56 replies to this topic

[SpikySprinter]

http://www.rasmussen...l_tracking_poll

You know what they say, "It's easier to go downhill than it is to go up."

As with just about every other presidential approval rating in American history, Barack Obama's has followed that saying. At the moment, 21% of likely voters "Strongly Approve" while 41% "Strongly Disapprove." Now, that sounds bad, but it's not as bad as it could be. 45% of likely voters at least "Somewhat Approve." 53% at least "Somewhat Disapprove"

According to the Rasmussen poll, anyway.

The Gallup poll is a little more grim.
http://content.usato...dips-below-40/1

39% Approval Rating based on this survey. And 54% disapprove.

Meanwhile, around this day in 2003, President Bush had a 59% Approval Rating.
http://www.gallup.co...eorge-bush.aspx

Mind you, that was an unusual high for Bush.

Anyway, I made this thread to discuss presidential opinion polls. Why do they almost always generally decline? Are they even valid at all? Do they reflect your opinion of the President?

I hate to end this post with the word "Discuss" because it's so stereotypical of forums, but... Discuss.

EDIT: Fixed the Bush info to match the date in question.

Edited by SpikySprinter, 19 August 2011 - 09:56 PM.

[Tornado]

Opinion polls are meaningless. Other than showing exactly why the Electoral College is so important (or, well, one of the reasons), all they do show is that the typical people that take part in them are sheep. That's true now. That was true when Bush was president. That was true when Clinton was president. That's always been true.

Edited by Tornado, 19 August 2011 - 09:58 PM.

[voice]

I believe they generally fall because people get pissed at the government and the president is an easy target to single out. That being said our congress is pretty damn near rock bottom as well with approval ratings.

[Nepenthe]

Any President could get Jesus to come back and their approval ratings would still be 30%.

[SpikySprinter]

I think part of the problem is that presidents just polarize people with their actions.

One president starts a bullshit war, then the next one tries to prosecute a soldier for punching a terrorist in the stomach after said terrorist shot his friend in the face.

One president puts the county into debt, then the next one continues the trend

One president tries to ban abortions, then the next one tries to fund abortions with taxes.

These examples are extremes that people in America generally don't like, and there are plenty more of them.

[Edward_Elric]

Any President could get Jesus to come back and their approval ratings would still be 30%.

This truth is like a punch to the lower abdominal, but I'm Canadian so it doesn't effect me. But it's not like our government is much better. It pretty much comes down to "vote for the guy you think isn't as bad as the other guy" since each party seems to be equally terrible in their own way.

*Edited for basic english fail

Edited by Edward_Elric, 20 August 2011 - 12:32 AM.

[FRiNKEL BUNNY]

Well, Obama said change wouldn't be easy, and it would take a long time and... COOPERATION.
Guess what Congress hasn't been doing recently?

</inb4 a bunch of republicans start going "NO YOU'RE WRONG BLAH BLAH BLAH">

[turbojet]

At one point, George W. Bush had an exceptionally high approval rating of 90%(higher than any president in history) after he lied about the reason to invade Iraq, dished out wealthfare like candy, and had dick Cheney shoot a dude in a face.

This alone shows how fickle the American populace is.

[-Mark-]

You'd have thought that the whole Bin Laden fiasco back in May would have made more people like him. D:

[Emmett L. Brown]

How DARE that useless Obama not immediatelly remedy all the problems Bush caused and get the republicans and democrats to instantly cooperate on an emergency budget. It's like he doesn't even have supernatural powers of persuasion and a time machine.

[SpikySprinter]

Ah, the old "Bush started it so it's not Obama's fault" argument. Do you realize that, by the end of 2009, Obama had TRIPLED the defecit? He takes way too many vacations, he's forced in a socialist healthcare plan through that is killing jobs as we speak, and he banned a European kid from entering the country because he sent him an angry letter. He's a complete failure, and he will not win another term.

Edited by SpikySprinter, 20 August 2011 - 05:00 PM.

[EXshad]

You wanna know why the approval ratings for Obama are so low?

[SpikySprinter]

Well, Obama said change wouldn't be easy, and it would take a long time and... COOPERATION.
Guess what Congress hasn't been doing recently?

</inb4 a bunch of republicans start going "NO YOU'RE WRONG BLAH BLAH BLAH">

Don't worry. I seem to be the only Republican on this forum. I don't know why, it's pretty weird.

