Quote from: FOXNews.comObama's 47 Percent Approval Lowest of Any President at This Point
By Bill Sammon
President Obama's job approval rating has fallen to 47 percent in the latest Gallup poll, the lowest ever recorded for any president at this point in his term.
Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford and even Richard Nixon all had higher approval ratings 10-and-a-half months into their presidencies. Obama's immediate predecessor, President George W. Bush, had an approval rating of 86 percent, or 39 points higher than Obama at this stage. Bush's support came shortly after he launched the war in Afghanistan in response to the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he doesn't "put a lot of stock" in the survey by Gallup, which has conducted presidential approval polls since 1938, longer than any other organization.
"If I was a heart patient and Gallup was my EKG, I'd visit my doctor," Gibbs said in response to questions from Fox. "I'm sure a six-year-old with a Crayon could do something not unlike that. I don't put a lot of stake in, never have, in the EKG that is daily Gallup trend. I don't pay a lot of attention to the meaninglessness of it."
Gallup Editor-in-Chief Frank Newport responded: "Gibbs said that if Gallup were his EKG, he would visit his doctor. Well, I think the doctor might ask him what's going on in his life that would cause his EKG to be fluctuating so much. There is, in fact, a lot going on at the moment -- the health care bill, the jobs summit, the Copenhagen climate conference and Afghanistan."
The new low comes as Obama struggles to overhaul the nation's health care system and escalates America's involvement in the Afghanistan war. He is also presiding over a deep and prolonged recession, with unemployment at 10 percent.
"There's no doubt Obama's 47 percent is mainly a result of the continuing bad economy," said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. "But there is also a growing concern about government spending and debt, and a sense that Obama is trying to do too much, too soon."
He added: "President Obama has reason to be concerned about his ratings. Even in tough times, presidents have usually been able to stay above the critical 50 percent mark in the first year, when the public is most inclined to give the new incumbent the benefit of the doubt."
Obama officials have not always shown disdain for Gallup. During last year's presidential campaign, Obama adviser David Plouffe, trumpeted "the latest Gallup poll" to reporters because it showed that 53 percent of Americans did not find Obama Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, "trustworthy."
When Gallup began taking presidential approval polls 71 years ago, Franklin Roosevelt had been president for more than five years. During his remaining time in office, his job approval rating never fell below 48 percent.
The next 11 presidents, both Democrats and Republicans, all had higher job approval ratings than Obama at this stage of their tenure. Their ratings were:
-- George W. Bush, 86 percent
-- Bill Clinton, 52 percent
-- George H.W. Bush, 71 percent
-- Ronald Reagan, 49 percent
-- Jimmy Carter, 57 percent
-- Gerald Ford, 52 percent
-- Richard Nixon, 59 percent
-- Lyndon Johnson, 74 percent
-- John Kennedy, 77 percent
-- Dwight Eisenhower, 69 percent
-- Harry Truman, 49 percent
The poll is an average of a three-day tracking of 1,529 adults taken Dec. 4-6. It has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.
Well, if Bush had 86% at this point, Obama's looking at negative numbers sometime in the next three years.
Quote from: Fate on January 01, 2010, 12:49:35 PM
Well, if Bush had 86% at this point, Obama's looking at negative numbers sometime in the next three years.
Maybe the pants-burner terrorist was let through Amsterdam checks by the help of Obama's guys. :D "hey, it did work for Dubya!"
I remember when low approval ratings were a sign of leadership.
Quote from: Strix on January 01, 2010, 12:43:22 PM
Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford and even Richard Nixon all had higher approval ratings 10-and-a-half months into their presidencies.
What a bizarre statement. Nixon was reelected in a landslide. It's like Sammon expects his readers to be expecting Watergate to affect those numbers.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 01, 2010, 01:04:57 PM
I remember when low approval ratings were a sign of leadership.
:yeahright:
:lol: yeah and Bush's approval rating only fell slightly after that point.
Nice to put out that stat pointing out that a few months after 9/11 Bush was riding high in approval . no shit.
and the President wading through the financial crisis he left us(by us I mean the world) with has a low rating? shocking?
I'd say the approval rating of a Head Of State when they are leaving office after 4 or 8 years is actually relevant, this one= stupider than The Bush twins on Robot Chicken.
Quote from: Barrister on January 01, 2010, 01:24:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 01, 2010, 01:04:57 PM
I remember when low approval ratings were a sign of leadership.
:yeahright:
There was a claim over the last decade that Bush's low approval rating was connected to his strong leadership.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on January 01, 2010, 01:29:58 PM
:lol: yeah and Bush's approval rating only fell slightly after that point.
Nice to put out that stat pointing out that a few months after 9/11 Bush was riding high in approval . no shit.
and the President wading through the financial crisis he left us(by us I mean the world) with has a low rating? shocking?
I'd say the approval rating of a Head Of State when they are leaving office after 4 or 8 years is actually relevant, this one= stupider than The Bush twins on Robot Chicken.
Yeah, why care about how people feel about a president while in office. :tinfoil:
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on January 01, 2010, 01:29:58 PM
and the President wading through the financial crisis he left us(by us I mean the world) with has a low rating? shocking?
:rolleyes:
Yeah, President Bush was forcing foreign banks to make bad loans... Jeeze.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 01, 2010, 03:14:45 PM
Yeah, President Bush was forcing foreign banks to make bad loans... Jeeze.
Well he did slash taxes and jack up spending making it really painful for the government to intervene in the crisis...and of course now the Republicans are complaining about the deficit...so running up huge deficits when the economy is strong and then cut spending when it is struggling is their strategy? Reverse Keynesian economics...interesting...
