PDA

View Full Version : Townhall laments: Here he comes: Obama surges



Soflasnapper
12-29-2011, 12:30 PM
Here. (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katehicks/2011/12/26/here_he_comes_obama_surges_in_polls)

For those who do not know, Townhall.com is a conservative/right wing site that does not favor Obama. What do they admit in this piece?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ust eight days away from the Iowa primary, President Obamaís poll numbers are suddenly beginning to surge. For the first time since the summer, his approval index rating is in the positives, meaning more people approve of the job heís doing than disapprove.

According to the latest Gallup tracking poll, more Americans approve of the job that President Obama is doing than disapprove for the first time since this summer.

The latest Gallup survey shows that 47 percent of Americans now say they approve of the way that President Obama is handling his job. This is a 5 percent improvement since the Dec. 16-18 Gallup survey and marks the first time the president's numbers have been in positive territory since July. The number of Americans who say they disapprove of Obama's job performance has fallen to 45 percent, down 5 points from Dec. 16-18.

The trend lines are good news for President Obama's team, with his Gallup numbers slowly climbing this month. It's too soon to draw sweeping conclusions, but it seems that the standoff with House Republicans over the payroll tax cut did no damage at all to the president ó and a further climb in the polls could mean that the White House won a significant public relations victory during the payroll tax cut debate.

Indeed, rather than hurting him, the payroll tax debacle seems to be the reason for the surge. The Republicans in the House did themselves no political favors by appearing obstinate, especially after the Senate passed their payroll tax bill 89-10. President Obama capitalized on the House GOPís initial refusal, branding himself a tax-cutting champion of the middle class Ė which is exactly where he wants to be heading into 2012. </div></div>

Shockingly, even as Obama has been said to be 'plummeting' in the polls, not only are his numbers on the plus side now, they were also on the plus side as recently as this summer.

Perhaps the plummeting in the polls hasn't really been happening, or at least, not in the continuing fashion suggested by some, as when they noted he'd tanked 'below even Carter's numbers at this time!!!'

Or, perhaps even as much as that SHOULD be his trend-line of support, constantly dropping, the behavior of the GOP has been throwing him a lifeline. Which appears to be the analysis of this piece.

eg8r
12-29-2011, 09:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For those who do not know, Townhall.com is a conservative/right wing site that does not favor Obama.</div></div>For those that want to be truthful and not mislead the true intent of townhall, they are a group of men and women that never fell for the Obama sly misdirections that sofla feels are OK as long as they are never pointed out.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Shockingly, even as Obama has been said to be 'plummeting' in the polls, not only are his numbers on the plus side now, they were also on the plus side as recently as this summer.

Perhaps the plummeting in the polls hasn't really been happening,</div></div>What is shocking is your desire to rewrite history even if it really is only a few months ago. His poll numbers were dropping and had been dropping for some time. According to this horrible conservative website though his numbers are increasing after previously decreasing.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Perhaps the plummeting in the polls hasn't really been happening, or at least, not in the continuing fashion suggested by some, as when they noted he'd tanked 'below even Carter's numbers at this time!!!'
</div></div>LOL your slant on reality is pretty funny, but at least we have the levelheadedness of the author when he stated...<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's too soon to draw sweeping conclusions, but it seems that the standoff with House Republicans over the payroll tax cut did no damage at all to the president </div></div>

eg8r

LWW
12-30-2011, 02:23 AM
Man do you pimp easy.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_index_graphics/december_2011/obama_approval_index_december_29_2011/647823-1-eng-US/obama_approval_index_december_29_2011.jpg

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Thursday, December 29, 2011

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 22% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -18 (see trends).

Mitt Romney now leads President Obama by six in a hypothetical 2012 match-up. Thatís Romneyís largest lead to date and the largest lead any Republican has enjoyed over the president. </div></div>

The reality is that dear leader's "SURGE" has in reality been a plunge of 6 points since your outdated poll.

The POTUS always gets a Christmas bump.

Nothing new here ... other than a new myth of an Obama surge.

