Obama and the Media: The End of the Affair
The honeymoon is over. I’m not even sure marriage counseling can save this one. It seems that the mainstream media and President Obama are breaking up.
The AP’s Liz Sidoti goes after the president with hammer and tongs:
Barack Obama’s optimistic campaign rhetoric has crashed headlong into the stark reality of governing. In office two months, he has backpedaled on an array of issues, gingerly shifting positions as circumstances dictate while ducking for political cover to avoid undercutting his credibility and authority.
That’s happened on the Iraq troop withdrawal timeline, on lobbyists in his administration and on money for lawmakers’ pet projects. …
For now at least, Obama’s deviations have served only to invite occasional cries of hypocrisy from some Republicans and infrequent grumbles of disappointment from some Democrats. He has popularity on his side, and it seems people mostly are chalking up his moves to much-needed flexibility at a difficult time.
But the shifts could take a toll over time if they become a persistent pattern and the public grows weary. His overall job-performance marks could suffer and jeopardize his likely re-election campaign in 2012.
People could perceive him as a say-one-thing-do-another politician and the Democratic-controlled Congress could see him as a weak chief executive.
NBC’s Chuck Todd says the president has a “credibility problem” on his budget numbers. The White House press corps is roughing up the hapless Robert Gibbs virtually every day on the AIG bonus debacle. The New York Times’ Paul Krugman has had it. Indeed, all of the Gray Lady’s liberal columnist contingent is in a huff. Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes even went so far as to question the president’s jocularity, asking impertinently if the president was “punch-drunk.”
Was it something Obama said? Was it snubbing their Gridiron dinner? (Even Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger joked to the assembled press corps, “He’s just not that into you.”) Certainly we have come a long way since the giddy days on the campaign trail when nary a critical word by the press corps was spoken about The One. How did such a lovestruck couple drift apart?
TO: Jennifer Rubin, et al.
RE: How?
It’s really quite simple.
The so-called ‘mainstream’ media were the proverbial useful fools. Along with all the other ‘fools’ who voted for him.
Once Obama was in power, with a Democrat-controlled Congress, they weren’t necessary anymore.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Every people gets the governance they deserve.]
P.S. Welcome to the world of the REAL….. — Morpheus from The Matrix
Obama does not care about the press. They were useful fools during the campaign, but now he thinks he doesn’t need them.
Why should he care? Because if he is exposed, and subjected to daily criticism, then his agenda will be hard to sell.
His plan is to let Gibbs take the heat, while he does his thing behind the scenes. Will it work? Yes. And I suspect that the MSM will be back in his camp within a few weeks.
I can’t cite chapter and verse, but isn’t it the case that Obama has tacitly adopted a number of Bush policies, especially in foreign affairs, that the left expected would be dumped?
All I can think of at the moment is the introduction of a lot more troops into Afghanistan. But overall, it does seem that for all his incompetence, Obama is just not a thorougoing anti-Bush — not enough to suit the loons on the left, anyway.
And maybe the media are getting fed up with that disgusting crowd in Congress (they would disgust even the least discerning). If you are going to have a nation that restricts rights, imposes censorship (the “fairness doctrine”), punishes success and imposes economic democracy, can you do all that with a team of morons? No, you need wily people to get every community properly organized. The “progressive” press probably frets that the talent is just not in place yet.
This may be a good time to thank Heaven for governmental incompetence…. If those stumblebums in Congress keep shooting themselves in the foot, we may not have to live under them more than a couple of years. Then we can muck out the stables, put Obama on a leash, and restore common sense.
Let’s see just how hard O works to get his “green shirt” gang of “homeland security” volunteers up and running. Then he won’t need the MSM to help keep him in power. Chavez may call O an imbecile, but O seems to be taking pages from Chavez’s book. Some of us don’t call it the National Socialist Democratic Party for nothing.
“most of all, it is essential to the functioning of a democratic society to have a competent, independent press. Perhaps we’re finally going to get one.”
Don’t hold your breath on that one. If the media really turn on Obambi, it will only be that they want people to forget their complicity in getting him elected in the first place.
A better question would be if anyone will ever believe the media even if they do straighten up. If they’ve ditched ethics for someone as overtly corrupt as Obama, why wouldn’t they do it again?
I do not know why the MSM fell in love with BHO in the first place, there was plenty that they overlooked. Here’s hoping the MSM will at least fight to regain its dignity and respect and start doing its job.
And if one or two of you are sufficiently “hurt”, could you check out a few things? Did your former love write his own books? Did he get good grades in school? Was there ever any truth to the story Larry Sinclair was telling?
To recover from this letdown, it is not enough to criticize him now. Find out if he was ever worth your affection in the first place. Who is this guy?
I hope all the MSM loses their credibility and financially collapse. Even Fox is just a viewpoint of inside the beltway repub types. A repub party organ is as bad as all those dem party organs.
The press bought everything Obama said without criticism prior to the election. Many who voted against him said he would turn betray many of his campaign promises because they were just words to get votes.
It is so obvious now that even the liberal media sees it. In my life all my lib friends are now grumbling. The other day a close relative said “the bonus tax is ridiculous.” He’s a smart dude but I was surprised he brought it up.
The MSM, Hollywood and Democrat Party spent two years creating a god with gobble-d-goop. And on the seventh day, when they saw that their god was seated in the Whitehouse; they rested.
Between now and 2012 the MSM could pound that gobble-d-goop into a stupefied mountain of suffering mush and they would still fight each other for a chance to kiss Obama’s rear end.
Beware of wolves that come to you dressed in sheep’s clothing. The MSM never does anything without a reason. Bringing harm down on their god is not one of them.
TomJW:
I hope all the MSM loses their credibility and financially collapse. Even Fox is just a viewpoint of inside the beltway repub types. A repub party organ is as bad as all those dem party organs.,/i>
The appalling Paulian view. Trying to impose 18h century norms and values in the 21st century. It’s horse poopy.
Like all adolescent love affairs, this one is fizzling as they are running out of positions.
My opinion- the only thing MSM loves more than building a Dem up to become Pres, is to take a sitting Pres (any type)down. My prediction- he’s gone in 12 months, resigning in shame. Would be 6 months if he was white.
TO: All
RE: God Willing….
….this will be the end of:
• The so-called ‘liberal’ press
• The Democrat Party
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The more you read and observe about this Politics thing, you got to admit that each party is worse than the other. The one that's out always looks the best. -- Will Rogers]
P.S. Maybe, after THIS fiasco, we’ll determine that it’s time that the Democratic Party goes bye-bye.
For one of the most recent and nauseating examples of the mainstream media’s obsession with everything in President Obama’s orbit, look no further:
http://trackacrat.com/2009/03/08/newsweek-the-busiest-woman-in-washington/
Don’t bet on the press changing because of a little criticism from a few sources. These donkeys are still beleivers.
Maybe the media that covers comedy central will be a little happier?
Joke One:
On 60 Minutes “Obama was pressed by an incredulous Steve Kroft for laughing and chuckling several times while discussing the perilous state of the world’s economy.
Setting up Joke Two:
“You’re sitting here. And you’re— you are laughing. You are laughing about some of these problems. Are people going to look at this and say, ‘I mean, he’s sitting there just making jokes about money—’ How do you deal with— I mean: explain. . .” Kroft asks at one point.
Joke Two Starts:
“Are you punch-drunk?” Kroft says.
“No, no. There’s gotta be a little gallows humor to get you through the day,” Obama says, with a laugh.” ”
Just off his comedy stint on the Leno show, Obama, the most controversial figure in history, continues his comedic monologue with words you’ve never really heard coming from a smart president. How innovative and creative!
Punch-Drunk…. Gallows humor ?….. wow . Did he have a tele -prompter ? That’s the real question here.
And most of all, it is essential to the functioning of a democratic society to have a competent, independent press.
An independent press is not a goal just a mean for en end. The goal is to have a press who tries hard to report the truth, all the truth and nothing but the truth and lets readers decide. An independent press who acts as kingmaker and through deception, lies, distortion, amplifying the bad news, silencing the good news news brings down a president is a danger for democracy. And that is how most of the press has acted in the last two years.
TO: Tomp
RE: Some Indicators
“Don’t bet on the press changing because of a little criticism from a few sources. These donkeys are still beleivers.” — Tomp
You may be right. However, I notice that a number of blatantly biased newspapers are suffering BIG time. The NYT is selling some of it’s aircraft. The Seattle ‘Intelligence’….what a misnomer….is going web-only.
If intelligent people stop paying for their product, these bat-rastards will ALL go under. And good riddance.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The advertisement is the most truthful part of a newspaper. -- Thomas Jefferson]
I agree with #16 Tomp:
Obama still has a 60.2% approval rating. In swing state, North Carolina, his approval numbers still run high. True, there might be some rumbling in the press but they will never really turn on this guy. We are still a long way off from anything comparable to Bush bashing.The MSM will go down with the ship.
At the moment there is no credible Republican candidate to attack. If and when a serious Republican challenger surfaces the press will quickley divert their fire in his/her direction.
We are so screwed.
He’s Huey Long with a suit that fits.
The press will never do to Obama what they did to Bush. They did, after all, carry him to the WH. To completely abandon them will be to admit they were wrong.
The press will never admit they were wrong.
Bush, as others have said, was the Last American President.
TO: elvis, et al.
RE: Laughing In the Face of Crisis
It’s easy to laugh when you have job security like Obama has….
….while most everyone else is on tinder-hooks about THEIR job.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. We’re talking REAL ‘insensitivity’ here……
It was only a matter of time…
I would like to ask the hallowed members of the press how they’re going to feel when the papers and television channels are also nationalized and they are going to be told what to print, what to say, and what is off limits. These people are the most naive, illiterate, bunch of fools that have ever occupied these positions. Don’t they know that among the first tasks of any Marxist government is to take over all forms of media, to begin the dis-information campaign? Their day is coming soon.
RIP responsible journalism. 2008, the year journalism died.
Hi Chuck,
“P.S. We’re talking REAL ‘insensitivity’ here……”
Yes HE is a cold hollow man.
Community organizer is a tough job, but somebody’s got to do it! When everyone else is stuggling with gravity, all he has to offer is levity! When that happens, the journos try to hide their depravity. Too late!
It’s true that Obama is facing more criticism now than during the campaign – that’s only natural, as now he is making real policy. However, the premise of this column is deeply flawed. The assumption that there was some special treatment afforded Obama by the media during the campaign is simply false.
The press has been independent the whole time – it’s sour grapes to claim otherwise.
Nobody expects a President to be perfect.
Peace.
DS
The media are only scrambling to cover their hineys, tingly legs and all…hoping no one will remember their complicity in getting Barry the Teleprompter Talker into the White House…and the rest of us out of our retirement savings…
TO: elvis
RE: UUUuuuuuhhhhh
I think he is much worse than that.
A better term for his character is ‘shallow’. Or perhaps even ‘callow’. Better yet….BOTH.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[To live only for some future goal is shallow. It's the sides of the mountain that sustain life, not the top. - Robert M. Pirsig]
TO: David S
RE: Two Words
Bull Pucky….
The so-called ‘press’ prostituted itself. And, as someone else here pointed out, they’ll be victims themselves, in due time. All they need to do is seriously and effectively criticize The One and all the prophetic actions described in Babylon 5, where the government takes over critical news services by force, will come to pass.
Enjoy the show….
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[A healthy loyalty is not passive and complacent, but active and critical. -- Harold Laski]
P.S. Why is it that the so-called ‘liberals’ say we should be silent now?
To be a little more abstract, hasn’t the media violated journalism ethics by their approval and bias of Obama?
DS
hmmm, where was:
- Obama’s Columbia grades?
- Obama’s medical records?
- Obama’s history with Ayers?
- Obama’s history with Wright?
