Obama Popularity same as George Bush at same time in Presidency - 39%

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**whembly**

The Carter Malaise Redux™?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/right_direction_or_wrong_track

Right Direction or Wrong Track
25% Say U.S. Heading in Right Direction

Wednesday, September 03, 2014

Twenty-five percent (25%) of Likely U.S. Voters think the country is heading in the right direction, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey for the week ending August 31.

This is up two points from the week before which tied the lowest level of confidence since last October during the temporary government shutdown. The number who say the country is heading in the right direction has been below 30% for most of this year.

Early last October during the shutdown, confidence in the country’s course fell to 13%, the lowest finding in five years.

Sixty-six percent (66%) of voters now think the country is headed down the wrong track. This finding is down three points from 69% a week ago, the highest negative finding since last November. Eighty percent (80%) felt the country was on the wrong track in early October 2013.

A year ago, 30% said the country was heading in the right direction, while 62% said it was going down the wrong track.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

The national telephone survey of 3,500 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports on August 25-31, 2014. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 2 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Fieldwork for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Eighty-seven percent (87%) of Republicans and 70% of voters not affiliated with either major political party think the country is on the wrong track. Democrats are evenly divided.

Blacks now think the country is headed in the right direction by a 47% to 36% margin. Seventy-two percent (72%) of whites and 54% of other minority voters think the country is headed in the wrong direction.

Sixty-three percent (63%) of the Political Class say the country is headed in the right direction, while 78% of Mainstream voters say the country is headed down the wrong track.

Eighty-six percent (86%) of conservatives and 60% of moderates say the country is headed down the wrong track. Liberals are almost evenly divided.

The Rasmussen Employment Index which measures worker confidence reached a new all-time high in August after falling for two straight months. This suggests the upcoming jobs report could be better than expected.

Americans overwhelmingly count on their local water supply, but they're not overly confident that it's well protected.

Nearly half of voters now think Congress should go through the new national health care law to fine tune it rather than repeal it entirely.

Most voters have an unfavorable opinion of the U.S. Department of Justice and think it is more interested in politics than in serving justice.

Support for Common Core education standards has rebounded from earlier this summer, but most Americans are still not in favor of tying a state’s federal funding to the adoption of the standards.

Crosstabs and historical data are available to Platinum Members only.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it's free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

**Jihadin**

I remember (Obama) use to have black hair before he became POTUS.......

**jasper76**

Right?

Whenever I see those before/after pictures, I wonder who in their right mind would even want the job.

**squidhills**

Jihadin wrote:
I remember (Obama) use to have black hair before he became POTUS.......

Yeah, W was the same way. A scattering of grey at the start and then by the end of term #2, you could count his black hair on one hand and have fingers left over.

**Grey Templar**

d-usa wrote:
I know some racist donkey-caves that hate he president because he is black. It's pretty hilarious that people would argue that they don't exist.

Nobody is claiming they don't. But to claim that racism is the cause of Obama's low ratings is asinine.

**hotsauceman1**

Yes it is because he is a secret Muslim obviously

**Ahtman**

Jihadin wrote:
I remember (Obama) use to have black hair before he became POTUS.......

I think that is pretty much every President that ever took the job; it is a job that wrecks you.

Grey Templar wrote:
Nobody is claiming they don't. But to claim that racism is the cause of Obama's low ratings is asinine.

Except I don't think anyone here made the argument that the only reason they are low is because of racism, so it seems a bit silly to refute an argument that wasn't made.

**Frazzled**

Sienisoturi wrote:
I'm not very good at american politics, so I hope fellow dakkanauts can enlighten me on the subject on why does everyone seem to dislike G.W. Bush?

They are jealous of his barbeque sauce. No Democratic president could ever cook brisket like the Bushes. Ok maybe Johnson, but he was a Texan too.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
This surely raises a significant chance that Obama will not win a third term.

I know right?

**d-usa**

Grey Templar wrote:
d-usa wrote:
I know some racist donkey-caves that hate he president because he is black. It's pretty hilarious that people would argue that they don't exist.

Nobody is claiming they don't. But to claim that racism is the cause of Obama's low ratings is asinine.

And others may claim that continuously refuting an argument that nobody made is asinine.

**Frazzled**

Easy E wrote:
Where is the obligatory "Obama is truly histories greatest monster" comment?

That was Garfield. How can you trust the US Presidency to a cat?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

LuciusAR wrote:
Easy E wrote:
Where is the obligatory "Obama is truly histories greatest monster" comment?

