2008 U.S. Presidential Campaign Discussion Thread 13: Victory Lap - Page 37 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-13-2008, 10:15 PM   #541
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 10:31 AM
as of April ...


Quote:
PRINCETON, NJ -- President George W. Bush's disapproval rating is at 69% -- which is not only the highest of the Bush administration, but the highest disapproval rating in Gallup Poll history.

President Bush's approval rating now is at 28%, which ties for the lowest of his administration, but is not the lowest in Gallup Poll history. Harry Truman reached a 22% approval rating in 1952, and Richard Nixon had two 24% job approval scores in 1974.

In other words, although Bush's disapproval rating is the highest in Gallup history, his approval rating is not the lowest. This seeming anomaly is mostly because of differences over the years in the percentage of respondents who say "don't know/no opinion" when asked to rate a president.

Harry Truman's 22% approval rating was accompanied by a 64% disapproval rating, leaving 14% of those interviewed who did not offer an opinion about his job performance. Richard Nixon's two 24% job approval ratings in 1974 were paired with 63% and 66% disapproval ratings, leaving 13% and 10% with no opinion.

In the most recent poll for Bush, his approval rating is 28% while his disapproval rating is 69%, leaving only 3.5% (rounded to 4%) who don't have an opinion.


There is no single explanation for why the percentage who decline to give an opinion of the president's job performance is lower now than in the past. However, one hypothesis is as follows. When Gallup polled in the Truman and Nixon years, respondents may have been more likely to say they didn't have an opinion in lieu of saying they disapproved of the president. In other words, respondents who did not approve of the president's performance -- rather than flat-out saying they disapproved -- may have simply told interviewers they didn't have an opinion.

Today, as the percentage of "no opinion" responses to the presidential job approval question has declined, Americans appear to be more willing to give a negative response, resulting in the situation in which Bush's disapproval rating is at a record high while his approval rating is not at a record low.

Interviewing in the Truman and Nixon years was conducted in respondents' homes rather than by telephone, which may be related to some differences in the percentages of respondents who gave "no opinion" answers to the job approval question. But an interesting contrast is provided by polling conducted in the administration of the current president's father, George H.W. Bush, who in one poll in 1992 had a 29% approval rating -- only one point higher than his son's current approval rating. In that 1992 poll, the senior Bush had only a 60% disapproval rating, leaving 11% with no opinion, similar to the "no opinion" percentages in the Truman and Nixon polls. Yet the 1992 poll was conducted by telephone in similar fashion to polling today, suggesting that the mode of interviewing per se is perhaps not the sole explanation for the differences over the years.

It may well be that the current president Bush is simply a more polarizing figure, one who generates strong opinions in the negative direction and therefore fewer ambivalent, no-opinion responses than was the case for George H.W. Bush, Truman, or Nixon at the nadirs of their administrations.

The bottom line remains that -- perhaps for several reasons -- the 69% disapproval rating generated by the current president is the highest such rating recorded over the years in which Gallup has been measuring the public's approval and disapproval of each president's job performance.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2008, 10:45 PM   #542
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ladywithspinninghead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4,634
Local Time: 10:31 AM
Looks like Clinton could be the next Secretary of State:

globeandmail.com: Clinton a candidate for secretary of state
__________________

__________________
ladywithspinninghead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2008, 11:41 PM   #543
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 10:31 AM
^ this would be very, very interesting.

i'm taking a wait and see attitude.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2008, 12:43 AM   #544
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 09:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
or
onto

something.

<>
or

on

something.


^There, I fixed it...
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2008, 01:44 AM   #545
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 03:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
as of April ...

Well, there is a key part to what you just posted that you failed to highlight:

Quote:
When Gallup polled in the Truman and Nixon years, respondents may have been more likely to say they didn't have an opinion in lieu of saying they disapproved of the president. In other words, respondents who did not approve of the president's performance -- rather than flat-out saying they disapproved -- may have simply told interviewers they didn't have an opinion.

Today, as the percentage of "no opinion" responses to the presidential job approval question has declined, Americans appear to be more willing to give a negative response, resulting in the situation in which Bush's disapproval rating is at a record high while his approval rating is not at a record low.
The only reason that Bush's disaproval number is higher than Nixon's or Trumans is that people in those days were more likely to say no opinion or no answer instead of giving a negative opinion about the President of the country. Today, many consider it a great thing to bash the President of the country whether they be a Democrat or a Republican.

Thats why the most accurate gauge is the approval rating. Bush's low so far is 25%, still not as low as Trumans at 22% or Nixons at 24%.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2008, 01:55 AM   #546
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 11:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Thats why the most accurate gauge is the approval rating. Bush's low so far is 25%, still not as low as Trumans at 22% or Nixons at 24%.


