The come-back kid

[Boxlicker101]

No shit captain obvious. This has nothing to do with the fact that his favorables are going back up.

I'm still waiting for you to show how the linked article is supposedly biased as you claimed.

Okay. It is these two paragraphs:

But for Obama, it’s the latest in a number of recent polls that have been favorable for the president.

Earlier this week, a CNN/ORC poll gave Obama a 48 percent approval rating — his highest since May 2013. And the president’s high approval ratings come amidst a growing confidence among Americans in the expanding economy, with growing jobs numbers to match.


These are neither high nor favorable approval ratings. They are under 50%, which I would take to mean his disapproval ratings were over 50%, which is to say a majority of Americans.

BTW, although I trust the Gallup Poll, I have little confidence in CNN, which has been a rooting section for Obama in the past.

 

[KingOrfeo]

. . . Barry Soetoro . . .

Don't. It's lamer than lame.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Why single out Nixon? Once folks learned what a crook he was, he left office and didn't get any more polls.

Nixon was known as an unusually crooked politician long before he was even elected. However, I believe history will show him more favorably than the current opinion of him.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Nixon was known as an unusually crooked politician long before he was even elected. However, I believe history will show him more favorably than the current opinion of him.

If so, it will only be for things like the EPA that would get him read out of today's GOP.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

If you want to continue comparing oranges and tangerines, I note that Obama's average approval ratings are higher than those of Ford or Carter but lower than everybody else's including the approval ratings of Nixon.

Still two years to go and his favorables are improving.

If you're finished deflecting maybe you can explain, at long last, how The linked referring to approval ratings as "favorable" is somehow biased. You know, as you asserted in your first post.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Don't. It's lamer than lame.

That was rather disappointing, huh?

He might's well have a photo of a U.S. flag, grimfaced bald eagle or a gun as his avatar, like the TCOTers do.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Still two years to go and his favorables are improving.

If you're finished deflecting maybe you can explain, at long last, how The linked referring to approval ratings as "favorable" is somehow biased. You know, as you asserted in your first post.

See my Post 26.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Okay. It is these two paragraphs:

But for Obama, it’s the latest in a number of recent polls that have been favorable for the president.

Earlier this week, a CNN/ORC poll gave Obama a 48 percent approval rating — his highest since May 2013. And the president’s high approval ratings come amidst a growing confidence among Americans in the expanding economy, with growing jobs numbers to match.


These are neither high nor favorable approval ratings. They are under 50%, which I would take to mean his disapproval ratings were over 50%, which is to say a majority of Americans.

BTW, although I trust the Gallup Poll, I have little confidence in CNN, which has been a rooting section for Obama in the past.

You do know the definition of favorable, right? Synonyms include positive. A steady increase in approval ratings can, without "bias" be referred to as favorable. I'm not sure why you think that they could only be described as favorable if they break 50%.

As far as CNN's poll, it's 48% result matches Rasmussen's latest. Are they in the Obama cheering section too?

 

[Boxlicker101]

You do know the definition of favorable, right? Synonyms include positive. A steady increase in approval ratings can, without "bias" be referred to as favorable. I'm not sure why you think that they could only be described as favorable if they break 50%.

As far as CNN's poll, it's 48% result matches Rasmussen's latest. Are they in the Obama cheering section too?

Of course I know the meaning of "favorable" and, yes, "positive" is a synonym. An increase in approval ratings could be seen as favorable if the increase is steady and results in substantially higher ratings. So far, that has not happened. Obama's lowest ratings were about 37% and they have now increased to 43%. Since both polls have an error margin of 3%, it is possible that there was no improvement at all. The earlier low point might have actually been 40% and the current one might also be 40%. The increase has not been steady either. The low point was quite recent and the improvement might just be a fluctuation.

In any event, an approval rating of 43% is still low. It means more people think he is doing badly than think he is doing well.

 

[phrodeau]

Of course I know the meaning of "favorable" and, yes, "positive" is a synonym. An increase in approval ratings could be seen as favorable if the increase is steady and results in substantially higher ratings. So far, that has not happened. Obama's lowest ratings were about 37% and they have now increased to 43%. Since both polls have an error margin of 3%, it is possible that there was no improvement at all. The earlier low point might have actually been 40% and the current one might also be 40%. The increase has not been steady either. The low point was quite recent and the improvement might just be a fluctuation.

In any event, an approval rating of 43% is still low. It means more people think he is doing badly than think he is doing well.

Wow, you sound like you know what you're talking about.

But why don't you mention the other poll options, like "don't know" or "no comment" or "dolf"? Maybe the disapproval rating isn't as high as 100% minus the approval rating. It seems very unlikely that it can be.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Wow, you sound like you know what you're talking about.

But why don't you mention the other poll options, like "don't know" or "no comment" or "dolf"? Maybe the disapproval rating isn't as high as 100% minus the approval rating. It seems very unlikely that it can be.

There were no references to any other options in the OP, but I believe I found the poll being referenced and have a link in Post 17. The disapproval total has been over 50% all year.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

You want apples and apples. Compare all two term Presidents approval ratings in their sixth year.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

UL has his fingers crossed for a November do-over.

 

[phrodeau]

There were no references to any other options in the OP, but I believe I found the poll being referenced and have a link in Post 17. The disapproval total has been over 50% all year.

With an error margin of +-3%. You forgot that part.

 

[Que]

With an error margin of +-3%. You forgot that part.

What is the margin of error on 100 year old weather temps?

 

[IrezumiKiss]

You want apples and apples. Compare all two term Presidents approval ratings in their sixth year.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9wofiCO961qa6g1m.gif

With an error margin of +-3%. You forgot that part.

http://media3.onsugar.com/files/2013/08/01/982/n/1922398/141c4caa45bc990d_Obama-1-buzzfeed.xxxlarge/i/Epic-Eyebrow-Raise.gif

 

[KingOrfeo]

From July, but still relevant:

The best worst president ever

By Mark Morford on July 8, 2014 6:16 PM

“Obama is the worst thing to ever happen to this country,” declares the wealthy, rakish, silver-haired Newport Beach white guy to his small group of perfectly tanned 50-something females sitting just a few feet away from us at a stunning restaurant patio overlooking the sun-kissed California coastline, just off of Highway 1, as he sipped his pinot and adjusted his wraparound Ray Bans, flush from the economy’s spectacular recovery that has benefitted his exact demographic most of all, stroking his purebred dog and taking various selfies with their $500 phones, oblivious to the furious swirls of irony and hypocrisy fluttering just above their heads.

I laughed out loud. Couldn’t help it; I had just overheard Mr. Newport Beach say something about how Obamacare is an unmitigated disaster (despite how, of course, it’s not), and if America were to somehow actually develop a health care system similar to, say, Canada’s, that would be the end of America for certain; we’d never recover from such a devastating blow. Or something. And then came the “worst thing to ever happen” quip, and I couldn’t hold back.

They didn’t hear me, of course; the orgasmic thrum of their perfect lives drowned out my chuckle, and as I turned and looked at this beautifully entitled, happy crew from my vantage point only a few feet away but a million light years in perspective, we all shared one of the most spectacular, envied locales in the world and all of us sipped superb regional grape and not a single one of us suffered the slightest personal, social or economic indignity, every first-world need instantly met, every crab cake perfectly formed, the sunshine as flawless as Jesus on toast and no lines at the restroom and lots of free parking for his Lexus SUV.

A few thoughts struck me, all at once. The first was how nice this group all seemed – and of course they probably were – and I imagine if we had all had met under different circumstances and been chatting about, say, the weather or the soul-exploding coastline, I’m sure we would have been fast, easy friends – noting that, if we wanted to remain that way, we’d never talk about politics. Or religion.

Even so, I desperately wanted to ask Mr. Newport Beach what his stock portfolio looked like a mere six or seven years ago, when Bush & Co. ravaged the country and led us into one of the deepest, most brutal social and economic pits in modern history. Did he lose half his net worth? More? Was he worried he couldn’t feed his family or pay his mortgage? Did he lose his house? His job? Did he blame Bush? Clinton? Islam? The gays?

And by the way, how does he like the recovery so far? Which of his three perfect, multimillion-dollar homes was he on his way to, right now?

I also wanted to know, when Bush/Cheney lied to the world, openly violated the tragedy of 9/11 and invaded Iraq, killing tens of thousands, was he furious? What about now, when even Fox News is calling out Cheney and declaring Iraq invasion a colossal mistake, a lie from which we’re still unable to extricate ourselves?

Nevertheless, Obama ended Bush’s disastrous war, just like he said he would, on time and under budget. Does it matter?

And what of Newport’s female companions? I wonder if he knows that upwards of 99 percent of sexually active women have used some form of contraception. Is he in line with the GOP’s recent spate of nasty misogyny and anti-abortion spew? What about the awful SCOTUS Hobby Lobby decision, further bashing women, and Obama’s immediate moves to defend women’s rights? Is he aware? I bet those women are. Or surely, their daughters.

And really, what about the stock market? The Dow dances around record highs, Wall Street snorts rails of finely chopped gold every day, the income gap between the 1% and everyone else is more demeaning than ever and the banks haven’t fundamentally changed in the slightest. Why isn’t Mr. Newport Beach positively orgasmic about the Obama Administration’s generally wealth-favoring policies that made it all happen? Say what you like, but Obama managed to do what nearly all economists and pundits thought impossible back in 2008: reverse the ugliest, GOP-led social and economic tailspin in modern history, and make guys like Mr. Newport richer than ever.

My new friend looked good. Healthy. Fit. Good teeth, thick head of silver hair, that prostate cancer scare a couple years back easily nipped by a few wildly expensive treatments he never paid a dime for. Who did pay for his insurance? His company? Medicare? Did he have any idea what it was like not to be able to afford it, or be offered any in the first place?

I sipped my rosé, took a deep breath, enjoyed the magnificent landscape as one final, predominant thought swam into view: how? How can there be such a radical disconnect between Mr. Newport’s engorged portfolio, his fantastic insurance plan, low mortgage rate and grotesque corporate privilege – most of it born of the past six years – and Obama’s overall policy successes? Does he consider it all just a fluke? Dumb luck? Is he drunk on Limbaugh and Fox News, unable to see actual facts?

Look here, Newport: Since Obama took office, corporate profits are way up. So is business investment, job growth (moderately), retail sales, manufacturing (well, barely). Want to buy another house? Interest rates are fantastic. The housing crisis has largely subsided, and home foreclosures are way down. Also, people are buying lots of new cars, and there’s a fully recovered auto industry ready to meet all demand.

Did he know federal discretionary spending is well below average? Or that the poverty rate has stabilized? And the stock market is, as mentioned, breaking records, benefitting rich white dudes more than ever?

Of course, it’s all pretty shaky. Flawed and imbalanced and could give out at any second – but that’s just the nature of the excruciatingly complex, unstable world economy these days. And while corporations are raking it in, workers are seeing less and less of their fair share. There are still myriad problems, and Obama’s policies are far from perfect. No party’s ever are. Regardless, given the impossible economic hell-pit Obama was left with, it’s unlikely any president could have possibly done better.

Clearly I’m missing something, a huge bed of terrifying data to prove all these respectable charts and graphs wrong. But where is it? I’ve heard Mr. Newport Beach’s bizarre lament a thousand times, but I’ve yet to see a solid batch of evidence that proves Obama’s outright failure, or the nation’s savage decline. I see a blip about food stamps, I see a few weak economic signs here and there, but mostly, since 2009, it all’s been somewhere between timidly and shockingly positive. Did God smite us for gay marriage? Did the abortion factories, death panels and Nazi Kenyan socialist brain-washing farms steal my very soul? Hard to tell with all this perfect sunshine in my eyes.

The bottom line seems obvious: Much to the GOP’s bitter revulsion, it turns out a calm, intellectual black man really can run an entire country – certainly far better than an inarticulate Texas bumbler, and even in the face of what is easily the most obstructionist, hateful, acidic and often downright racist Congress in modern memory. Quite an achievement, really.

It’s curious, no? The unmitigated hate for Obama comes from the right, but the real disappointment comes from the left. It’s we liberals who seem to have the most legitimate gripes with a man we all thought would be far more radical and revolutionary. From the NSA to drone warfare to a shocking lack of transparency, a shameless kowtowing to Wall Street, a lack of serious education reform and barely a blip about the environment (until very recently) – Obama has been a far more mixed bag for the left than anyone wants to admit.

But right now, that seems like quibbling. To hear Mr. Newport Beach tell it, my president is a downright monster. Who cares if he ended the war, saved the economy, restored America’s stature in the world, nailed Osama bin Laden, invested billions in clean energy, partially reformed what is still the most expensive, least effective health care system in the industrialized world, or made the rich even richer? The guy’s the worst thing to ever happen to America. I mean, obviously. Now who wants more wine?

 

[Jennifer]

What the fuck do you mean "get back to?"
I apologize if you couldn't keep up but my last post was ENTIRELY about approval ratings. Specifically how the current President is faring much better at this point in his Presidency that G.W. was in his.

By the way your citing G.W.'s 90% approval rating only means that G.W.'s fell a hell of a lot farther a hell of a lot faster.

The 90% for approval was ten days after 9/11. Everyone was high on patriotism for a few months.

 

[Boxlicker101]

You want apples and apples. Compare all two term Presidents approval ratings in their sixth year.

That's a bar graph but it uses the same figures as one of the links I included in an earlier post.

By rights, LBJ shouldn't even be there. He became pres. in Nov. 1963 and had been in office just over three years. Nixon is not included because he resigned less than six years after his election in 1968. Ike was always popular and so was Reagan, but this time frame was during the Iran-Contra affair, which I have always considered to be more heat than light. However, it does pull down Reagan's ratings. Clinton's approval ratings were high because this was during his impeachment, which was also more heat than light, and people wanted to express solidarity with him. Bush and Truman were just unpopular.

In any event, I don't believe anybody would consider approval ratings of less than 50% to be favorable to a president, unless that person was blinded by celebrity worship or something similar.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

But it may be enough to trigger a re-do of the November election.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

That's a bar graph but it uses the same figures as one of the links I included in an earlier post.

By rights, LBJ shouldn't even be there. He became pres. in Nov. 1963 and had been in office just over three years. Nixon is not included because he resigned less than six years after his election in 1968. Ike was always popular and so was Reagan, but this time frame was during the Iran-Contra affair, which I have always considered to be more heat than light. However, it does pull down Reagan's ratings. Clinton's approval ratings were high because this was during his impeachment, which was also more heat than light, and people wanted to express solidarity with him. Bush and Truman were just unpopular.

In any event, I don't believe anybody would consider approval ratings of less than 50% to be favorable to a president, unless that person was blinded by celebrity worship or something similar.

I'm sure you consider the Iran-Contra affair to be "more heat than light", no reason at all for people to be angry that the Reagan administration was doing an end around to fund Contra rebels by selling weapons to the Iranians, right?

Bush was pretty popular, as you said, he had a 90% approval rating at one point and squandered it.

Contrary to what you believe, people do see approval ratings favorably even if they aren't above 50%, especially when they're 8 points above the low point going into year 7 of a Presidency.

 

[Curmudgeonly]

But it may be enough to trigger a re-do of the November election.

Ah...come on:

Leave the wannabe to look...for a silver lining...

..in clouds so grey.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Ah...come on:

Leave the wannabe to look...for a silver lining...

..in clouds so grey.

Hey look, it's Eeyore the liar.

 

[Que]

Hey look, it's Eeyore the liar.

That doesn't rhyme.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

That doesn't rhyme.

Eeyore the fabricator? Equivocator? Prevaricator?