That's another thing I've noticed. There is allot of Hyperbole regarding both presidents Bush and Obama. I've never seem so much hatred directed towards two presidents before and I can personally thing of far worse post war Presidents (both Republican and Democrat) than either of them. I don't mean legitimate criticism of their polices, I mean ludicrous hyperbole and hatred.

I'm wondering if its something to do with the prevalence of the Internet during the terms of these two Presidents? I can't imagine anything like the 'birther' conspiracies gaining any kind of traction in the pre internet days.

The great Freakout started with Clinton. CLintons were supposed to have killed off leakers of their great plot to take over the world or something. Nixon had conspirators too but they turned out to be...accurate.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

jasper76 wrote:
LuciusAR wrote:
Easy E wrote:
Where is the obligatory "Obama is truly histories greatest monster" comment?

That's another thing I've noticed. There is allot of Hyperbole regarding both presidents Bush and Obama. I've never seem so much hatred directed towards two presidents before and I can personally thing of far worse post war Presidents (both Republican and Democrat) than either of them. I don't mean legitimate criticism of their polices, I mean ludicrous hyperbole and hatred.

I'm wondering if its something to do with the prevalence of the Internet during the terms of these two Presidents? I can't imagine anything like the 'birther' conspiracies gaining any kind of traction in the pre internet days.

With Bush I think its because, lets face it, he wasnt the sharpest knife in the cupboard, and many people suspect he just let Halliburton (Cheney) run the country, up to and including who we decided to make war against, and for what actual reasons. Helping a company out is one thing. Manufacturing intelligence to start wars for the benifit of corporations is something entirely different.

With Obama, I know I'll get flame for this, but I think alot of the hatred (not dissaproval, but hatred) is just plain racism. Older white voters, as well as voters in more racist areas of the country (like where I live), feel entitled that only their kind should run the country. Write this off all you want, but if you live here, you know its true.

If 60% of the US is racist how did he get elected, twice?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

jasper76 wrote:
Right?

Whenever I see those before/after pictures, I wonder who in their right mind would even want the job.

Look at Reagan. You'd swear he was some kind of soul vampire or something.

**Grey Templar**

d-usa wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
d-usa wrote:
I know some racist donkey-caves that hate he president because he is black. It's pretty hilarious that people would argue that they don't exist.

Nobody is claiming they don't. But to claim that racism is the cause of Obama's low ratings is asinine.

And others may claim that continuously refuting an argument that nobody made is asinine.

Jasper76 was pretty much putting forth that argument. And claimed that "hatred" = racism. You can definitely hate, loath, or abhor Obama for his actions as President, which isn't a racist thing to do.

Unless you are also postulating that the hate Bush got was racism as well.

**Minx**

Grey Templar wrote:
Jasper76 was pretty much putting forth that argument. And claimed that "hatred" = racism.
Unless you are also postulating that the hate Bush got was racism as well.

No, he never argued or claimed that at all. Go back and read his posts.

G.W. Bush on the other hand seemed to be totally incompetent to me and just begging for criticism but that's probably just my first impression clouding my view as his last few interviews/public appearances were quite different.

**Jihadin**

Grey. Leave it be. People going to see racism in whatever situation, instance, act, phrase, demeanor, posture, non participation, participation, view, perception, and whatever else so it can fit their view point

**jasper76**

@ Grey Templar: I didn't mean that among the population of people who hate Obama as a human being, 100% of the reason why in all cases is racism.

No, I think people hated Bush, and they sure did hate him, due to partisanship and politics more than racism. There.May have been an element of reverse racism, if that's still the right phrase, I really never gave that much thought at the time.

I did not hate him, but I disliked him at the time because, in case you dont recall, he was pretty arrogant, he had mancrush-style relationships with Blair, and of all people Putin, and he made us look weak on the world stage because he made us look unintelligent by proxy. And then he fumbled a war of choice big time, no matter how we got in there.

These days, I think he does good things and in interviews I've seen, his arrogance has basically vanished. I think he's taking a good and honorable Carter-style approach to his days since office.

**d-usa**

Grey Templar wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
d-usa wrote:
I know some racist donkey-caves that hate he president because he is black. It's pretty hilarious that people would argue that they don't exist.

Nobody is claiming they don't. But to claim that racism is the cause of Obama's low ratings is asinine.

And others may claim that continuously refuting an argument that nobody made is asinine.

