When is the United States going to recover from Democratic Rule?

13468913

Comments

  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,255member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by franksargent View Post


    That this is such a poor analogy, I don't even know where to begin ...



    1) Katrina happened almost four years ago. The 2nd strongest Atlantic hurricane ever (Rita had higher sustained wind speeds (offshore for both)). Plenty of hindsight versus the current ongoing in situ situation. We entered this recession in December 2007.



    So 13+ months of the current recession happened under Dubya's watch. Plenty of blame to go around though.



    2) Katrina did all it's damage in less than 24 hours, i. e. less than one day. Which moves slower, the world's economy or a tropical cyclone/typhoon/hurricane?



    3) A better analogy would be the events that the Bush administration precipitated in the 7+ years following 9-11. Unfortunately, Obama has only served for 180 days.



    Black Tuesday? That was in 1929, or ~80 years ago.



    Here is the deal Frank, and I suspect you might even agree with me on this one.



    You are right, Bush had the recession start on his watch and unemployment rose to 7% by the time he left office. It had gone from 4% to 6% during the election timeframe. Sure guys like me would point out the Democratic Congress during those final two years, and you wouldn't agree, but whatever in that regard.



    The main point though would be that it would have been very hard for Bush to win a third term and his job approval dropped as the unemployment rate rose. The lack of fiscal control during his eight years as a definite negative as well and I'm sure that contributed to that declining job approval too.



    Here is where guys like myself scratch our heads and see the logic train coming off the rails. Bush inherited a recession as well. The dot com collapse occurred right as he came into office. Bush had to fix it, and take responsibility to fix it . Obama just gets to pass blame.



    Obama passed a stimulus package with the intent of limiting unemployment to 8%. Instead unemployment has risen to 9.4%. He simply declared that he couldn't have gotten it right because by his claim EVERYONE got it wrong.



    Obama got it wrong.



    Bush did implement tax cuts and has taken all the heat including heat from me for the fact the national deficit doubled during his term.



    The scale of the Obama spending is so huge though that it is already raising government bond rates, it is crowding out the private borrowing that was supposed to be fixed by the bailouts, it is crushing the recovery before it can really get started. Adding that $787 billion is all on Obama. Go to a couple financial news aggregators for a week or two. Our president's policies are starting trade wars, they are causing people to stop buying bonds, it is making them demand a new reserve currency.



    That has absolutely nothing to do with Bush.



    Bush did not pass cap and trade legislation that notes that if industry flees in an attempt to circumvent it, the U.S. government will impose tariffs on the products coming in from the other country in violation of the WTO. It is Obama that did that much like how Canada filed a similar complaint related to the stimulus. This is on Obama.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post


    Your post is considerably wrong.



    Based on rainbows and butterflies I guess.



    Quote:

    Your sources are clearly so partial as to be useless.



    Ad-homing the source is allowed by the board rules, but doesn't improve the argument. Claiming bias doesn't address the articles claims anymore than claiming the National Enquirer is a yellow journalistic rag, made Edwards not cheat.



    Quote:

    You call me "hysterical" and suggest with a straight face that Europe is in danger of an Islamic take over.



    Actually -ly makes it an adverb which in no form modifies you, the noun. There are several good reasons to fear Islamic influence in Europe. I listed a few of them and you haven't addressed them.



    Quote:

    This is utterly ludicrous and not considered worthy of a moment's debate outside of the most paranoid right wing fora. It is a notion so ridiculous, indeed, that it can only be made by someone who has never been to Europe. That's not an ad hom, to use your favorite phrase, but a factual observation.



    I've been to Europe and I wouldn't engage in the fallacy of claiming that it made me right or made you wrong. It is an attempted personal attack and the very definition of Ad hominem circumstantial.



