2008 U.S. Presidential Campaign Discussion Thread 13: Victory Lap

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
as of April ...


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.
 
as of April ...


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

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%.
 
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%.

:lmao:

Love your spin, but no matter how you cut it a 25% approval rating is pretty fucking bad.
 
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.
 
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.

<>
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Ignoring certain posters betrays a weakness of character, that some leftist posters take pride in it says a lot about them.

Actually no, it doesn't.

It shows a respect for the other posters by saving us the back and forth between two people who will never agree on anything and the rest of us want to retch every time we see them get into it.
 
Sure, disapproving of course means "a great thing to bash the President".



i think it's quite safe to say that,

highest disapproval rating in history = least popular president in history

especially now that we have many more people answering the polls and expressing their actual opinions.
 
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.

<>

Yes, when the right screws up, they just "accidentily" label them with a 'D' when they report it.

FoxOReilly_MarkFoleyDEM_100306.jpg
 
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.

Actually, I ignored him from reading his posts in other forums on here such as (ha) Everything You Know Is Wrong.

So, yeah.
 
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%.

Not at all. If Bush had done well, I'd have credited him. In fact, what were his ratings right after 9/11? Through the roof. Which means that people aren't just bashing him for the sake of bashing him, like you imply. He earned every bit of his atrocious rating.

Saying he's slightly better than Truman and Nixon isn't an accomplishment.

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.

I don't care at all about diamond's religious views. At all. I never feel the need to bring Mormonism into the discussion with him.

What frustrates me about diamond is a total inability to discuss issues in the realm of reality, the realm of facts. His posts consist of either quoted articles by right wingers or winks and smileys next to statements of his greatness that are only partially kidding with you.

I don't ignore him, because I agree the ignore list is useless. I've only put people on my ignore list when discussions with them led to moderator issues.

But to say it's religious intolerance is inaccurate in some cases, like mine. I don't give a fuck about Mormonism, because every religion has major flaws.
 
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.

<>

You want to hear me mention Obama mess-ups? Sure, here you go:

- He took much too weak of a stance on Proposition 8.
- He is only for civil unions, not gay marriage.
- He made an ad that wasn't entirely factual, like many of McCain's ads.

I held my own accountable.

You've never held anyone in your party accountable ever. It's a classic "pot calling the kettle black." You're a complete sellout to the little "R" next to politician's names, and have proven it time and again. So, please, don't tell me I'm not holding my own accountable when I am and you never have. It's just pathetic.

And I don't want some reply involving a ridiculous, irrelevant, inaccurate article or some "jokes" with smileys. Start actually discussing the issues, earn some respect. Please. For all of us.

And, most importantly, don't ignore posts like this one that attempt to reach out and engage you.
 
You want to hear me mention Obama mess-ups? Sure, here you go:

- He took much too weak of a stance on Proposition 8.
- He is only for civil unions, not gay marriage.

The American public has to be held accountable for this too. I truly believe that Obama personally has little problem with gay marriage, and that he was against Prop 8.

The problem is that you CANNOT get elected president in this country if you come out publicly and strongly in favor of gay marriage. It's sad and it's sorry but it's true.

Now, you can say, 'then he's already proved that getting elected was more important to him than keeping his integrity' or something like that. But to publicly come out in favor of gay marriage, thus sabotaging his candidacy, would be to throw away the chance to do good or even great things concerning other issues just to be 100% open about his views on this one thing. Yes, I would love it if he could publicly come out in favor of gay marriage and condemn the people that voted in favor of prop 8, but it even now it would sabotage his presidency before its even started because there are just two many people that, sadly, would feel uncomfortable supporting him. It's absurd but it's true.
 
The American public has to be held accountable for this too. I truly believe that Obama personally has little problem with gay marriage, and that he was against Prop 8.

The problem is that you CANNOT get elected president in this country if you come out publicly and strongly in favor of gay marriage. It's sad and it's sorry but it's true.

Now, you can say, 'then he's already proved that getting elected was more important to him than keeping his integrity' or something like that. But to publicly come out in favor of gay marriage, thus sabotaging his candidacy, would be to throw away the chance to do good or even great things concerning other issues just to be 100% open about his views on this one thing. Yes, I would love it if he could publicly come out in favor of gay marriage and condemn the people that voted in favor of prop 8, but it even now it would sabotage his presidency before its even started because there are just two many people that, sadly, would feel uncomfortable supporting him. It's absurd but it's true.

I agree with all of this. And if you look at statements he has made regarding gay marriage, he's left himself a lot of wiggle room to "change his mind" in the future.
 
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.

<>

The partisanship in thread opening or article linking can be attributed to both sides of the aisle. There is only a few exceptions.
i think it's quite safe to say that,

highest disapproval rating in history = least popular president in history

especially now that we have many more people answering the polls and expressing their actual opinions.

Ah no, too easy. They just have so much fun in bashing this poor guy.
 
Actually no, it doesn't.

It shows a respect for the other posters by saving us the back and forth between two people who will never agree on anything and the rest of us want to retch every time we see them get into it.
You don't need to not see peoples posts to ignore them.
 
out of morbid curiousity, aren't you sick of drinking kool aid by now?

Well, thats really a question that is better suited for the vast majority in here that tend to be on the left side of the fence and skip or ingore the tiny number of post that disagree with their political views.
 
He earned every bit of his atrocious rating.

Saying he's slightly better than Truman and Nixon isn't an accomplishment.

Today, most people believe that Truman was one of the greatest Presidents of all time, and the majority of Americans approve of US military intervention in the Korean war. The country's majority opinions of Presidents and issues can change over time. Its occured with both Abraham Lincoln and Harry Truman. Even Nixon is looked at in a better and more objective light than at the time he left office in 1974. History will likely have a much more positive judgement of the Bush years than current polling shows, just as the case has been with Truman.
 
East Germans today say the GDR wasn't as bad as they sad it was in 1990. History tends to leave people with a nostalgia that paints many thinks in a more positive way. Sometimes justified, at other times not.

But what value does it have for us if people in 30, 50 years or 150 years view Bush in a more positive light than people view him these days? We judge him by the current knowledge we have about him, in 50 years that knowledge will be much more filtered, influencing what people will have to say about him then.
Right now, he was a disgrace for this country.
 
Back
Top Bottom