Jasper76 was pretty much putting forth that argument.

Nope.

But I find it pretty amazing that you can take this:

With Obama, I know I'll get flame for this, but I think alot of the hatred (not dissaproval, but hatred) is just plain racism.

And turn it into this:

racism is the cause of Obama's low ratings

But hey, whatever floats your boat. If you want to be the old man yelling at clouds of this thread then more power to you.

Meanwhile, everybody else that realizes that nobody in this thread made the claim that 61% of the people are racist will be over in the other corner.

**Jihadin**

jasper76 wrote:
I didn't mean that among the population of people who hate Obama as a human being, 100% of the reason why in all cases is racism.

No, I think people hated Bush, and they sure did hate him, due to partisanship, and if you don't recall.

I did not hate him, but I disliked him at the time because, in case you dont recall, he was pretty arrogant, he had mancrush-style relationships with Blair, and of all people Putin, and he made us look weak on the world stage because he made us look unintelligent by proxy. And then he fumbled a war of choice big time, no matter how we got in there.

These days, I think he does good things and in interviews I've seen, his arrogance has basically vanished. I think he's taking a good and honorable Carter-style approach to his days since office.

Followed by another who's a bit stumbling on some world and internal issues.

**Ahtman**

Jihadin wrote:
Grey. Leave it be. People going to see racism in whatever situation, instance, act, phrase, demeanor, posture, non participation, participation, view, perception, and whatever else so it can fit their view point

Then there are people who want to deny racism in any situation, instance, act, phrase, demeanor, posture, non participation, participation, view, perception, and whatever else so it can fit their view point.

Neither are helpful or well considered positions.

**Jihadin**

Ahtman wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
Grey. Leave it be. People going to see racism in whatever situation, instance, act, phrase, demeanor, posture, non participation, participation, view, perception, and whatever else so it can fit their view point

Then there are people who want to deny racism in any situation, instance, act, phrase, demeanor, posture, non participation, participation, view, perception, and whatever else so it can fit their view point.

Neither are helpful or well considered positions.

And then there are those who throw a "Racism" label on anything and/or anyone. No one is innocent of racism and/or discrimination.

**Frazzled**

True dat.

**Ahtman**

Jihadin wrote:
And then there are those who throw a "Racism" label on anything and/or anyone.

You saying that or me saying "And then there are those who would deny a "Racism" label on anything and/or anyone" doesn't tell us anything new or move the conversation forward even a little, it just repeats what was already said. The truth is that race plays a role in it, but it isn't everything; it is piece of the puzzle not the whole puzzle. I know it is more difficult to have a nuanced view when all we want to do is simplify, but it tends to more accurately reflect the complexities of our world.

**Jihadin**

Ahtman wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
And then there are those who throw a "Racism" label on anything and/or anyone.

You saying that or me saying "And then there are those who would deny a "Racism" label on anything and/or anyone" doesn't tell us anything new or move the conversation forward even a little, it just repeats what was already said. The truth is that race plays a role in it, but it isn't everything; it is piece of the puzzle not the whole puzzle. I know it is more difficult to have a nuanced view when all we want to do is simplify, but it tends to more accurately reflect the complexities of our world.

How many people understand that complexity. Its simple to throw the card then it is to break it down to Barney level using a butcher block and a red crayola.

Edit for Grammer

**whembly**

Mitt... it shoulda been you...

Mitt Romney: The need for a mighty U.S. military

By Mitt Romney September 4 at 2:09 PM
The writer is the former governor of Massachusetts. In 2012, the Republican Party nominated him for president of the United States.
Russia invades, China bullies, Iran spins centrifuges, the Islamic State (a terrorist threat “beyond anything that we’ve seen,” according to the defense secretary ) threatens — and Washington slashes the military. Reason stares.

Several arguments are advanced to justify the decimation of our defense. All of them are wrong.

The president asserts that we must move to “a new order that’s based on a different set of principles, that’s based on a sense of common humanity.” The old order, he is saying, where America’s disproportionate strength holds tyrants in check and preserves the sovereignty of nations, is to be replaced.

It is said that the first rule of wing-walking is to not let go with one hand until the other hand has a firm grip. So, too, before we jettison our reliance on U.S. strength, there must be something effective in its place — if such a thing is even possible. Further, the appeal to “common humanity” as the foundation of this new world order ignores the reality that humanity is far from common in values and views. Humanity may commonly agree that there is evil, but what one people calls evil another calls good.