OH DEAR! (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history)

OH MY! (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll)

LWW
12-30-2011, 03:01 AM
And to cut off all avenues of escape for you ... the latest Gallup also has him tanking since Christmas, with essentially identical numbers as RASMUSSEN.

JUMPING BUTTERBALLS! (http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx)

How's your messiah doing now?

Soflasnapper
12-30-2011, 11:16 AM
The POTUS always gets a Christmas bump.

???

So you say, based on what? That Rasmussen doesn't poll on 12/25??

You haven't disagree with a thing I've said, and complain that TOWNHALL has been pimped? TOWNHALL? A very conservative site, and their very conservative author? Secret Obama supporters, or just conservative simpletons, in your view?

Is Charles Krauthammer weak-minded, and/or a secret Obama supporter? He also noted the Obama surge, and blamed it on the GOP field and the House incompetent actions.

That an uptick is followed by downticks doesn't mean there was no uptick. In fact, given the number of downticks for Obama, if he never had upticks, he'd be in the teens or single digits for job approval, instead of, in this poll, right side up again (having a higher job approval than disapproval).

If your point is that these kind of way-too-early poll results, bouncing all over the map, don't mean too much, I fully agree. Which applies to your howling in glee when he has a downtick, or when the rare but sometimes seen Romney lead over Obama shows up in this or that state, or for the country, in one or another skewed Rasmussen poll that uniquely shows such a thing.

But it's funny to see you stick to your insane theory that these polls all go down all the time for Obama, that any poll where he is up is false and only spin, and that all the conservative commentators who notice and write about such up polling for Obama are easily fooled simpletons who don't know nearly as much as you do, dear leader.

Oh, btw, if we want to really compare the options, what is the approval index for Romney, Gingrich, Ron Paul, etc.? You know, the all-important Approval Index which compares the strongly approve to the strongly disapprove, and nets out that number? The most important metric in the world of polling?

What's that you say? Neither Rasmussen nor any other pollster does such polling? They don't consider it important?

Gosh, that is so amazing! How do you account for that?

LWW
12-30-2011, 01:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The POTUS always gets a Christmas bump.

???

So you say, based on what? That Rasmussen doesn't poll on 12/25?? </div></div>

You poor, poor child.

Made so simple even snoopy can follow ... maybe.

A = APPROVE
DA = DISAPPROVE
SA = STRONGLY APPROVE
SD = STRONGLY DISAPPROVE

<u>For 2011:</u>

17 December: A=47 DA=53/SA=25 SD=42
23 December A=47 D=51/SA=25 SD=38(That's a 2 point and a 4 point bump.)
30 December A=44 DA=54/SA=22 SD=41 (That's a 6 point drop both ways.)

<u>For 2010:</u>

17 December: A=44 DA=55/SA=24 SD=43
223 December A=47 D=51/SA=26 SD=39(That's a 7 point and a 6 point bump.)
30 December A=46 DA=53/SA=26 SD=39 (That's a 3 point and a push.)

LWW
12-30-2011, 01:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh, btw, if we want to really compare the options, what is the approval index for Romney, Gingrich, Ron Paul, etc.? You know, the all-important Approval Index which compares the strongly approve to the strongly disapprove, and nets out that number? The most important metric in the world of polling?

What's that you say? Neither Rasmussen nor any other pollster does such polling? They don't consider it important?

Gosh, that is so amazing! How do you account for that? </div></div>

No, actually that number isn't posted because there can be no measurement of the approval of others until they actually are POTUS.

Your desperation is ever more obvious.

Soflasnapper
12-31-2011, 09:50 PM
Interesting claim.

So it will be fascinating to compare W's presidential approval index to O's. My theory is that W still holds the (negative) record. Clearly, O holds the positive record.

What? Scottie Rasmussen didn't poll on this metric until Sept. '08? Of Obama? Who wasn't president at all at the time, and although W WAS THE PRESIDENT, he didn't ask those questions that way OF THE PRESIDENT, but only of the nominee of the other party?