President Obama hates pollsters..... :ph34r:
I don't feel that Obama took a huge hit because of his handling of the financial crisis. I think there are many people who, if they've been paying close attention, realize that the Obama bailout was a horrific misuse of government funds and one of the worst decisions any President has made on the economic-side of things in a long time. However, I think Obama successfully put a lot of the blame for the financial crisis on the previous administration.
I think Obama has lost his approval numbers for three reasons:
1. The Health Care debate ended up finishing somewhere in the "weird middle." I say "weird middle" because it's socialist enough that it's pissed off moderate conservatives but it's conservative enough that some of the looney left have jumped off the Obama bandwagon because there is no "public option."
2. Obama decided to send more troops to Afghanistan. This also pushed a lot of the members of the looney left off the Obama band wagon, including people of the Michael Moore cut.
3. I think a not-insignificant number of people voted for Obama because they saw him as a "JFK" type President. Meaning they felt he was going to be a "new beginning" for America and et cetera. What these people have discovered is hey, Obama is a man. A pretty smart one, but he's a politician who does what it takes to get elected, and getting reelected is his primary focus, not taking major stands on big issues.
Of course, history shows JFK had similar appeal and if you notice his administration was kind of a flop.
Doesn't look good. Even Truman and Reagan had two more points at this stage.
Quote from: DGuller on January 01, 2010, 06:30:48 PM
Doesn't look good. Even Truman and Reagan had two more points at this stage.
Might as well resign and let Biden have a go!
It would be interesting to know how much of the disapproval is coming from the left.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 01, 2010, 05:11:04 PM
2. Obama decided to send more troops to Afghanistan. This also pushed a lot of the members of the looney left off the Obama band wagon, including people of the Michael Moore cut.
Has anyone who matters seriously been outraged over this?
Quote from: Faeelin on January 01, 2010, 08:21:12 PM
Has anyone who matters seriously been outraged over this?
Do you mean anyone who has a vote, or some other criteria?
Quote from: Faeelin on January 01, 2010, 08:21:12 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 01, 2010, 05:11:04 PM
2. Obama decided to send more troops to Afghanistan. This also pushed a lot of the members of the looney left off the Obama band wagon, including people of the Michael Moore cut.
Has anyone who matters seriously been outraged over this?
Has anyone who matters ever been outraged by anything Obama has done? Or not done?
Is this really that surprising? I mean, roughly 50% of the country is Republican as shown by the last several elections. There goes 50% of the potential support he could get, as it's doubtful many Republicans would say he's doing a good job or that they approve of his efforts. Throw in the fringe left who are pissed over the Afghan troop increase and the Health Care conclusion, and I'd say it's pretty good he's polling at 47%. Also, it's not really a surpise the way the article is worded when you notice the source is Foxnews.com.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 01, 2010, 01:18:02 PM
What a bizarre statement. Nixon was reelected in a landslide. It's like Sammon expects his readers to be expecting Watergate to affect those numbers.
What a bizarre statement. Nixon was reelected in a landslide, but long after the equivalent date. Watergate occurred 30+ months after the ten-and-a-half month point in the Nixon administration. It is like Peter Wiggin expects the readers of his posts to not remember when Watergate occurred. :huh:
Frankly, I am unsurprised by these numbers. What remains to be seen is whether Obama can learn from them. I have to admit that I am, and always have been, dubious about his qualifications, but have always been impressed by his smarts. It is entirely possible that he could still have a successful presidency. Odds are against him, of course. No one has recovered from this kind of start before, except FDR.
As for Republicans outnumbering Democrats, I don't know what the numbers are but even at its best I believe the GOP has always had a 10% disadvantage vs. the Democrats.
Republican administrations happen and Republican Congresses happen because many people sign their party registration when they are young, and they sign whatever their parents are--it isn't always a reflection of their beliefs. Some people also may be registered GOP or Democrat but typically vote all over the place depending on who is running and the issues at hand.
The trend in recent years certainly hasn't been more GOP registrations at the expense of the Dems, it is more people who are registering as independents. A big part of it also is more and more states are letting independents vote in party primaries. In some states in the past you could not vote in any party primary if you were an independent. In those states politically interested people who weren't necessarily strongly in favor of the Dems or the GOP would register as one or the other just so they could vote in the primaries. (Some states are still like this.)
Quote from: Judas Iscariot on January 01, 2010, 09:33:22 PM
Is this really that surprising? I mean, roughly 50% of the country is Republican as shown by the last several elections. There goes 50% of the potential support he could get, as it's doubtful many Republicans would say he's doing a good job or that they approve of his efforts.
Yet we find historically that a president getting above 50% approval is the rule and not the exception.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 01, 2010, 10:00:59 PM
Quote from: Judas Iscariot on January 01, 2010, 09:33:22 PM
Is this really that surprising? I mean, roughly 50% of the country is Republican as shown by the last several elections. There goes 50% of the potential support he could get, as it's doubtful many Republicans would say he's doing a good job or that they approve of his efforts.
Yet we find historically that a president getting above 50% approval is the rule and not the exception.
Historically we also don't need 60 votes to get legislation throuhgh the Senate. America certainly seems more polarized than i t once was, and if you dig deeper into these polls Obama's approval ratings are really, really awful among Republicans.
Obama is historically speaking a really, really awful President. :showoff:
Quote from: Faeelin on January 01, 2010, 10:09:40 PM
Historically we also don't need 60 votes to get legislation throuhgh the Senate. America certainly seems more polarized than i t once was, and if you dig deeper into these polls Obama's approval ratings are really, really awful among Republicans.
I've been saying the same thing for ever. American politics has been trapped in a revenge cycle since Clinton.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 01, 2010, 10:21:33 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on January 01, 2010, 10:09:40 PM
Historically we also don't need 60 votes to get legislation throuhgh the Senate. America certainly seems more polarized than i t once was, and if you dig deeper into these polls Obama's approval ratings are really, really awful among Republicans.