There are those who claim that a multipolar world is preferable to one led by a strong United States. Were these other poles nations such as Australia, Canada, France and Britain, I might concur. But with emerging poles being China, Russia and Iran, the world would not see peace; it would see bullying, invasion and regional wars. And ultimately, one would seek to conquer the others, unleashing world war.

Some argue that the United States should simply withdraw its military strength from the world — get out of the Middle East, accept nuclear weapons in Iran and elsewhere, let China and Russia have their way with their neighbors and watch from the sidelines as jihadists storm on two or three continents. Do this, they contend, and the United States would be left alone.

No, we would not. The history of the 20th century teaches that power-hungry tyrants ultimately feast on the appeasers — to use former Mississippi governor Haley Barbour’s phrase, we would be paying the cannibals to eat us last. And in the meantime, our economy would be devastated by the disruption of trade routes, the turmoil in global markets and the tumult of conflict across the world. Global peace and stability are very much in our immediate national interest.

Some insist that our military is already so much stronger than that of any other nation that we can safely cut it back, again and again. Their evidence: the relative size of our defense budget. But these comparisons are nearly meaningless: Russia and China don’t report their actual defense spending, they pay their servicemen a tiny fraction of what we pay ours and their cost to build military armament is also a fraction of ours. More relevant is the fact that Russia’s nuclear arsenal is significantly greater than our own and that, within six years, China will have more ships in its navy than we do. China already has more service members. Further, our military is tasked with many more missions than those of other nations: preserving the freedom of the seas, the air and space; combating radical jihadists; and preserving order and stability around the world as well as defending the United States.

The most ludicrous excuse for shrinking our military derives from the president’s thinking: “Things are much less dangerous now than they were 20 years ago, 25 years ago or 30 years ago.” The “safer world” trial balloon has been punctured by recent events in Ukraine, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Gaza, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria and Iraq. “Failures of imagination” led to tragedy 13 years ago; today, no imagination is required to picture what would descend on the United States if we let down our guard.

The arguments for shrinking our military fall aside to reveal the real reason for the cuts: Politicians, and many of the people who elect them, want to keep up spending here at home. Entitlements and programs are putting pressure on the federal budget: We either cut defense, or we cut spending on ourselves. That, or raise our taxes.

To date, the politicians have predictably voted to slash defense. As Bret Stephens noted in Commentary magazine this month, the Army is on track to be the size it was in 1940, the Navy to be the size it was in 1917, the Air Force to be smaller than in 1947 and our nuclear arsenal to be no larger than it was under President Harry S. Truman.

Washington politicians are poised to make a historic decision, for us, for our descendants and for the world. Freedom and peace are in the balance. They will choose whether to succumb to the easy path of continued military hollowing or to honor their constitutional pledge to protect the United States.

**cincydooley**

gak, if we want to talk about racism, let's talk about the racism that got Obama elected.

**motyak**

cincydooley wrote:
gak, if we want to talk about racism, let's talk about the racism that got Obama elected.

How about we don't, and instead get back on topic? Rather than this just devolving further south.

**Jihadin**

Wait now...to some of you all the US Military is a welfare/entitlement establishment....why cut funds there.

Oh and Motty....did you really have to use the word "South"

**Bromsy**

Sienisoturi wrote:
I'm not very good at american politics, so I hope fellow dakkanauts can enlighten me on the subject on why does everyone seem to dislike G.W. Bush?

I actually really liked Bush. Probably my favorite president in recent memory, not only because he seemed like a guy I'd like to grab a beer and some ribs with; he also signed my two most favorite recent pieces of legislation as well -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President%27s_Emergency_Plan_for_AIDS_Relief

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act

**Jihadin**

Bush was good for laughs and I trusted him..military types stick together and Bush Senior jumps from moving aircraft's in '40's and 2000's

**sebster**

jasper76 wrote:
With Obama, I know I'll get flame for this, but I think alot of the hatred (not dissaproval, but hatred) is just plain racism. Older white voters, as well as voters in more racist areas of the country (like where I live), feel entitled that only their kind should run the country. Write this off all you want, but if you live here, you know its true.

Except that conservatives hated Clinton as much (possibly more), and liberals hated Bush just as much.

These are more partisan times, and absolutely hating the guy in the oval office if he isn't your guy, and pretending things would be totally different if your guy was in power is just part of the way things are.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
In Iraq, 45 nations joined the United States in the March of 2003 with mission to oust Saddam Hussein from control in Baghdad.

