The real reason for Obama's loss in popularity...

Exactly.

Conservatives would have hated Obama no matter what - the level of their detestation could not get any higher, it is at 100%. This would be a constant whether he was the most liberal Dem POTUS ever or the most right-wing.

So it follows that - as Obama won with a large amount of Liberal goodwill and hope (hahah) - the mass of unpopularity in relation to his former approval must be due to Liberal discontent.

It's disturbing that Repubs don't seem to be able to see any nuance in a situation: if a POTUS is a Dem he MUST be extreme-left/Commie and the Left MUST support his every move.

It's quite concerning... especially when you think that such people have been in charge of international diplomacy and policy formation and could well be again quite soon.

So you'd say Obama is doing what he wants to do with his presidency? Sorry guys I think Obama will get a second term and the Republicans won't have huge gains in the fall.

I may not like everything Obama does myself but he's quite a bit better than what could be the alternative. He's not what I would term a liberal. However I think 8 years of people like Dubbya is enough for awhile. I think by fall ( and the economy will be showing more improvement and the voters will really be getting tired of the Republican smear rhetoric ) the voters will think that as well.

Now this is an interesting narrative to float out there. There are many things I've learned about when posting here over the years. All of the little leftists, you are all sort of my study subjects and while I enjoy feeding you little food pellets and watching you run the maze, the most fun comes from my theories about my pets.

Please understand the tangent up front, the claim is horribly wrong so I have to distract a bit before crushing it outright, just to be kind and all.

Anyway..... one of my pet theories is that liberals LOVE, I mean love like want to hump it, just love a good narrative. I'm not saying conservatives are completely immune to such a thing but no one can love on a good narrative like liberals can. The number one narrative is of course about "the man" and how "the man" keeps everyone and everything down and bad but there are many smaller narratives as well and I've noticed when confronted by information, news or reality that, regardless of team, breaks the narrative, they repeat the good intentions (set back up the pieces for the main character) and then repeat the narrative to themselves in their posting.

This is part of my secondary pet theory about why they go completely ape shit insane and basically start throwing their own feces at folks like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. These folks are narrative guys on the right and they tell some really compelling stories from the tidbits I have seen. They are such powerful story tellers that liberals find they have to watch and listen and then go completely insane over the fact that they had to listen to the story, but hated the story at the same time. It is almost like using their own weakness against them and they get soooooo pissed. Story bad.....story bad.....story very, very, very......bad (/throw poop) Sarah Palin is also exceedingly good at this and as someone with a very good personal narrative that also manages to stand in opposition to their entire worldview (career mom, self-made, mom and daughter chose life no matter how bad the contingencies) they go completely INSANE with regard to her.

The reverse of this is of course while citing expertise or science as their models for thought, they really love their own story tellers. Obama of course was elected due to his profoundly amazing personal narrative. Bill Clinton was just a fantastic story teller, honestly leagues better than Obama. We can't forget the man from Hope, before Hope and Change arrived. John Kerry's military experience wasn't really tarnished by the Swiftboat vets but what they did was just destroy the narrative he had crafted to the point that there wasn't enthusiasm for him to the same degree. Christmas in Cambodia and how he got his purples hearts didn't really alter anything about his presidential platform but they did destroy the "reporting for duty" narrative he had built up. Al Gore was considered to be "wishy-washy" and a bad campaigner not because of any policy he pushed or any platform he endorsed but because he simply couldn't tell a good story about himself. He kept changing the story and that makes those trying to watch the story very upset. Afterwards he learned though and he tells a very good story now involving the planet and trying to save it and so now of course he is REALLY, really loved.

Oh anyway......so once a group of liberals have decided on the narrative, it is the reality regardless of actual reality. If you present facts in opposition to it, they will just repeat the story and I expect that to probably be the case here as well since these are both very enjoyable narratives to read (Tonton and Seg should really be commended for their ability to build rising action especially) but they absolutely fail to match reality. See we have Pollster.com and it gives us some nice line graphs

See Pollster.com has the real story and by that I mean of course the real facts, not a story. It uses all the poll numbers out there and combines them into some nice line graphs and the conclusion they present is simply very very clear.