I've been saying the same thing for ever. American politics has been trapped in a revenge cycle since Clinton.
I'LL KILL YOU.
I mean, ya.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 01, 2010, 10:00:59 PM
Quote from: Judas Iscariot on January 01, 2010, 09:33:22 PM
Is this really that surprising? I mean, roughly 50% of the country is Republican as shown by the last several elections. There goes 50% of the potential support he could get, as it's doubtful many Republicans would say he's doing a good job or that they approve of his efforts.
Yet we find historically that a president getting above 50% approval is the rule and not the exception.
I agree, unless there's an attack on the country to rally people around, even a good popular president will find it hard to break 60% these days.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 01, 2010, 10:21:33 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on January 01, 2010, 10:09:40 PM
Historically we also don't need 60 votes to get legislation throuhgh the Senate. America certainly seems more polarized than i t once was, and if you dig deeper into these polls Obama's approval ratings are really, really awful among Republicans.
I've been saying the same thing for ever. American politics has been trapped in a revenge cycle since Clinton.
More like since the '72 election. It's just gotten worse lately.
Quote from: Fate on January 01, 2010, 10:19:38 PM
Obama is historically speaking a really, really awful President. :showoff:
:lmfao:
He is dealing with a lot of tough problems. Two unpopular wars, a massive recession and insanely high expectations. I think he's done reasonably well for a person in as tough a position as his is, and I think he is learning pretty quickly.
You really quite delusional, Mr. Quee.
America is ready for change. We didn't sign up for cap and tax, the porkulus, and a government takeover of health care. :yucky:
Obama will be begging for impeachment after the drumming his party will face in 2010. :yes:
:lol:
Yeah. You know, I think Glenn Beck's semen has finally penetrated your blood-brain barrier. I'd get that checked out if I were you.
Quote from: Queequeg on January 01, 2010, 11:52:41 PM
:lol:
Yeah. You know, I think Glenn Beck's semen has finally penetrated your blood-brain barrier. I'd get that checked out if I were you.
Prepared to get spanked son. The teavolution is coming! :licklips:
You guys are dead wrong on filibustering, it isn't nearly as powerful as it once was. Prior to Woodrow Wilson literally 3-4 Senators could 100% block the passage of any legislation in the Senate. Because a small group of isolationists was attempting to block Wilson's involving the United States in World War I, he pushed for a change to Senate rules. Cloture was born, and was set at a supermajority of 2/3rds of the Senators present and voting. (64 Senators if all 96 were present in 1919, 67 under a 100-Senator Senate.)
In the 1970s it was changed by a strong Democratic majority to only require 60 Senators, however that was changed to an absolute number, meaning 60 members of the Senate have to vote in favor of cloture. Technically this meant in some cases it would require more Senators to invoke cloture than in the past (for example under the old rule, if only 60 Senators were present it would only take 41 to invoke Cloture or etc.), in practice it has made it much, much easier to invoke cloture. Anytime an important bill gets past, riling up the Senators to be in attendance generally isn't a huge problem. They practically had to wheel Byrd in riding a hearse for the health care vote.
Before the rule change in the 1970s cloture was almost impossible to pull off, and it meant that for decades Southern Democrat Senators blocked all Civil Rights bills. So yeah, it isn't exactly a new thing that you need a cloture-majority to pass controversial legislation. The filibuster has been like this forever.
Otto's defense of Republican obstructionists is spot on. Democrat social policies like health care and cap and trade should require a 60 vote threshold, but Republican tax cut and spend policies should be passed through reconciliation plus 50 senators and the VP.
Just like the founders intended. :hmm:
Quote-- George W. Bush, 86 percent
-- Bill Clinton, 52 percent
-- George H.W. Bush, 71 percent
-- Ronald Reagan, 49 percent
-- Jimmy Carter, 57 percent
-- Gerald Ford, 52 percent
-- Richard Nixon, 59 percent
-- Lyndon Johnson, 74 percent
-- John Kennedy, 77 percent
-- Dwight Eisenhower, 69 percent
-- Harry Truman, 49 percent
Strix, out of these, which Presidents are remembered as the good ones? Reagan and Truman (similar poll results to Obama's) or G.W.Bush (highest)?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 02, 2010, 01:57:41 AMyeah, it isn't exactly a new thing that you need a cloture-majority to pass controversial legislation. The filibuster has been like this forever.
The rules have been around. The filibuster was not routinely invoked until recently, though. Take a loot at the chart below:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fjamesfallows.theatlantic.com%2FGumming%2520Up%2520the%2520Works.jpg&hash=2093183ce1f7712fb469672200de7fc4a9644b94)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 01, 2010, 06:50:57 PM
It would be interesting to know how much of the disapproval is coming from the left.
On healthcare I believe 12% of people opposed it because it 'didn't go far enough' - if that's a useful test.
I think Obama's numbers are entirely tied to the economy. I think he'll probably get a slight bump from healthcare receding as an issue but after that it all depends on how strong the economy is.
QuoteThe trend in recent years certainly hasn't been more GOP registrations at the expense of the Dems, it is more people who are registering as independents.
However there are very few true independents. I read an article recently where the pollsters asked independents if they leaned one way or the other and of the 30% of Americans who are 'independent' around 10% leaned Dem and 10% leaned Republican. Those who 'lean' one way or the other were asked other questions and were generally as partisan as moderate Democrats and Republicans. Which makes sense, I think. There's lots of people I imagine who don't necessarily like either party but are ideologically more right or left wing and will vote accordingly even if they view themselves as 'independent'.
I think this article's a bit dishonest, or at least not terribly useful, in premise because it's effectively choosing Christmas and saying 'no President's been this unpopular at this point.' But it does literally mean
at this point. For example Clinton's numbers dropped below 40 during his first year and though Reagan's were at 49 in the first week of December by the end of December they were lower than 47. So I don't think this is as useful as a more general commentary comparing Obama's approval ratings through the first year with other Presidents would have been. It seems a bit arbitrary.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 02, 2010, 09:03:57 AM
I think Obama's numbers are entirely tied to the economy.