Outside of the UK (and even there it is debatable), the only reason any of those countries joined in the invasion of Iraq was to maintain and improve relations with the US. Trying to make some kind of case that there was some kind of international, consensus driven decision to invade Iraq is inventing a fantasy.

The entirety of people who felt there was any kind of reason to re-enter Iraq was a fringe group of thinkers in the US... it's just that that fringe group happened to have the ear of the president, and so the US went in and much of the rest of the world that's attached at the hip to the US followed them in.

On the claim that it was all some kind of Halliburton plot, of course, you're completely right, that's also very silly.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

jasper76 wrote:
Cheney retires as chairman and CEO of Haliburton in 2000 with a $36 million dollar severance packeage to go be Bush's Vice President.

Before the war starts, Halliburton gets a $7 billion no-bid contract.

It is not very hard to connect the dots here. Beware the military industrial complex and all.

Except that just listing two things with some kind of connection and concluding a conspiratorial link is essentially very lazy thinking.

First up, you have to put context in to this - Halliburton was receiving lucrative government contracts already. Anyone in Halliburton with any kind of serious government connections was already stupidly rich, and had little motive to risk that cashcow by plotting to start a war.

So instead you need to start looking away from the money, and figure that maybe this wasn't just a cash grab. Then you go and start reading the stuff guys like Cheney, Rumsfeld and Jeb Bush were writing in the build up to Iraq, about the need to establish a new American Century through the use of US military superiority to reshape the Middle East to one that looked favourably on the US.

It was all weird global political theory - before the term neo-con became a meaningless attack it has real meaning.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

curran12 wrote:
Hey Frazzled, out of curiosity, is there any comparison for approval/popularity of Congress at the same time in each Presidency?

I'm interested if there's a correlation at all.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx

You can compare up to four presidents, going back to Carter.

From my eyes, I think the pattern is that there is no pattern. We can stare at different president's graphs and write some narrative or another, but its pretty close to impossible to just eyeball the graph and predict where it's going next. At the same point in his presidency, GW Bush looked like he was building up some momentum, but then his figures just plummet, plateau in the low 30s and never really recover*. Clinton's figures build steadily over his second term, up in to high 60s before plummeting, and plateauing out in the high 50s.

I mean, it isn't hard to figure out what specific incidents in those president's careers caused the rise and fall in the figures, but the point is that the figures themselves have no in-built momentum - you can't say 'he is increasing in popularity, therefore the most likely thing is a continued increase in popularity'.

*Until a few years after he left office, which of course the graph doesn't cover.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
Twenty-five percent (25%) of Likely U.S. Voters think the country is heading in the right direction[/color], according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey for the week ending August 31.

This is up two points from the week before which tied the lowest level of confidence since last October during the temporary government shutdown. The number who say the country is heading in the right direction has been below 30% for most of this year.

When asked if the stock market went up or down last year, most people thought it declined. It was, of course, a year of tremendous returns for the economy. When asked if unemployment increased or decreased last year, most people thought it stayed as bad as it had been. Which is interesting, because it shows how far the popular political narrative can be from the real economic fundamentals.

Which goes to show how fundamentally weird politics is. A president's approval rating is based largely on people's impression of how well the economy is going, but not only is the president's ability to improve the economy dwarfed by its random fluctuations, but ultimately the actual state of the economy doesn't even matter that much to what people think about the economy.

So what does all that mean, politically? I don't know, I guess it shows the importance of story telling in politics. I guess it highlights why Reagan's 'morning in America' was such a brilliant piece of politics. And I wonder if that might be the best approach for whoever wants to be the next president.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

cincydooley wrote:
gak, if we want to talk about racism, let's talk about the racism that got Obama elected.

The claims of racism against Obama are vastly overblown, but I really don’t see how you improve the situation at all by countering with a completely ludicrous piece of nonsense like ‘racism got Obama elected’.

**whembly**

Just wanted to chime in sebster... great post.

As to Reagan's 'morning in America'... let's hope the next president models these radio addresses in the same vein as Robin William's "Goooooooooood Morning Vietnaaaaam!"

Maybe as in: "Goooooooooood Morning 'Muuuuuuurica!"

**Frazzled**

Jihadin wrote:
Bush was good for laughs and I trusted him..military types stick together and Bush Senior jumps from moving aircraft's in '40's and 2000's

Bush Sr. is THE MAN. Plus that kindly old grandpa was once CIA. Grandpa...MASTER ASSASSIN!!