- Obama’s history of extreme gun control?
- Obama’s inability to remember how many states in the USA?
- Obama’s circumventing of campaign finance laws?
- Obama’s unwillingness to have press meetings?
- Any discussion of Biden’s outbursts and inaccuracies?
Your recollection of the 2008 is biased toward your desire to have this empty-headed, incompetent, and incoherent fool elected President.
And as soon as the MSM have another high profile Republican or conservative to vilify, they will go back to their lapdog ways in a heartbeat.
TO: Dennis, et al.
RE: Heh
Ya think?
What was your first clue?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Every violation of truth is not only a sort of suicide in the liar, but is a stab at the health of human society. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson]
By next election the MSM will demand to return to their one-time role of arbitrer of presidential candidates. I hope the Republicans will not let them.
Iconoclast
When you speak of Obama’s circumventing of campaign finance laws you should not forget “getting money from foreign sources”. Also the doubts about he being eligible at all. Or the fact he seems to have cordial relations with his cousin a Muslim who has been involved in anti-Christian pogroms.
JFM
The campaign finance irregularities include a complete failure to investigate the hundreds of millions that snuck in under the radar by being too small. These monies could have come from anywhere and the press showed absolutely no interest in investigating these irregularities. I believe some (many? most?) came in from foreign sources just as some (many?, most?) came from criminal enterprises like Acorn. The point is that the MSM showed virtually no interest in these irregularities.
Just another example of the failure of the press. And by burying these concerns and spiking investigations the MSM assured that many Americans would never hear about them.
But no one should ever doubt that they would not do it all over again. They will in 2012 when a credible Republican challenger surfaces. Just as conservatives and Republicans must understand that Democrats are our implacable enemies, we must understand that the MSM is irrevocably committed to supporting Democrats over Republicans. All of our actions should keep those two considerations in mind.
How much ya wanna bet terrified Democrats start impeachment proceedings themselves…watch for a Republican sweep in 2010…
“…and to understand why a team as expert as this one at managing the media on the campaign trail can’t accomplish simple tasks…”
Huh? What was to “manage”? Obama was given a pass throughout the entire campaign. Never did he have to answer tough questions regarding his leftist Senate voting record, missing college transcripts, questionable US citizenship, scandalous associations or what “hope and change” meant. The media clubbed Sarah Palin on a daily basis but offered Obama a complete pass.
David S. @ 29 states, “The press has been independent the whole time – it’s sour grapes to claim otherwise.”
My question to you is, Are you really that stupid or do you just consider the rest of us to be so?
The media isn’t changing toward more honest coverage of the Ohole,because they want to regain their diminished credibility. What is happening,is the phenomenom of intermittent lucidity,typical of those whose syphillis has reached tertiary stage, but is not yet quite terminal.As the 2010 elections approach,their syphillis will resume raging in their little brains, and they’ll once again close ranks around their ventriloquist’s dummy.
It’s all really simple.
When you run a campaign that has upwards of $1billion to spend on advertising, media will fall into line. Obama won the media (and won the election) when he refused federal financing.
Remember Deep Throat’s dictum: “Follow the money”.
DD
if they become a persistent pattern
~~~~~~~~~~
She still doesn’t get it. THIS is who is *really* is.
An old saying among us who look at both parties in American politics.
1. The republican party is the stupid party.
2. The democratic party is the evil party.
Neither represents the best interest of the American people.
Both represent keeping their power in office.
The main stream media’s plan is to become a power in government on their own.
No the MSM doesn’t care about the best interest of the American people. The MSM only care about their own agenda of becoming some kind of praetorian guard in print.
able to seat or unseat which ever ceasar they feel will further the MSM’s agenda.
that was supposed to be “who *he* really is”. (typos-r-us)
This is slightly off-topic, but I must confess to being complicit in the Obama mania myself. No, I didn’t vote for Obama–my cat would grow feathers before I’d vote for such a charlatan. As disgusted as I am with his administration, I can’t say I’m surprised.
My complicity is less obvious, but perhaps worse. I grew up with “greatest generation” parents, but failed to communicate their ideals to my own children. Not because I didn’t find them important–I fully understood how fortunate I was to have grown up steeped in them. My error was not realizing how hard I had to work to communicate them. I assumed that they were so self-evident that no thinking person could possibly believe anything else. My parents never discussed these ideals directly…it was just part of who we were. Despite the obvious indoctrination of leftist ideas in the media, the schools, etc., I STILL underestimated how powerful their influence was. Since I just dismiss leftist ideas as so much hooey, I foolishly assumed my kids would, too.
It wasn’t cowardice…it was naivete. My children–all of whom voted for Obama–are all young adults, so I’m hoping they see the error of their ways as they grow older. Perhaps my beliefs had more of an effect than I realize, but I’m not so sure. I wonder how many others just assumed that the younger generation would absorb their grandparents’ ideals through osmosis as I did. Hopefully, others had more brains than me. Let’s hope so, or we are so screwed.
29. David S wrote:
The press has been independent the whole time – it’s sour grapes to claim otherwise.
Peter writes: And if you believe this, I have a nice bridge with an excellent view of Brooklyn to sell you.
32. Chuck Pelto wrote:
All they need to do is seriously and effectively criticize The One and all the prophetic actions described in Babylon 5, where the government takes over critical news services by force, will come to pass.
Peter writes: First up, Hi Chuck.
Second up, more likely the govenment will take over the press by claiming they are too big to fail and need government bailout money, buying up 80 to 90% of the foundering Dinosaur media. Then, once they have that control, it will become the government propaganda mouthpiece, and the majority of the sheeple will not even notice or care.
47. Cathleen wrote:
I wonder how many others just assumed that the younger generation would absorb their grandparents’ ideals through osmosis as I did. Hopefully, others had more brains than me. Let’s hope so, or we are so screwed.
Peter writes: I, like you Cathleen, grew up the offspring of the ‘Greatest Generation,’ though admittedly born at the dawn of Generation-X. My family passed on the ideals they held to me. I have been proactive in passing on those ideals to my own daughter, explaining to her what my ideals (and by heredity, my own parents) are, what they mean, and why I hold them dear. As a result, in spite of the attempt by her schooling to indoctrinate her into the leftist worldview, it has not worked. She is one of only two kids in her HS class who hold similar views and ideals, and this year has been especially hard as she has been called a racist, idiotic, unthinking, and uncaring, almost to the point of receiving death threats from ‘inclusive, caring liberal democratic children’ just because she refused to support The One last November.
To anyone reading this, make sure your kids understand why you hold the ideals you hold and what they mean. Thet don’t HAVE to be brainwashed and indoctrinated in school.
TO: Tomp
RE: Another One Bites the Dust
Regarding your comment at item #16 of this thread.
Here’s another ‘indicator’.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson]
The MSM is embarrassed because they promoted, and got elected, this nation’s first Affirmative Action President, an unqualified, unexamined man, whose virtue was his skin color. You know, what Geraldine Ferraro said….
The MSM is embarrassed because they gratuitously slammed and slighted Sarah Palin’s experience and now Obama’s glaring incompetence/indifference is in the glare of the spotlights, damning them all.
Frankly, Ms. Rubin, I’ll believe that change when I see it.
TO: Peter the Bubblehead
RE: A Likely Scenario
That too, compadre. That one too.
Except for the odd piece that speaks the truth of the matter. And then they’ll send in their blue-shirted SWAT teams to shut them down.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Reality imitates Bablyon 5.]
Well, it is hard both to believe what he is saying — and to understand why a team as expert as this one at managing the media on the campaign trail can’t accomplish simple tasks like putting together a timeline on the AIG bonuses or compiling a list of ethics waivers.
The campaign media had bet every nickel on this candidate, after Hillary lost it. ‘Managing’ wasn’t necessary by Obama’s campaign, the media did it just fine on its own. And since the election, have they ever publicly demanded a timeline on the AIG bonuses, or a list of ethics waivers? I don’t think so. There is still overwhelming self-management, despite the surfacing flaws and stresses.
They assumed that since he was smart, articulate, and read all the right books and magazines (just like them!) he would be just swell at his job.
Oddly, his published reading list (after the election, of course) is pretty paltry, and includes very little on history or international diplomacy or the details of executive management or government. But the media just went ahead and assumed that he was one of the smart set, just like them indeed. Why not? He’s a Harvard boy.
Then it turns out he can’t find competent help, doesn’t take seriously his promises to root out earmarks or cut the deficit, hires a load of lobbyists and tax cheats, and seems about as transparent and bipartisan as his predecessor (i.e., not at all).
Objection, your Honor. His predecessor was about as bipartisan a President as we get. His successes in getting Congressional approvals for budgets and the Afghanistan and Iraq military operations, from both sides of the aisle, were pretty notable. And how could you forget No Child Left Behind? That was a Ted Kennedy bill, with Bush beaming approval. And Obama’s ‘promises’ to root out earmarks and cut the deficit? About as reliable as his bipartisanship, hey? Just because the MSM hid his radical-left past in Chicago, and his long collaboration with Bill Ayers, we should be surprised that his ‘community organizer’/ACORN past is still part of his present?
Having put their professional respect and independence in a lock box for a couple of years, it does seem time for the mainstream media to get back to the job of doing their job.
A ‘couple of years’? When the MSM ran an intense negative campaign against the Bush admin, and the Republicans with it, beginning about 2002, and included media creations named Cindy Sheehan and Barak Obama for use as weapons in that campaign? It’s been time for the mainstream media to ‘get back to their job’ for about 40 years, if you hadn’t noticed.
And most of all, it is essential to the functioning of a democratic society to have a competent, independent press. Perhaps we’re finally going to get one.
Agreed about the functioning of a democratic society. I’d like you to explain a little further how, in the current world of media/Hollywood/educational groupthink, we shall get a competent, independent press any time soon.
Hi, Peter…
I’m glad to hear that. Hopefully, there are a lot more out there like you.
#47 Cathleen – You failed to pass on your values? You thought they were learned through some form of osmosis?
Hmmm. I’m gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you spoiled them. Conservative values cannot be taught academically. They must be learned through hard experience. You can pass on certain things, but they won’t be understood until later in life. “Oh, that’s what Mom meant when she said….”
My ex and I are upper-lower class. We can’t afford a lot of the toys. My kids have a rich uncle, literally. They do get some really nice things from him, although he’s wise enough to show some restraint. So, they get a taste of some good things, but if they want more, they’re learning that they have to work, earn, and save for such.
THIS is how these values get passed on. If your kids had separate rooms, lots of goodies, and didn’t have to work much for them, well, that’s when the indoctrination at school can take effect. Leftist propoganda works on those who think like children. Hard experience makes one grow up.
It’s supposed to be hard. To me, that’s conservatism in a nutshell.
Cathleen,
Well put. I have often pondered this question myself but I don’t think the blame lies exclusively with “all” parents of today’s younger voting age children. I personally believe that while the Greatest generation certainly won World War II among other great achievements, the parenting that occurred after the return from overseas by too many of these folks was poor and spawned the hippie/counterculture revolution of the sixties.
I always sort of figured the greatest generation was exhausted from 4 years of brutal war and sacrifices and didn’t have the energy to give disrespectful Johnny a spanking when he deserved it. Johnny then grew up defiant, entitled, selfish and disrespectful of authority and he met a bunch of other similarly raised Johnies and Janes in College to protest with. Now these people are senators, newspaper editors, judges, TV and movie producers and university faculty members…and US Presidents all in their way harming our culture of greatness. They are also the parents today that aren’t doing their job of raising functional, educated children.
These poorly raised baby boomers never really lived in anything but prosperous, largely safe times and too many of them now take for granted the peace and prosperity that capitalism and a muscular US foreign policy produced. I’m sure many barely even believe that communism or socialism are bad. They don’t know their history or human nature and they’ve never experienced how bad it was under these systems. They think Bush really was a fascist that committed war crimes too.