And racism.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 02, 2010, 09:03:57 AM
On healthcare I believe 12% of people opposed it because it 'didn't go far enough' - if that's a useful test.
I think Obama's numbers are entirely tied to the economy. I think he'll probably get a slight bump from healthcare receding as an issue but after that it all depends on how strong the economy is.
My understanding is Obama expects a 10-15% bump once healthcare's passed, according to his staff. I can only assume they will continue to be right.
Why would Obama expect healthcare to increase his approval rating? It's not like there are all that many people who work in the insurance industry.
Quote from: Faeelin on January 02, 2010, 12:08:36 PM
My understanding is Obama expects a 10-15% bump once healthcare's passed, according to his staff. I can only assume they will continue to be right.
I think he'll get a bump - most polling companies are reporting one. But I don't think it'll be because healthcare's passed, rather it'll be because everyone stops talking about healthcare.
Quote from: ulmont on January 02, 2010, 08:55:14 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 02, 2010, 01:57:41 AMyeah, it isn't exactly a new thing that you need a cloture-majority to pass controversial legislation. The filibuster has been like this forever.
The rules have been around. The filibuster was not routinely invoked until recently, though. Take a loot at the chart below:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fjamesfallows.theatlantic.com%2FGumming%2520Up%2520the%2520Works.jpg&hash=2093183ce1f7712fb469672200de7fc4a9644b94)
Heh, this looks a lot like a history of Polish "liberum veto". It was originally used extremely sparingly to encourage consensus-seeking (I think it was used like 2 or 3 times during the entire 16th century), and then show its use spiked during the 17th century, as it started being used as a political tool and was used almost every time.
Quote from: ulmont on January 02, 2010, 08:55:14 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 02, 2010, 01:57:41 AMyeah, it isn't exactly a new thing that you need a cloture-majority to pass controversial legislation. The filibuster has been like this forever.
The rules have been around. The filibuster was not routinely invoked until recently, though. Take a loot at the chart below:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fjamesfallows.theatlantic.com%2FGumming%2520Up%2520the%2520Works.jpg&hash=2093183ce1f7712fb469672200de7fc4a9644b94)
That's extremely misleading, though. It used to be that to filibuster a bill, you had to actually keep debating it on the floor, making speaches that lasted for hour after hour. Often the majority wouldn't even try to envoke closure, but would just allow those opposing the legislation in question to tire themselves out and not be able to continue anymore. Now, though, all you have to do is basically declare an intention to filibuster--you don't actually have to keep speaking endlessly.
Speaking endlessly makes the filibuster easier for the minority, as they only have to have one speaker present at a time, while the majority has to have everyone present to try and invoke cloture.
Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2010, 05:28:31 AMStrix, out of these, which Presidents are remembered as the good ones? Reagan and Truman (similar poll results to Obama's) or G.W.Bush (highest)?
Obama would be closer to similarity to Reagan, as they both inherited a shitty economy and issues with the Muslim World. Obama might end up similar to Truman depending on how he finishes the two current conflicts he faces. Will he sell out like Truman? Or stay the course?
I think the poll is more about expectations than anything else. Those with higher ratings came into office with the expectation that good things would happen or, as is the case of George W, something happened in their first year that they handled which gave the country a lot of confidence in their President.
I think this is why the poll numbers are telling. Obama came into office with extremely high expectations and has failed to deliver. His numbers should be around 70% but aren't because there has been little hope or change as promised. People are coming to understand that Obama is not JFK reincarnated but they are starting to worry he might be Herbet Hoover.
Truman sold out? He finished the war on Germany, the war on Japan, and the war on organized labour.
Strix must be a fan of Dugout Doug.
Quote from: Strix on January 02, 2010, 02:46:31 PM
nto office with extremely high expectations and has failed to deliver. His numbers should be around 70% but aren't because there has been little hope or change as promised. People are coming to understand that Obama is not JFK reincarnated but they are starting to worry he might be Herbet Hoover.
Unless Obama has 70% approval ratings he is a failure on the order of Hoover. :yes:
Will Palin be the FDR of our generation?
Quote from: ulmont on January 02, 2010, 02:24:39 PM
Speaking endlessly makes the filibuster easier for the minority, as they only have to have one speaker present at a time, while the majority has to have everyone present to try and invoke cloture.
Uh, no, the Senators who are in the majority can go home and get some sleep, just leaving 1 or 2 of their number at a time, but the minority has to stay there so that if the guy speaking tires they can be sure that someone else takes his place.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 02, 2010, 05:08:35 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2010, 02:58:23 PM
Strix must be a fan of Dugout Doug.
I thought CdM was.
Anybody willing to bomb Red China wins points in my book, no matter how overrated.
Quote from: ulmont on January 02, 2010, 08:55:14 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 02, 2010, 01:57:41 AMyeah, it isn't exactly a new thing that you need a cloture-majority to pass controversial legislation. The filibuster has been like this forever.
The rules have been around. The filibuster was not routinely invoked until recently, though. Take a loot at the chart below:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fjamesfallows.theatlantic.com%2FGumming%2520Up%2520the%2520Works.jpg&hash=2093183ce1f7712fb469672200de7fc4a9644b94)
Not sure a graph showing the number of cloture motions is a good indicator of how much filibustering "gummed up the system."
You didn't get a lot of cloture votes when Southern Senators would filibuster civil rights bills because it almost always became readily apparent the filibuster was unassailable, and since the rest of the country didn't care
that much about black people they just gave up. Many times the Republicans or Northern Democrats who might be inclined to draft civil rights legislation wouldn't even bother since they knew they couldn't get past the Southern filibuster.
