More on polls...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690358175013837.html

HTH,
R

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.

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

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.

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.

wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690358175013837.html

An opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal !?!?! LOL !!

Lots of credibility there, you betcha. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

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?

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

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

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.