Trump sure is living rent-free in your head. You were the first one to even bring him up ITT.Interesting. And who decides what's "real news"? Trump?
We talking of some guy that quoted news he knew were fake.
Slippery slope, man.
Well, it's not like all of the sudden you decided to ascertain what is real and fake news, pal.
You trying to present "your"... alternative facts, after all.
Right?
op is a got
I'm still in wonderment about the 98% gathering by the pollsters that stated we'd be here tonite discussing Hillary as POTUS.
A testament, IMO, to the effectiveness of the right-wing propaganda machine, rather than any real knowledge of what was going on.
Eyup. Either candidate would have started off hobbled.
Clinton is lucky in some regards that it wasn't her.
Except that never happened. "the pollsters" predicted a Clinton win of around 3-4% nationally with a MoE of around 2.5%. She won by 2.1%. They were incredibly accurate at polling the national electorate.
No, 98% of the polls stated Hillary would be POTUS.
You're obviously a newb down here, since you only joined our community Post-9 Nov. But "the polls" never claimed to predict the outcome of the election. That was left to the people you watch on TV to interpret "the polls".
"the polls" predicted a Clinton victory in the national election. "they" were right.
Look at the flailing. It's "all hands on deck" mode for Trump supporters, because it only took him a week to have a nuclear meltdown.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