Can you still see daylight, considering how deep you've dug the hole you're in?

LWW
01-01-2012, 01:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What? Scottie Rasmussen didn't poll on this metric until Sept. '08? Of Obama?
</div></div>

Why do you keep repeating this lie ... expecially when you know it to be a lie.

When Bush was POTUS the RASMUSSEN poll was considered by the left to be proof beyond any shadow of a doubt of Bush's unpopularity and incompetence.

Again, what is it that you guys have about judging everyone by the same standards?

LWW
01-01-2012, 01:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Interesting claim.

So it will be fascinating to compare W's presidential approval index to O's. My theory is that W still holds the (negative) record.</div></div>

You are, as usual, wrong again.

Bush topped out at 43% strongly disapprove when he left office ... Obama has topped that several times.

The only, and I mean only, thing which keeps Obama out of the mud is the dogged suport of the O-cult who will defend and deny anything and everything ... much as you yourself do ... in defense of their godking.

Qtec
01-01-2012, 02:00 AM
George W Bush approval ratings

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/George_W_Bush_approval_ratings.svg/800px-George_W_Bush_approval_ratings.svg.png

George W. Bush Approval/Disapproval Ratings. Data from Gallup/USA Today poll.
Blue approve
Red disapprove
Green unsure

Q

LWW
01-01-2012, 03:08 AM
Thanks for disproving sofa's myth about Obama having once been more popular than Bush at their respective peaks.

Also, the amazing things that haven't been discussed ywt are:

1 - Obama's lameness is in spite of a 3 year long media Obasm during which they keep trying to paper over this regime's incompetence and treachery.

2 - The nutty 25% who experience wet dreams about having a slobbering love affair with Obama are all that keeps his poll numbers above Hitler's.

3 - Bush's numbers were what they were in spite of a full court media press to destroy him ... including advertising for assassins on national TV ... in conjunction with a completely seditious opposition party.

Qtec
01-01-2012, 04:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bush topped out at 43% strongly disapprove when he left office </div></div>

Not according to the chart which you just approved.

Q

LWW
01-01-2012, 04:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bush topped out at 43% strongly disapprove when he left office </div></div>

Not according to the chart which you just approved.

Q </div></div>

I did not "APPROVE" anything ... I simply pointed out that it disproved sofa's myth.

The strongly disapproval comment was in regards to Bush vs Obama in the RASMUSSEN poll.

Sofa was not only spreading disinformation about Obama's low numbers, he was also attempting to appoint the left's godking as being victimized by a poll developed solely to detract from his godkingliness.

That claim, like nearly everything posted by the cabal on this forum, was 100% Barbara Streisand.

Qtec
01-01-2012, 04:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">3 - Bush's numbers were what they were in spite of a full court media press to destroy him </div></div>

He did that himself.

Q

Qtec
01-01-2012, 04:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Originally Posted By: Qtec
Quote:
Bush topped out at 43% strongly disapprove when he left office


Not according to the chart which you just approved.

Q


I did not "APPROVE" anything ... I simply pointed out that it disproved sofa's myth. </div></div>

If you use the chart to disprove something, then you accept that the chart is real and correct.

Q

LWW
01-01-2012, 04:39 AM
How do you get it without ever getting it?

Gayle in MD
01-02-2012, 10:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">3 - Bush's numbers were what they were in spite of a full court media press to destroy him </div></div>

He did that himself.

Q </div></div>

BWA HA HA HA! OMG! It was The Press, that destroyed George Bush???!!!

Now that's one for the books!

Nothing is more hilarious than the irrational excuses that the right is STILL yapping, even after historians have rated Bush as one of the worst president's in history, yet some twits from the right, now blame The Press???

BWA HA HA HA HA....Pahleeeze!

And to think, we're still struggling our way out of the Great Bush Recession!

AND, he couldn't even get bin Laden!

BWA HA HA HA....The Press did it...ha ha ha.

G.

Stretch
01-03-2012, 12:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">3 - Bush's numbers were what they were in spite of a full court media press to destroy him </div></div>

He did that himself.

Q </div></div>

BWA HA HA HA! OMG! It was The Press, that destroyed George Bush???!!!

Now that's one for the books!

Nothing is more hilarious than the irrational excuses that the right is STILL yapping, even after historians have rated Bush as one of the worst president's in history, yet some twits from the right, now blame The Press???

BWA HA HA HA HA....Pahleeeze!

And to think, we're still struggling our way out of the Great Bush Recession!

AND, he couldn't even get bin Laden!

BWA HA HA HA....The Press did it...ha ha ha.

G. </div></div>

Gayle, the sad/scary thing is he actually believes this. That takes a special kind of stupid. St.

LWW
01-03-2012, 04:51 AM
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_monthly_totals_graphics/monthly_approval_index_november_2011/633728-1-eng-US/monthly_approval_index_november_2011_breaking_poll .jpg

Gayle in MD
01-03-2012, 07:38 AM
The sad and scary thing is that there are so many others like him
in this country. Fux Noise has raised up a whole new generation of Bubba think, radical RW terrorists, who can justify even murder, rather than respect the live and let live philosophies of our Founders!

Anti-Americanism, it's a Repiglican thing.

G.

Gayle in MD
01-03-2012, 07:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Interesting claim.

So it will be fascinating to compare W's presidential approval index to O's. My theory is that W still holds the (negative) record. Clearly, O holds the positive record.

What? Scottie Rasmussen didn't poll on this metric until Sept. '08? Of Obama? Who wasn't president at all at the time, and although W WAS THE PRESIDENT, he didn't ask those questions that way OF THE PRESIDENT, but only of the nominee of the other party?

Can you still see daylight, considering how deep you've dug the hole you're in?

</div></div>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

The Repiglican Congress has broken the record on disapproval of Congress.

Hmmm...I do think I predicted that the Tea Party Zealots would become an albatross around the necks of Repiglicans.

Seems their own Conservative Journalists agree with my prediction.

It's going to be hilarious, watching whomever wins the nomination, trying to deradicalize himself, and move to the center, as he seeks the moderate vote of Independents! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif LMAO! There isn't a single one of them who isn't radically far to the right.

G.

Qtec
01-03-2012, 09:41 AM
Here is another chart.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_total_approval_graphics/january_2012/obama_total_approval_january_3_2012/650500-2-eng-US/obama_total_approval_january_3_2012.jpg

Q

eg8r
01-03-2012, 09:47 AM
Nice downward trend. Pretty indicative of the poor job he has done.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
01-03-2012, 10:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here is another chart.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_total_approval_graphics/january_2012/obama_total_approval_january_3_2012/650500-2-eng-US/obama_total_approval_january_3_2012.jpg

Q

</div></div>

Hey, we all know and have observed over the decades how the Repiglicans go on the most vicious attacks imaginable, when they lose the White House.

We've all seen how they have refused to cooperate in any way, with President Obama.

Their own stated goal, of highest importance, was to remove him from office, and without conscience or consideration for the dior circumstance that the whole country was left, by Bush, and Repiglican policies of Laissez Faire, unregulated economic policies, and Bush's disastrous foreign policy decisions, and unshecked irrational borrowing and Repiglican blank check spending us into a debt ditch, a situation which demanded more spending, after the Bush/Greenspan created economic crash, if we were to escape the Bush Depression, which he himself acknowledged would be the worst in our history, and which this president inherited. Those are undeniable FACTS, and they are FACTS which we from the left predicted and warned about, throughout their creation, under Bush.


I have disliked Repiglicans since Reagan, but the years have trully brought me to a place of contempt for their lies, solander and irrational policies.

I do believe there are many others in our country, who care about environmental issues, and our fellow Americans, and are rational enough to connect the dots, and have seen the light, regarding the piggish actions, and corrupt policies, of the Repiglican Party, and their contenders.

I am predicting a good number of seat losses, for the Repiglicans, and that is why they are so busy tryng to lay their plans for throwing another election, by disenfranchising voters, corrupt re-districting processes, and their usual lies and slander, which their supporters also seem adept at promoting against others.


Now, they are all throwing their support toward a whimpo, unattractive, deceitful, religious nutjob,Santorum, and Oh how I love that!

The guy hasn't a ghost of a chance of being elected, and in fact, none of them do, but Americans never elect total whimps.

I love the new saying, by Democratics, "We're not perfect, but we're not crazy!" /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif Puts the whole thing perfectly into perspective.

Crazy never wins. Even George will knows that. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

G.

LWW
01-03-2012, 04:15 PM
Back where the air is thick ...

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>OBAMA IS THE LEAST POPULAR POTUS, AT THIS POINT OF THEIR TIME IN OFFICE, OF ANY POTUS SINCE 1948! (http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx)
</span>

wolfdancer
01-03-2012, 04:32 PM
Hey, thanks for including Hondo's quote, plus that idiotic avatar, in your posts!!!
I think they serve to forewarn us of the "insider's info" that is sure to be contained within the body of your drivel, er musings...which I often find to be unintentionally...amusing.

Soflasnapper
01-03-2012, 07:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nice downward trend. Pretty indicative of the poor job he has done.

eg8r </div></div>

Generally all presidents show a decline in job approval over time.

What we seem to see here is a stabilization around a 45% approval rating, not an on-going decline.

wolfdancer
01-03-2012, 09:47 PM
Obama been laden with all the problems, screw ups **** ups, stark failures, etc., that he inherited from the last, which was the worst, admin ever. Hoover and Grant are smiling, since they have moved down slightly on that list, thanks to the Bush era.
Meanwhile down on the farm...."the beat goes on" Nobody has distanced themselves as the "best of the worst" If only it were legal for the 3 top of the dung heap, right wing candidates to run as a troika, it might help their cause..as everybody knows 3 Rep.halves makes a hole candidate.

LWW
01-04-2012, 02:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nice downward trend. Pretty indicative of the poor job he has done.

eg8r </div></div>

Generally all presidents show a decline in job approval over time.

What we seem to see here is a stabilization around a 45% approval rating, not an on-going decline. </div></div>

What a crock.

Next I suppose the claim will be that you know this because of your PHD in statistics from MIT.

Gayle in MD
01-04-2012, 08:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nice downward trend. Pretty indicative of the poor job he has done.

eg8r </div></div>

Generally all presidents show a decline in job approval over time.

What we seem to see here is a stabilization around a 45% approval rating, not an on-going decline. </div></div>

Talking common sense to E.,S., Or L., is a waste of time my friend.

The fact is, given the disastrous economy Bush left behind him, President Obama's approval ratings, and likability numbers, are very high.

It's just another myth created by RW Media, that he has low approval rates.

I am expecting all out vicious attacks and stalking to go through the roof, after he wins re-election.

Of course, when that happens, these nitwits on here will be revving up their personal attacks, stalking, slander and personal insults, like the poor loser little toddlers that they are.

What a waste of time they are.

G.

LWW
01-04-2012, 11:32 AM
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_index_graphics/january_2012/obama_approval_index_january_4_2012/651007-1-eng-US/obama_approval_index_january_4_2012.jpg

Down 8 points since Christmas.

Soflasnapper
01-04-2012, 11:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The POTUS always gets a Christmas bump.

???

So you say, based on what? That Rasmussen doesn't poll on 12/25?? </div></div>

You poor, poor child.

Made so simple even snoopy can follow ... maybe.

A = APPROVE
DA = DISAPPROVE
SA = STRONGLY APPROVE
SD = STRONGLY DISAPPROVE

<u>For 2011:</u>

17 December: A=47 DA=53/SA=25 SD=42
23 December A=47 D=51/SA=25 SD=38(That's a 2 point and a 4 point bump.)
30 December A=44 DA=54/SA=22 SD=41 (That's a 6 point drop both ways.)

<u>For 2010:</u>

17 December: A=44 DA=55/SA=24 SD=43
223 December A=47 D=51/SA=26 SD=39(That's a 7 point and a 6 point bump.)
30 December A=46 DA=53/SA=26 SD=39 (That's a 3 point and a push.)

</div></div>

Oh, I see.

I thought you meant (whoever is) The POTUS gets a Christmas bump every Christmas, as in, over the years, and over many presidencies, we see that rule of thumb generally confirmed.

What you appear to mean is that THIS Potus has gotten a Christmas bump, in the limited case of N = 2 (i.e., the last two years).

WHICH CANNOT PROVE ANYTHING, btw. N = 2 is slightly too low a sample size to show a trend, and please feel free to look that up if you doubt it.

Soflasnapper
01-04-2012, 12:11 PM
Thanks for disproving sofa's myth about Obama having once been more popular than Bush at their respective peaks.

You could hardly be more dense, based on this misstatement of fact.

I never said that.

I said that Obama set the (highest) record for the (positive) presidential approval index, hardly the same thing.

And this is the part that wholly escaped your attention, or if you noticed it, it is so deadly to your conceits that it might as well be LWW-kryptonite, knocking you unconscious or at least speechless and unable to move your fingers on the keyboard:

Since Rasmussen never polled or computed this metric on any other person or president than Obama, actually starting this new and so-far unaccepted metric (by any other legitimate polling org) as of the fall campaign, of Obama, before he became the president. As Obama was the only president to be given a grade on this metric, coming into office with his 80% approval or whatever it was, surely means nobody was ever higher on the 'presidential approval index' measure, which is the 'strongly approve' minus the 'strongly disapprove.'

Soflasnapper
01-04-2012, 12:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_monthly_totals_graphics/monthly_approval_index_november_2011/633728-1-eng-US/monthly_approval_index_november_2011_breaking_poll .jpg </div></div>

Interesting brain pathology on display, right here in this graph.

Multifaceted, even.

Let's go through the list.

Start with the fact that the surge occurred after the end date of this graph.

Next, that the surge is for job approval, not about 'strong approval' of job approval.

And this chart doesn't even show 'strong job approval' or 'approve of the job, strongly,' but instead and rather, the net of the strong approval MINUS the strong disapproval.

And I repeat my query, what was the Bush presidential approval index chart showing in his second term? Was it better, or worse, than this chart's ranges of numbers?

We don't know, because Rasmussen didn't measure these out and chart them this way at the time, until a few months before Obama took office. And why was that? Peculiar.

Soflasnapper
01-04-2012, 12:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Back where the air is thick ...

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>OBAMA IS THE LEAST POPULAR POTUS, AT THIS POINT OF THEIR TIME IN OFFICE, OF ANY POTUS SINCE 1948! (http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx)
</span> </div></div>

This isn't true.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Obama's Advantage: People Personally Like Him


By: Jonathan Capehart | Posted: December 26, 2011

link (http://www.theroot.com/buzz/obamas-advantage-people-personally-him) </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Since his change in tactics, Obama is now viewed more favorably than congressional Republican on handling the major issues facing the country. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>And his personal approval ratings remain high. The CNN-ORC International survey puts it at 76 percent.</span>

Such high personal favorables, plus the low-esteem in which the Republicans in Congress are held, means the presidentís advantages are plentiful and formidable. Sure, the raucous Republican caucus has aided in its own misfortune. But as it learned this week, when Obama fights he comes out on top. </div></div>

Soflasnapper
01-04-2012, 12:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_monthly_totals_graphics/monthly_approval_index_november_2011/633728-1-eng-US/monthly_approval_index_november_2011_breaking_poll .jpg </div></div>

We could 'prove' there was no surge for Rick Santorum in Iowa, if we cut off the ratings a week or two back.

But was there, or was there not?

If someone produced a chart purporting to show no surge for Santorum, and they left off the last month of numbers or the last two weeks of numbers, as part of their 'proof,' we all might agree such a person had self-impeached his credibility beyond repair, as a blatant hack.

Gayle in MD
01-04-2012, 12:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Back where the air is thick ...

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>OBAMA IS THE LEAST POPULAR POTUS, AT THIS POINT OF THEIR TIME IN OFFICE, OF ANY POTUS SINCE 1948! (http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx)
</span> </div></div>

This isn't true.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Obama's Advantage: People Personally Like Him


By: Jonathan Capehart | Posted: December 26, 2011

link (http://www.theroot.com/buzz/obamas-advantage-people-personally-him) </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Since his change in tactics, Obama is now viewed more favorably than congressional Republican on handling the major issues facing the country. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>And his personal approval ratings remain high. The CNN-ORC International survey puts it at 76 percent.</span>

Such high personal favorables, plus the low-esteem in which the Republicans in Congress are held, means the presidentís advantages are plentiful and formidable. Sure, the raucous Republican caucus has aided in its own misfortune. But as it learned this week, when Obama fights he comes out on top. </div></div> </div></div>

He can't write an accurate post. Can'[t even write an accurate thread title.

Hey, How about that President Oama, winning in Iowa last night!


I'm celebrating!

Given the low approval numbers for congress, the lowest EVER, and all of the sour grapes and recalls going on aggainst Repiglican Governors, and the growing Occupy Wall St. movement, and the obvious apathy the right is suffering over their clown candidates, I am going to pop some Champagne tonight.

You would think that any Liberal hating nitwit would be smart enough to back off, given none of the clowns can break or hold anything above 25%, LMAO!

Some folks just arrange pseudo facts the way they wish they were. It's a Repiglican thingie, fitting the stats to fit the BS.


The definition of Republican Policies: fascism n. a merging of the interests of big corporations and government, adjoined with a systematic curtailment of civil liberties

Gayle in Md.





/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

LWW
01-04-2012, 04:49 PM
If it makes you feel better sweetheart, the people have deemed Obama to be the least competent and poorest performing POTUS since Truman ... but some still see him as a likable guy.

Soflasnapper
01-05-2012, 07:34 PM
You seem to put large stock in what the people think. They think many things, on many different issues.

For some reason you may explain now, on so many critical issues facing the country, Obama is more trusted than the Republican Party to handle things better.

And not by small margins anymore. Double digit margins.

eg8r
01-05-2012, 07:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For some reason you may explain now, on so many critical issues facing the country, Obama is more trusted than the Republican Party to handle things better.
</div></div>This has very little to do with Obama and more to do with the Reps performance. Seriously, how could the Reps allow the HC bill to be passed? Besides that, there approval ratings have been in the tank for quite some time.

To give an example of this you can look back at the previous election. The Reps took over a bunch of seats due to the Tea Party. The Dem candidates were avoiding Obama like the plague. He nearly had to beg people to let him come to their state to speak. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif Obama's performance is pitiful and his approval ratins are in the tank.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
01-08-2012, 01:01 PM
And how sad that must be for so many!

Now you know how the rest of us felt in 2004. We couldn't believe the man who had f-d up so badly could be re-elected (and he probably wasn't legitimately re-elected at all; cf: Ohio), but by 'playing it safe,' the guy that the Dems picked had his own flaws to the point it did happen (they say-- officially, anyway).

So, here we are in a similar situation. This guy hasn't done well, the economy isn't doing well, and many of his big passed bills are unpopular. Then why isn't it a slam dunk that a Republican will beat him? Because the GOP itself is such a joke and a disgrace? Sad.

eg8r
01-08-2012, 02:35 PM
You were much too kind to not point out my misuse of the word "there". I am a bit embarrassed about that.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now you know how the rest of us felt in 2004. We couldn't believe the man who had f-d up so badly could be re-elected (and he probably wasn't legitimately re-elected at all; cf: Ohio), but by 'playing it safe,' the guy that the Dems picked had his own flaws to the point it did happen (they say-- officially, anyway).
</div></div>I do know how you felt and mentioned it on this board at that time. You guys kept putting up schmucks.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Because the GOP itself is such a joke and a disgrace? Sad. </div></div>Because the GOP is putting up schmucks. I agree it is sad.

eg8r