Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by lurker37160, Aug 15, 2011.
Is anyone shocked?
I'm shocked it's that high.
It's that high in part because Congress's approval rating is even lower. Times are bad and people aren't happy--but at least some of them are making distinctions about who to blame.
Almost everyone is to blame in DC. Yes, almost everyone, R/D, doesn't matter.
Is anyone shocked that it's the usual haters who make these threads?
Seriously, what is the point? We know the OP hates Obama. Is the fact that he's now down to 39% on a Gallup poll supposed to validate your own beliefs & prejudices, therefore making what you believe more factual with others who disagree? How foolish. Because let's be clear... whether or not someone "approves" of another's actions differs from person to person, and you just need to come to grips with the fact that some people are going to be supportive of others you personally don't like.
He can be at 29% right now... but unless someone provides another real alternative he's still getting the votes of many, MANY people. You may want to focus on finding someone who can beat Obama and actually has a real plan for the economy & job creation, instead of constantly talking about how much you dislike him. Because we all know hate is in this season, and there's enough of it to go around on LPSG.
It's pretty near impossible to win re-election with an approval rating under 40%. It's a significant number for reasons besides hating on Obama, and frankly, when you get sub-40%, "finding someone who can beat Obama" matters less and less if you can make it a referendum on the incumbent.
But still, referendums don't win elections; candidates do. Unless the Republicans can find a viable one, their "referendum" will wallow in a disembodied limbo.
But the election isn't for another 15 months and Obama doesn't even have a clear cut opponent at this point. It is far too early for anyone to say with any certainty whether or not Obama will win in 2012 based on an approval rating this early in the game. It's just sheer speculation, based on people's obvious political biases and nothing more.
If that's the case, then why does Harry Reid still have a job? At one point, his approval rating in Nevada was as low as 28% yet he won re-election decisively over Sharron Angle. Regardless of what any poll says, you still need to find someone credible in order to defeat a person in power. Referendums can reflect a trend in people's voting habits and beliefs, but it doesn't dictate anything beyond that.
What he said. I would hope that staunch Republicans don't make the same mistake twice and just assume that everyone is going to see things their way because they're unhappy with the way things are because it can always get worse. The last thing anyone needs to do right now is vote out of anger and frustration.
Right...and you don't make any threads about people you dislike in politics?
Not like this.
I've made threads about people I have problems with in an attempt to have a real discussion about their stances on issues and policy (such as Grover Norquist). However, where is the attempt to bring a real discussion about Obama in this thread? Simply put... there is none. He has a low approval rating. So what? That's supposed to be enough for undecided people or Obama supporters to see things in a different way? This makes you feel better for not voting for him? Good for you. But besides the usual partisan gloating, what is there left to talk about?
Pay attention to context once in a while. And give up on your desperate attempts of false equivalency. I think different, and what I do is different despite all the parallels you try to draw.
Who cares what benighted Americans 'approve' of. We know half of the US population is incapable of acquiring, processing and understanding information. Over 80% approved of the disasterous discission to topple Saddam. And a majority approved of Bush's equally disasterous tax cuts. This is still the same electorate that marched over the cliff with him. Both mutli-trillion dollar mistakes. And now they want Obama to wave his majic socialist wand and make it all disappear.
I'm inclined to agree... a poll on his approval ratings this far away from election has little if not no bearing on the likeliness of his re-election. It's as fair an indicator as, say, the Straw Poll is for Ron Paul's chances of being nominated by the Republicans as their candidate (Not in a billion, million, zillion years).
Am I surprised the number is so low? I am not. After the mess with the debt ceiling and the fact that Republicans got "98% of what they wanted" and the White House just had to be satisfied the apocalypse was averted and that they managed to block 2% of what the Republicans rammed through... I think a lot of his base is fairly annoyed at the moment, and maybe unfairly so.
Combine that with the people who hate the President based entirely on race (but try masking it behind things they're obviously too stupid to have an informed opinion on) and you get 39%.
Between now and election that number will no doubt increase as (hopefully) the White House figures out that "compromise" isn't the watchword their base is looking hear and they adjust their strategies so as to be able to further some of what they were put in power to enact.
You're reading far too much into a comment about the correlation between approval ratings and reelection . Of course, there are many months left, and even within an election, leads can shift around frequently. However, approval rating still has major significance. Candidates do not go into elections with 39% approval ratings and win often. Reid had a 44% approval rating on Election Day, regardless of whether he had 28% in earlier days, and Angle was an atypically unpopular candidate. In fact, only 37% of voters in the race didn't express strong ambivalence in the exit poll -- a number that seems unimaginable in a Presidential election.
I'm not saying anything besides this: Approval rating matters, and 39% is anemic even if the opposition is weak.
Since you agree that there is a great deal of time left, perhaps you'll agree that it's a little premature to talk about Obama going into the election with the same 39% rating.
After all, other presidents have had lower ratings at some point in their first terms and still gotten reelected. Reagan had 35% in January of 83; Clinton had 37% in May of 93--but both went on to a second term.
In contrast, Bush senior had an 89% approval rating in February of 91--and a year and a half later had dropped 60 points down to 29% and a one-term presidency.
It's a funny old world. Things change.
What Klingsor said... again.
I do agree things can change. I didn't imply that they can't, any more than this portion...
...implies that low approval ratings don't matter. (It doesn't imply that.) I was just noting that approval ratings do matter, and that 39% is a very troubling approval rating, and that Obama's opponent doesn't matter a whole lot (unless they're immensely unpopular) once you get into the sub-40% range.
I do think "but unless someone provides another real alternative he's still getting the votes of many, MANY people" implicitly underestimates the electoral implications of low approval ratings a little.
Since you're being so agreeable, I in turn will agree that low approval ratings going into an election can have a significant impact. After all, in 2008 Bush wasn't even running, and his super-low ratings certainly helped Obama! :smile:
Many things besides the approval rating matter. I'm trying to factor all these variables, whereas the OP and some supporters of what little he said are positioning it to be the only thing that matters in this thread.
And Obama's opponent does matter. That's another one of the variables in this equation that many dissenters have no problem ignoring or avoiding when providing their opinions. Currently there is no official challengers against Obama for President. You have a bunch of people wanting to be that challenger on the GOP side and polls taken by their most devoted followers saying that "any Republican is better than Obama". But Romney, Bachmann, Paul, Cain, Perry, Huntsman, Gingrich and all the other wannabes are not "any Republican". They are specific people that don't poll well against the President when we go past the distortions and the misleading headlines and get to the specifics. It is thoroughly disingenuous to imply that his opponent doesn't matter and hide behind something as random as an approval rating and a supposed referendum, when full statistics clearly show that all of the possible contenders anyone has dreamt up at this point don't look good on an actual one-on-one against the President.
You know, maybe there is a person out there with the actual name of "Any Republican"? Well, until (s)he speaks and make themselves known I'm not buying the rhetoric. Same thing goes for some of the disgruntled progressives who think they can find someone who can pose a threat to Obama to force a Primary challenge. Put up the candidate and let's talk the issues. Otherwise, who really cares about whom someone personally likes or hates?
No it doesn't. What I'm trying to do is put everything in their proper perspective so that viable information rises to the top of the list and other various bits of info are not inflated to being doctrine. With information provided by a few other thread contributors (including myself), we have seen a number of presidents and other politicians have a major dip in their approval rating somewhere in the middle of their current term, yet still win re-election.
Reagan had 35% in January 1983.
Clinton had 37% in May of 1993.
Harry Reid had 28%.
All lower than Obama's current rate and all have won re-election.
Shouldn't this be a clue as to how relevant this Gallup poll really is?
Obama was elected 2.5 months after Lehmanns when bust. It was fresh in everyone's mind.
The thing about Obama's 39% approval rating is that everyone else's is much worse.