    Quote:

    Muslim people in Europe are outnumbered by more than 720,000,000 people I see from a moment's googling. Italy today is 94% Catholic. You haven't been to Italy. I say this because if you had, you wouldn't bother to argue what you're arguing. Even assuming that every Muslim in Europe is a radical, indeed that every child born to Muslim parents will follow their parents' religion and that the only immigrants into Europe are Muslim... actually, I can't even be bothered to do the math. It's a ridiculous suggestion made from ignorance and argued from fear.



    I'm speaking several generations from now. We are talking about 75-100 years out. Again, while I did the little vacation tour bit, I would never claim that 14 days in Europe made me right or wrong.



    What is right is the math you rail against. You toss out a lot of phrases that allow you to justify closing your mind and avoid all reasoning on this matter. In the timeframe I am discussing, the vast majority of those 720 million people won't be alive. For example Italy's birthrate is a little over 1.2 depending upon the source. That is a fact and so is the fact that it takes 2.1 as a birth rate to maintain a stable population. It is also a fact that Muslim birthrates are well above replacement rates.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post


    Your post is considerably wrong. Your sources are clearly so partial as to be useless. You call me "hysterical" and suggest with a straight face that Europe is in danger of an Islamic take over. This is utterly ludicrous and not considered worthy of a moment's debate outside of the most paranoid right wing fora. It is a notion so ridiculous, indeed, that it can only be made by someone who has never been to Europe. That's not an ad hom, to use your favorite phrase, but a factual observation.



    Muslim people in Europe are outnumbered by more than 720,000,000 people I see from a moment's googling. Italy today is 94% Catholic. You haven't been to Italy. I say this because if you had, you wouldn't bother to argue what you're arguing. Even assuming that every Muslim in Europe is a radical, indeed that every child born to Muslim parents will follow their parents' religion and that the only immigrants into Europe are Muslim... actually, I can't even be bothered to do the math. It's a ridiculous suggestion made from ignorance and argued from fear.



    Don Melvin writes that, excluding Russia, Europe's Muslim population will double by 2020. He also says that in 2005, almost 85% of Europe's total population growth in 2005 was due to immigration in general.[17][19] Omer Taspinar predicts that the Muslim population of Europe will nearly double by 2015, while the non-Muslim will shrink by 3.5%, due to the higher Muslim birth rate.[20] Esther Pan predicts that, by 2050, one in five Europeans will likely be Muslim.[20][21]



    Professor Philip Jenkins of Penn State University estimates that by 2100, Muslims will compose about 25% of Europe's population. But Jenkins admits this figure does not take account of the large birthrates amongst Europe's immigrant Christians.[22] Additionally, this estimation depends more on the supposed inevitability of the increase of Muslim population in the West and one person's research on the future of Europeans. Therefore, while Jenkins' estimation should be considered in the process of predicting what it would be like to live in the West in the year 2100, it should also be raising doubts about the entire European population.



    Other analysts are skeptical about the given forecast and the accuracy of the claimed Muslim population growth, since sharp decrease in Muslim fertility rates[23] and the limiting of immigrants coming in to Europe, which will lead to Muslim population increasing slowly in the coming years to eventually stagnation and decline. Others point to overestimated number and exaggeration of the Muslim growth rate.[24]




    Tell me that that Muslims can be 20-25% of the population and still have no political clout or control. Sure things can change and everyone is speculating about the future, but you can't conjure human beings out of the air. When you take the numbers we have now and project the trends forward, that is where we arrive. If you think something will alter the trends, present that information instead of fixating about how many days you think I've spent in Italy.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Here is the deal Frank, and I suspect you might even agree with me on this one.



    You are right, Bush had the recession start on his watch and unemployment rose to 7% by the time he left office. It had gone from 4% to 6% during the election timeframe. Sure guys like me would point out the Democratic Congress during those final two years, and you wouldn't agree, but whatever in that regard.



    The main point though would be that it would have been very hard for Bush to win a third term and his job approval dropped as the unemployment rate rose. The lack of fiscal control during his eight years as a definite negative as well and I'm sure that contributed to that declining job approval too.



    Here is where guys like myself scratch our heads and see the logic train coming off the rails. Bush inherited a recession as well. The dot com collapse occurred right as he came into office. Bush had to fix it, and take responsibility to fix it . Obama just gets to pass blame.



    Obama passed a stimulus package with the intent of limiting unemployment to 8%. Instead unemployment has risen to 9.4%. He simply declared that he couldn't have gotten it right because by his claim EVERYONE got it wrong.



    Obama got it wrong.



    Bush did implement tax cuts and has taken all the heat including heat from me for the fact the national deficit doubled during his term.



    The scale of the Obama spending is so huge though that it is already raising government bond rates, it is crowding out the private borrowing that was supposed to be fixed by the bailouts, it is crushing the recovery before it can really get started. Adding that $787 billion is all on Obama. Go to a couple financial news aggregators for a week or two. Our president's policies are starting trade wars, they are causing people to stop buying bonds, it is making them demand a new reserve currency.



    That has absolutely nothing to do with Bush.



    Bush did not pass cap and trade legislation that notes that if industry flees in an attempt to circumvent it, the U.S. government will impose tariffs on the products coming in from the other country in violation of the WTO. It is Obama that did that much like how Canada filed a similar complaint related to the stimulus. This is on Obama.







    Based on rainbows and butterflies I guess.







    Ad-homing the source is allowed by the board rules, but doesn't improve the argument. Claiming bias doesn't address the articles claims anymore than claiming the National Enquirer is a yellow journalistic rag, made Edwards not cheat.







    Actually -ly makes it an adverb which in no form modifies you, the noun. There are several good reasons to fear Islamic influence in Europe. I listed a few of them and you haven't addressed them.







    I've been to Europe and I wouldn't engage in the fallacy of claiming that it made me right or made you wrong. It is an attempted personal attack and the very definition of Ad hominem circumstantial.







    I'm speaking several generations from now. We are talking about 75-100 years out. Again, while I did the little vacation tour bit, I would never claim that 14 days in Europe made me right or wrong.



    What is right is the math you rail against. You toss out a lot of phrases that allow you to justify closing your mind and avoid all reasoning on this matter. In the timeframe I am discussing, the vast majority of those 720 million people won't be alive. For example Italy's birthrate is a little over 1.2 depending upon the source. That is a fact and so is the fact that it takes 2.1 as a birth rate to maintain a stable population. It is also a fact that Muslim birthrates are well above replacement rates.







    Don Melvin writes that, excluding Russia, Europe's Muslim population will double by 2020. He also says that in 2005, almost 85% of Europe's total population growth in 2005 was due to immigration in general.[17][19] Omer Taspinar predicts that the Muslim population of Europe will nearly double by 2015, while the non-Muslim will shrink by 3.5%, due to the higher Muslim birth rate.[20] Esther Pan predicts that, by 2050, one in five Europeans will likely be Muslim.[20][21]



    Professor Philip Jenkins of Penn State University estimates that by 2100, Muslims will compose about 25% of Europe's population. But Jenkins admits this figure does not take account of the large birthrates amongst Europe's immigrant Christians.[22] Additionally, this estimation depends more on the supposed inevitability of the increase of Muslim population in the West and one person's research on the future of Europeans. Therefore, while Jenkins' estimation should be considered in the process of predicting what it would be like to live in the West in the year 2100, it should also be raising doubts about the entire European population.



    Other analysts are skeptical about the given forecast and the accuracy of the claimed Muslim population growth, since sharp decrease in Muslim fertility rates[23] and the limiting of immigrants coming in to Europe, which will lead to Muslim population increasing slowly in the coming years to eventually stagnation and decline. Others point to overestimated number and exaggeration of the Muslim growth rate.[24]




    Tell me that that Muslims can be 20-25% of the population and still have no political clout or control. Sure things can change and everyone is speculating about the future, but you can't conjure human beings out of the air. When you take the numbers we have now and project the trends forward, that is where we arrive. If you think something will alter the trends, present that information instead of fixating about how many days you think I've spent in Italy.



    I'll take one item :
    Quote:

    Here is where guys like myself scratch our heads and see the logic train coming off the rails. Bush inherited a recession as well. The dot com collapse occurred right as he came into office. Bush had to fix it, and take responsibility to fix it . Obama just gets to pass blame.



    Bush didn't get blamed for the the recession but for the way he handled it.



    Obama seems be getting blamed for it. Also he hasn't been at it all that long and is already been proclaimed a failure by the right. Bush didn't really get the heat until we were asking " Why start a war now? " and " How come unemployment doesn't seem to be recovering with everything else? " And it was lagging badly. As a matter of fact that was one of the least typical recoveries ever. Remember " Hamburger manufacturing "?



    Let's all have another feel good kick back check!



    No one's passing the blame. If after a year or so if things don't start looking up I'm sure Obama willl get a fair amount of heat for it also.



    I'm guessing you're just waiting for that instead of hoping for all of us to recover.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,255member
    Washington Post



    Quote:

    Employers kept slashing jobs at a furious pace in June as the unemployment rate edged ever closer to double-digit levels, undermining signs of progress in the economy, and making clear that the job market remains in terrible shape.



    The number of jobs on employers' payrolls fell by 467,000, the Labor Department said. That is many more jobs than were shed in May and far worse than the 350,000 job losses that economists were forecasting.



    Job losses peaked in January and had declined every month until June. The steep losses show that even as there are signs that total economic activity may level off or begin growing later this year, the nation's employers are still pulling back.



    The unemployment rate, meanwhile, which is based on a separate survey of households, rose to 9.5 percent, from 9.4 percent. While it is now rising at a more measured pace than in the recent past, many economists continue to expect that the rate will surpass 10 percent by fall.



    Don't worry, it isn't like we committed $787 billion on the backs of our children and grand children to avoid this pain.... oh wait.



    Also don't worry because the "solution" to the lack of stimulus created by the first bill will be to double down in the second bill.



    Need to add that nice updated graph of Obama projections versus reality.



  • mumbo jumbomumbo jumbo Posts: 1,633member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post




    Professor Philip Jenkins of Penn State University estimates that by 2100, Muslims will compose about 25% of Europe's population.



    So, in 100 years, Muslim people will be outnumbered by non-Muslims by a mere %75 of the population.



    Yes. The Muslim takeover of Europe is upon us. Watch out America.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Other analysts are skeptical about the given forecast and the accuracy of the claimed Muslim population growth, since sharp decrease in Muslim fertility rates[23] and the limiting of immigrants coming in to Europe, which will lead to Muslim population increasing slowly in the coming years to eventually stagnation and decline. Others point to overestimated number and exaggeration of the Muslim growth rate.[24][/I]



    ...but those analysts don't read the right wing blogs that this poster does, and we can discount them.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Tell me that that Muslims can be 20-25% of the population and still have no political clout or control. Sure things can change and everyone is speculating about the future, but you can't conjure human beings out of the air. When you take the numbers we have now and project the trends forward, that is where we arrive.



    You have embarrassingly failed to come remotely close to proving that a Muslim take over of Europe is possible or imminent. Your own citations do your argument no service.



    You like laughing smilies, right? These are for you.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,255member
    RCM



    Quote:

    While doing nothing to boost demand, Obama's "stimulus" will depress PBI, and therefore employment. This is because the "stimulus" plan requires selling an additional $787 billion in government bonds. The money to buy these bonds will have to come from somewhere, and much of it will come from people who would otherwise invest in starting or expanding businesses. Indeed, the bonds will have to be priced so that this risk-free investment is more attractive to investors than their other alternatives.



    In the fourth quarter of 2008, the Federal government ran a deficit of $303 billion (and therefore had to sell $303 billion of new bonds) and business investment fell by 21.7%. In the first quarter of 2009, the Federal deficit was $650 billion and business investment fell by 37.3%. The economy is being forced to invest in Barack's Bailout Bonds rather than in businesses that create jobs.



    Virtually everything the Obama administration wants to do will have the effect of increasing unemployment. As bad as joblessness is now, be prepared for it to get much, much worse.



    I guess we could complain that he is being dour but even Obama is predicting double digit unemployment and we know he is HOPEY? and CHANGEY?.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,255member


    Quote:

    Overall, 52% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance so far. That, too, is a new low for the President. Forty-seen percent (47%) now disapprove.



    I'm guessing that popularity = right argument is going to suddenly and hypocritically discarded soon.
  • mumbo jumbomumbo jumbo Posts: 1,633member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    [

    I'm guessing that popularity = right argument is going to suddenly and hypocritically discarded soon.



    You are trying to say that "popularity = right argument" is foolish... and you are presenting an OPINION POLL to back up it up.







    And yet you have the nerve to accuse others of "hypocrisy."
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,255member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post


    You are trying to say that "popularity = right argument" is foolish... and you are presenting an OPINION POLL to back up it up.







    And yet you have the nerve to accuse others of "hypocrisy."



    I've never claimed that Obama's poll numbers make his positions right. I cite them for those that make that argument. That way when the numbers reverse, it will be hilarious to watch them suddenly discard their own argument. Then we will go from, "Republicans will never recover if they don't realize X which is why the majority of Americans support Obama" to....



    I'm waiting for the second half of that. It will be fun to watch.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    I've never claimed that Obama's poll numbers make his positions right. I cite them for those that make that argument. That way when the numbers reverse, it will be hilarious to watch them suddenly discard their own argument. Then we will go from, "Republicans will never recover if they don't realize X which is why the majority of Americans support Obama" to....



    I'm waiting for the second half of that. It will be fun to watch.



    Wait all you want. It won't matter in the long run. And even if it does happen it won't do anything for those out of touch republicans who don't realize it.



    To be quite frank I expected Obama's numbers to drop. This economic crisis won't be solved in the short term as we've already told you.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,255member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    Wait all you want. It won't matter in the long run. And even if it does happen it won't do anything for those out of touch republicans who don't realize it.



    To be quite frank I expected Obama's numbers to drop. This economic crisis won't be solved in the short term as we've already told you.



    I suspect that you are correct in declaring it won't matter in the long run.



    However that is because the way these numbers are dropping, it will matter in the short term more.







    Quote:

    Overall, 52% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance so far. Yesterday and today are the first time that the number of voters who approve of the President?s performance has slipped below the 53% share of the vote he won last November. Forty-eight percent (48%) now disapprove.



    Obama has also swung down to 49-41 approval in Ohio from 62-31 two months prior. Ohio is known as quite the bellweather state with regard to political matters.



    Popular or unpopular doesn't make something right or wrong, but it does make it unpopular.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,255member




    Quote:

    Overall, 51% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance so far. Forty-eight percent (48%) now disapprove. For other barometers of the President?s performance, see Obama By the Numbers or review recent demographic highlights from the tracking polls.



    A few more links of note...



    RCP- Obama's Strategic Mistake



    Quote:

    This moment is calling for a focus on the economy. That's why Barack Obama has the top job. It's not because of cap-and-trade, not because of health care, not because of his magnetic presence on the campaign trail - but because the economy was shrinking at a 6.1% annualized rate by Election Day. Americans were voting against recession by voting for him. This gives him a claim to a mandate, which not every President enjoys. He now has an opportunity to put his stamp on the country's economic policy in the name of recovery. Yet he's not doing that. He encouraged the Congress to rush through a poorly designed stimulus package that he had little involvement in; now he has focused the legislature's time and attention on health care, which is a secondary concern right now.



    I think this is a strategic mistake. My scan of the history of American politics does not indicate that we've been governed so much by "alignments" - the systems of 1860, 1896, 1932, 1968, and so on. Instead, I see a country that votes for growth. That's the true American ideology. Left, right, or middle - the average American wants prosperity. When the majority party fails to deliver growth after having been elected to do so - the electoral consequences can be significant.



    Washington Post



    Quote:

    What both Obama and Biden were trying to explain away was the dissonance between their early assurances that the big stimulus package would hold the unemployment rate around 8 percent and Thursday's report showing it at 9.5 percent. The jobless rate is expected to rise further in the months to come, with some economists predicting that it will go above 10 percent for the first time since 1982.



    It seems hard to square an assessment that the administration underestimated the severity of the recession and the assertion that the White House wouldn't have done anything differently had it known how bad things really were. There were some economists who warned that even a package as big as $800 billion was not enough to deal with the severity of the economy's collapse.



    Washington Post - Titanic



    My favorite one.



    Quote:

    The jobs report last week opened a long gash beneath the waterline of President Obama's legislative agenda. Few realize it, but a scramble for lifeboats is about to begin.



    On closer inspection, the economic news, which seemed bad, is even worse. Not only did unemployment rise to 9.5 percent but wages fell, undermining the consumption needed to revive a consumption-driven economy. Unemployment increased among "breadwinners" -- married men and women who head households -- also making major family purchases more difficult. Recent increases in unemployment benefits and food stamps have helped many Americans pay for food and rent. Jobs, however, are what lead to the purchase of furniture, cars and homes. Paired with a decline in business investment, these trends make a second-half recovery less likely.



    The stimulus package hasn't been very stimulating -- as many economists predicted. Pouring money into the economy through a thirsty sponge of federal programs -- the preferred method of Congress -- is slow and inefficient. In retrospect, all of the stimulus funds should have been given to individuals directly from the tap.



    There are political implications of a weak recovery -- none of them good for the president.



    Obama's spending ambitions would have been jaw-dropping even in the best of economic times. Federal spending this year is about 28 percent of gross domestic product -- a figure exceeded only when Franklin Roosevelt was fighting a global war against Germany and Japan. Along the fiscal path Obama has chosen (according to the Congressional Budget Office) our national debt will more than double in 10 years and will amount to 82 percent of the entire economy.



    Initially, Obama counted on an atmosphere of economic crisis to grease the passage of any legislation he pronounced an economic need. But it hasn't worked out that way. Whatever their virtues, restricting carbon emissions and expanding the health entitlement do not constitute a direct response to America's financial and economic failures. No economic theory suggests that a round of new federal regulations and entitlements would result in a burst of economic growth.



    Talk about out of touch. More Americans are home unemployed and the Democrats are figuring out how much more they can take from them in terms of cap and trade and health care while passing out pork that doesn't fix the economy or create jobs.



    Watch those numbers continue to fall and most of all watch for that double digit unemployment number. No amount of presidential soothing and cooing will soften the psychological blow that will come from that. One out of ten will create a scenario where charisma, charm and teleprompters won't fix the problem.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,255member
    CNN-Economy could make Obama, Democrats vulnerable in 2010



    Quote:

    They are two presidents from different parties but have striking similarities.

    President Obama maintains that investing in key areas such as health care will help stabilize the economy.



    President Obama maintains that investing in key areas such as health care will help stabilize the economy.



    Former President Ronald Reagan and current President Obama are incredibly popular, and both faced rising unemployment early on.



    Reagan's experience could be instructive for Democrats today; the GOP lost 26 seats in the 1982 elections. Reagan's popularity could not trump double-digit unemployment.



    "If we look back at 1982, as soon as the unemployment rate hit 10 percent, there was a political dynamic that changed significantly ... and it became much harder for the incumbent party to be able to make their case," said Daniel Clifton, head of policy research at Strategas, an investment strategy and policy research firm.



    But Reagan was fighting joblessness, inflation and high interest rates. Obama has a full plate, but inflation and high interest rates are not on it.



    Nonetheless, the jobless rate today is at 9.5 percent, which is above the peak of 8 percent the White House predicted earlier this year. The administration now concedes 10 percent is likely in the next couple of months.