Love your spin, but no matter how you cut it a 25% approval rating is pretty fucking bad.
__________________
indra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2008, 01:56 AM   #547
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 04:31 PM
Sure, disapproving of course means "a great thing to bash the President".
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2008, 04:25 AM   #548
Blue Crack Supplier
 
coolian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hamilton (No longer STD capital of NZ)
Posts: 42,920
Local Time: 04:31 AM
I might have to take diamond off ignore. Sounds like he's gone completely off the rails....or more so than usual, anyway.
__________________
coolian2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2008, 07:49 AM   #549
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,337
Local Time: 07:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolian2 View Post
I might have to take diamond off ignore.
You'll need a shower afterwards.
__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2008, 08:09 AM   #550
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:31 AM
I really hate the ignore feature, it annoys be because it betrays an unwillingness to expose yourself to the offensive, dissenting or inane. The simple fact is that Diamond is a man who embraces a religion no more fraudulent than others and has the decency to stand up for what his church actually teaches - as opposed to claiming to be a Christian while explicitly denying that Jesus was the son of God or performed miracles.

That he does this with half-truths and plagiarism is irrelevant to the fact he actually injects a religious conservative perspective into the discussion, which at least provokes reasoned responses. His contribution is that a single post provokes multiple replies, of offense or systematic rebuttal. He is one of the few posters that would actually disagree with anything I post out of principle, the rest simply think its bad taste or flogging a dead horse.

Ignoring certain posters betrays a weakness of character, that some leftist posters take pride in it says a lot about them. I think that argument is valuable, it encourages critical thinking and reveals what people actually care about, leaping to ad hominem attacks and ignoring the content may be the best way to silence such posters, but it results in boring threads. Argument illuminates and gets closer to truth, it hones rhetorical skills, the purpose isn't to sway the person you are arguing with but those who are listening, I like having posters like Diamond around because they inject some dissent and give me a sounding board to craft new arguments from. If they go I will have to shift onto liberal bullshit more and more, I think that the Christian left is already going to be in for a good deal of verbiage from me due to Obama and Rudd.

Consensus is dangerous, it doesn't make a position right, this isn't a warning it is a statement of fact, Obama will fuck up some things and it will engage the right, and some of that will spill into FYM, for the better I might add.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2008, 09:08 AM   #551
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 08:31 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
or

on

something.


^There, I fixed it...
i was wondering if someone would post something like this.

<>
__________________
diamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2008, 09:13 AM   #552
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 08:31 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
I really hate the ignore feature, it annoys me..

, Obama will f*ck up some things and it will engage the right, that will spill into FYM, for the better I might add.
The only time you will hear Obama messing up is if those on the Right feel the need to bring it up.

The Left never holds their own accountable.

Therein lies a stark difference between the two mindsets.

<>
__________________
diamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2008, 09:30 AM   #553
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:31 AM
The right never holds their own accountable, the partisan mind is directed for success of their group over the other, this occurs on both sides and each has their biases and blind spots, I am by no means immune from this but it is fallacious to suggest that there aren't principled leftists out there.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2008, 09:54 AM   #554
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Zoomerang96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: canada
Posts: 13,459
Local Time: 09:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Well, there is a key part to what you just posted that you failed to highlight:



The only reason that Bush's disaproval number is higher than Nixon's or Trumans is that people in those days were more likely to say no opinion or no answer instead of giving a negative opinion about the President of the country. Today, many consider it a great thing to bash the President of the country whether they be a Democrat or a Republican.

Thats why the most accurate gauge is the approval rating. Bush's low so far is 25%, still not as low as Trumans at 22% or Nixons at 24%.
is it possible for a non-premium member to subscribe to people so that they can read every post? i love reading what this guy has to say... honestly, i love reading what kieran and jamison have to say, but this is a whole new level.

out of morbid curiousity, aren't you sick of drinking kool aid by now?
__________________
Zoomerang96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2008, 09:59 AM   #555
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Zoomerang96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: canada
Posts: 13,459
Local Time: 09:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
The only time you will hear Obama messing up is if those on the Right feel the need to bring it up.

The Left never holds their own accountable.

Therein lies a stark difference between the two mindsets.

<>
well, you're making a comparative whilst only mentioning the one side.

unless you're saying the right always holds their own accountable?

...do you really think in such black and white terms? do you ACTUALLY think generalisations of such a magnitude are at all accurate? i'm serious.
__________________

__________________
Zoomerang96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com