Surprise! (or Horrors!) Obama’s Approval Rating Is on the Rise

[SirJosephPorter]

Presidential Approval and the Dow: No Clear Relationship

Presidential Job Approval

Ironsides, I don’t think it makes sense to try to link the two. Why should DOW have any correlation ship with presidential popularity?

What does influence presidential popularity is the employment picture. Of that, DOW is an advance indicator. DOW basically tells us what will happen to the economy 6 or 9 months down the road.

What Gallop should do is see if there is any relationship between DOW today and presidential popularity 6 to 9 months from now (that is when we would expect the unemployment picture to improve. I don’t think Gallop has carried out such a study.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Title Thread by Joey...

Surprise! (or horrors) Obama's Approval Rating Is on the Rise. +

Approval rating decline according to your poll...

=FAILED

Repeating the post, EagleSmack? Well, let me repeat my response.

So according to you, the increase in Obama's popularity all these days was not significant, but the drop in popularity today is significant, is that it?

 

[YukonJack]

"I have done nothing of the sort. Rasmussen is a Republican pollster (he briefly worked for the far right website, WorldNetDaily). So he trashing Obama is not news. But his saying that Obama’s popularity is on the rise gives added credibility to it.

That is a common enough phenomenon; there is nothing new about it. If Joan of Arc trashed Obama, it is not news. But suppose tomorrow she praised Obama. All the Democrats will quote her gleefully. The fact that a rabid right winger like Joan of Arc praises Obama gives added credibility to it.

Or suppose it was the other way around, suppose Obama praises Joan of Arc. All the extreme right nuts, all who claim that Obama is a Nazi, a Fascist, a Communist, a terrorist etc., will quote Obama gleefully. Obama praising Joan of Arc gives it an extra credibility.

There is nothing hypocritical about it."

The above nonsense has to be the BIGGEST:

A. Hypocrisy
B. Stupidity
C. Attempted con job
D. Disrespect for fellow poster's intelligence
E. LIE
F. All of the above

SirJosephPorter, you are beneath contempt.

 

[EagleSmack]

Repeating the post, EagleSmack? Well, let me repeat my response.

So according to you, the increase in Obama's popularity all these days was not significant, but the drop in popularity today is significant, is that it?

No according to me you have FAILED...again.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The above nonsense has to be the BIGGEST:

A. Hypocrisy
B. Stupidity
C. Attempted con job
D. Disrespect for fellow poster's intelligence
E. LIE
F. All of the above

SirJosephPorter, you are beneath contempt.

Really Yukon Jack? I notice you could not refute any of the points I raised. What you employed is the standard school yard tactic. When you cannot refute the points, you go off on hypocrisy, stupidity etc. I can only take it to mean that you could not refute any of the points raised by me.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

No according to me you have FAILED...again.

You are a conservative Republican; I am a liberal (though hardly a Democrat, Democratic Party is too right wing for me). So according to you I would fail every time, big surprise there.

 

[YukonJack]

SirJosephPorter, time after time after time after time you denigrated Rasmussen Poll as rightwing, extremist, unreliable and worse.

Until this time, when you, for once, agree with it. That is the refutation of your rant.

At this time I will also let you know that Rasmussen Poll, the one you only recognize as accurate when it serves your purpose, was most accurate poll predicting the final outcome of the 2008 Presidential Election. Look it up.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

SirJosephPorter, time after time after time after time you denigrated Rasmussen Poll as rightwing, extremist, unreliable and worse.

Until this time, when you, for once, agree with it. That is the refutation of your rant.

At this time I will also let you know that Rasmussen Poll, the one you only recognize as accurate when it serves your purpose, was most accurate poll predicting the final outcome of the 2008 Presidential Election. Look it up.

Indeed, YJ. He also claimed that the race was a statistical dead heat just 3 or 4 days before the election. Look it up.

I think Rasmussen was probably trying to cheer up the Republican supporters with phony numbers. But come Election Day, he probably realized that it will reflect badly upon him if he claimed that election would be a dead heat. So he reported the accurate numbers on the final day.

But just a few days before the election, he was claiming that the race was a statistical dead heat. Look it up.

 

[YukonJack]

"Indeed, YJ. He also claimed that the race was a statistical dead heat just 3 or 4 days before the election. Look it up."

Three or for days before an election can be an eternity. What did he claim/predict on November 3rd, 2008?

Look it up!

All of that does not change the fact that you, in typical liberal and (by definition) hypocritical fashion bash Rasmussen, when you disagree with his poll results, and praise him - like now - when you agree.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Three or for days before an election can be an eternity. What did he claim/predict on November 3rd, 2008?

Sure it can be a long time, Yukon Jack, but nobody else was predicting a dead heat just days before election. All of them were forecasting a comfortable win for Obama. They all reported some tightening of the race, as usually happens.

Rasmussen was the only one to claim that the race was a dead heat and that all of a sudden there was a movement towards Obama in the final days. Other pollsters, if anything were reporting that the race was tightening in the final days.

This, combining with the fact that Rasmussen is a republican, makes his polls suspect.

 

[Cannuck]

I have done nothing of the sort. Rasmussen is a Republican pollster (he briefly worked for the far right website, WorldNetDaily). So he trashing Obama is not news. But his saying that Obama’s popularity is on the rise gives added credibility to it.

How can it give added credibility to it when (by your own words) Rasmussen has no credibility? You know the argument is lost when you start refuting your own claims.

 

[Cannuck]

If Joan of Arc trashed Obama, it is not news. But suppose tomorrow she praised Obama. All the Democrats will quote her gleefully. The fact that a rabid right winger like Joan of Arc praises Obama gives added credibility to it.

Not if Joan of Arc has no credibility.

Or suppose it was the other way around, suppose Obama praises Joan of Arc. All the extreme right nuts, all who claim that Obama is a Nazi, a Fascist, a Communist, a terrorist etc., will quote Obama gleefully. Obama praising Joan of Arc gives it an extra credibility.{/quote]

Most people that oppose Obama feel he is credible. At the very least, they don't disregard everything he says just because they disagree with him politically. Only an idiot of epic proportion would do that.

 

[Cannuck]

Title Thread by Joey...

Surprise! (or horrors) Obama's Approval Rating Is on the Rise. +

Approval rating decline according to your poll...

=FAILED

 

[YukonJack]

"Sure it can be a long time, Yukon Jack, but nobody else was predicting a dead heat just days before election. All of them were forecasting a comfortable win for Obama. They all reported some tightening of the race, as usually happens.

Rasmussen was the only one to claim that the race was a dead heat and that all of a sudden there was a movement towards Obama in the final days. Other pollsters, if anything were reporting that the race was tightening in the final days.

This, combining with the fact that Rasmussen is a republican, makes his polls suspect."

SirJosephPorter, the number of links which show that your assessment of Rasmussen is wrong and/or suspect, is far too numerous to quote here. Google "most accurate poll 2008". My browswer brings up pages and pages of links proving me right, and you wrong, in spite of all your spin.

So, this is my last word on Rasmussen. Obviously, you are too obstinate to learn.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

SirJosephPorter, the number of links which show that your assessment of Rasmussen is wrong and/or suspect, is far too numerous to quote here. Google "most accurate poll 2008". My browswer brings up pages and pages of links proving me right, and you wrong, in spite of all your spin.

It does nothing of the sort, YJ. Look at any poll such as Gallop. In the days before the election it shows Obama comfortably ahead. In the closing days of election, it shows the race tightening somewhat (though Obama was still comfortably ahead).

All except Rasmussen, that is. He showed the race a dead heat 3 or 4 days before the poll. Then the day before the election, he showed Obama miraculously ahead. Rasmussen poll was contrary to most of the polls.

Look at Gallop tracking, and show me where it shows a dead heat 3 or 4 days before the election. The latest dead heat it shows is one month before the election.

Gallup Daily: Election 2008

 

[gopher]

Bachmann = ''total gangster government''


No credibility there as she never objects to the military industrial complex getting subsidized all the time.

 

[gopher]

56% Still Blame Bush For Economic Problems:

56% Still Blame Bush For Economic Problems - Rasmussen Reports™



Monday, September 14, 2009



One year after the collapse of global financial firm Lehman Brothers, most voters (56%) continue to blame the nation’s current economic problems on the recession that started under George W. Bush, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

That’s up one point over the past month, but down six points from mid-May.

Thirty-seven percent (37%) blame current problems on the policies implemented by President Obama, down two points from August.







Well, at Least Rasmussen got that right!

 

[SirJosephPorter]

There is really no room for Republicans to wiggle on this meltdown. Bush had been in power for eight years, Republican Congress had been in power for 12 years, they controlled Supreme Court. How can they reasonably blame Democrats and expect people to believe them?

I expect people will continue to blame Bush for a while yet. Give it a year or two and it becomes Obama’s crises, Bush will fade away from the memory.

 

[Cannuck]

How can they reasonably blame Democrats and expect people to believe them?

I expect people will continue to blame Bush for a while yet. Give it a year or two and it becomes Obama’s crises, Bush will fade away from the memory.

Since your colon obscures your view, you have failed to see that many have blamed all of the above. The only other alternative is that you see it and you are just a troll.

 

[EagleSmack]

You are a conservative Republican; I am a liberal (though hardly a Democrat, Democratic Party is too right wing for me). So according to you I would fail every time, big surprise there.

You are a Liberal Democrat and you fail everytime because you are inept.