Democratic support has indeed fallen just a bit. No one gets a honeymoon forever and among Democrats, Obama has fallen about 4 points but still is above 80% approval. Looking at that graph, you wouldn't even see any movement you would call outside of the margin of error for most polls.

Then we move on to the Republican graph.....



Regardless of the claim that he would always be hated or whatever that pretty story was being waved around, Obama ran a pragmatic campaign based around a tax cut, ending many of our Pax America actions, bringing the troops home and using the war savings for domestic concerns. As the poll shows about half of Republicans bought into those claims and as they were proven false, they left him in droves. Still the story calls for a good antagonist to the protagonist and so while Obama ran as post partisan and appeared to achieve and blow that based on these poll numbers, everyone likes a good villain so I'm sure they will be ignored.

Yet we still have independents. They are not antagonists (yet!) and they are not protagonists and while that is important to the story, it isn't at all important to reality but it is reality that they will vote in the midterms.



We see there what you might expect from someone who is neither protagonist nor antagonist. They start off with positive numbers and open minds and then react to the outcomes.

The problem for Democrats is this weakness for narrative and especially now that the media has come off the sidelines with much "analysis" that reinforces the narrative. It basically becomes a self-reinforcing delusion. In 1994 there wasn't a Daily Show and Colbert Report which could repeat the narrative complete with funny jokes and skits so, you know, outside events might have actually caused a reexamination of what was going on and allowed changes to be made. Now that won't happen and the damage from the delusion will likely be greater. Also this fondness for narrative, the protagonist DEMANDS an antagonist. thus all those folks that are independent, they have to become bad guys. You have to demonize them and thus end up driving off their votes. You can't let them float around for a while because that wouldn't be good for the story. If they aren't good, then they must be bad and under Obama that means they are greedy, racist, hateful extremist bastards.

As you can see from above there isn't a chance that the sequel that follows from the first story is anywhere near true. I'll toss in a few bits of information you can ignore but then give you a give you a story I like that I know you can't ignore.

Bill Clinton eventually signed on to balancing the budget. He signed DOMA. He created Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The policy of regime change in Iraq was a Clinton policy. Clinton was the leader of the DLC as another example. Those are facts but please feel free to ignore them because in this instance even I like the story better.

Bill Clinton was and is the greatest politician I have still ever witnessed. He knows he would have whipped Obama's ass if he were the candidate rather than his wife. The man's ego is huge and he has easily proven he will wreck the party to save himself. I mean you are the big brother, the second coming of Camelot, the original man from Hope and America's First Black President and you watch this other guy come along and try to grab all that away from you. First you fight it to the best of your ability but while your wife is truly a formidable candidate who would have won any other time, she is still the "B" team and this really shows when you've got a guy basically using your own playbook against you. He isn't the man from Hope, but he is another man who grew up poor, from a single mother of course and he has Hope and CHANGE. Two for one baby! He isn't the second coming of Camelot, he has the first Camelot in his back pocket endorsing him. He isn't America's first black president because he absorbed lots of black culture from the South while being poor and is a mean sax playing machine. He's actually....get this... is half black. The mean left-handed jump shot just adds to the cred here man.

So you're the greatest politician ever and you see someone stealing your mojo. What do you do about that? That asshat Al Gore couldn't cross the finish line and your wife couldn't beat the man running your own playbook against you, so what do you do?

You give him a fatal narrative, a poison pill and then ride in to clean up the results. You float out there the story that 1994 happened because health care wasn't passed. You know midterm losses are the norm and with the economy in the tank, lots of folks simply vote out whoever is in. Even a great shooter can't get a bounce in that instance but the losses would have still have left Dems in control and Obama could still triangulate. So you give them a good story that drives them to the far left and watch the wreckage while clapping with glee. You do this because when Obama goes down after one term you are still the only Democratic two term wonder in the last half century. Better still you still have the wife who wants a couple terms herself and can even steal the "historic" playbook in round two.

