Obama 50, Bush 44

[Guest American Woman]

AW, Obama may be president until 2012 but I think the question here is what kind of Congress will he face in 2010.

I don't think that's the question Shady is raising since it seems to be all about Obama in this thread, but of course you're correct regarding where the article is coming from. But I just want to point out what it says in regards to the percentage of people who say they would prefer Bush again to Obama:

Given the horrendous approval ratings Bush showed during his final term that's somewhat of a surprise and an indication that voters are increasingly placing the blame on Obama for the country's difficulties instead of giving him space because of the tough situation he inherited.

"Given the horrendous approval ratings Bush showed during his final term" is really the key to how quickly the American voter and/or polls can change. Bush's final term wasn't all that long ago, and his approval rating was horrendous, yet now 44% of the people polled evidently prefer him to Obama, while Obama had extremely high approval ratings early on. So look how much public opinion can, and did, sway in such a short time. And it can again.

But I do think it's important to point out that it is likely that it's not him per se that people are disapproving; they are blaming him for problems that he inherited, and if they did have Bush again, they would again be disapproving Bush. If McCain had been elected, I would put money on the probability that it would be McCain they were disapproving. I am not surprised to see this in the least, although I thought the American people would at least give him a bit longer before they started blaming him for not fixing the 'inherited problems' quickly enough.

I do think the fact that he's tackling such a 'hot' issue right now with his overhaul of the health care system isn't helping any, so I'm sure that's part of it too. I don't think that's doing much to help his approval rating. But mostly I think people are unhappy with 'the state of the union,' so to speak, and the fact that things aren't getting significantly better faster.

I do think it's very likely he will be a one term president, but I always thought whoever followed Bush would be a one term president, so I think it's more a reflection on what he has to deal with than it is on him.

[bush_cheney2004]

But I do think it's important to point out that it is likely that it's not him per se that people are disapproving; they are blaming him for problems that he inherited, and if they did have Bush again, they would again be disapproving Bush....

Not entirely true, as President Obama has clearly disappointed supporters and detractors alike, by continuing many of Bush's policies, expending huge amounts of political capital for health care reform, blowing the doors off of previous deficit spending, and apologizing for American policy out of historical context.

Blaming Bush was only going to last so long, and we have found the end of that repeated excuse.

"Yes We Can....blame Bush!

[Shady]

Obama's 47 Percent Approval Lowest of Any President at This Point

President Obama's job approval rating has fallen to 47 percent in the latest Gallup poll, the lowest ever recorded for any president at this point in his term.

Link

Uh oh, there goes somebody's talking point!

[punked]

Obama's 47 Percent Approval Lowest of Any President at This Point

President Obama's job approval rating has fallen to 47 percent in the latest Gallup poll, the lowest ever recorded for any president at this point in his term.

Link

Uh oh, there goes somebody's talking point!

And Reagan was at 49% a tie when we look at the Margin of error in both polls. So please tell me why Reagan was so bad and had the same approval rating as Obama? What a terrible president Reagan was.

[Shady]

And Reagan was at 49% a tie when we look at the Margin of error in both polls. So please tell me why Reagan was so bad and had the same approval rating as Obama? What a terrible president Reagan was.

Your constant Reagan comparisons are both wrong, and tiresome.

"In comparison to the approval ratings for modern elected presidents in December of their first year in office, Obama's standing is the worst, though he's close to Ronald Reagan. In December 1981, Reagan's approval rating was also 49%, though Reagan's disapproval rating was a bit lower, 41%."

Link

Did you read that punked? Obama's standing is the worst, ever! He's CLOSE to Reagan, but Reagan's disapproval rating was lower than Obama's. Stop spinning, you're wrong, and you lost.

[punked]

Your constant Reagan comparisons are both wrong, and tiresome.

"In comparison to the approval ratings for modern elected presidents in December of their first year in office, Obama's standing is the worst, though he's close to Ronald Reagan. In December 1981, Reagan's approval rating was also 49%, though Reagan's disapproval rating was a bit lower, 41%."

Link

Did you read that punked? Obama's standing is the worst, ever! He's CLOSE to Reagan, but Reagan's disapproval rating was lower than Obama's. Stop spinning, you're wrong, and you lost.

Yet statistically they are the same and sense this is a statistic and not an absolute they again are the same. Although if this health care bill falls through and there is no public option, or medicare buy in many progressive like myself will sit on our hands and Obama can go down in flames for all we care.

It is like I said during the whole NDP Liberal collation thing. You do this and I will do everything I can to tear this big tent down. Somethings you have to stand by.

[Topaz]

When you are a leader of the country and are trying to bring healthcare to its people, you have to fight the lobbyists for the HMO's and the opposition party that probably have large investments in healthcare companies. So to stop the leader from going ahead you spin fear into people about their healthcare and then the leaders polling numbers do go down. Obama doesn't come from a wealthy family and Bush does and that allows him to break the laws and get away with murder over and over!

[BubberMiley]

But Bush had the lowest approval rating for a president ever. No qualifying it with "first year" or "fastest decline in the Internet age" or "among people who never voted for him"--just plain lowest ever.

And the truth never needs an oversized, colourful font.

[Alta4ever]

But Bush had the lowest approval rating for a president ever. No qualifying it with "first year" or "fastest decline in the Internet age" or "among people who never voted for him"--just plain lowest ever.

And the truth never needs an oversized, colourful font.

You are incorrect Harry Truman has the honour of the lowest approval rating.

[punked]

You are incorrect Harry Truman has the honour of the lowest approval rating.

That is right Georgy had the highest disapproval rating and the highest split approval/disapproval.

[bush_cheney2004]

But Bush had the lowest approval rating for a president ever. No qualifying it with "first year" or "fastest decline in the Internet age" or "among people who never voted for him"--just plain lowest ever.

And the truth never needs an oversized, colourful font.

President Bush also has the highest approval rating...ever.

[Shady]

But Bush had the lowest approval rating for a president ever. No qualifying it with "first year" or "fastest decline in the Internet age" or "among people who never voted for him"--just plain lowest ever.

And the truth never needs an oversized, colourful font.

Exactly! Which underscores the relevance of the Obama 50 Bush 44 poll.

[Alta4ever]

And Reagan was at 49% a tie when we look at the Margin of error in both polls. So please tell me why Reagan was so bad and had the same approval rating as Obama? What a terrible president Reagan was.

You'll argue that here, but when talking about bush's disapproval rating being the lowest you don't seem to bring up the margin of error, yet two presidents are with a 1-2 points of him for that claim.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Alta4ever

[punked]

You'll argue that here, but when talking about bush's disapproval rating being the lowest you don't seem to bring up the margin of error, yet two presidents are with a 1-2 points of him for that claim.

The closest is Truman and he is still 4 points below on disapproval although you are right he has the same split.

[Alta4ever]

The closest is Truman and he is still 4 points below on disapproval although you are right he has the same split.

I think what is more important is how these president will be view by history, Bush will be vindicated, if Obama doesn't change his current path his will be that of Carter. Americans seem to want nothing of what obama is offering. He was hyped so much in the election he will never live up to the expectation, and that will hang around his neck, i don't envy him.

[Moonlight Graham]

"Perhaps the greatest measure of Obama's declining support is that just 50% of voters now say they prefer having him as President to George W. Bush, with 44% saying they'd rather have his predecessor."

If these people really believe this than they are idiots. Its really that simple.

But hey, 30% of Americans approved of Bush towards the end of his 2nd term, so there's no lack of idiots and blind partisans walking around.

[bush_cheney2004]

If these people really believe this than they are idiots. Its really that simple.

Then it is clear that Obama welcomed the support of such "idiots" before.

[Moonlight Graham]

Then it is clear that Obama welcomed the support of such "idiots" before.

Yes.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes.

If they were idiots when supporting Obama, and continue to be idiots for preferring Bush now, you will never be satisfied with American choices. That's why it doesn't really matter what you make of this.

[Smallc]

I think what is more important is how these president will be view by history, Bush will be vindicated, if Obama doesn't change his current path his will be that of Carter.

Did you consult your crystal ball to come to that conclusion?

[Sir Bandelot]

30% of Americans approved of Bush towards the end of his 2nd term, so there's no lack of idiots and blind partisans walking around.

Not necessarily idiots though, because there is no real alternative. It's like being stuck between a rock and a hard place, the devil and the deep blue sea.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[bush_cheney2004]

Because there is no real alternative. It's like being stuck between a rock and a hard place, the devil and the deep blue sea.

There are many alternatives.....and choices.

Edited December 18, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Moonlight Graham]

If they were idiots when supporting Obama, and continue to be idiots for preferring Bush now, you will never be satisfied with American choices. That's why it doesn't really matter what you make of this.

No, i think the main point is that there are many idiots in this world. And it's by no means limited to Americans since i run into them most every day.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, i think the main point is that there are many idiots in this world. And it's by no means limited to Americans since i run into them most every day.

Just because you think they are idiots does not make it so. Your criteria is very arbitrary and subject to whim, and in this case, for the citizens of another nation.

[Alta4ever]

Did you consult your crystal ball to come to that conclusion?

nope no crystal ball just an understanding of history, and seeing parallel events unfold.