BUSH APPROVAL RATINGS HIGHER THAN OBAMA......

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

A poll that shows a disgraced President like Nixon hounded out of office with higher ratings than President Clinton who left this country with a surplus has to make you wonder about its validity and objectivity.

President Obama is still the best President this country has had since Kennedy, but the common people do not see things correctly until much later - if at all.

. . . I remember all those polls showing Romney leading before the election. How valid were those polls? They're really just something for dumb asses like whirlybutt and his ilk to whine about over their beer.

Look at the link I posted. Nixon left office with a 34% approval. Bubba had 61% at the end of his second term.
As for Obama being the best since Kennedy? He's certainly the most profligate spender we've ever had. If that's the criteria then I'd agree with your opinion.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by Laz

Reagan was fixing an economic crisis that was arguably worse than the crisis Obama has failed to fix. That is the reason his average ratings were as low as displayed. I suspect his approval at the end of his first term was much higher.

[Guest032516]

It's a stupid stat. It is the AVERAGE rating over their first term.

Did you hear the one about the man who drowned in a lake whose AVERAGE depth was 6 inches?

A lot can happen even in a single term.

Reagan's economic plan to tame runaway inflation necessarily resulted in higher unemployment in his first term. This resulted in poor ratings, However, once inflation was tamed, job growth took off and he was quite popular at the end of his first term - resulting in a 49 state landslide. Nonetheless, his AVERAGE rating was just over 50% in that first term.

On the other hand, Johnson's first term was only a little more than a year long and he rode a wave of sympathetic support after Kennedy's assassination. But then he escalated troops in Vietnam and his ratings got to bad he would not run for another term. Nonetheless, his AVERAGE rating was over 70% during that truncated first term.

George Bush senior was hugely popular for winning the Gulf War, but his ratings were so low by the end of his first term, he lost to Clinton. Nonetheless his AVERAGE rating was artificially high in his first term.

Same with Dubya. He had huge support after 9-11 that artificially inflated his numbers.

Nixon hadn't been disgraced by Watergate yet, so his first term is high based on detente and his trip to China.

Folks forget Clinton's first term wasn't anything to scream about - he managed to lose Congress to the GOP for the first time in over a generation. It wasn't until the dotcom bubble had run up the economy that he became highly popular. We now know it was indeed a bubble, but it did not burst until he was on his way out the door, so it did not affect his second term ratings.

Cater is about the only President on the list that has accurate ratings.

[TPJR]

Originally Posted by Laz

Reagan was fixing an economic crisis that was arguably worse than the crisis Obama has failed to fix.

Yeah, Obama's only dealing with a worldwide collapse of the financial industry, which started way before he was elected, and at a time when many of the world's developed nations are already heavily in debt, and in no position to stimulate themselves out of the rut they're in. Additionally, developing countries have a much higher economic clout than they did in Reagan's day, and are positioned to grow much faster than developed countries. So you're right. Obama should've had this dealt with in 6 months tops.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by TPJR

Additionally, developing countries have a much higher economic clout than they did in Reagan's day, and are positioned to grow much faster than developed countries.

That's kind of a non-sequitur you have going there.

More prosperous developing countries should translate into bigger markets for US export goods and cheaper import goods. Overall, globalization and increased wealth in the Third World is better for everyone, not just the Third World countries.

So, that shouldn't have been a handicap to Obama.

On the other had, it wasn't a handicap to Bush either.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

According to Gallup; Obama 1st term approval ratings are the lowest of any modern elected president

Give me a shout when Obama's approval rating drops to GW's historic low of 22%.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500160_162-4728399.html

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

According to Gallup; Obama 1st term approval ratings are the lowest of any modern elected president

Hey WhirlyTurd, give me a shout when Obama's approval rating drops to GW's historic low of 22%.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500160_162-4728399.html

[Laz]

Originally Posted by TPJR

Yeah, Obama's only dealing with a worldwide collapse of the financial industry, which started way before he was elected, and at a time when many of the world's developed nations are already heavily in debt, and in no position to stimulate themselves out of the rut they're in. Additionally, developing countries have a much higher economic clout than they did in Reagan's day, and are positioned to grow much faster than developed countries. So you're right. Obama should've had this dealt with in 6 months tops.

It took most of Reagan's first term to turn the economy around. I agree that expecting Obama to fix things quickly would be silly. The problem is he has not done anything to improve the economy. Claiming that he is the reason the economy has stopped crashing and is improving is silly. The economy would have bottomed out if he did nothing. The slow dragging recovery can be blamed on his policies.

[Fast Gunn]

You're dead wrong, Laz.

You really think the economy would "have bottomed out" if President Obama had done nothing?

. . . Dude, just how ignorant can you be of US history? That approach is exactly what lead to The Great Depression!

[Laz]

Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

You're dead wrong, Laz.

You really think the economy would "have bottomed out" if President Obama had done nothing?

. . . Dude, just how ignorant can you be of US history? That approach is exactly what lead to The Great Depression!

There is a lot of information pointing out that Roosevelt's actions made the depression last longer than it would have otherwise. Either way comparing what Obama had to deal with to the depression is a bit of a stretch.

As for the economy not bottoming out, how low do you think it would have gone before hitting bottom. There is a point where prices get low enough where buyers will step in. The other thing is that it hit bottom before Obama's policies had a chance to have an impact so how do you give him credit for that. The S & P bottomed at the beginning of March 2009. Obama had been in office for less than 2 months at that point.

[Yssup Rider]

Polls only matter to those who WANT to believe...

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

A poll that shows a disgraced President like Nixon hounded out of office with higher ratings than President Clinton who left this country with a surplus has to make you wonder about its validity and objectivity.

President Obama is still the best President this country has had since Kennedy, but the common people do not see things correctly until much later - if at all.

. . . I remember all those polls showing Romney leading before the election. How valid were those polls? They're really just something for dumb asses like whirlybutt and his ilk to whine about over their beer.

Are you sure you're not Chris Mathews, FastGoon? Your schoolgirl crush on Obama is a lot like his.

Chris Mathews >>> <<< FastGoon

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by TPJR

Yeah, Obama's only dealing with a worldwide collapse of the financial industry, which started way before he was elected, and at a time when many of the world's developed nations are already heavily in debt, and in no position to stimulate themselves out of the rut they're in. Additionally, developing countries have a much higher economic clout than they did in Reagan's day, and are positioned to grow much faster than developed countries. So you're right. Obama should've had this dealt with in 6 months tops.

If at the end of Obama's second term, unemployment is fifty percent, the national debt has grown to a hundred trillion, and terrorists have blown up all the large cities, you'll say Obama did a darn fine job; it would have been much worse except for his brilliant policies.

[Yssup Rider]

And if the dead rise up from the grave and feast on your limbs then we can point to more failed policies. If cats and dogs begin cohabitating, you can blame it on Sub-African voodoo.

FUCKING IDIOT

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

Hey ....

Glad you posted. Was about to send an APB out for you.