It will be glorious and afterwards everyone will know and understand that Bill Clinton is the Michael Jordan of politicians. Obama, he's just Charles Barkley, a pretender who got beat by the master.


See above, the graphs lay this to waste. It is an enjoyable story though and I did find myself craving popcorn.

Republicans offer nothing significantly better than Democrats, they are all robbing the future to pay for today so I tend to agree that Obama may get another 4 years (although it is still very, very early and a bit foolish to make predictions).

I also agree that the economy will continue to improve and expand for a while. Once the cleverly delayed worst parts of the health care bill kick in, after the next election, the country may descend into another protracted recession/depression and i'd bet many more wealthy people flee the country to avoid the crushing taxation and inflation looming ahead.

You must have loved Bush then.


Moowa ha, ha, ha, ha!

Jesus! Talk about wanting to be right so much that I'm you're looking down not up for everyone!

The Spam here is ignoring is the big picture which includes the part of the cycle we're in. Sure Obama has made some controversial moves that don't sit well with some but it wouldn't take much to turn that around with some good news. And as far as decending into another recession I thought it was too early to predict things? That should extend to how the Healthcare reform works out. But I guess that was just wishful thinking on your part.

I'll tell what I see. That article I quoted in the " Second term " thread is probably right and this will tend to mirror the Clinton years. Once things get better there won't be a problem with his popularity. And no White Water or Lewinski!

What will they do?

No, I didn't vote for him, didn't like him.


I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say here.


You're doing a lot of eyerolling, but I think you still miss the point. The point is, it won't matter who's elected next, unless they are able to use dictatorial powers to radically slash the size of government, including our military globally, open the borders to millions of immigrants who can join the ranks of taxpayers, decrease or eliminate legacy programs like Social Security and Medicare... need I continue? In case you haven't been paying attention, the US is upside down, and it's the fault of the system of government for sale to the highest bidder. In what universe will this country be able to pay for all the freebies Democrats are now passing out? Who's left to pay the bills? The rich are leaving, and if they haven't figured out how to avoid being the new target of focused taxation, it might be because a lot of them are no longer rich. Well, that just means the tax collector moves down the list to the middle class.


Ben Bernanke himself recently said the same thing I'm saying. Entitlements will have to be slashed, taxes will increase dramatically, and no one yet has adequately addressed the deficits-to-income ratio. There is too much money leaving with no way to replace it (and here's a secret... printing more money doesn't solve the problem, it just devalues the money in circulation).

Your (and BusinessWeek's) in depth analysis fails to capture a critical part of the Clinton presidency that actually helped Clinton. The 1994 mid-terms. The same could happen here. A major ass-whooping of Democrats in 2010 might moderate Obama as it did for Clinton. I'm not sure yet. Clinton was a very practical politician. Obama just think he's right and that, well he's the President, so the rest should just shut up. His arrogance is quite astounding. Clinton was smarter than that.

It's inexperience. He's obviously a likable guy as far as people go, but his politics are a nightmare.

Do you mean like Rush is leaving?

I don't think the rich will go anywhere in any great numbers. I don't think it will bother them enough to move. They're not taking that much from them ratio wise and I think they realize they still get the best country right here. Also we'll see if the rest of it works out this way won't we? Personally I just don't believe it'll go that way. It might be a bitter pill for some who have excaped being pinched hard by taxes as it's a matter of perspective ( the rich worry about a balance sheet while the middleclass and poor worry about putting food on the table ).

Also can you show me the quote so we can see just how much Bernanke parallels your views?

I'm sorry you can't see a huge difference between what the Republicans are offering and what the Democrats offer. I don't think we could take too much more of what we've been getting from the republicans.

And of course your solution to all of this will be a que for an ad for a third party I'm guessing?

Shoudn't the assertions at least pretend to try to match the polls? His support is solid with Dems but dropped like a Rick among Reps and Inds because he is a closet Republican? Keep telling those interesting stories.

Have you ever read The Coming Generational Storm, Spam? Many of the themes, especially generational accounting, you are echoing right now are also mentioned in it. If not and you've got some other good sources then let me know because I enjoy information in this areas. As you note inflation doesn't solve the problem but since it is the easiest of the lies for politicians to sell, I believe that is what will be used.

It would be incredibly naive to assume that the rich will sit still and get fucked. That is the very faulty premise that the whole "soak the rich" mentality of the left is based on. "We'll just raise taxes on the rich, they have the money. We'll just get it that way!" Bzzzt! Wrong. It won't happen. They are much smarter and have access to much better advice than that. They will move. Maybe not themselves but their income and assets. Count on it.



Yes, the rich do worry about balance sheets, and despite what you might think, that's what helps put food on the table.


That you do see significant differences might be a symptom of that PPD that you are so quick to diagnose in others. Now it's my turn:

Do you mean the rich paying the same as everyone else ratio wise? I've already explained the difference between balance sheets and food on the table.


The difference between the two classes of people you're talking about is huge! In this income bracket ( unless they're terrible at finance and the Republicans have been helping them for years ) their balance sheets would have to dip quite a bit before they couldn't put food on the table. Meanwhile the rest are scraping month to month. Come off it!

You can just come right out an admit that you don't know how a progressive income tax system works.



Where?




That whoosh you just heard...the was the sound of the point going right over your head.

I can tell when someone refuses to really take a good look at both sides of an issue.


No. I think it was what used to be called " The bum's rush ".

Truly quite bizarre this is. I am speaking directly to your posts and addressing your points (such as they are), and you are quoting mine but it's like you are talking to the person behind me, having a completely different discussion.

\

Yes! I'd have to say you really are clueless.

hmmm...that sounds like an ad hom to me.

Not any more than any of yours like the " Whoosh " comment.

Just an observation.

It appears you're playing in your oft-mentioned sandbox with the rest of us. Just an observation.

Saying someone is looking at things in an immature way is also an observation. Hence the Sand Box. The need for tit for tat. The need to cling to a particular party like it was a football game. This goes for 3rd party people also as they would sacrifice the good for us all just to further their agenda.

That's just wrong.

And Jazzy before you start remember I'm an independent myself and don't always agree with the Democrats. I just happen to think they're lightyears better than what passes for a Republican now days. And yes I've expressed this before.

Let me get this straight. Clinging to a particular party is bad. Not voting for one of the major parties is bad.

What is good?

No. You don't have it straight at all. Clinging to a party beyond the good health of this country is bad. Like my question to trumpy. I mearly asked if the economy turned around ( as it seems it might be ) and that helped Obama's future as president ( as that would be the likely outcome ) would he be ok with that? He of course wouldn't answer as he would rather the direct alternative which would mean the economy goes downhill affecting Obama's approval rating.

Wishing us a bad economy just so the Republicans have another shot soon is bad.

And before you start that is what he was saying by not answering. He knew if he did we'd see the truth. The thing is by not answering we did anyway.

His is not the only example.

To illustrate I would have been ok with Bush if he could have handled the econonomy as well as his predecessor if it meant having a good economy. That just wasn't the case.

Wishing bad for us just to win is crazy.

No shit Sherlock. But listen Einstein, just because someone doesn't agree that thing are as rosy as you interpret them or getting better because you think they are or think they might get worse again real soon because of the bone-headed fiscal, regulatory and monetary policies of this president doesn't mean they are hoping for those bad things to happen. In the business that's what's called a non sequitur.

He has had at least four people explain this to him. He clearly doesn't get that it does not follow but that is what happens when people prefer to troll rather than post. That is why ignore is a good choice.

I've not yet picked up this book, but this issue is the simplest of math problems and it doesn't matter if a person is a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian or other... everyone will be affected in a lasting way.

Sure.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...s_Most_Popular

This from the artlcle (and mind you, I think Bernanke and his fellows are criminals):


Someone forgot to pay attention... I don't see a huge difference between Republicans and Democrats. They are both feeding us to a beast.

Then quite simply trumptman let ask you again. If what you're saying about the 4 people explaining things to me is true and you'd rather us move toward a recovery no matter what this should be really easy. I'll rephrase my hypothetical so maybe it's more clear.

Would you be ok with the situation if the economy improved even though it meant the fortunes of Obama ( it would look like his policy was working ) and the Democratic party would also improve?

Would you be ok with this scenario? Just yes or no will do.

Once again this doesn't require ( or is an attempt to trap you into ) a change of position. You can still think Obama is wrong way Corrigon or son of the devil or whatever.

This may seem like a no brainer but I'd just like to know how you feel about this.


Forgive me for noticing but the several times you put me on ignore it seemed kind of selective depending on what I had to say.

Once again I'm sorry you can't see a huge difference between what the Republicans offer and how the Democrats approach things. And do you have a better solution?

Why would anyone care to be boxed into a corner with your hypothetical loaded question Jimmac? You know back when, we had a discussion on loaded questions when CNN had one of their debates for Republicans and all the 'random' questions were clearly cherry-picked. Your view then was that they should just side step it an answer a question the way they want to on the topic.

Your question, minus party labels, amounts to the following. If something wrong ends up working out okay, would you endorse what is wrong instead of what is right.

The answer to that is no of course not. There are plenty of similar examples that no one would endorse. If you smoked until you were 100 and managed not to get lung cancer, would you endorse smoking? If you had unprotected sex and managed never to get an STD, would you endorse unprotected sex.

You can be thankful for the outcome but you cannot endorse the course.

So within your example I would be thankful for the outcome, even if by happenstance, but would not endorse the course.


The above should be clear but you've already acted on the intent game and then complained about it.


The reality is that regardless of party label, there is no free lunch. That was the point of the boomer thread and the rule they have been unwilling to apply. They always think there is a shortcut or free lunch. Redistributing wealth, printing it out of the air, trying to obscure the destruction of it via rebates and credits, misappropriating it via legislation, etc. None of it works.

How was it loaded? It didn't prove Obama right or wrong. It didn't require any change in position from you. It did ask how you felt about something. The whole. The big picture or your fellow man not just parties or wings. Do you want us to recover no matter what? It was a question about your attitude. Which you demonstrated by avoiding it.


So since you view it wrong then you would in endorse us not recovering because it's wrong. I see.

I was just asking if you would be glad ( have a positive attitude if we did recover ). I guess since it's " Wrong " in your view then you would view it as bad under any circumstances.

You know if this was Bush instead of Obama I'd be glad if we recovered.

Even NoahJ indicated he's for a recovery :


All you had to do is drop your partisan guard for a minute and indicate something like this. But you didn't.

You're wrong trumptman. It was your answer ( or lack thereof ) that was the loaded part. Oh well too late now.

"Obama is more conservative than Clinton."

"Obama is unpopular with liberals, who will come back in the fall and in 2012."

"The GOP will not see huge gains this fall."



All of these statement are completely delusional. Obama is unpopular because he's lost moderates, who are who put him office to begin with. Obama is far more liberal than Clinton, and unwilling to triangulate to boot.

The worm will turn by fall SDW. It won't be the one you're expecting. Just like you thought the Democrats were melting down last time. People will vote with their wallets. Once they see no Death panels, HCR is working fine, and the economy is looking up you know which way they'll go. Now if we had a big downturn between now and then that would all change. But I don't see that happening.

It contains the presupposition that improvement in the economy must help Obama and Democrats. The economy was still good in 2006 when Republicans lost the Congress to Democrats need I remind you. The war managed to become the most pressing issue in that race along with a growing concern about corruption and the deficits, all which Democrats promised to address and have not done so.