    This will especially be interesting to see. Many of these new Democrats are Blue Dogs or in conservative areas. I wonder how they will justify cap and trade, trillions in spending and "fixing" the economy by watching inflation raise to double digits after their "solution."
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,255member
    YouTube



    A very cute video which includes a number of print sources detailing how the media covered the recovery under the Bush first term. It should be noted that some of the statements clearly hold him responsible from the very first day he took office.



    It follows with numerous clips potraying the Obama-glee and spin about the stimulus. Enjoy.
  • involuntary_serfinvoluntary_serf Posts: 975member
    Maybe the positive coverage is because we're intoxicated by speed.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,255member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post


    Maybe the positive coverage is because we're intoxicated by speed.



    Great video!
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,255member
    Obama strong approval index still at -8.







    People like to talk about the house effects of certain polls. There is also a link(PDF) to a study about the accuracy of various polling outfits with regard to the presidential election last year. Guess who came out on top?



    1. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**

    1. Pew (10/29-11/1)**

    2. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)

    3. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)

    4. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)*





    Let's take a look at the cellar dwellers.



    16. CBS (10/31-11/2)

    17. Gallup (10/31-11/2)

    18. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)

    19. CBS/Times (10/25-29)

    20. Newsweek (10/22-23)



    The left wing echo chamber can have Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann "analyzing" what the latest push poll from CBS/NY TImes and Newsweek means for Republicans, but eventually reality is going to prevail. These outlets are going broke reporting propaganda.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    I've never paid much heed to polls. Even if they are accurate, popularity is a fickle thing. If you ride the wave of popular sentiment, eventually you'll wipeout.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,255member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    I've never paid much heed to polls. Even if they are accurate, popularity is a fickle thing. If you ride the wave of popular sentiment, eventually you'll wipeout.



    Oh I agree. However it will be fun to knock out that last remaining plank of non-reasoning. The last bit will be hilarious to watch. We have pork=stimulus and debt = fiscal responsibility and now we will be able to add not popular = giving the American people what they want.



    Rasmussen







    This is quite a bit of time at -8. It is no longer a blip. The most accurate poll has Obama at this. Overall, 53% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Forty-six percent (46%) disapprove.



    Even CBS
    , the least accurate poll has him dropping 11 points. It won't be long until he is held fully responsible for his non-stimulating "stimulus" and people wake up and realize transfer payments aren't jobs.



    The most important aspect of this though is right now there are people who won't take on Obama due to his popularity. Thus their criticism and the action it would bring is muted. Once that line is crossed, then people can truly tear into why this stuff doesn't work without worrying that some percentage of deluded people are going to misapply reasoning against them. It is like the first six months of a love affair. After that you wake up a bit to the problems and might even be willing to hear them from others.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,255member
    Washington Post



    Quote:

    Since April, approval of Obama's handling of health care has dropped from 57 percent to 49 percent, with disapproval rising from 29 percent to 44 percent. Obama still maintains a large advantage over congressional Republicans in terms of public trust on the issue, even as the GOP has closed the gap.



    and...



    Quote:

    Obama's approval rating on his handling of the deficit is down to 43 percent, as independents now tilt toward disapproval (42 percent approve; 48 percent disapprove).



    More broadly, 55 percent of Americans put a higher priority on holding the deficit in check than on spending to boost the economy, compared with 40 percent who advocate additional outlays even if it means a sharply greater budget shortfall. This is a big shift from January, when a slim majority preferred to emphasize federal spending.



    Independents, who split 50 percent to 46 percent for more spending in January, now break 56 percent to 41 percent for more fiscal discipline. But a larger shift has been among moderate and conservative Democrats, who prioritized more spending by about 2 to 1 in January and March. Now they are about evenly divided in approach.



    It just keeps coming...
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Hopefully 2012 will be the start of the United States "detox" program.



    2012 Match-ups: Obama, Romney Tied at 45%



    Quote:

    If the 2012 presidential election were held today, President Obama and possible Republican nominee Mitt Romney would be all tied up at 45% each, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.



Sign In or Register to comment.