The filibuster was so powerful that it actually stopped certain types of legislation from even being considered, and that isn't something that you can measure with a graph showing the number of cloture motions over time.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 01, 2010, 06:50:57 PM
It would be interesting to know how much of the disapproval is coming from the left.
There's some CNN polling on this that could be of use :)
Quote"In general, would you say that President Obama's views and proposed programs for the country are too liberal, not liberal enough, or just about right for the country?"
Too Liberal Not Liberal Enough Just About Right Unsure
% % % %
10/30 - 11/1/09
42 14 44 1
7/31 - 8/3/09
40 8 50 2
3/12-15/09
36 5 58 1
Quote"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?" If disapprove: "Do you disapprove because you think his policies and actions since he became president have been too liberal, or because you think his policies and actions have not been liberal enough?"
Approve Disapprove: Disapprove: Disapprove:
Too Liberal Not Liberal Enough Unsure Unsure
% % % % %
12/16-20/09
54 34 8 2 2
12/2-3/09
48 40 8 2 2
Very useful.
It would be more useful if the columns were lined up correctly.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2010, 10:18:04 PM
It would be more useful if the columns were lined up correctly.
It would be more easily used, but not more useful.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 04, 2010, 03:42:19 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2010, 10:18:04 PM
It would be more useful if the columns were lined up correctly.
It would be more easily used, but not more useful.
An unused graph isn't very useful.
The obvious lesson is that Obama needs to nuke some folks.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2010, 03:43:22 AM
An unused graph isn't very useful.
But, as that has nothing to do with this table, the point is moot.
If you cannot figure out how to use Shielbh's table (not graph, btw), then you couldn't figure out what it meant if you
could use it.
Incorrect, I'm simply to lazy.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2010, 12:38:09 PM
Incorrect, I'm simply to lazy.
Understandable, since you're also too lazy to type out 'too'. :)
Quote from: Caliga on January 04, 2010, 12:40:30 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2010, 12:38:09 PM
Incorrect, I'm simply to lazy.
Understandable, since you're also too lazy to type out 'too'. :)
I'm pretty fucking lazy. Also, pretty.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2010, 12:43:31 PM
I'm pretty fucking lazy. Also, pretty.
As long as you don't start beginning sentences with the word 'Too' like my mother in law does, I can tolerate your antics. :):bleeding:
Quote from: Caliga on January 04, 2010, 12:46:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2010, 12:43:31 PM
I'm pretty fucking lazy. Also, pretty.
As long as you don't start beginning sentences with the word 'Too' like my mother in law does, I can tolerate your antics. :):bleeding:
Too right.
:D
Her usual M.O. is like this:
Ah went to the grocery store tewday. Too, ah went to the post office.
Quote from: Caliga on January 04, 2010, 12:46:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2010, 12:43:31 PM
I'm pretty fucking lazy. Also, pretty.
As long as you don't start beginning sentences with the word 'Too' like my mother in law does, I can tolerate your antics. :):bleeding:
:hug:
Quote from: Caliga on January 04, 2010, 12:49:55 PM
:D
Her usual M.O. is like this:
Ah went to the grocery store tewday. Too, ah went to the post office.
I've read books that used it that way :(
Really? :huh: Well, it might not technically be incorrect, but it just sounds horrible to me.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 02, 2010, 09:05:34 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 02, 2010, 09:03:57 AM
I think Obama's numbers are entirely tied to the economy.
And racism.
Good point-- they are artificially buoyed by those who hate white pipple.
Quote from: derspiess on January 04, 2010, 01:46:50 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 02, 2010, 09:05:34 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 02, 2010, 09:03:57 AM
I think Obama's numbers are entirely tied to the economy.
And racism.
Good point-- they are artificially buoyed by those who hate white pipple.
It's enormously funny when Republicans play the victim.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2010, 02:28:58 PM
It's enormously funny when Republicans play the victim.
How am I doing that?
Quote from: derspiess on January 04, 2010, 04:10:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2010, 02:28:58 PM
It's enormously funny when Republicans play the victim.
How am I doing that?
Oh, the blacks they hate us! Sob! Sob!
Quote from: derspiess on January 04, 2010, 04:10:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2010, 02:28:58 PM
It's enormously funny when Republicans play the victim.
How am I doing that?
You have to be if not than that would mean that Obama's numbers are about the job he has done. People don't want to open that closet.
Quote from: Caliga on January 04, 2010, 01:41:50 PM
Really? :huh: Well, it might not technically be incorrect, but it just sounds horrible to me.
Pretty sure that's not correct, but I can see a book having that if a character speaks in that dialect.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2010, 07:49:13 PM
So you stoicly play the victim. It's still playing the victim.
That is incorrect. It was a throwaway comment in any case, Obamabot.
Quote from: derspiess on January 04, 2010, 09:16:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2010, 07:49:13 PM
So you stoicly play the victim. It's still playing the victim.
That is incorrect. It was a throwaway comment in any case, Obamabot.
Really, there seems to be alot of playing the victim amongst the GOPtards these days.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2010, 10:09:24 PM
Really, there seems to be alot of playing the victim amongst the GOPtards these days.
Perhaps, but Spiess wasn't doing so in this instance.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 05, 2010, 03:56:28 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2010, 10:09:24 PM
Really, there seems to be alot of playing the victim amongst the GOPtards these days.
Perhaps, but Spiess wasn't doing so in this instance.
Demotards love to portray Republicans as whiners. In fact, that whine about Republicans is all one seems to hear from the Demotards these days.
Quote from: grumbler on January 05, 2010, 09:06:56 AMDemotards love to portray Republicans as whiners. In fact, that whine about Republicans is all one seems to hear from the Demotards these days.
This may be so but I do think there's a strain within the Republican party that does perceive itself as a victim. There is a section, I think represented by Sarah Palin (who poses as the Maid of Orleans), that seems more interested in an attitude of cultural grievance and victimisation than in politics - you hear it when the subject of elites comes up.
Which is sad. I still think she could have been an intensely persuasive candidate.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 05, 2010, 09:18:58 AM
This may be so but I do think there's a strain within the Republican party that does perceive itself as a victim. There is a section, I think represented by Sarah Palin (who poses as the Maid of Orleans), that seems more interested in an attitude of cultural grievance and victimisation than in politics - you hear it when the subject of elites comes up.
Which is sad. I still think she could have been an intensely persuasive candidate.
Agreed that some of the Republitards are like the Demotards, and more interested in playing to the emotions than to logic, and agree that Palin is no more intellectually honest than, say, Raz. Disagree that she would be persuasive absent her schtick. There just isn't any "there" there.
Obama is the only President at this point; thus his approval ratings are both the highest and the lowest of any President at this point.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 05, 2010, 10:02:49 AM
Obama is the only President at this point; thus his approval ratings are both the highest and the lowest of any President at this point.
Did the French rewrite their constitution recently?
:lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2010, 10:09:24 PM
Really, there seems to be alot of playing the victim amongst the GOPtards these days.
Only if you define "victimhood" down to mean any sort of complaining whatsoever.
There are *some* on the right who are trying to claim "victim" status. As annoying as it is, it's almost hard for me to blame them for trying it when it has been used so effectively by certain elements of the left.
Quote from: grumbler on January 05, 2010, 09:48:56 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 05, 2010, 09:18:58 AM
This may be so but I do think there's a strain within the Republican party that does perceive itself as a victim. There is a section, I think represented by Sarah Palin (who poses as the Maid of Orleans), that seems more interested in an attitude of cultural grievance and victimisation than in politics - you hear it when the subject of elites comes up.
Which is sad. I still think she could have been an intensely persuasive candidate.
Agreed that some of the Republitards are like the Demotards, and more interested in playing to the emotions than to logic, and agree that Palin is no more intellectually honest than, say, Raz. Disagree that she would be persuasive absent her schtick. There just isn't any "there" there.
Of course not. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Faeelin on January 05, 2010, 10:38:32 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 05, 2010, 10:02:49 AM
Obama is the only President at this point; thus his approval ratings are both the highest and the lowest of any President at this point.
Did the French rewrite their constitution recently?
No, and therefore their Président is not suddenly a President, but still a Président. :frog:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 05, 2010, 09:18:58 AM
This may be so but I do think there's a strain within the Republican party that does perceive itself as a victim. There is a section, I think represented by Sarah Palin (who poses as the Maid of Orleans), that seems more interested in an attitude of cultural grievance and victimisation than in politics - you hear it when the subject of elites comes up.
Could you elaborate on the "victim" thing a little more?
Quote from: Faeelin on January 05, 2010, 10:38:32 AM
Did the French rewrite their constitution recently?
As a matter of fact, they did. :)
Quote from: derspiess on January 05, 2010, 02:44:22 PMCould you elaborate on the "victim" thing a little more?
I think Sarah Palin sort-of characterises, or best represents, this strand on the right. Here she is on Bill O'Reilly:
QuoteO'REILLY: Couric asked you an easy question [about what magazines or newspapers Palin reads] and you booted it, governor.
PALIN: I sure did.
O'REILLY: Why did you boot it? I mean, if somebody asks what do you read? I say I read the, you know, "New York Times," "The Wall Street Journal," "The Washington Post." I can reel them off in my sleep. You couldn't do it?
PALIN: Well, of course I could. Of course, I could.
O'REILLY: Why didn't you?
PALIN: It's ridiculous to suggest that or to say that I couldn't tell people what I read. Because by that point already it was relatively early in that multi segmented interview with Katie Couric, it was quite obvious that it was going to be a bit of an annoying interview with the badgering of the questions...I think if most normal Americans were put in the same position that I was there, they'd probably look at her and have thatproverbial eye roll and say are you kidding me?
O'REILLY: If they knew.
PALIN: Are you suggesting that I don't read?
What happens in that segment of the interview is there's a switch from an acceptance of error 'I sure did' to blaming the media about this 'annoying' interview full of 'badgering' questions and that she, like 'most normal Americans' (I'm reminded of her comment about 'real America') would eye roll and say are you kidding me. They'd also presumably not be able to answer the question straight away. The reason she booted the question wasn't because she wasn't prepared for the interview, or because she couldn't remember what papers she reads during a high media interview with all the lights and cameras. It wasn't that she wasn't ready or that the stress got to her, it was because of the 'annoying' 'badgering' questions and 'most normal Americans' (people like us) would behave in the same.
It's an attitude of resentment and victimisation at the hands of an elite and the media - it's an attitude marshalled to great effect by people who should, by any reasonable criteria, be considered members of the elite such as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck and so on.
Later in the interview she talks about this elite:
QuoteO'REILLY: Do you believe that you are smart enough, incisive enough, intellectual enough to handle the most powerful job in the world?
PALIN: I believe that I am because I have common sense. And I have, I believe, the values that are reflective of so many other American values. And I believe that what Americans are seeking is not the elitism, the kind of a spinelessness that perhaps is made up for that with some kind of elite Ivy League education and a fact resume that's based on anything but hard work and private sector, free enterprise principles. Americans could be seeking something like that in positive change in their leadership. I'm not saying that has to be me.
I think the same sense of victimisation can be seen in Glenn Beck's 'sorry I just love my country. And fear for it' and Michelle Bachmann's anti-census statements. It's a milder version of what the birthers have in extreme that sense of not having the country anymore, of it somehow being under threat from a spineless Ivy League elite, from a mainstream media, from a Hollywood culture and from the government.