Your answer is basically to ask and then try to unload the question.


The actions taken by the current and Congress are wrong just like unprotected sex, not flossing and smoking are wrong. If something goes right while you do something wrong, it is considered luck and you don't endorse luck. That doesn't mean you endorse or wish the wrong on anyone. However since your question was loaded, you clearly want to claim that. It is hilarious how you can ask a loaded question, swear it isn't loaded. Beg someone to answer it and even give qualifiers to declare it isn't loaded and then still pull the same bullshit. I gave several clear examples about how wrong actions aren't guaranteed a wrong result but that doesn't mean you endorse the action and LIKEWISE, it doesn't mean you desire the bad result either.


The actions are bad. The outcomes may or may not be bad. See if you removed your, as you term them, PPD blinder Jimmac, you would easily see this but since you are interested in games, you can't.

When you smoked Jimmac, did your kids or spouse ever desire to have you quit before you actually chose to do so? Did they or do they still continue to worry about lung cancer as a result of those actions? When you choose to smoke and they still did not endorse that decision, were they endorsing you getting lung cancer?

We can even apply this with President Obama since he is still smoking as well.

Do you endorse his smoking? If you don't then are you endorsing him getting lung cancer and dying?


Actually the posts are on here and they are full of you noting how the rate of job growth wasn't as strong as you liked and how this was all due to Bush policies. You took numbers that Obama could only pray for and declared them to be crap. 250,000 jobs gained... oh that is just weak growth. It's a weaker economy than the Clinton recovery. This recovery should be stronger.

Some of us have good strong memories.


The logic above makes it clear. I've shown you the presupposition. Likewise the fallacy within the reasoning is called a non sequitur. Your logic does not follow. I've given clear examples. One can hope someone quits smoking and it does not follow that if they do this, they are desiring lung cancer for them when they continue to smoke.

Anyone not endorsing Obama's policies does not wish the economy harm. That isn't a logical conclusion unless your beliefs, and questions contain presuppositions aka are loaded.

Oh look! I'm on ignore!

Where's that famous will power? If you'll recall I never addressed you when I had you on ignore ( I even asked you to stop trying to draw me into a conversation ). So I decided if you're going to be that way It doesn't really matter.



But I made it perfectly clear ( go back and read with glasses maybe ) that what I was asking wasn't about Obama's policies! It was simply about recovery! I restated the question many different ways so you'd get that.

But I guess when you read things you only see what you want to see. Based on that " Fallacy " the rest is a torrential down pour of illogic. Too late to back pedal or side step this one trumpy. My question was designed to point out if you were hopelessly partisan or not. Now we have the answer in spades.

In macrocosm that's what's wrong with the Republican party as a whole and the rightwing now days.

What's so bad about recovering right now? The economy will take a downturn someday again no matter who's president. But right now people are hurting and wouldn't be nice if they got some relief? Wouldn't it?

Thanks for making your position clear. All you had to do to avoid this is give an answer like NoahJ did. But I'm guessing your pride wouldn't let you.

Ps.
God you love personal stuff don't you? Well yes of course they wanted me to quit. However I never smoked in their presence. That was a choice I made for myself. Bad analogy trumptman.

The choice to quit was mine as well. Cold turkey. You know. Will power.

Both parties have their short comings. It's just that for awhile now the Republicans have turned into something that isn't good for anyone. I believe in the two party system. I think it can still work but the Neocon attitude has to go.

The Republicans are already slowly starting to realize this for the survival of their party. We need it for the survival of our system.

3rd parties have never really gone anywhere. When a party goes astray it's because of the people who are in charge ( much like when a gun kills someone it's not the gun's fault ). Adding a new party wouldn't eliminate why a party goes astray so eventually the same thing would happen. The two parties need to go back to what they do best. Balance each other out so they don't get out of hand like they are today.

We already have the best system. We just need to fix it.