[Nepenthe]

Because the GOP is getting more and more off-putting and unnecessarily obstructionist as they continue to sip from the Teacup, and many people here don't want to associate with that if for nothing else than some of their draconian social positions, e.g. "We don't like gay people at all." Fuck, I mean, Michelle Bachmann is actually a Republican candidate for the election. The fact that she even managed to get that far is amazing, and from what I recall seeing, you were horrified by some of the things she's said before. Furthermore, you continue to fail the more sensible conservative/Republican posters here and elsewhere on the Internet by continuing to quote almost verbatim from Fox News.

[Discoid]

I'm just waiting for the day when they go and get a whole bunch of super cool hipster people and replace all the fat old bald guys with them.

/politics

[Tornado]

How DARE that useless Obama not immediatelly remedy all the problems Bush caused and get the republicans and democrats to instantly cooperate on an emergency budget. It's like he doesn't even have supernatural powers of persuasion and a time machine.

Well, Obama said change wouldn't be easy, and it would take a long time and... COOPERATION.
Guess what Congress hasn't been doing recently?

</inb4 a bunch of republicans start going "NO YOU'RE WRONG BLAH BLAH BLAH">

I'll be frank about this: Its not the Republicans' job to unanimously agree with whatever Obama is doing. In fact, a lot of them were elected into office last year specifically to be assholes towards Obama, because that is basically what the Tea Party turned into after it was wrenched out of Ron Paul supporters' hands after 2008.



I've said this in previous topics regarding this idea, and I'll say it again: The current mess that has been blowing up in Washington lies at Obama's feet just as much as it does Congress' (as a collective, not just the Republicans in Congress) feet. Cooperation requires cooperation. Its fine and dandy to quote Obama campaign rhetoric if it was actually being followed, but so far Obama's tactic has been to go on TV and whine about Republicans and hope public pressure from him blaming Republicans is enough to make the Republicans fold. That's not cooperation, and that's why nothing is getting done.
Having the opposing party control the legislature is not some fascinating new concept never before encountered by a President. Clinton had to deal with it, and he still got tons of shit done. Reagan dealt with it, and he still ended up getting basically everything he wanted regardless. So to see Obama fall so quickly to throwing up his hands and saying "not my fault/problem" is more than a little distressing; and is probably one of the few legitimate reasons for his approval ratings to be so low.

And quite frankly, the "Bush did all this" excuse is starting to wear a little thin. It wasn't particularly accurate when people started throwing it around in the first place and it is even less so when many of Obama's policies have basically been the same stuff Bush did in 2008 (only even more expensive).

Edited by Tornado, 20 August 2011 - 08:42 PM.

[BW199148]

If I could I'd vote Obama becuse he swatted that fly in such a bad ass way!

[turbojet]

I'll be frank about this: Its not the Republicans' job to unanimously agree with whatever Obama is doing. In fact, a lot of them were elected into office last year specifically to be assholes towards Obama, because that is basically what the Tea Party turned into after it was wrenched out of Ron Paul supporters' hands after 2008.

It is not their job to agree with Obama at all. It is Obama's job to ensure the power of Presidency and he has failed at that. When it comes to international policy, he is,by far, one of the best Presidents we've ever had and is only behind Nixon and FDR. Domestic policy, however, he makes Jimmy Carter look like a saint. I've mentioned it before. He should have realized from the get-go that these people want him to fail and should have acted accordingly. There was never any negotiating with them and there was never any 'bi-partisanship.' He should have been mean, aggressive, and demanding. Instead of downplaying for the fear of scaring too many people into just how bad the economy was in 2009, he should have put more money in the Stimulus. Too late for that now.

I've said this in previous topics regarding this idea, and I'll say it again: The current mess that has been blowing up in Washington lies at Obama's feet just as much as it does Congress' (as a collective, not just the Republicans in Congress) feet. Cooperation requires cooperation. Its fine and dandy to quote Obama campaign rhetoric if it was actually being followed, but so far Obama's tactic has been to go on TV and whine about Republicans and hope public pressure from him blaming Republicans is enough to make the Republicans fold. That's not cooperation, and that's why nothing is getting done.
Having the opposing party control the legislature is not some fascinating new concept never before encountered by a President. Clinton had to deal with it, and he still got tons of shit done. Reagan dealt with it, and he still ended up getting basically everything he wanted regardless. So to see Obama fall so quickly to throwing up his hands and saying "not my fault/problem" is more than a little distressing; and is probably one of the few legitimate reasons for his approval ratings to be so low.

There is one thing that Reagan and Clinton didn't have to deal with. I hate to pull this, but it is starting to look like that more every day.

And quite frankly, the "Bush did all this" excuse is starting to wear a little thin. It wasn't particularly accurate when people started throwing it around in the first place and it is even less so when many of Obama's policies have basically been the same stuff Bush did in 2008 (only even more expensive).

BUSH TAX CUT EXTENSION. FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU.

Every time I think about it, it is mind blowing.

[Tornado]

It is not their job to agree with Obama at all. It is Obama's job to ensure the power of Presidency and he has failed at that. When it comes to international policy, he is,by far, one of the best Presidents we've ever had and is only behind Nixon and FDR. Domestic policy, however, he makes Jimmy Carter look like a saint. I've mentioned it before. He should have realized from the get-go that these people want him to fail and should have acted accordingly. There was never any negotiating with them and there was never any 'bi-partisanship.' He should have been mean, aggressive, and demanding. Instead of downplaying for the fear of scaring too many people into just how bad the economy was in 2009, he should have put more money in the Stimulus. Too late for that now.

I don't even think that's true, honestly. I legitimately think if he went at it like Clinton did from the very beginning, he could have pulled it off.

I mean, Republicans during Clinton's presidency hated him so much that they tried to get him impeached, and he still managed to get a lot of the stuff done that he wanted basically just by working with them. He let them know what he was going to stand firm on and what he was willing to compromise on in advance, and they worked through that and generally just made the government a relatively trustworthy place for the populace. And he was good enough at it that they managed to get most of what he wanted done in his way.

Reagan had the benefit of being popular enough that Congress usually didn't dare defy him, but when they did he basically went "Its the Democrat's fault that we can't do 'Thing X', but fuck them we're doing it anyways." Hell, even Bush, for all of his general incompetence, seemed to be able to pull that off for the first term of his presidency (and even though 2005 is when the cards came tumbling down he probably could have kept it up if he wanted to, but it always seemed to me that after he got reelected he just stopped caring about anything).





Obama's doing the first part of what Reagan did (the blame game), and he's alluding to the second bit (the "fuck those guys I'm doing what's right" part), but he's not actually doing it; and that makes him look pretty worthless in my opinion. I don't agree with most of the things he's trying to do, but it seems to me that him not even putting much effort into actually getting them done is arguably even worse for the country. Flawed policies can be changed/repealed, but I think the past year or so has shaken the public's not-particularly-strong-in-the-first-place faith in government pretty badly.

And I also agree that its probably too late for Obama to do anything about it now, because now he doesn't have the support to pull it off (which he probably did in 2010 when Republicans first took control of the legislature) and now Republicans know that he won't (and probably can't anymore) force the issue so they don't have to bother paying lip service to him. I'm actually sort of curious how post-2012 is going to look, because no matter how Congress is set up after that I can't imagine Obama (if he wins, which depends entirely on how quickly the GOP can get muzzles bolted to Palin and Bachman's faces) is going to be treated as anything but a welcome mat by the legislature.

There is one thing that Reagan and Clinton didn't have to deal with. I hate to pull this, but it is starting to look like that more every day.

I have to wonder how much of a role those idiots actually play, though. I mean, obviously that sentiment exists, but when one of them actually expresses it (or even implies it), they are immediately taken out at the knees like they were hit with a bat. Even true slimeballs like Savage usually don't hesitate to distance themselves from guys who gaffe that badly.

BUSH TAX CUT EXTENSION. FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU.

Every time I think about it, it is mind blowing.

And pairing that with spending increases that the country can't support, which was another fun little thing Bush liked to do too often (though Bush's were generally of a different type). You can do one or the other without that much trouble, but you can't do both.











And for some comedy:

At one point, George W. Bush had an exceptionally high approval rating of 90%(higher than any president in history) after he lied about the reason to invade Iraq, dished out wealthfare like candy, and had dick Cheney shoot a dude in a face.

This alone shows how fickle the American populace is.

Say what you will about Bush, but at the very least Cheney was much more fun as a VP than Biden is. Shooting guys in the face. Looked and generally acted like The Penguin as portrayed by Burgess Meredith. Possibly a Sith lord. Probably of the living dead. Good times.

All Biden does is put everyone (including himself, it sometimes seems) to sleep.

Edited by Tornado, 20 August 2011 - 10:01 PM.

[turbojet]

I don't even think that's true, honestly. I legitimately think if he went at it like Clinton did from the very beginning, he could have pulled it off.

I mean, Republicans during Clinton's presidency hated him so much that they tried to get him impeached, and he still managed to get a lot of the stuff done that he wanted basically just by working with them. He let them know what he was going to stand firm on and what he was willing to compromise on in advance, and they worked through that and generally just made the government a relatively trustworthy place for the populace. And he was good enough at it that they managed to get most of what he wanted done in his way.

Reagan had the benefit of being popular enough that Congress usually didn't dare defy him, but when they did he basically went "Its the Democrat's fault that we can't do 'Thing X', but fuck them we're doing it anyways." Hell, even Bush, for all of his general incompetence, seemed to be able to pull that off for the first term of his presidency (and even though 2005 is when the cards came tumbling down he probably could have kept it up if he wanted to, but it always seemed to me that after he got reelected he just stopped caring about anything).

Clinton being impeached was a legitimacy issue. He impeded justice by lying about his affair. Doing so, put him on the chopping block to be impeached. The matter as to why he was impeached would have been hilarious(chubby bitches with pizza and blow jobs, man), but although Congress, at the time, hated him, if Obama were ever in the position to be impeached, they would. I guarantee you.

Reagan had the popularity and the charisma, and the general arrogance(I have mentioned that I hate him with a seething passion, right), but, more importantly, he knew the political game and was a maestro at playing the Democrats like a fiddle. Why? Because he knew exactly to whom to appeal to: their constituents. The electoral college decides the Senate and the President. We choose the House and that is why they are usually idiots. This means that 435 people answer directly to any asshole with a TV set who probably doesn't know who their governor or representative(Mine is Rick Scott and that fucker is leaving next year) is and are at the mercy of the center of political knowledge, the president. Reagan didn't waste time attacking them. He certainly didn't relent. Bush had essentially the same advisers as Reagan, and while he was impudent, he knew what to do.

Obama's doing the first part of what Reagan did (the blame game), and he's alluding to the second bit (the "fuck those guys I'm doing what's right" part), but he's not actually doing it; and that makes him look pretty worthless in my opinion. I don't agree with most of the things he's trying to do, but it seems to me that him not even putting much effort into actually getting them done is arguably even worse for the country. Flawed policies can be changed/repealed, but I think the past year or so has shaken the public's not-particularly-strong-in-the-first-place faith in government pretty badly.

Ideally, Reagan never had to deal with the democrat counterpart of the neocons (*cough*maybe because they never get elected to begin with*cough*). Obama has a completely different opposition who seem to be elected specifically to oppose no matter how implausible it is. I argue that their whole plan was to slow the whole process up for two years just to fuck with him. I remember when a legislation was being made in Congress,which is rare in itself, and generally, the Republicans favored it. As soon as Obama favored it, they scattered like parasprites running from Pinkie Pie. Yes, Obama gave up to soon and should have, at least, kept fighting until November and could have said, "Well, it is not for the lack of trying." As for 2012, he probably will get re-elected if anybody, but Ron Paul wins the primaries.

I have to wonder how much of a role those idiots actually play, though. I mean, obviously that sentiment exists, but when one of them actually expresses it (or even implies it), they are immediately taken out at the knees like they were hit with a bat. Even true slimeballs like Savage usually don't hesitate to distance themselves from guys who gaffe that badly.

My professor told me this in regard to political parties. Democrats bitch, Republicans do. This means they actually have solidarity in their party. This is shown in the near unanimous disapproval in anything remotely practical that Obama also supports. I am not going to say that all of them are this way, I am going to say, "Enough of them are."

And for some comedy:

Say what you will about Bush, but at the very least Cheney was much more fun as a VP than Biden is. Shooting guys in the face. Looked and generally acted like The Penguin as portrayed by Burgess Meredith. Possibly a Sith lord. Probably of the living dead. Good times.

All Biden does is put everyone (including himself, it sometimes seems) to sleep.

VPs are only as powerful as Presidents make them. While Biden is boring and non-confrontational, I feel so much safer that Obama doesn't confide in him too much and have a relationship that a Pres and VP should have unlike Cheney who had a ton of influence over George Bush.