Sarah Palin isn't bad at interviews, she's a victim of the media 'badgering' her.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 05, 2010, 03:52:43 PMMichelle Bachmann's anti-census statements.
Funny thing about that...
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/hmm-why-has-bachmann-stopped-bashing-the-census.php?ref=fpb (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/hmm-why-has-bachmann-stopped-bashing-the-census.php?ref=fpb)
Shelf: why can't both be true? Sarah Palin is bad at interviews and Katie Couric was out to make her look bad.
The rest of your description of right wing victim syndrome raises the question of can one claim there are groups opposed to you without necessarily playing the victim. If an American points out that radical Muslim groups are out to kill us are we playing the victim?
Playing the victim to me means passing responsibility for one's own failures to another party.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2010, 04:25:09 PM
Shelf: why can't both be true? Sarah Palin is bad at interviews and Katie Couric was out to make her look bad.
You're right of course. However on this question I don't buy it.
'When it comes to establishing your worldview I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this to understand the world?' - That's an extremely softball question.
'I read most of them again with a great appreciation for the press for the media.' - That's fluffing it.
QuoteThe rest of your description of right wing victim syndrome raises the question of can one claim there are groups opposed to you without necessarily playing the victim. If an American points out that radical Muslim groups are out to kill us are we playing the victim?
So do you think that there is a spineless Ivy League elite and so on that is out to flummox 'most normal Americans'?
QuotePlaying the victim to me means passing responsibility for one's own failures to another party.
I agree but I'd add suspicion conspiracy or collusion as a sign of a victim mentality. It's why I think the 'vast right-wing conspiracy' is a victim mentality, as was a lot of what I've read from the Nixon tapes even if neither Hilary nor Dick are passing their failures onto others.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 05, 2010, 04:34:05 PM
I agree but I'd add suspicion conspiracy or collusion as a sign of a victim mentality. It's why I think the 'vast right-wing conspiracy' is a victim mentality, as was a lot of what I've read from the Nixon tapes even if neither Hilary nor Dick are passing their failures onto others.
I think your definition of "victim mentality" is different from mine & Yi's. But anyway, Hillary *was* passing her (and her husband's) failures on to others. That was pretty much the entire purpose of her statement.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2010, 04:25:09 PM
Shelf: why can't both be true? Sarah Palin is bad at interviews and Katie Couric was out to make her look bad.
If you can't stand up to the media equivalent of puff pastry (Couric) what business do you have being anything holding any office higher then the deputy Wasilia wolf catcher?
O'R makes a good point: "What newspapers and magazines do you read?" is a classic softball question. She booted it not because it was difficult or because Katie Couric is a meanie, but because the sad truth is that she doesn't read any newspapers or magazines of substance.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 05, 2010, 04:59:01 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2010, 04:25:09 PM
Shelf: why can't both be true? Sarah Palin is bad at interviews and Katie Couric was out to make her look bad.
If you can't stand up to the media equivalent of puff pastry (Couric) what business do you have being anything holding any office higher then the deputy Wasilia wolf catcher?
O'R makes a good point: "What newspapers and magazines do you read?" is a classic softball question. She booted it not because it was difficult or because Katie Couric is a meanie, but because the sad truth is that she doesn't read any newspapers or magazines of substance.
She booted it because she's not good with interviews. You don't know what she reads.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 05, 2010, 04:59:01 PM
If you can't stand up to the media equivalent of puff pastry (Couric) what business do you have being anything holding any office higher then the deputy Wasilia wolf catcher?
O'R makes a good point: "What newspapers and magazines do you read?" is a classic softball question. She booted it not because it was difficult or because Katie Couric is a meanie, but because the sad truth is that she doesn't read any newspapers or magazines of substance.
We've been over this before Joan. If newspapers and magazines were the only question Katie had asked Palin would be even more ridiculous than she is in fact, but it wasn't.
Quote from: derspiess on January 05, 2010, 05:05:29 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 05, 2010, 04:59:01 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2010, 04:25:09 PM
Shelf: why can't both be true? Sarah Palin is bad at interviews and Katie Couric was out to make her look bad.
If you can't stand up to the media equivalent of puff pastry (Couric) what business do you have being anything holding any office higher then the deputy Wasilia wolf catcher?
O'R makes a good point: "What newspapers and magazines do you read?" is a classic softball question. She booted it not because it was difficult or because Katie Couric is a meanie, but because the sad truth is that she doesn't read any newspapers or magazines of substance.
She booted it because she's not good with interviews. You don't know what she reads.
She doesn't read. She's a fucking beauty queen.
Okay, MAYBE Twilight.
Quote from: derspiess on January 05, 2010, 05:05:29 PM
She booted it because she's not good with interviews. You don't know what she reads.
You don't know what she reads or why she booted it. We all know, though, that she is bad at interviews and both too dumb to understand newspapers and magazines written for adults
and too dumb to understand how to dissemble about that fact.
All of that wouldn't be so bad if she wasn't such a whiny bald-faced liar.
Quote from: grumbler on January 05, 2010, 01:20:23 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on January 05, 2010, 10:38:32 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 05, 2010, 10:02:49 AM
Obama is the only President at this point; thus his approval ratings are both the highest and the lowest of any President at this point.
Did the French rewrite their constitution recently?
No, and therefore their Président is not suddenly a President, but still a Président. :frog:
ah, but the French have lots of Présidents: from the local brass-band commitee-chairman all the way up to the elysée committee-chairman :p
Palin obviously doesn't read, she's too busy watching Russia. :p
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 05, 2010, 05:22:33 PM
ah, but the French have lots of Présidents: from the local brass-band commitee-chairman all the way up to the elysée committee-chairman :p
But, while the US has many presidents, it has only one President....
the President. :elvis:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2010, 05:06:36 PM
We've been over this before Joan. If newspapers and magazines were the only question Katie had asked Palin would be even more ridiculous than she is in fact, but it wasn't.
The point is that Katie's meaness was irrelevant, b/c Palin was just as hopeless with the easy questions as with the less easy (but still not tough) questions. If the claim is the penumbra of Katie's bitchiness was so upsetting to Palin that she lost the ability to answer the most simple queries, then Katie's bad faith served the very useful public purpose of exposing a would-be national leader as being not remotely ready for prime time.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2010, 05:06:36 PM
We've been over this before Joan. If newspapers and magazines were the only question Katie had asked Palin would be even more ridiculous than she is in fact, but it wasn't.
But this is the question that Bill O'Reilly asked 'why'd you fuck it up' and Palin responded by saying:
QuotePALIN: It's ridiculous to suggest that or to say that I couldn't tell people what I read. Because by that point already it was relatively early in that multi segmented interview with Katie Couric, it was quite obvious that it was going to be a bit of an annoying interview with the badgering of the questions...I think if most normal Americans were put in the same position that I was there, they'd probably look at her and have thatproverbial eye roll and say are you kidding me?
Quote from: grumbler on January 05, 2010, 05:28:09 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 05, 2010, 05:22:33 PM
ah, but the French have lots of Présidents: from the local brass-band commitee-chairman all the way up to the elysée committee-chairman :p
But, while the US has many presidents, it has only one President.... the President. :elvis:
I think you're confused. Elvis has never been President.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 05, 2010, 05:28:15 PM
The point is that Katie's meaness was irrelevant, b/c Palin was just as hopeless with the easy questions as with the less easy (but still not tough) questions. If the claim is the penumbra of Katie's bitchiness was so upsetting to Palin that she lost the ability to answer the most simple queries, then Katie's bad faith served the very useful public purpose of exposing a would-be national leader as being not remotely ready for prime time.
Katie's meaness is irrelevant to the issue of Palin's intelligence; it's relevant to the question of media hostility to the right.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 05, 2010, 05:34:09 PM
But this is the question that Bill O'Reilly asked 'why'd you fuck it up' and Palin responded by saying:
And? The fact that Palin has a fucked up view of media persecution doesn't mean that media persecution is a myth.
Dammit Joan Keynes Movement it is Wasilla!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2010, 05:36:37 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 05, 2010, 05:34:09 PM
But this is the question that Bill O'Reilly asked 'why'd you fuck it up' and Palin responded by saying:
And? The fact that Palin has a fucked up view of media persecution doesn't mean that media persecution is a myth.
Okay but this seems like you're saying people on the right can't have a victim complex with the media because media persecution exists. I don't remember you being so forgiving of other 'victim' groups :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 05, 2010, 05:39:26 PM
Okay but this seems like you're saying people on the right can't have a victim complex with the media because media persecution exists. I don't remember you being so forgiving of other 'victim' groups :mellow:
To clarify I think Palin has been playing the victim card. I started of this round of discussion by saying both are true, remember? I'm not that familiar with Glen Beck's utterances or this Census lady so I can't comment.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 05, 2010, 03:52:43 PM
Later in the interview she talks about this elite:
QuoteO'REILLY: Do you believe that you are smart enough, incisive enough, intellectual enough to handle the most powerful job in the world?
PALIN: I believe that I am because I have common sense. And I have, I believe, the values that are reflective of so many other American values. And I believe that what Americans are seeking is not the elitism, the kind of a spinelessness that perhaps is made up for that with some kind of elite Ivy League education and a fact resume that's based on anything but hard work and private sector, free enterprise principles. Americans could be seeking something like that in positive change in their leadership. I'm not saying that has to be me.
Sheilbh, do you have that Palin quote in English?
I am proud to say I never voted for her, though i give my dad shit for him doing so :lol:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 05, 2010, 05:28:15 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2010, 05:06:36 PM
We've been over this before Joan. If newspapers and magazines were the only question Katie had asked Palin would be even more ridiculous than she is in fact, but it wasn't.
The point is that Katie's meaness was irrelevant, b/c Palin was just as hopeless with the easy questions as with the less easy (but still not tough) questions. If the claim is the penumbra of Katie's bitchiness was so upsetting to Palin that she lost the ability to answer the most simple queries, then Katie's bad faith served the very useful public purpose of exposing a would-be national leader as being not remotely ready for prime time.
Are you seriously suggesting that someone with superhero powers which enable her to watch Russia from her back step in Alaska isnt worth consideration for President.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2010, 05:50:39 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 05, 2010, 05:28:15 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2010, 05:06:36 PM
We've been over this before Joan. If newspapers and magazines were the only question Katie had asked Palin would be even more ridiculous than she is in fact, but it wasn't.
The point is that Katie's meaness was irrelevant, b/c Palin was just as hopeless with the easy questions as with the less easy (but still not tough) questions. If the claim is the penumbra of Katie's bitchiness was so upsetting to Palin that she lost the ability to answer the most simple queries, then Katie's bad faith served the very useful public purpose of exposing a would-be national leader as being not remotely ready for prime time.
Are you seriously suggesting that someone with superhero powers which enable her to watch Russia from her back step in Alaska isnt worth consideration for President.
We've already considered it. She will be our next President. :licklips:
The era of the PILF has begun.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2010, 05:35:05 PM
Katie's meaness is irrelevant to the issue of Palin's intelligence; it's relevant to the question of media hostility to the right.
Not really; its not only the left wing media that has it out for her.
What has happened is that the rise of Fox and right-wing talk radio has "liberated" certainly traditional left wing media elements from pretences of objectivity.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 05, 2010, 05:34:54 PM
I think you're confused. Elvis has never been President.
He was called "The King" but America has no kings, only presidents. So he was "The President."
But he was the King of Rock n Roll, not America. :elvis: