|
|
More on polls...
|
More on polls...
On Mar 13, 9:18*am, wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690358175013837.html That article starts with such horse****, I can't take its subsequent conclusions seriously. Start with: "Polling data show that Mr. Obama's approval rating is dropping and is below where George W. Bush was in an analogous period in 2001. Rasmussen Reports data shows that Mr. Obama's net presidential approval rating -- which is calculated by subtracting the number who strongly disapprove from the number who strongly approve -- is just six, his lowest rating to date." Firstly, what period of Bush's presidency in 2001 is analogous to the present administration? W started with a shrinking, but unquestionably healthy economy and a substantial budget surplus. America was safe, we weren't bogged down in two wars, and times were pretty good in W's first few weeks. *He* ****ed it up; it wasn't given to him that way. That comparison alone is utter bull****. Secondly, the "net approval rating" comparison is bogus. Even being the incompetent he was, W did not have an army of rabid corporate media mouthpieces spewing outright lies, hatred, and violence against him 24/7. From what I've seen here as well as in the media, the possibility that BHO has high "negatives" at present is not the least bit surprising; and IMO more than a little disgusting. Obama could give everyone a million dollars and a basket of kittens, and he'd still have high negatives thanks to the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter, Malkin, and their irrational wingnut ilk. To suggest an objective comparison based on a "net approval rating" there is just more horse****. If the remainder of this "analysis" from the WSJ is based on that false premise, it's not worth the electrons; and frankly, it's contributing to the problem. Joe F. |
More on polls...
|
More on polls...
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 07:41:01 -0700 (PDT), rb608 wrote:
On Mar 13, 9:18*am, wrote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690358175013837.html That article starts with such horse****, I can't take its subsequent conclusions seriously. Start with: "Polling data show that Mr. Obama's approval rating is dropping and is below where George W. Bush was in an analogous period in 2001. Rasmussen Reports data shows that Mr. Obama's net presidential approval rating -- which is calculated by subtracting the number who strongly disapprove from the number who strongly approve -- is just six, his lowest rating to date." Firstly, what period of Bush's presidency in 2001 is analogous to the present administration? Um, the period from Inauguration Day until, oh, say, mid-March... W started with a shrinking, but unquestionably healthy economy and a substantial budget surplus. America was safe, we weren't bogged down in two wars, and times were pretty good in W's first few weeks. *He* ****ed it up; it wasn't given to him that way. That comparison alone is utter bull****. Uh, yeah...so, what was it like living in total, complete isolation from about, oh, say, birth until yesterday...? Secondly, the "net approval rating" comparison is bogus. Even being the incompetent he was, W did not have an army of rabid corporate media mouthpieces spewing outright lies, hatred, and violence against him 24/7. If you actually look objecti...well, so that's out, but if you simply look at the historical numbers, you'll see that just about all "modern" US Presidents start out somewhere north of 50 and south of about 60 and stay at about there, _averaged_ with some up/down spiking, for at least a few months. Hell, if he...oops, He...wasn't somewhere about 55%, something would be _really_ wrong. From what I've seen here as well as in the media, the possibility that BHO has high "negatives" at present is not the least bit surprising; and IMO more than a little disgusting. "Disgusting?" Why? It's normal. Obama could give everyone a million dollars and a basket of kittens, and he'd still have high negatives thanks to the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter, Malkin, and their irrational wingnut ilk. To suggest an objective comparison based on a "net approval rating" there is just more horse****. If the remainder of this "analysis" from the WSJ is based on that false premise, it's not worth the electrons; and frankly, it's contributing to the problem. What problem? Joe F. HTH, R |
More on polls...
On Mar 13, 10:57*am, wrote:
Um, the period from Inauguration Day until, oh, say, mid-March... So similar chronology is all you need for a valid analogy? The states of the economy, the nation's security, and the world have no bearing? Uh, yeah...so, what was it like living in total, complete isolation from about, oh, say, birth until yesterday...? Uh, yeah...so, what is it about substance that causes you to go straight to ad hominem instead of addressing the actual issues? If you actually look objecti...well, so that's out, but if you simply look at the historical numbers, you'll see that just about all "modern" US Presidents start out somewhere north of 50 and south of about 60 and stay at about there, _averaged_ with some up/down spiking, for at least a few months. *Hell, if he...oops, He...wasn't somewhere about 55%, something would be _really_ wrong. Lies, damned lies, and statistics. The data is the data. The WSJ's presentation is the lie. "Disgusting?" *Why? *It's normal. Alas, it *is* normal for the right wing. It's disgusting to me. What problem? The problem of public confidence in the economy and the President's ability to improve it. Sorry, but I have actual work to do today, so I'll have to EOT at that. Joe F. |
More on polls...