Humans are always doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. Such a tragic condition. Look what’s happening now and it is the result of the very safety and prosperity earned by blood on the battlefields of world War II.
Just remember what came after the Great depression….
#39 Sule:
I think you are being too optimistic.
More likely this will be the senario.
1) Public and pundits are shocked when Republicans fail to pick up additional House seats in the 2010 election. Rush Limbaugh complains that RNC’s Chairman Steele’s gaf on Hannity and Colmes on election eve about the GOP resembling the Nazi party lost the election.
2) Tel Aviv is wiped out in a nuclear explosion. The bomb is believed to have been detonated in a vessel off shore. There is no retaliation because it can’t be determined who did it, despite both Hamas and Hezbollah claiming responsibility.
3) Obama wins Noble Peace Prize.
4) California, New York, and Michigan public pension systems ask for federal bailout. Bailout bill is passed with the help of John McCain and Olympia Snow.
5) Obama Youth Corps is mobilized to collect trash in major US cities after municipal employees walk off job due to not being paid in 6 months. Obama is Time’s “Person of the Year”. Maureen Dowd writes critical column about Obama.
6) January 2011, it takes 10 US dollars to buy 1 Euro. Most of the world is using the Euro as the international currency.
7) China occupies Tawain after US fails to pay back it’s loans from China in pre-inflated dollars. Obama calls for peace conference.
8) New leftist government in Panama refuses to let US ships pass through the Panama Canal. Obama calls for world summit.
9) US agriculture caves in due to losing trade war with Mexico. Farmers ask for bail out. Congress votes no. Canada relief organizations step in to provide food to many major US cities. Federal government places tax on trucks entering US from Canada.
10) Obama Youth Corp credited for successful campaign in amending US Constitution. Obama will serve as President for life. MSM is delighted when it is announced that head of the Obama Youth will marry one of Obama’s daughter. Camelot III begins.
@32. Chuck Pelto:
The ‘press’ no more prostituted itself for Obama’s sake than for any other candidate. Your paranoia about critical news on the administration is laughable.
Did someone tell you to be quiet? I’m quite enjoying your small-minded commentary myself.
@34. iconoclast:
You proved my point. The media raised all of the questions that you mentioned. How can this be considered a love affair? Clearly this would be a case of ‘tough love’ at best.
Peace.
DS
Cathleen,
One more thought I have as a nervous father of 3 (one old enough who voted for McCain she tells me!?!). It is a sad irony that the very youth that worked so diligently to get Obama elected and that voted for him in overwhelming percentages are the ones he is saddling with trillions in debt they will have to pay off.
They are the ones who will have their upside success and quality of life capped by government intrusion and socialist policies orchestrated by liberals like Obama.
They are also the ones who will likely fight a war of survival against an enemy emboldened by Obama’s foreign policy weakness and naivete.
We can thank our media and educational institutions for creating so much noise and distraction in our vital efforts to communicate fundamental American values to our kids. They made the job a lot tougher but not impossible. Relentlessness is required. As Marc Malone in the post above notes, hard work and experience breeds conservatives.
There’s a big difference between the honeymoon being over, and filing for divorce based on irreconcilable differences.
The big media outlets right now are in the “WAKE UP. BARACK!” mode, hoping that by nudging him and his staff with these stories they’ll shake the administration out of its topor and turn them into the Great Patriotic Leader they all thought he would be.
But in no way, shape or form at this point will they not endorse Obama for re-election in 2012 or go to the mat for him again in the face of a challenge by any Republican opponent. For Obama and the Democrats to screw up so much that even the big media types would even think of abandoning him three years from now would pretty much take nothing short of the near total collapse of society in their Blue State enclaves.
Marc,
I understand why you would think that I spoiled them since it’s an all-too-common scenario, but this time it’s off-base. I’m decidedly lower middle-class, and scrimped and scraped to raise the family (7 children). They had paper routes at 9, part-time jobs at 14, etc. They all shared rooms, no one had a TV in their room, no one had a cell phone or an ipod until they could pay for it themselves, and we raised them in a 1500-sq ft home with one bathroom. They all left home at 18, either for college or work, and no one has come back to home, even for a short time. Most have graduated from college, and my 22-year-old son, who got a GED, has a very successful contracting business. They’re all doing fine.
It’s not the hard work and personal responsibility thing that’s the problem–in fact, they wear their lower-middle class upbringing as a badge of honor, and have contempt for their peers who were spoiled. They know the value of a dollar and are proud of it. I was referring more to the multi-cultural/environmental/moral relativism/secularism/Bush was a warmonger/conservatives don’t care about people/anti-religious mindset that they’ve bought into. Again, I take full responsibility for it.
47. Cathleen wrote:
I wonder how many others just assumed that the younger generation would absorb their grandparents’
~~~~~~~~~~
Not all grandparents have ideals that deserve to be absorbed. My grandmother was an FDR dem, and wanted the government to take care of her. she was too blind to see anything but if there was a “D” after their name. she worked hard, but never made the connection with dem policy of freebies and her taxes going up.
My mother isn’t much better, and she was infatuated with his black skin to absolve her white liberal guilt.
I rejected their influence decades ago. My three 20ish children ALL voted for McCain.
Ms. Rubin:
“How did such a lovestruck couple drift apart?”
I think the immortal Andrew Dice Clay put it best, and I paraphrase:
“Because I talked to you BEFORE I f+*ked you! Don’t you remember, you dummy?”.
High marks for our MSM Deep Thinkurs at least for figuring it out,
…’cuz there’s some booger-eatin’ morons who never, ever will clue up to how badly they’ve been chumped by the long-legged mack daddy who claims to have been born in Hawaii.
The kool-aid has a limited shelf life and I think that it has begun to sour. When rhetoric as lofty as Obama’s fails to match reality by any streach of the word the result is a forgone conclusion. He has become, not will become, a say one thing and do another president. Anyone who was actually awake during the campaingn could have foreseen this coming to pass. Good news is that the Obama sycophants will suffer along with the rest of us.
60. David S wrote:
@34. iconoclast:
You proved my point. The media raised all of the questions that you mentioned. How can this be considered a love affair? Clearly this would be a case of ‘tough love’ at best.
Peter writes: If the Dinosaur media raised even a SINGLE ONE of the questions iconoclast pointed out, I must have missed it in the news. More likely Davis S is taking some really good drugs and only THINKS he heard the media ask tough, probing questions of Obama, because those of us out here in reality know it did not happen.
Hey, Dave, get off the pot and come join us all here in reality-land.
Jersey Mark,
I agree with your articulate thoughts. Your observation that many don’t recognize that communism is bad is particularly astute, since it’s such a perfect example of the overall problem–the refusal to recognize evil when they see it. When you don’t see anything wrong, you won’t do anything about it, and you’ll make a fool of yourself sucking up to tyrants. Obama’s dangerous foreign policy (or what passes for foreign policy) is the fruit of that mindset.
Shock and awe won’t be on the battlefield–it will be the collective gasp of an entire generation when they realize the full extent of what they’ve bought. I hope they’ll recognize the error of their ways before it’s too late.
I was engaging in some hyperbole when I said osmosis, but there’s some truth in it. My point was that I underestimated the power of the culture. Since it’s not what they saw at home, I assumed–wrongly, obviously–that our example and beliefs would win out. I hope it’s just youthful idealism, but even if it is, Obama had 7 votes that he otherwise wouldn’t have.
Furthermore, in response to #60:
As I recall, when anyone had the nerve to TRY and ask Obama the questions you CLAIM were asked and answered, they were piled upon by the Dinosaur Media, threatened by Obama’s Chicago thugs, or probed in ways that only UFO abductees know. I learned more about Joe the Plumber (thanks to Dumbocrat’s breaking the rules) in 2 weeks than I ever learned through the Dinosaur Media about Obama in 2 years!
TO: David S
RE: Oh?
Yeah. Sure…..
Like for Presidents Reagan, Bush I and Bush II.
Sir, you are indeed, one dumb-bunny.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. But you make for an excellent example for otehrs here.
Cathleen: don’t beat yourself up. But if your kids read books, have them read Atlas Shrugged as that book will for sure get them thinking.
“When you don’t see anything wrong, you won’t do anything about it…” Wrong, Cathleen? I thought with our present (leftist) culture, moral relativism trumped any consideration of right or wrong? Congress certainly has no concept of it.
LEFT LEANING MEDIA CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH
Iraq is a success.
http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2009/03/ignoring-truth-about-iraq.html
@67. Peter the Bubblehead:
You really should get out more often. The media was harping on all of these points throughout the election – were you asleep?
I’m doing fine in the USA, thanks.
@69. Peter the Bubblehead:
Yet more evidence that you have been asleep for the past few years. Good luck with those memory problems.
@70. Chuck Pelto:
Again, calling me names does little for your case. In truth, Reagan and the Bushes were handled with kid gloves by the media – if they had been subject to any kind of actual scrutiny, none of them could have been elected. GWB especially got absurdly gentle treatment throughout his presidential campaign, as well as much of his term in office.
Glad to be of service. Somebody has to point out the nonsense that passes for truth on PJM. The “liberal media” myth is just that – a myth. MSM coverage is actually heavily biased toward the GOP.
Peace.
DS
re David S
appears (hired) damage control is out and about. anyone else notice how thin the troops are these days?
I love what Schwartzenkenedy said on the Gridiron snub: “He’s just not that into you”
I wonder, are the media returning the favour?
Once again, Jennifer, you are sooooooooooooo smart. Want to have drinks together and …..?
Wow David S. No really WOW!!!!
Of course the media’s love affair would end eventually. The Media creates and slays Golden calves day in and day out, it’s what keeps them in business.
Wow, the libs are getting rare on here. I also don’t see as many Obama stickers around. People are starting to wake up to the awful fact they voted for the Hollow Man.
By the way, the media will NEVER admit their child is a failure. NEVER.
Once a GOP eagle rises, they will be back trying to shoot that person down, and close ranks around their unvetted messiah. You can count on it.
Hey ,
I think this is a trick. I think Obama,the most polarizing figure in history, is just playing dumb.
It’s a brilliant strategy.
David S (29)
Two words: Leg Tingles (specifically the leg of Chris Mathews). David – the press was a prostitute during the election. There has never been anything like it. The country may be in trouble – but the idea of a free press is dead.
GDT
#59 Pops:
…now I’ll be up all night and it’s all your fault…
Let’s see….The Obama-haters are encouraged by their secret Obama-LOVER (J. Rubin) to comment on her TENTH column which says “it’s over” for Obama. The Conservatives want to run Geithner out of town because he’s rolled out several economic recovery initiatives while “roaming the halls alone”…I mean, it’s clear. Let’s throw the bums out and bring back Bush right?
Oh, the media ASKED those questions. It’s just that when Zerobama said “nope, don’t want to answer that” they said “so sorry we shouldn’t have offended” and shut up.
Someday, a candidate with enough broad, personal appeal will rise to lead the United States away from its defense of individual liberty, and into whole-hearted support of World Socialism.
Dear Teleprompter has shown himself for the incompetent boob that those of us who actually met the man in person and had the opportunity to size him up knew he was. He has droopy shoulders, a week handshake, he tells an audience what he thinks they want to hear, he’s a narcissist extraordinaire, if he had the power of a Saddam or a Stalin, you’d see a statue of him in every public square. Hitler had the ability to pick competent sycophants, this guy just picks people who keep saying nice things about him. Wanna know why Michelle is so pissed off all the time, because she is tired of being abused by BO. Wanna know why he’s hooked on the teleprompter, because he’s afraid of screwing up and then losing esteem ih his cult’s eyes. This is a crackup in the making. The teleprompter is like Captain Quigley’s steel balls in Mutiny on the Bounty. BO will be retiring by 2011.
“When you have all the power and all the responsibility it is not quite so easy to cast attention and blame elsewhere. There isn’t any other target toward which they readily can point the press. Really the new administration is the only story to cover right now.”
Obama and Pelosi have so much power they are drunk with it. Neither of them has a shred of humility anyway, but now are so puffed up they are like cartoon characters.
The MSM has soooo much invested in this fraud that it would take some catastrophic revelation or blunder for them to throw him under the bus. Even then it may be doubtful and I certainly wouldn’t hold my breath.
The MSM lost credibility years ago (and getting worse by the minute) and seem to be oblivious to their misdeeds no matter how many voices shout it from the rooftops.
Obambi has learned a hard lesson. It’s much easier and much more fun and entertaining to CAMPAIGN for President then to actually be the President. Being President means having to work, to make decisions, to call the shots, to make hard choices, none of which Obambi wants to do. He wants to glorify in being the first black president and run about the country being cool and acting the fool. Imagine if you can, and I know it’s a stretch, a President Bush or even a President Hillary acting out like Obambi is. They’d be laughed out of office.
Why should Obama care about any of this?
Look, we all knew the Chicago model: Once you get in, you start re-directing public monies through a maze of transfers, expenditures, loans, overpayments and write-downs back into party coffers so that for every one day in power you harvest enough campaign money to guarantee four more.
According to Bloomberg.com the Stimulus and Bailout pledges as of February 2009 totals 11.6 Trillion Dollars.
$11.6 Trillion.
How many years of ad money did he just buy for every Dem across the country? If we truly do vote as commercial-watching sheep (and the stats do seem to support this idea), the Dems have now locked in elections for decades.
The mainstream media definitely needs some reforms. And we have the power to do that. Stop watching their news broadcasts. It’s as simple as that. If people stop watching their programs because we don’t like seeing politcal bias in their coverage, they’ll be FORCED to become more balanced if they want to keep from going out of business.
To David S @#74:
Please. Cite one story from the so-called MAINSTREAM (ie, Dinosaur) Media about Obama and his terrorist friends. Cite one story about Obama’s grades in college. Cite one story about how he got into Harvard.
On the other hand, I could tell you Joe the Plumber’s birth name, social security number, yearly income, when he was married, what party he is registered in, how much back taxes he (supposedly) owed, his address, his hobbies, his dreams and desires, and all because the biased Dinosaur Media and DEMOCRATIC ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS in Ohio looked at him as a threat to The One and probed him like no one has seen before and certainly Obama has not seen since.
Get with the program David S. Come back and live on the REAL Earth, not your drug-induced hallucinatory fantasies.
91. Blackwater wrote:
The mainstream media definitely needs some reforms. And we have the power to do that. Stop watching their news broadcasts.
Peter writes: I stopped watching the network news years ago. I just watch local news (and even then it has to pass my bias test for me to even consider it) and get a vast majority of my international knowledge from the web, where I can usually by-pass the hand-fed pablum the Dinosaur Media tries to pass off.
TO: David S
RE: You…
….are so full of a substance that begins with the initial that follows “David” that is is hard to imagine where you learned anything.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. End of discussion….
@92. Peter the Bubblehead:
CNN reports on Obama-Ayers
NY Sun article on Obama’s Columbia University days
Harvard reveals that Obama was a legacy.
Any questions?
Peace.
DS
TO: hp
RE: I Think…
…that you may be onto something there. I can’t believe that someone so articulate is so blatantly ‘dumb’. He even punctuates well, as opposed to the usual Daily Kos idiot and vivo.
Thanks!
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Some people are born fools. Some make themselves fools. While others are paid to be fools. -- CBPelto]
To David S. at @96:
Nice work proving MY own point. Did you even bother to read your own links?
The article aout Obama’s (non) grades is headlined:
Obama’s Years at Columbia Are a Mystery
As I said, the DINOSAUR Media did NOTHING to vet Obama, their Golden Boy. I know more than I care to about Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber, Obama is still a big blank slate as far as the DINOSAUR media go, and what I know of him, based on his own actions and policies, I do not like.
@95. Chuck Pelto:
Thanks for admitting that you have nothing useful to offer.
Peace.
DS
TO: All
RE: David S
It’s interesting that he can twist English in such odd shapes. Suggesting I have nothing useful to offer when all I did was tell him he had.
It’s called ‘projection’. And we recognize it for what it is….worthless.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Projection, n., accusing others of what you do yourself.]
Nobody gives a rat’s ass how the Media views Pres. Obama. He enjoys a 63% popularity rating and he has been successful is getting his legislation through Congress.
He is making headway against the terrible economic situation we are in and (as I say) what the “Media” thinks about him is irrlelvent.
Most voters approve of his actions. Which is the only thing that counts. Who cares what the some media talking head thinks.
TO: Carl W. Goss
RE: Really?
How very ‘odd’. It was just today he was at 50-50 for ‘approval rating’.
Here’s the link to the article.
So, I guess you’ve been asleep while The One’s ratings have been dropping. Either that or much, much worse…..
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Stay ‘tuned’…..
@100. Chuck Pelto:
When it comes to your contribution…
Peace.
DS
TO: All
RE: The Next ‘Logical’ Step….
….vis-a-vis the so-called ‘mainstream media’, has been started.
See THIS….
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE52N67F20090324
Enjoy,
Chuck(le)
P.S. If THIS ‘passes’….
….I demand a subscription to any 20 newspapers that ‘benefit’ from it, as I’ll be paying for them anyway…..
@102. Chuck Pelto:
Repeating a lie does not make it true, buddy…
In case you don’t understand – what you’ve linked to is called “propaganda”. Please get a clue.
Peace.
DS
Carl,
In case you’d missed it…
Zogby has Obama’s job approval rating at 50% today and dropping. At least in the case of Zogby 50% of responders is not “most” as you state above. Other polling outfits seem to indicate dropping approval as well allbeit from higher levels (for now). His “popularity” is more fragile than you think because many people never anticipated that he would govern as a true radical instead of a transformative bipartisan President. Huge buyers’ remorse.
God bless Obama for helping to teach Americans that never knew the difference the perils of fascist socialism. In this regard he is an excellent teacher and his over-reach should snap many of these people back to their senses.
Let’s compare notes again in September after labor day. That’s just far enough out of the “blame Bush time zone” and enough time for the back-ended pork stimulous package to clearly not be working so that Obama will definitively “own” the economy at that point. After all he did claim he was the best candidate to get us back on track. If he can’t fix the problems why’d you elect him?
I think it is highly likely that people will come back from their summer vacations (if not sooner) with unemployment higher than ever, the dow at 5000 and as soon as they get the kids off to school they’ll be visiting Obama and the Democratic congress with pitchforks to voice their displeasure. Who knows? They may even take baseball bats to the teleprompter!!! Obama may end up making Jimmy Carter actually look competent by comparison.
I hope I’m wrong but I fear I’m right.
TO: All
RE: Get This….
…Zogby is a ‘liar’.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[If the facts don't conform to desired wishes, they must be 'lies'.]
Carl W. Goss, David S., the rest of the usual suspects…
Here’s some food for thought.
the popular vote breakdown for november was 69,438,983 for Obama/Biden, and 59,930,551 for McCain/Palin.
That is a non-trivial difference of 10 million votes (discounting the million or so for Nader and Barr).
Here’s a question you should be asking yourself based of the last 90 days.
Do you think that the significant numbers people numbered among the 59,930,551 are now changing their minds and supporting Obama based on his performance, or people that were numbered in the 69,438,983 are moving away from supporting Obama based on his performance.
No conservative or right wing ad hominem (I’m neither). Just a gut feeling for the answer.
@108. Chuck Pelto:
You can drop the scare quotes, Chuck, and stop acting so shocked.
Here’s the pudding…
So, Mr. Pelto – care to explain why you prefer Zogby over more accurate polls?
I didn’t think so.
Peace.
DS
@109. just passing through:
Obama won the election with ~53% of the popular vote. His current approval is ~60%. So clearly, some of the 59,930,551 approve of his performance, despite voting for the other guy.
Thanks for pointing out that Obama is more popular now than he was on election day.
Peace.
DS
‘Obama won the election with ~53% of the popular vote. His current approval is ~60%. So clearly, some of the 59,930,551 approve of his performance, despite voting for the other guy.
Thanks for pointing out that Obama is more popular now than he was on election day.’
Oh for God’s sakes, David, you aren’t that stupid. One set of figures represents voting in an election prior to any job approval poll. The other people taking the time to respond to polls. I’m taking the larger sample – almost 130 million – as a baseline. Your interpretation is 53% approval. Better stated as 53% in expectation of approval as neither candidate was an incumbent.
Keep in mind the implications – it is not a 9.5 million movement that translates to 50% approval. It is half that – 4.75.
The question you ducked (corrected for clarity):
Do you think that significant numbers people among the 59,930,551 are now changing their minds and supporting Obama based on his performance – or people that were numbered in the 69,438,983 are moving away from supporting Obama based on his performance.
It’s an easy question. You don’t need to defend your answer. Just give it.
TO: All
RE: Ahem….
What was I saying about the so-called mainstream media ‘prostituting’ itself for Obama?
And it’s great that people as dense, or as bad a liar, as David S make such excellent examples of what is wrong with some people.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[You can't make this stuff up.....]
@112. just passing through:
I’m going to agree with you here, and presume that I can say the same for you.
I’m willing to accept your semantics on that point.
No problem with your math here so far.
First, I didn’t duck the question – I answered it. As I stated above…
“…clearly, some of the 59,930,551 approve of his [Obama's] performance, despite voting for the other guy.”
If you intended to imply that Obama’s approval had dropped to 50% – your theory is not supported by the evidence. Perhaps you interpreted my answer to be evasive based on this false premise? But, for God’s sakes, you aren’t that stupid.
Peace.
DS
@113. Chuck Pelto:
Keep up that projection, Chuck. You’re digging a very deep hole for yourself. You do make for an excellent example…
Peace.
DS
111. David S wrote:
Obama won the election with ~53% of the popular vote. His current approval is ~60%. So clearly, some of the 59,930,551 approve of his performance, despite voting for the other guy.
Peter points out: SOMEONE needs a lesson on how polling works.
It is not 60% of the country’s population that approve of Obama (according to your oh-so-accurate poll). It is 60% of those people who were POLLED who approve, and as was proven during the run-up to the last election, the poll organizations tend to skew to the left and generally poll those registered on the democratic side more often than Repub/Conserv voters.
(After all, according to some polls before the Nov election, which I’m sure you, Davy, were oh so keen on, Obama should have won by a landslide of something like 75%!)
Hey, any Repubs or Conservatives out there, how many of you have been polled about Obama’s performance. I know I haven’t.
David S,
“…clearly, some of the 59,930,551 approve of his [Obama's] performance, despite voting for the other guy.”
That only works if the numbers are accepted…which is the point of the debate you’ve been having. Saying your favored numbers ‘clearly’ indicate anything is evasive. The question is whether those numbers are valid. Zogby’s poll doesn’t work for you, because it doesn’t agree with what you want the answer to be. You have a vested interest that they don’t.
One approach to getting a handle on conflicting polls derived from uncertain sampling is to apply a little common sense. Common sense and a casual attention to the movement of opinion reflected by the growing media disenchantment doesn’t support your position.
You continue to duck the question because you know the obvious answer and that it doesn’t support your position.
116 Peter Wrote:
“Hey, any Repubs or Conservatives out there, how many of you have been polled about Obama’s performance. I know I haven’t.”
Me neither….
Maybe it’s because we work for a living and aren’t home or at school to take the pollster’s call or fiddle with internet surveys!!!
For 30 years the Right has blamed the media for everything. to think they will give up this canard is laughable. Who will conservatives blame when Republicans get their ass handed to them again in 2010? Who will they blame when someone “attacks” Sarah Palin with a diabolical gotcha line of questioning, like “What newspapers do you read?”
No, the media is still in love with Obama and liberals and Democrats. Don’t take my word for it . . . ask any conservative in about 12 months.
You know, Republitives would do a lot better if you spent your time thinking about solutions rather than excuses. We voters out here, we notice that sort of baby talk, and we don’t like it.
@116. Peter the Bubblehead:
Okay, Peter, let the lesson begin.
BZZZT!
Wrong. Pollsters adjust their polls using statistical methods to assess their samples, and during the run-up to the last election, poll organizations skewed to both the right and the left, depending on the models used to approximate the actual vote. In the case of Zogby, the margins of error were far outside any reasonable range – did you not even visit the link?
The plain truth is that this poll is meaningless or worse because Zogby’s numbers bear no relation to reality. Don’t try to give lessons on topics you don’t understand. It only makes you look more foolish than you would otherwise.
@117. just passing through:
“…clearly, some of the 59,930,551 approve of his [Obama's] performance, despite voting for the other guy.”
Except that I’ve been citing very compelling, comprehensive data that supports the numbers I have been using, while exposing the deep flaws in Zogby’s poll.
Show me evidence that my numbers are not valid – and we’ll talk. I’ve already shot Zogby down – do you have a secondary source to offer?
Pay attention. Zogby’s poll doesn’t work for me, because it doesn’t use statistically valid methods, and because the past performance of ZI has demonstrated a lack of accuracy. If his numbers came back with 80% job approval for Obama, the criticism I have offered would still be valid – it’s not about the “right answer”, it’s about using a polling method that actually works – Zogby doesn’t. You are right that I have a vested interest here – and that interest is in accuracy. What’s yours?
Common sense would require using actual data to support your position. Ignoring the best available data is not common sense – it is willful ignorance. Try to keep the distinction clear, please.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt, answered your question, and clearly explained my position and the basis for it. Your ‘obvious’ answer is the wrong one – and insisting that I am being evasive until I agree with you is just silly.
If you have an argument, make it. Claiming you know the answer based on “common sense”, rather than actual data, is no argument at all. Calling my answers evasive is just plain lying.
Peace.
DS
120. David S wrote:
Wrong. Pollsters adjust their polls using statistical methods to assess their samples, and during the run-up to the last election, poll organizations skewed to both the right and the left,
Peter replies:
BZZZT!
Wrong! It was reported on several independant web sites that when polls were taken, even up to an including exit polls, the pollsters were skewing the results to the left. For example, taking 4 polls in areas known to be heavily Democratic registered neighborhoods compared to 1 poll in a republican registered neighborhood.
Why do you think theyre was such an outcry when Hillery beat The One in NH during the primaries? because the polsters were polling in Obama enclaves and ignoring everything else.
So, as someone else on this thread meantioned, david only uses the statistics that prove the point he is trying to make and convieniently ignores the dozen others that prove otherwise.
I will do the same and once again ignore Davy S.
@121. Peter the Bubblehead:
Care to cite some sources? Didn’t think so.
I’m not the one that brought up statistics – it was our friend CB Pelto who decided to bring a discredited poll on board to bolster his position that Obama’s approval is tanking. Now you have decided to wade into the fray without any statistics at all to back you up. If you have a dozen sources to contradict mine, why keep them to yourself?
The fact is that some polls use methodologies that generally skew rightward – while others use methodologies that generally skew leftward. Looking at the whole range is always more informative than cherry-picking.
If you want to argue about pollster bias, stick to the data.
Peace.
DS
Lord, Pops in Vienna! I’m glad I don’t have as good an imagination as you do!
I sure hope all that doesn’t come to pass.
David,
Your ducking and weaving. Answer the question.
What do YOU think? Do YOU think that the movement is towards approval or away? That was the question. Continually citing the poll you favor is not answering it.
Either you’re a lot less intelligent than I gave you credit for, intentionally being obtuse for whatever reason, or dodging the question because you don’t want to man up to the answer not being what you want it to be.
The point under debate was which poll is more reliable, yours or Zogby. Since polls only reflect what the respondents answer, and adjusting for variance is at BEST, inexact your claim that yours is better is just that a claim. You are citing the results of the poll you favor as the reason why you favor your poll’s results. Circular logic.
So I was (at this point no longer) interested in what your response would be to applying some judgment and commonsensical reduction to current feedback from the media and elsewhere and telling me what YOU think the direction for approval is taking. Not what your poll says.
It’s obvious you’re not going to answer.
According to the RCP poll of polls, Obama’s approval rating is 60.8% for the period March 9 to 24, 2009. This average is based on data obtained from the following recent polls:
Gallup poll: 63% (3/22-3/24)
Rasmussen reports poll: 56% (3/22-3/24)
CBS News poll: 64% (3/20-3/22)
CNN/Opinion research poll: 64% (3/12-3/15)
NPR-POS/GQR poll: 59% (3/10-3/14)
Pew Research poll: 59% (3/9-3/10)
Here is the link:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html
The RCP average does not include the recent Zogby poll, which claims Obama’s rating is ‘about 50-50’.
Here is the link:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/03/64542435/1
If one reads the article, it provides a link to the aforementioned Gallup tracking poll that places Obama’s approval rating at 63%, which is DOWN from his highest approval rating of 69% (Jan 22-24) but UP from his lowest approval rating of 59% (Feb 21-23) since he became President.
Here is the link:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx
According to the RCP poll of polls average on Nov 3, 2008, Obama’s approval rating was 52.1%.
Here is the link:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html
But the ONLY poll that mattered was not a ‘poll’ at all. It was an ELECTION that took place on Nov 4, 2008. The final results of that election gave Obama an ‘approval rating’ of 52.9% of the popular vote and 365 (to 173) Electoral College votes!
The one pollster that came closest to predicting this Electoral College landslide was Nate Silver at 538.com. He has a post discussing the recent Zogby poll as an outlier.
Here is the link:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/03/worst-pollster-in-world-strikes-again.html
Get over it!
- Hey, any Repubs or Conservatives out there, how many of you have been polled about Obama’s performance. I know I haven’t.
I polled 7 people while waiting in the cashier line at the grocery store today on the way home. They all claimed they voted for BHO. They all claimed they wished they could take that vote back. One in particular went on at some length about a “stupid steamship” (?) analogy he apparently tried to pass off as wisdom last night. These folks were genuinely angry, and it wasn’t because of AIG.
I wish I still had my McCain / Palin yard sign. I’d love to put it back up and see what sort of reaction I get from the locals who were all pretty numbly (as in made numb by media malfeasance) supportive of BHO.
On topic – if memory serves, the media had a similarly long, torrid affair with one Joe Wilson IV. His attraction, of course, was that he and his wife provided multiple paths of attack for a media that spent 8 years demonizing, ridiculing and lying about every aspect of Bush’s administration – all because Al Gore failed to carry his own home state in 2000. In the end the media abandoned Wilson because, when they were finally forced to admit that he lied, they were also forced to admit their part in promoting those lies… equivocating all along the way, of course.
Today BHO is doing the same thing Wilson did. And he’s doing it to a media still lisping from the endless tongue baths they gave him each and every day last year. He’s destroying what’s left of their credibility by simply being himself: a clueless, imperious socialist who lacks executive experience, lacks the ability to communicate clearly without a teleprompter, and lacks the basic, sound judgment needed to navigate complex problems. It’s no surprise the affair is over.
Seems a little late for the press to regain any credibility. Given the nearly total lack of a credible resume for the guy. It was a very bad marriage for them and likely will be horrible for him, too. The loyal opposition has a lot of mess to clean up.
126 goy . . . “I polled 7 people while waiting in the cashier line at the grocery store today on the way home. They all claimed they voted for BHO. They all claimed they wished they could take that vote back.”
Wow! Me, too! I polled 8 people in line at the liquor store. They all said they voted for Obama. And they all said they like his aggressive approach to the economy . . . that things were far worse than anybody know and that Obama is the best guy to attack the problems . . . that Republicans’ only interest is in tearing down Obama rather building up the country . . . one person said “he ran on change,, and that’s what we’re getting. It’s not going to be easy, but he’s got my support.”
I guess we go to different stores.
TO: All
RE: David S and ‘Projection’
The guy is pulling on strings others provide. This is truly a mark of desperation.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[I tried to drown my problems but they can swim! -- David S....if he had the brains to think of such a think.]
TO: one on her own
RE: Blame the Media
Wrong. We don’t blame the media. That would be to ‘narrow’ a focus.
We REALLY blame to so-called ‘progressives’ and their subset ‘liberals’.
Just because the newsrooms of most so-called ‘inane-stream media’ is made up of such ‘true believers’ is an unfortunate—for America—’coincidence’….
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Liberals aren't. Progressives won't.]
TO: just passing through
RE: Heh
Generally speaking, ‘progressives’ avoid answering direct questions. To answer such a question is to take a ‘position’. And they can’t afford to do such in the long run.
Why?
Because today’s position could be tomorrow’s anathema.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[It's all lies and jest to liberals and progressives. -- CBPelto]
TO: realitychick
RE: RCP?
Who the heck is ‘RCP’? And how do they measure up to Zogby?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Science is Truth! Don't be misled by facts.]
@124. just passing through:
At the risk of being pedantic, let me reiterate that I think the move is towards approval for Obama, as I stated above. I also explained why I think this. I can’t really be any more clear. If you can’t discern the difference between a clear and concise answer and obfuscation, I can only blame you.
The point under debate about which polls are more reliable is over. See above. Zogby’s poll is what is known as an outlier. I’m not citing one poll to compare with another – I am citing all polls, collectively. So your circular logic claim is what’s known as a straw man, or perhaps you are simply too caught up in trying to justify your own worldview? Look at all the data and draw your own conclusion, but stop pretending that I haven’t shared mine.
I’ve applied common sense, logic, evidence and explanation. You insist I am being obtuse, while insisting that my answer is not an answer. Perhaps I have been too generous in assessing your interest in the fact of the matter.
Peace.
DS
@132. Chuck Pelto:
You’ve outdone yourself old boy. I guess all that drinking has finally caught up to you…
Peace.
DS
PS – I’m finding your jabs at me increasingly desperate and entertaining. How long have you been attempting to drown your problems in booze, Chuck?
TO: All
RE: David S & Desperation
I’m glad someone finds this ‘amusing’. However, I suspect that more people are finding it more ‘educational’ than David S would care for.
Hence the reference….
No logical discourse or discussion. Just an allegation to being ‘drunk’. We’re talk’n REAL desperation there…..
’nuff said.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[You know you're getting close to the target because they start throwing more 'flak' at you. -- US Air Force axiom]
P.S. I suspect it was the comment about who pays him to post here…..
TO: All
RE: Another….
…’Indicator’
As far as I am concerned, the NYT can go to Hell….
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[....as it has no soul in the first place.]
David S,
I’ve changed my opinion. I thought that because your could string a sentence together and punctuate, you had some inteelectual honesty. It appears I was wrong and that you are just another blinkered fool.
‘At the risk of being pedantic, let me reiterate that I think the move is towards approval for Obama….’
You are not reiterating what YOU think based on assessing the trends apparent to non-blinkered people. See, David, that was the question you obtuely refuse to recognize that you are not answering.
What you continue to do, and at this point I’m convinced you too intellectualy dishonest to avoid, is tell my what you think based on the poolsyou read.
David, the question reduces to whether one assesses important matters based on common sense, logic, and experience, or suspends all three in favor of a small sample of people ANSWERING polls.
They are doing your thinking for you. A small sample of people inclined to anwser polls. You should be thunderstruck by the implications.
‘I also explained why I think this….’ No, you didn’t. You filtered your explaination through your acceptance of what the people in the polls that you value think without ever once answering the question of what YOU think.
‘If you can’t discern the difference between a clear and concise answer and obfuscation, I can only blame you…’
I certainly can, which is why I thought you were being purposefully obtuse. At this point, I think you’re just ducking and weaving because the answer in front of you requires an honesty you’re not capable of.
‘The point under debate about which polls are more reliable is over.’
No, it is not. Because the point under debate as I framed it in my initial question to you was related to TREND. And trends are the only thing polling is useful for.
Again, the question – much reduced from the original text but losing no meaning – what direction do YOU think the movement of approval/disapproval is taking.
Don’t get back into the circular nonsense of telling me what the polls say. Answer it as if a pollster was asking you the question qualified by the pollster asking you to answer it NOT based on other pools you’ve read.
@135. Chuck Pelto:
On the contrary. The more people get to see you acting the fool, the more amusing it becomes.
You’ve referenced your drinking on this site before…
Saving the Everclear for a chaser…..
…
We had … fine scotch, snacks and cigars on night.
…and you keep grasping at strawmen. I only asked about your drinking because it appears you are having trouble with reading comprehension. Do get help if you are in need.
Peace.
DS
PS – If I were getting paid to post here, you would know it.
TO: All
RE: More Desperate Davd S
We’re getting more of a clue here as to how desperate David S can be. Now he’s trying to string together out-of-context comments into claiming someone is a habitual drunkard.
This is a classic example of avoiding the discussion in order to call the other side ‘names’. It’s right out of The Official Rules. Specifically the third option of the Lawyers’ Rule, to wit:
The Lawyers Rule:
[1] If the Law is against you, argue the facts.
[2] If the facts are against you, argue the Law.
[3] If the Law and the facts are against you, call the other side names.
The Official Rules: A Compendium of Truths and Laws for Living
This character has nothing substantive to offer to the discussion. All he can do is call the ‘other side’ names.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[He who hates vice, hates mankind.]
P.S. As he says….
….I think it’s pretty much self-evident.
@138. just passing through:
That’s your loss, not mine.
I have not suspended common sense, logic or experience in favor of polls.
The answer is the same – I think Obama’s approval numbers are improving.
What the polls say is where this topic started – our buddy Chuck pulled out a half-assed poll, which I tore apart. So the answer from the polls is clear – Obama’s approval rating is improving. And the answer from me is clear – approval of Obama is improving, including among McCain voters.
Let me know if you need any further clarification.
Peace.
DS
@140. Chuck Pelto:
Chuck, your reasons for calling me “Stupid” were never in question. But thanks for agreeing with me that Law and the facts are not on your side.
Is that so? I guess my refutation of your Zogby “evidence” went right over your head.
Oh wait, I get it. You’re projecting again. My bad. Enjoy your name-calling, buddy.
Peace.
DS
PS – Your ignorance is showing.
To: David S., Just passing through and Chuck Pelto,
Go back to my original post @125, click on the links and READ!
RCP is an abbreviation for Real Clear Politics, which was self evident from the provided links. Did you not read?
Discerning a TREND requires at least two data points for comparison because a line is defined by at least two points. The correct mathematical equation is y=mx+b where x is the coordinate on the x axis, y the coordinate on the y axis, b is the numerical value on the y axis when x = 0 and m is the slope of the line. If ‘Obama’s approval rating’ (on the y axis) is plotted as a function of time (on the x axis), and the slope of the line (m) between two points in time is positive, then the TREND is UP. Conversely, if the slope of the line is negative, then the TREND is DOWN. But it all depends on which two points in time one selects for comparison.
For example, if one restricts oneself only to the Gallup tracking poll on Jan 22/24 and Feb 22/24, then the slope of the line was negative and the trend was that Obama’s approval rating was going down. However, if one restricts oneself to the Gallup tracking poll between Feb 22/24 and Mar 22/24, then the slope of the line was positive and the trend was that Obama’s approval rating was going up, which I believe was one of the entirely valid points David S. made in one of his earlier posts.
SELECTING one data point in time from one poll (the recent Zogby poll – a clear outlier) that supports one’s hypothesis (that Obama’s approval ratings were trending down as of Mar 22/24 in comparison to WHAT? – I am not sure which other data point ‘Chuck Pelto’ or ‘Just passing through’ chose to select for comparison), while IGNORING all other data (go back to the links I provided) that refutes one’s hypothesis (Obama’s approval ratings were clearly trending up between Feb 22/24 and Mar 22/24) is not only incorrect it is tantamount to SCIENTIFIC FRAUD! I believe this was another entirely valid point David S. made in an earlier post (although he did not provide a mathematical explanation).
I will say again – the only ‘poll’ that mattered was the election, which Obama won. You boys and/or girls should try to get over it.
TO: All
RE: Whenever….
….someone like David S[tupid] can’t argue facts, let alone Law, they ALWAYS resort to name calling.
As for the my alleging he is ‘stupid’, that goes WAAAAAYYYYYY back. To an assertion I’ve made here many times before David S made his presence known. Most of you here recognize it in the citation I’ve made many times in this venue before.
Stupid, adj., Ignorant and proud of it.
vivo and a number of other so-called ‘progressives’ here have had the appellation applied to them. And they’ve learned better….for the most part. But for some odd reason….perhaps because he is relatively ‘new here’….David S hasn’t quite ‘caught on’.
Oh well. Maybe time will be a good teacher for him.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Time is the best teacher. Unfortunately, it kills all its students.]
TO: realitychick
RE: The Poll That Counts
There are always polls. Some of them are conducted by the electorate. Some are conducted by groups organized by people like Zogby.
Still and all, there are other polls. 230 years ago we held a unique ‘poll’ in this country. It is historically known as the Declaration of Independence.
Did anyone teach you about that?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. -- Abraham Lincoln]
David s:
Duck, dodge, and hyde (apropos 3 stooges reference in your case)
Answer the question. What do YOU think the trend for approval of Obama’s performance based on YOUR examination of the available evidence. I am not nor have I ever been asking you what the polls say. Because my question was never about what polls you choose to favor today over the one you’ll choose tomorrow, or those you do not choose either day. It was to try to get you to move away from specific poll results and do a little research. Jeez.
You agree with your favored poll results because the polls rescue you from the heavy task of examining and thinking for yourself. I got that. So I asked you which way YOU think the trend is going, because citing a poll is not examining for a trend.
David, you aren’t going to answer. Not truthfully. Admit it. It would kick the props right out from under you if you looked about and truthfully reported what you see. Assuming you understood it. I sympathize with your dilemma.
here’s the answer:
All the evidence points to Obama’s approval rating dropping and disapproval rating rising since the end of January. The variance between the two ratings is shrinking faster than that for any other president in recent history. Recent history being since this sort of data has been gathered.
And David, believe it or not, the average of all polling data, Zogby’s and any others I’ve looked at, taken over a the period of time since Obama has been in office and indicating a solid trend, also supports me. More on that answering realitycheq below. But I invite you to visit the links he cited but did not understand were contradicting the point he was trying to make.
realitycheq:
‘I will say again – the only ‘poll’ that mattered was the election, which Obama won. You boys and/or girls should try to get over it.’
Wrong. Completely, utterly wrong. The question is approval/disaproval of performance. That requires performance. The election results, like those of any election not involving an incumbent, do not represent an approval of performance. There is no way to rate performance in office for someone who is not an incumbent. An election not involving an incumbent is about expectations, not approval or disapproval of performance. One might argue that it’s a reflection of the expectation of approval, human nature being what it is and all. Even that is a vast difference from approval of actual performance.
Throwing you a bone here – a certain percentage of people voting for McCain can be assumed to have moved into the approval column after the inauguration. That is historically the way it goes in the US. the electorate gives the new guy the benefit of suspending a certain amount of partisan criticism and non-partisan critical examination no matter how they voted. We’re talking the electorate at large here, not pundits. It’s the source of the traditional first 100 days of high approval for a new president. And Obama, whether you accept 50% or 60% current approval rating is not doing well historically. Which is beside the point.
‘Discerning a TREND requires at least two data points for comparison.’
Again, wrong. It takes more than two. A sample of two data points is meaningless as far as discerning a trend is concerned. I like as many data points that I can get in my business. Which is why the very clear graphic on the first link you provided is immediately acceptable to me. I appreciate it’s clarity. Itputs the information in an easily understandable format.
And it completely contradicts the rest of your nonsense. It shows that the RCP approval average is trending down from 1/27 to the present (there are some ‘outliers’, but the trend is there) and the disapproval average markedly trending up and apparent to the most casual observer.
Averages of the polls. Not what each poll says on a given day. What all the polls averaged each day and plotted over a span of time indicate.
So, in response to this:
‘RCP is an abbreviation for Real Clear Politics, which was self evident from the provided links. Did you not read?’.
I read. I understood what it meant to the discussion. You didn’t.
Here’s the relevant statement from my original post exactly as written (I see that I didn’t vet it well before posting it, but I think it’s clear enough.
‘Do you think that the significant numbers people numbered among the 59,930,551 are now changing their minds and supporting Obama based on his performance, or people that were numbered in the 69,438,983 are moving away from supporting Obama based on his performance.’
Now, things may change. Someone may get cheap fusion going and usher in a golden age on Obama’s watch for instance. Bbut the way things are TRENDING at the moment, you, and david S, are whistling past the graveyard, stuck in denial, badly written computer programs…something other than intellectually honest at any rate.
JPS
I never said it takes ONLY two points to define a line (or discern a trend). I said it takes AT LEAST two points to define a line and the mathematical equation for a line is y=mx+b (which I think is still taught in junior high school).
The links I provided did not contradict the point I was making. I was simply pointing out that to discern a trend one MUST select a reference point for comparison. AT LEAST a second time point is required. Depending on what second time point one selects, the trend can be positive or negative (or flat).
You have finally selected a second time point (Jan 27) for comparison and, as a result, I can provide a mathematically correct answer.
If assessing the trend in approval rating from Jan 27 until Mar 26, then you are absolutely correct. The slope of that line is negative: his approval rating has decreased from about 66 – 68% to about 60 – 62%. A similar trend is observed in a number of different polls. Zogby is still an extreme outlier.
I can’t say I read all your posts, but think this may be the first time you raised the issue of disapproval rating. This is an entirely different measure than approval rating. Please don’t confuse the two. Nonetheless, if assessing the trend in disapproval rating from Jan 27 until Mar 26, then you are also absolutely correct. The slope of that line is positive: his disapproval rating has increased (I don’t know the precise numbers – perhaps from about 10 or 15% to about 25 or 30%) during that time frame.
The gap is narrowing and the increase in disapproval rating is greater then the decrease in approval rating. But his numbers are not radically different from, or significantly worse than, many first term Presidents in mid March of their first year in office. I believe Gallup has a poll on this – you can find it yourself. I can’t remember, but think his numbers are worse than Carter, better than Clinton and about the same as both GHW and GW Bush. The sample size is small and I would give it much credence.
But you get completely lost and start contradicting yourself when you lecture me that it is incorrect to compare an approval rating to an election result. Of course it is incorrect! One is comparing apples to oranges. I am not the one making the argument that it is a valid comparison. Since you also seem to agree (at least you did agree earlier in your latest post) that it is an invalid comparison, then why on earth do you go on to cite the number of actual votes in the election? I quote:
‘Do you think that the significant numbers people numbered among the 59,930,551 are now changing their minds and supporting Obama based on his performance, or people that were numbered in the 69,438,983 are moving away from supporting Obama based on his performance.’
What is your point?
59,930,551 + 69,438,983 = 129,369,534.
69,438,983 divided by 129,369,534 = 0.5367 multiplied by 100 = 53.67% of the electorate who voted on Nov 4, 2008 (and whose votes were counted) voted for Obama.
If you are now going to use THAT number (53.67%) and THAT date (Nov 4, 2008) as your reference point to assess the trend in Obama’s approval rating – which I know for certain is an invalid comparison – then one must say, well, I guess his ‘approval’ rating today (~61%) is greater than his ‘approval’ rating on Nov 4, 2008 (~53%). I think it was your original statement, my dear, which led to the original argument.
But one cannot make that comparison! It is invalid! It is illogical! It is nonsensical! You said it yourself! Go back and read your own post! You have now come full circle and contradicted yourself yet again. What is wrong with you? Oh, yeah. You voted for McCain. He lost. GET OVER IT!
Sorry
The sample size is small and I would NOT give it much credence.
‘…I said it takes AT LEAST two points to define a line and the mathematical equation for a line is y=mx+b (which I think is still taught in junior high school).’
Yup. Still taught. However, you said two points to define a trend, not line. And you’re wrong. Read your own posts if not the RCP pages.
‘The links I provided did not contradict the point I was making…’
Yes they did. Read your own posts if not the RCP pages.
‘…If assessing the trend in approval rating from Jan 27 until Mar 26, then you are absolutely correct…’
Ah, then you were contradicting myself.
‘I can’t say I read all your posts, but think this may be the first time you raised the issue of disapproval rating.’
Obviously not. Since it was clear in my first post and again mentioned in my last one.
‘You have finally selected a second time point (Jan 27) for comparison…’
I’ve been talking about approval rating since my first post. That has to do with job performance. Not the election. I made it clear that was a baseline david s could use if he wished as a starting point, but the question is, was, and always has been approval rating trend.
Again, read. It said:
‘Do you think that the significant numbers people numbered among the 59,930,551 are now changing their minds and supporting Obama based on his performance, or people that were numbered in the 69,438,983 are moving away from supporting Obama based on his performance.’
Not the term stressed twice: ‘…supporting Obama based on his performance…’
‘…I can provide a mathematically correct answer….I can’t say I read all your posts, but think this may be the first time you raised the issue of disapproval rating…’
Then proceed to base your mathematical answer ignoring the statement: ‘…moving away from supporting Obama based on his performance…’. So no, you obviously did read.
‘What is your point? …’
This oobviously escapes you. I might suggest that you read both the posts here and the links you yourslef provided before making such a fool of yourself in the future, but the advice would fall on deaf ears.
‘But you get completely lost and start contradicting yourself when you lecture me that it is incorrect to compare an approval rating to an election result. Of course it is incorrect! One is comparing apples to oranges. I am not the one making the argument that it is a valid comparison.’
No, I’m not contradicting myself. Once again, read the posts before making a fool of yourself. Yes it is incorrect. You should not have started spouting off about the election results being the only poll that mattered in a discussion about approval ratings. Which is trying to make a comparison.
‘If you are now going to use THAT number (53.67%) and THAT date (Nov 4, 2008) as your reference point to assess the trend in Obama’s approval rating…’
No. Again, those numbers were just a baseline to illustrate that the electorate is far bigger than polling samples. I made the point long before you put your oar in that the election results are NOT an approval poll. Read.
It is you that can’t distinguish between November 4th and the current trend in approval. but I’ve been talking about approval rating. That starts with the inauguration. Now since I’ve repeatedly said in multiple posts that approval is about job performance, I’m going to assume that you simply do not understand that and give up pointing it out.
‘But one cannot make that comparison! It is invalid! It is illogical! It is nonsensical! You said it yourself! Go back and read your own post! ‘
Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. I have read them. You haven’t. Or at least don’t understand them any more thaan the links you pushed out without reading or understanding them either.
‘…What is wrong with you? Oh, yeah. You voted for McCain. He lost. GET OVER IT!’
Now we’re at the core of your position. Since Obama won, his job performance does not matter and everyone should get over that also.
The TREND, is that more and more poeple over time are realizing that Obama’s performance is doing more harm than good, and Obamas approval rating is reflecting that. The polls, every one, indicate that more and more people over time are realizing that his policies and decisions are not serving their interests. His approval rating and the variance between that and active disapproval at this point in the first 100 days of his administration is worse than any other president since the data has been being gathered. You are holding onto a poor, uninformed decision against mounting evidence that you were snookered by a snake oil salesman. You were stupid to vote for this man. Increasing numbers of people that voted for him are coming to realize that. GET OVER IT!
Thanks for playing, but you, like david s., are an infantile fool still grabbing at the same sunbeams you were in November.
@150. just passing through:
Your entire argument is based on being disingenuous and dishonest.
However, your pseudonym is profoundly appropriate.
Stay regular.
Peace.
DS
TO: All
RE: realitychiq
Look who’s talk’n….
’nuff said.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Figures don't lie, but liars figure.]
I for one am finally glad to see the media doing their jobs by being critical of Obama. It hardly makes up however for the numerous times they media were not being critical of the Bush admiministration, especially during the lead up to the war in Iraq.
Now that we are all on the same page about trends in approval ratings, let’s compare some recent data.
Clinton’s approval:disapproval rating when he entered office was 58:20. In mid-March of his first term it was 53:24. The trend was DOWN for approval. When he left office, his approval:disapproval rating was 66:29. The trend was UP for approval. By party breakdown, his initial approval ratings were 33% Republicans: 54% Independents: 79% Democrats. By party breakdown, his final approval ratings were 39% Republicans: 66% Independents: 93% Democrats. Clinton gained ground among Republicans, Independents and Democrats.
GW Bush’s approval:disapproval rating when he entered office was 57:25. In mid-March of his first term it was 58:29. The trend was UP for approval. When he left office, his approval:disapproval rating was 34:61. The trend was DOWN for approval. By party breakdown, his initial approval ratings were 88% Republicans: 53% Independents: 32% Democrats. By party breakdown, his final approval ratings were 75% Republicans: 28% Independents: 6% Democrats. Bush lost ground among Republicans, Independents and Democrats.
Obama’s approval:disapproval rating when he entered office was 68:12. In mid-March of his first term it was 61:28. The trend was DOWN for approval. We do not know what his final approval:disapproval ratings will be when he leaves office. By party breakdown, his initial approval ratings were 41% Republicans: 62% Independents: 88% Democrats. By party breakdown as of March 16-22, his approval ratings are 27% Republicans: 62% Independents: 90% Democrats. Obama has lost ground among Republicans, stayed steady among Independents and gained ground among Democrats.
So – in response to your question, which I shall now paraphrase – Do I think people that voted for Obama on Nov 4 now disapprove of his performance? Well, I still don’t know because that is still an invalid comparison. Based on the above data, I do think that some Republicans who approved of his performance in Jan 2009 now disapprove of his performance. I think Independents feel the same now as they did in Jan 2009. I think more Democrats approve of his performance now than they did when he entered office.
I will allow you to erroneously extrapolate the data to draw your own kooky conclusions.
TO: All
RE: reality[?]chiq
There you ahve it folks. She can’t, or rather WON’T, determine if there is significant ‘buyers remores’.
Three guesses as to why. First two don’t count. [Note: And for the truly ignorant, it's because SHE voted for the illegal-alien president. And she's now so ashamed that she'll do ANYTHING, even lie through her teeth, to justify her vote.]
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....and realitychiq, and her ilk, will resist it with every fiber of her being.]
Oh, you total fool. No wonder the country is going to hell. So few citizens know how to do junior high school level math. And so many of them seem to congregate at this site.
I can’t determine (and neither can you or the other one) if a significant number of the 60 something million people who voted for Obama on Nov 4 2008 now disapprove of his performance because I do not know how most people voted. This critical piece of information cannot be extracted from polls measuring only approval or disapproval ratings. A poll would have to be taken in which the specific question, “Did you vote for Obama in Nov and, if so, do you now approve or disapprove of his performance?” was asked. I am not aware of any such poll. If YOU are, then please send the link.
I know how I voted, but I am a sample size of ONE, which is statistically insignificant. I do not know for certain, but can only surmise that you and many others on this site did not vote for Obama, never approved of his performance even before he took office and never will approve regardless of what he does or does not do. There may be enough of you to be statistically significant. However, and as much as this fact may annoy you, this site is hardly a random sample of the country. I think it is biased towards Rush Limbaugh (isn’t he an admitted drug addict?) listeners who claim they’re PATRIOTIC AMERICANS but then say they hope Obama fails.
What is wrong with you? Oh, yeah. You’re bitter and cling to your guns and religion. Which I thought – at the time – was a stupid thing to say, but now realize how true it is.
TO: All
RE: As I Was Saying….
….we’re talking serious ‘projection’. And how can I say this?
Just look at the national deficit being piled up by our illegal-alien president. In three months, he’s doubled what it took President Bush II eight YEARS in to accomplish.
And WE’RE the ones sending the country to ‘hell’?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. I suspect that I touched a nerve with my observation about her voting this creature into office. And, as I was saying, she and her ilk will do anything to blame those of US for all the evils befalling the nation.
[You know you're getting close to the target, because they start throwing more flak at you. -- US Air Force axiom]
P.P.S. Do I sound ‘bitter’? I tend to doubt it. And I doubt if other more rational people here think so as well.
Being a christian, I mean a REAL one, I have no reason to be ‘bitter’. My faith is more comforting in times like this than the atheists like realitychiq will ever understand.
I guess it has something to do with ‘confidence’.
Budget deficits are an entirely different issue and were never the topic of my discourse here. Stop trying to deflect my mixing up issues. Criticize my math regarding approval/disapproval ratings and discerning trends from polls – if you can. But aren’t YOU the one who originally posted the link to the Zogby poll, which is clearly an extreme outlier. Would you like to provide a mathematical argument as to why one should trust the Zogby poll over all other polls?
I am not at all ashamed to admit I voted for Obama. I was happy to vote for him, delighted he won and not at all displeased with his performance to date. I sincerely hope he can do something to ameliorate the effects of this fiscal fiasco created by his predecessor. I did not vote for HIM. If you did, then YOU should be ashamed. Take some responsibility and own up to your original sin.
And stop flattering yourself. Your continuous derogatory comments and insults of those with whom you disagree are legend on this site. They roll right off me like water off a duck’s back. They are also repetitious and exceedingly boring. How many times (and WHY?) do you feel compelled to inform us that you served in the military and are a REAL Christian. Who cares? And what’s with the oft-repeated quotes?
Come up with an original thought – if you can. And stop accusing everyone with whom you disagree of projecting or being a liar, an atheist, unpatriotic, a poor speller, typist, non-english speaking trough-feeding illegal alien or whatever other nonsense you dish out simply because you disagree with their opinion and/or cannot dispute their logic (or math).
Do you sound bitter? As a matter of fact, yes. You sound extremely bitter to me. Do other more rational people here think so as well? Are there many rational people here? Many here sound extremely bitter. So, what’s your ‘normal’ control group? Do you sound more bitter now than before Obama was elected? To me, yes. I’m not sure, but suspect you may also be really unhappy, bored, depressed and lonely.
It’s springtime! The economy may suck, but life is still worth living. Get up from your computer, go outside and get some exercise and fresh air. Take a walk. It will clear your head and make you feel better.
I’m signing off now. I have real work to do. I make these forays into fantasy land in order to clear my head before I go back to science. Obama – unlike his predecessor – is a big supporter of science, paid for by YOUR tax dollars. Thank you ever so much!
TO: realitychiq
RE: You & ‘math’ and/or sadistics
I don’t challenge her ‘math’ nor her ‘statistics’.
I challenge her bad attitude and how it impacts on her presentation.
RE: Compulsion
Only when it becomes necessary to relate MY background so people can better understand the background, i.e., footing, from which I speak.
So what, if you’ve seen it before. [Note: In truth, I doubt if you've seen it ALL, yet. To you, based on past encounters, I've only shown a portion. Others here have seen other parts....as the necessity arose.]
What’s your point? That you should be totally ignorant of where I’m coming from? Or the background/references from which I speak?
I could hide myself in darkness. But that would be too much like YOU….
RE: Bitterness
If I were ‘bitter’, I’d sound like you.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Projection, n., Describing in others what you are yourself.]
P.S. About those ‘different issues’….
I can understand why you with to brush them off as non sequitur. It’s too obvious how badly this illegal-alien has been [mis]managing the national affairs. And the ‘budget deficit’ is the most blatant example of that.
Boo hoo, I am so sorry I hurt your feelings with my ‘attitude’.
TO: realitychiq
RE: [OT] ‘Hurt’? Moi?
You only wish. You’ve got a LONG ways to go to surpass Colonel ‘No Slack’ Stack, from when I was a mere junior-grade captain.
And in that ‘wish’ your mental attitude speaks volumes.
TO: All
RE: The Real ‘Hurt’….
….is most likely her own. It’s all projection of the classic form. I would guess that she, as well as her ilk, would REALLY love to ‘hurt’ those of US who disagree with her in so effective a manner. To the point even unto death.
Seriously.
Look at the amount of time she has wasted in this off-topic business of ad hom. Look at the projections of ‘bitter’ and ‘hurt’. And all of these efforts to change the subject?
Indicators, people. Indicators.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Whereas Good can tolerate the existence of Evil. Evil cannot tolerate the existence of Good, as Good will continually be pointing out Evil's problems. Therefore Evil must always try to destroy Good.]
TO: All
RE: Additional Thoughts on Government Thought Control….
….through ownership of the so-called ‘mainstream media’.
I suspect that this proposed Revitalization Act for the media has a back-door for control of any media that accept it.
Look at how Obama just ‘fired’ the CEO of General Motors.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]
P.S. I also see how a number of financial institutions that initially accepted TARP are having buyers’ remorse…..and considering giving the money back…..
154. realitycheq: said
‘Now that we are all on the same page about trends in approval ratings, let’s compare some recent data.’
No…now that YOU’RE on the same page (I notice the 2 points make a trend, wait, you said a line, no, wait, you meant to say a line, no, wait, the discussion was about trend…you’ll just ignore getting pawned and continue to lecture. That about right??
‘Clinton’s approval:disapproval…’
Cite. And be careful because I think I already know and you’ve blown it again.
‘GW Bush’s approval:disapproval rating when he entered office was 57:25…’
Again, cite.
‘Obama’s approval:disapproval…’
Cite. And be careful because I won’t let you cherry pick the poll you favor nor misplace the ratio of independents/democrats/republicans. (Hint for the first two also)
‘So – in response to your question, which I shall now paraphrase – Do I think people that voted for Obama on Nov 4 now disapprove of his performance?’
Do not paraphrase. It was clear enough, and this is not the clear meaning. You do not seem to be able to grasp that the question was about the trend for performance in office – clearly and unequivocally stated as such, not the election. The election mention was just a baseline (actually a trap for david s) to illustrate the difference between the election david s (and yourself) can’t seem to understand is no longer germane to Obama’s performance in office. It was a trap that I revealed as such by saying that the electorate that voted is not the same as the subset that bothers answering polls nor does it equate in ratio (not just numbers, so be careful trying to claim otherwise because you’ll step all over your own ‘data’ if you do).
‘Well, I still don’t know because that is still an invalid comparison.’
No, really?
‘I will allow you to erroneously extrapolate the data to draw your own kooky conclusions.’
You’ve blown your cites by erroneously extrapolating from data that you did not and still do not understand supports the other side of the debate. How can you possibly think you’d be taken seriously at this point. You should have cut your losses and stopped digging when you blew the very first cite you posted. Now you’re going to go back into lecture mode? About data?
Here’s a cluebat. I’ve been around a while. I’ve voted in 10 presidential elections. 3 were for incumbents. One was for a sort of incumbent – Ford. Always as an Independent – never been registered in a political party. Am a touch on the conservative side of moderate, but never enough to vote conservative by the slate nor even republican. Vote the person, not the party. For example did not vote for Clinton the first time – voted for the better choice in my opinion. Did vote for Clinton the second time for the same reason. Was a toss up between Gore and Bush until the very end when the media push for Gore disgusted me so much I went Bush. Would not have voted for a dishonest shill like Kerry for dog catcher, not matter what his party.
Why do I tell you this? I find the ‘Get over it’ mantra childish in the extreme. Because it’s irrelevant to me how much Obama won by just as it has been every other president no matter that I cast a winning vote or a losing vote. Doesn’t matter in the slightest. What matters to me is the leadership, ethics, honesty, intelligence, and candor shown when the winner owns the oval office. Not all have had the full gamut of those qualities, but no one’s perfect, (for example Clinton’s lack of ethics were painfully apparent after 4 years yet I still voted for him the second time around) but a solid subset is required. Your boy lacks all of the qualities I consider necessary for an effective chief executive of this country. And without owning at least a subset of those qualities, it is only to be expected that he will do more harm than good in most of his decisions. And without owning at least a subset of those qualities he cannot be respected nationally or internationally and will do more harm than good in that arena also.
And those are the metrics for performance in office. And a lot of people are coming to the same conclusion – more and more over time. And THAT is what is indicative by the trending of Obama’s approval rating.
And as I’ve already said, you (and everyone like you with no sense of history or personal responsibility for your mistakes) are whistling past the graveyard. Rising numbers of people are willing to accept that they were snookered by a snake oil salesman. You’re stuck on stupid.
JPT
Read my post @ 156:
“I can’t determine (and neither can you or the other one) if a significant number of the 60 something million people who voted for Obama on Nov 4 2008 now disapprove of his performance because I do not know how most people voted. This critical piece of information cannot be extracted from polls measuring only approval or disapproval ratings. A poll would have to be taken in which the specific question, “Did you vote for Obama in Nov and, if so, do you now approve or disapprove of his performance?” was asked. I am not aware of any such poll. If YOU are, then please send the link.”
You might find this brief glossary of terms commonly used in statistical analysis of data useful:
Trend is a long-term movement in a time series. It is the underlying direction (an upward or downward tendency) and rate of change in a time series, when allowance has been made for the other components.
It can be helpful to model trend using straight lines, polynomials etc.
Extrapolation is when the value of a variable is estimated at times, which have not yet been observed. This estimate may be reasonably reliable for short times into the future, but for longer times, the estimate is liable to become less accurate.
The data I cited was obtained from various Gallup polls, which I think are fairly reliable but certainly not perfect (because no poll is perfect). Some of these are tracking polls so the numbers have changed slightly since first cited. If you prefer another poll, then please provide the link(s).
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113968/Obama-Initial-Approval-Ratings-Historical-Context.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116845/Obama-Approval-Equal-Better-Bush-Clinton.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113770/Bush-Presidency-Closes-34-Approval-61-Disapproval.aspx
I’ve voted in more than ten presidential elections, am registered as an Independent and have been for decades, although I sometimes register in one major party or another in order to vote in the primaries. It appears we both voted against Clinton in 92, and both voted for him in 96 while holding our noses. I did not vote for Bush in either 2000 or 2004. It appears you did, which suggests you should take some ‘personal responsibility for your mistakes’. Unless you want to argue that the Bush Presidency was without mistakes (although I think most people would disagree with you).
Chuck
Don’t be ridiculous. I have no desire to hurt you ‘even to the point of death’. I think you are projecting again.
You can reveal anything you like about yourself. But I take great care to reveal as little as possible about myself here because several here have made comments stating that they think all Obama supporters (and/or Democrats) should be killed, and I believe they mean it.
As you well know, I spent a great deal of time trying to explain biochemistry, molecular biology, cancer research and metabolic control of cancer cell growth to you because you revealed that your mother-in-law had stage IV cancer. I looked up papers, including review articles that are somewhat easier to comprehend and sent you the links. You never once thanked me for doing that for you. You just continued to attack me because it was clear I was voting for Obama. Why did you do that?
I do find it extraordinarily hypocritical of you to attack others with whom you disagree, but feign offense and indignation if others say anything negative about (or simply disagree with) you. Obama is supporting scientific research, and not just ‘green’ technology, but also biomedical research to find more effective and less deleterious treatments for cancer and other diseases. As someone with a loved one with cancer, one would think you might agree somewhat with that.
Now, will you please explain basic statistics to JPT? Because I suspect you do understand whereas JPT doesn’t seem to get it, but may be more willing to listen to someone who clearly did NOT vote for Obama.
What ia a REAL Christian anyway? Pelto sure doesn’t sound Catholic.
TO: Pat J
RE: If….
“What ia a REAL Christian anyway? Pelto sure doesn’t sound Catholic.” — Pat J
….you don’t know, shame on you.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. There are Roman Catholics who are REAL christians. I know because I have good friends amongst them.
On the other hand there are people who call themselves ‘christians’ from all denominations who are just telling lies.
You can recognize them by the difference between what they say about God and what they do.
For example…..
Ted Kennedy and other reputed Roman Catholics who support abortion on demand…..
Getting a ‘clue’ here?
TO: All
RE: realitychiq & the ‘Hurt’
“Don’t be ridiculous. I have no desire to hurt you ‘even to the point of death’.” — realitychiq
Watch this and compare it against future ‘engagements’. I think it will prove truly useful and informative.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Deeds Not Words -- Credo of 22d Infantry Regiment....wherein I once had the honor of commanding a company of infantry....]
P.S. THANKS, realitychiq, for reminding me of one of the wonderful points in my life……
….as it was, in the words of the immortal Dickens,”….It was the best of times and it was the worst of times.” But it WAS ‘memorable’.
TO: All
RE: realitychiq & ‘Commitment’
“I take great care to reveal as little as possible about myself here because several here have made comments stating that they think all Obama supporters (and/or Democrats) should be killed, and I believe they mean it.” — realitychiq
Who ARE these ‘gutless wonders’? And why are they ‘projecting’ so?
A christian would rather slit their own throat than commit ‘murder’. But realitychiq and the likes of Pat J, haven’t a clue.
So….
….instead of ‘learning’ anything about their alleged opponents, they make this s— up and then, in due time, they’ll use it as an excuse to justify their own ‘actions’.
As I said in an earlier comment….”Watch this and compare it against future ‘engagements’.”
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. I’ll wager that some aspiring psychologist could do a great dissertation on this…..
P.P.S. As evidence of how these people ‘think’, I offer the recent report by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) that anyone who has a ‘bumper sticker’ supporting a third-party candidate or opposing abortion could be a threat to national security.
Here’s a link.
Here’s another another link.
So this ‘information’ was distributed to other states. And, as I understand it the Minnesota police forces were ‘briefed’ on this internal threat.
I guess this is the same sort of ‘mentality’ that realitychiq manifested here recently, i.e., people who disagree with me are a threat to my very life….and therefore, they must be ‘dealt with’….
166. realitycheq::
As I’ve read and understood everything you’ve said, and you’ve shown several times you don’t even read and or understand your own cites, much less what others write, as I started to read your post #166, I nearly stopped here:
‘JPT Read my post @ 156:’
I did stop dead here:
You might find this brief glossary of terms commonly used in statistical analysis of data useful: Trend is a long-term movement in a time series…
You, who believed/believes that a trend can be discerned from as little as 2 points, now presume to start to lecture me on statistics. This given the whole point of my original post trying to force David s into an understanding of how little standalone approval polls mean vs trends.
So, didn’t read the rest. You tumbled into the David S, Steve P, etc Bozo filter so didn’t even scan it.