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 08:32:57 -0700 (PDT), rb608 wrote:
On Mar 13, 10:57*am, wrote: Um, the period from Inauguration Day until, oh, say, mid-March... So similar chronology is all you need for a valid analogy? The states of the economy, the nation's security, and the world have no bearing? None what so-****ing-ever - there could be Martians swimming in the Mall, bin Laden could be discoing with Paris Hilton in Vegas on MTV, and the Germans could be invading France, and it would have no bearing on the first coupla-few months... Uh, yeah...so, what was it like living in total, complete isolation from about, oh, say, birth until yesterday...? Uh, yeah...so, what is it about substance that causes you to go straight to ad hominem instead of addressing the actual issues? What "substance?" You offered a bunch of pro-Obama/anti-Bush whining. If you actually look objecti...well, so that's out, but if you simply look at the historical numbers, you'll see that just about all "modern" US Presidents start out somewhere north of 50 and south of about 60 and stay at about there, _averaged_ with some up/down spiking, for at least a few months. *Hell, if he...oops, He...wasn't somewhere about 55%, something would be _really_ wrong. Lies, damned lies, and statistics. The data is the data. The WSJ's presentation is the lie. Uh, right. "Disgusting?" *Why? *It's normal. Alas, it *is* normal for the right wing. It's disgusting to me. Then grow the flock up - not _EVERYTHING_ is racist. Maybe you took Michelle Obama's writing a wee bit too seriously...or you're a kindred, racist spirit. What problem? The problem of public confidence in the economy and the President's ability to improve it. The President (in general, not specifically Obama) is way down on the list of those who could boost public confidence right now. Sorry, but I have actual work to do today, so I'll have to EOT at that. Oh, well then, nevermind. It won't matter if would have helped or not, then, R Joe F. |
More on polls...
|
More on polls...
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 22:02:03 -0500, Peaceful Bill
wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: wrote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690358175013837.html An opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal !?!?! LOL !! Lots of credibility there, you betcha. ;-) Actually, yes. A lot of credibility. Where do you get your news? MSNBC? The Daily Worker. HTH, R |
More on polls...
Peaceful Bill wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: wrote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690358175013837.html An opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal !?!?! LOL !! Lots of credibility there, you betcha. ;-) Actually, yes. A lot of credibility. You can choose to find such silliness credible if you want Mr. Jelly but I don't know a single person whose opinion I respect who finds the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal anything but ridiculous. Where do you get your news? MSNBC? I get my news from a lot of places Mr J, newspapers, magazines, NPR, Lehrer on PBS, CNN, the network talking head shows on Sunday morning and I'm a reluctant viewer of the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC. My wife finds Maddow entertaining, but to tell the truth I think she's annoying. -- Ken Fortenberry |
More on polls...
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Peaceful Bill wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: wrote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690358175013837.html An opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal !?!?! LOL !! Lots of credibility there, you betcha. ;-) Actually, yes. A lot of credibility. You can choose to find such silliness credible if you want Mr. Jelly but I don't know a single person whose opinion I respect who finds the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal anything but ridiculous. Only because they don't agree with your intensely narrow viewpoints. The credibility issue is not with WSJ, its with you. Where do you get your news? MSNBC? I get my news from a lot of places Mr J, newspapers, magazines, NPR, Lehrer on PBS, CNN, the network talking head shows on Sunday morning and I'm a reluctant viewer of the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC. My wife finds Maddow entertaining, but to tell the truth I think she's annoying. MSNBC is so far out of touch with anything remotely resembling reality that the "channel" belongs in the finction listings next to the SciFi channel and the Twilight Zone channel. Maybe you find the "disciplined intellect" (more like "lack of") of Keith Doberman a little closer to your view. He's off the cliff sorta like you are. But he doesn't seem to carry all the racist guilt you do. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:32 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter